User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Yo!

  1. #1
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Yo!

    Starting a new account. Hoping for more luck to discuss things in this forum.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    making videointerview for typing adds +100 to the luck
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    making videointerview for typing adds +100 to the luck
    will probably do that if i start to doubt my type again next time.

    but i am open to discussion about my type anytime tho lol

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    will probably do that if i start to doubt my type again next time
    to be sure in own type I'd recommend only after IR checking with >10 people IRL
    you type them and check how IR effects from them fit to the theory. those people should be in informal and relatively close communication with you, for significant time

    it's much harder to be misleaded about your type if you'll get positive results after this checking
    also you'd got not bad confirmation about your typing skills and types theory understanding
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  5. #5
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    to be sure in own type I'd recommend only after IR checking with >10 people IRL
    you type them and check how IR effects from them fit to the theory. those people should be in informal and relatively close communication with you, for significant time
    So far i've typed like 6 people irl, three of them still arguable tho
    but for the other three, our IR based on our types are quite consistent, either for the advantages or the shortcomings. But i still let the options wide open.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    it's much harder to be misleaded about your type if you'll get positive results after this checking
    also you'd got not bad confirmation about your typing skills and types theory understanding
    guess i need to learn the theory deeper before try to type more people lol, since it seems like socionics has less confusions yet complex typing than mbti. will discuss the questions i get about it later, thanks!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    So far i've typed like 6 people irl, three of them still arguable tho
    3 humans mb not enough to be sure in your concrete type

    when I did that, among first people I typed were close relatives, meaningful pals known for years and some classmates - to get those >10 of people. I used VI much - intuitive impressions from peoples' nonverbal, to which types traits they seemed to be closer - to emotional F or reasonable T, as example. some people as relatives did a test also. to type only by common behavior would made the task go too slowly. it took some monthes to understand own type and peoples types to the degree all has fited good to the theory of IR and about types behavior

    it's what I recommend to be sure in your type. the only good way, I'd say. based on what was with me. I've studed typing during this process and understood what types are on practice, on real people I know good. that was many years ago, I typed many people later, saw how people of types may behave differently, changed opinions about some % of people. but never doubted in own type still

    > guess i need to learn the theory deeper before try to type more people lol

    I trust to and prefer to use basics: dichotomies, 8 functions, values, strong/weak functions, IR theory
    to assume types is possibly to start with dichotomies descriptions. then to understand ego functions in a human, his valued ones
    it's not much of info to read

    Filatova's book is the only normal Socionics source in English today. amazon sells it. good for beginners. Jung's book is obligate to read, X chapter. then mb read the rest mess as you'll get the base to accept it more correctly, to understand what is the typology essence and where go secondary and more muddy hypotheses which deserve lesser of trust

    > since it seems like socionics has less confusions yet complex typing than mbti

    MBTI users practically are concentrated on dichotomies and the rest is not used seriously. they even recommend that MBTI test results stayed untouched in majority of cases - just to ignore other theory lol. while as any dichotomy test MBTI should to have <50% of accuracy. so they may get a half of cases which suspect were wrong but they are demanded just to ignore that. it's about relation there to anything besides dichotomies

    by talking style you remind me ILI
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  7. #7
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    3 humans mb not enough to be sure in your concrete type

    when I did that, among first people I typed were close relatives, meaningful pals known for years and some classmates - to get those >10 of people. I used VI much - intuitive impressions from peoples' nonverbal, to which types traits they seemed to be closer - to emotional F or reasonable T, as example. some people as relatives did a test also. to type only by common behavior would made the task go too slowly. it took some monthes to understand own type and peoples types to the degree all has fited good to the theory of IR and about types behavior

    it's what I recommend to be sure in your type. the only good way, I'd say. based on what was with me. I've studed typing during this process and understood what types are on practice, on real people I know good. that was many years ago, I typed many people later, saw how people of types may behave differently, changed opinions about some % of people. but never doubted in own type still

    > guess i need to learn the theory deeper before try to type more people lol

    I trust to and prefer to use basics: dichotomies, 8 functions, values, strong/weak functions, IR theory
    to assume types is possibly to start with dichotomies descriptions. then to understand ego functions in a human, his valued ones
    it's not much of info to read

    Filatova's book is the only normal Socionics source in English today. amazon sells it. good for beginners. Jung's book is obligate to read, X chapter. then mb read the rest mess as you'll get the base to accept it more correctly, to understand what is the typology essence and where go secondary and more muddy hypotheses which deserve lesser of trust

    > since it seems like socionics has less confusions yet complex typing than mbti

    MBTI users practically are concentrated on dichotomies and the rest is not used seriously. they even recommend that MBTI test results stayed untouched in majority of cases - just to ignore other theory lol. while as any dichotomy test MBTI should to have <50% of accuracy. so they may get a half of cases which suspect were wrong but they are demanded just to ignore that. it's about relation there to anything besides dichotomies

    by talking style you remind me ILI
    yup, of course it's not enough i'm just in the beginning of my socionics journey lol, it was started months ago.

    woah so it seems like VI is very reliable then? :0 is it about the genetically facial features or the key of expressions of types, or maybe both? i found a link to a pinterest board of VI for each type in this forum months ago, and all i get is each photos of a type share the same key of expressions. I'm trying to breakdown the similarity with people irl based on what i get but doesn't really sure about my last question. So i rely only for their valued and weak functions based on my dialy observation (and made them try the test lol) glad they're all my close friends.

    And thanks for your explanation and sources, the process starts to be makes sense now. so far I only get the big picture of each dichotomies (especially for reinin's) and a bit more abt functions, really not enough tho i need to go for detail. But bc of your explanation guess i know where i need to go now.

    about mbti, true tho, i used to try to understand the functions behind each type but seems like they don't really have reliable resources for it. Tried to figure it out with any resources available but there's like something missing in it. Probably not developed well since the beginning.

    hey, that's interesting typing. Do you mind to explain which part do i sound like an ILI? I want to know more x)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    so it seems like VI is very reliable then?
    If to understand "VI" as intuitive impressions from nonverbal of people.
    VI elements were described since Augustinavichiute texts of 1980s. That VI is objectively useful for typing I've experimentally proved in 2015 (on socioforum). There were random youtube bloggers and people supposed their types by nonverbal. Average typing match was ~17%. What is close to average match gotten in SRT-99 experiment which used IRL interview. As the match is higher than accidental and even close to IRL interview - hence VI is useful and mb even not worse than other methods with appropriate skills. In my experiment took part random people from that forum, not experienced typers. How good VI is should depend also on your skills in it.

    > is it about the genetically facial features or the key of expressions of types, or maybe both?

    intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior
    not body traits for logical analysis. there are those who may use for typing "body traits" also, but I don't. there is no general or reasonable theory for those

    > so far I only get the big picture of each dichotomies (especially for reinin's)

    Reinin's traits is not normal Socionics and so doubtful that I do not use them. By dichotomies I meant 4 "Jung's" ones.

    > Do you mind to explain which part do i sound like an ILI? I want to know more x)

    1st surface associations. Your talking reminded Te types - you talk with facts and thinking looks as reasonable for me. The style of the text is not so accurate (letters cases, for example) and there are no clear sentence blocks what reminds P (a TV manual may show what J types style is ). Between ILI and SLI - there are more of N types in psychology and you've noted about time in "i get about it later".
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    If to understand "VI" as intuitive impressions from nonverbal of people.
    VI elements were described since Augustinavichiute texts of 1980s. That VI is objectively useful for typing I've experimentally proved in 2015 (on socioforum). There were random youtube bloggers and people supposed their types by nonverbal. Average typing match was ~17%. What is close to average match gotten in SRT-99 experiment which used IRL interview. As the match is higher than accidental and even close to IRL interview - hence VI is useful and mb even not worse than other methods with appropriate skills. In my experiment took part random people from that forum, not experienced typers. How good VI is should depend also on your skills in it.

    > is it about the genetically facial features or the key of expressions of types, or maybe both?

    intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior
    not body traits for logical analysis. there are those who may use for typing "body traits" also, but I don't. there is no general or reasonable theory for those
    Intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior. Noted.
    hmmm that's interesting then. I was confused by beskova's descriptions about types for each gender that include physical features in it, so i kinda doubting VI at first. But now i mostly get about the VI more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Reinin's traits is not normal Socionics and so doubtful that I do not use them. By dichotomies I meant 4 "Jung's" ones.
    wow okay so other than filatova (and Augustinavichiute ofc) who else the socionist would you refer to have normal socionics theories?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    1st surface associations. Your talking reminded Te types - you talk with facts and thinking looks as reasonable for me. The style of the text is not so accurate (letters cases, for example) and there are no clear sentence blocks what reminds P (a TV manual may show what J types style is ). Between ILI and SLI - there are more of N types in psychology and you've noted about time in "i get about it later".
    wow that's new then, actually i never typed as Te/Fi before lol. But 'talk with facts and thinking looks reasonable' looks like a general style of T types, maybe you have another reason about the Te one?
    I will take that two types into my consideration but seems like Si it's not really possible to be my base because i often neglect my physical state and my room doesn't reflect a good sense of my surroundings . Ah, for the 'i get about it later', probably mentioned about time and mostly i mentioned 'later' bc i have a need to gather informations as much as i can before making a statement.

    Now i interested about the typing more. You've mentioned video interview before but it seems like i need more time to do that (college is starts tomorrow) but maybe photos for VI can help, would you like to? I'll send it if you agree lol


    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    (a TV manual may show what J types style is ).
    This one legit makes me cackling

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    so other than filatova (and [COLOR=#333333]Augustinavichiute ofc) who else the socionist would you refer to have normal socionics theories?
    The ones who use a theory in borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute texts. With higher trust to Jung's basics. With minimum usage of Reinin's traits. Places where authors go away from these limits should get lesser of attention.
    Filatova and Beskova are among most classical ones.
    I read not many, as authors are similar in what deserves a trust. Besides 2 above, I found as interesting: Prokofieva, Gorenko, Sedykh, Gulenko (before thinking styles).

    As I've noted, I use only a part of the theory - to what I have a trust, what find as reasonable, what fits to my experience. It's basics of Jung and Augustinavichiute. It's not much of the theory. It's enough to undestand types of people and to apply the typology for aims alike: choosing friends/pairs, occupations, self improvement.
    From model A I prefer to use description of functions, strenght of functions, values and which functions are complementary. Prefer to reject Reinin's traits. The other I use a little (as how model A functions manifest) or do not use at all (as subtypes). As that looks more doubtful and has no objective/experimental basis.

    > But 'talk with facts and thinking looks reasonable' looks like a general style of T types, maybe you have another reason about the Te one?

    facts (as concrete numbers of people), being objective is more about Te
    your way to think reminds mine, what adds to "reasonable" in my perception. Ti types I generally perceive with more alienation

    > i mentioned 'later' bc i have a need to gather informations as much as i can before making a statement.

    also this mb related to Te - to gather more data to be more objective

    > You've mentioned video interview before but it seems like i need more time to do that (college is starts tomorrow) but maybe photos for VI can help, would you like to? I'll send it if you agree lol

    I'd look at photos to suppose the possible types. Photos are much worse source. As relatively good way they mb in social networks - where there are many ones, made in random situations without preparations, in different times.

    recommendations for the video
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1096450

    > This one legit makes me cackling

    talking about emotions adds to a chance for F type
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  11. #11
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    The ones who use a theory in borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute texts. With higher trust to Jung's basics. With minimum usage of Reinin's traits. Places where authors go away from these limits should get lesser of attention.
    Filatova and Beskova are among most classical ones.
    I read not many, as authors are similar in what deserves a trust. Besides 2 above, I found as interesting: Prokofieva, Gorenko, Sedykh, DarkAngelFireWolf69 (before thinking styles).

    As I've noted, I use only a part of the theory - to what I have a trust, what find as reasonable, what fits to my experience. It's basics of Jung and Augustinavichiute. It's not much of the theory. It's enough to undestand types of people and to apply the typology for aims alike: choosing friends/pairs, occupations, self improvement.
    From model A I prefer to use description of functions, strenght of functions, values and which functions are complementary. Prefer to reject Reinin's traits. The other I use a little (as how model A functions manifest) or do not use at all (as subtypes). As that looks more doubtful and has no objective/experimental basis.
    So you only use a part of them, i see. I often randomly read the theories available with no order before, guess i'll refer to your recommendation whenever i get loss in the middle. Thank you v much for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    facts (as concrete numbers of people), being objective is more about Te

    your way to think reminds mine, what adds to "reasonable" in my perception. Ti types I generally perceive with more alienation

    also this mb related to Te - to gather more data to be more objective
    okay the bold one very interesting. Guess i need to learn more about how Te perceive Ti in general. But my friend (most likely NiTe) often shows a weird expression everytime i throw an alternative reasoning of her prediction, so i'll save this one first lol.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I'd look at photos to suppose the possible types. Photos are much worse source. As relatively good way they mb in social networks - where there are many ones, made in random situations without preparations, in different times.
    As expected then. I already contact my friend to capture me in random time without knowing (mostly for personal observation lol). But i have no problem if I only know some possible types from two or three photos for now. Is it okay to pm you for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    talking about emotions adds to a chance for F type
    ahahaha make sense, everyone value one feeling function at least.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    So you only use a part of them, i see.
    There is different degree of basis behind the theory. Some theory is in core and other as secondary expansion, hence the initial theory has higher trust. Some has more reasonable explanation.
    It's important to understand what is core theory. That's why better to study by books, instead of random texts.
    I read: Filatova "Personality in a mirror of Socionics", then Jung "Psychological types", then some other Socionics books and texts. This allowed to understand what is initial theory and what is general in sources - to what I may trust more. Then I tried to understand own type and during this process typed other people. After a year I understood the basics of the types theory, how it's seen on practice and that the theory in its essences is much correct in my experience. There are Jung types and suplementary functions - all that has huge influence in relations. I remember that a little felt disappointed that so complex thing as people relations, deep feelings can be explained by so simple model, that people have significant limitations to who they may love, at least to love easier. Additional lulz was that the theory was not academical, without normal researches.

    > okay the bold one very interesting. Guess i need to learn more about how Te perceive Ti in general.

    You may try my IR test to understand how you perceive different Jung types.
    I should note, that text talking may to have lesser of IR effects than IRL communication or videos. As what we say has higher consciouse control, easier to follow general rules (which reduce interpersonal traits), easier to adopt to other people.

    > how Te perceive Ti in general

    They pay more of attention on different. Te are about geting info and practicism, while Ti more about formal side, structure and links in that info. Both may perceive each other as far from important and some boring, having not easy style. In contrary IR you feel that the most.

    > But my friend (most likely NiTe) often shows a weird expression everytime i throw an alternative reasoning of her prediction, so i'll save this one first lol.

    Later you may change opinion about her or own type. I have doubts in your Ti type.

    > I already contact my friend to capture me in random time without knowing (mostly for personal observation lol). But i have no problem if I only know some possible types from two or three photos for now. Is it okay to pm you for this?

    I strongly recommend a video. But I'll look at anything. Your face should be seen good.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  13. #13
    Anagata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    There is different degree of basis behind the theory. Some theory is in core and other as secondary expansion, hence the initial theory has higher trust. Some has more reasonable explanation. It's important to understand what is core theory. That's why better to study by books, instead of random texts.

    After a year I understood the basics of the types theory, how it's seen on practice and that the theory in its essences is much correct in my experience. There are Jung types and suplementary functions - all that has huge influence in relations. I remember that a little felt disappointed that so complex thing as people relations, deep feelings can be explained by so simple model, that people have significant limitations to who they may love, at least to love easier. Additional lulz was that the theory was not academical, without normal researches.
    This and that. I aware that the core theory is very important, if not then i'll totally lost without any understanding (that's me when i meet socionics years ago lol. I went back when i get more understanding about it after never touch it for years).
    But beside of that I also amazed by how complex this theory could be brought, from how functions affect your movements to how much chemistry you get from certain people. I can't help but jump from one article to another because each of them usually related. Never had a book about it before but i would like to get it, i never brought things overseas before lol.

    About the theory, sometimes i'm skeptical about how a concept about personalities could be grasped scientifically since the only one who could do it is another human with personality and subjective perceptions that might be biased from the truth. Not impossible though i'll look forward for it to happen even with the slightest chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    You may try my IR test to understand how you perceive different Jung types.
    I should note, that text talking may to have lesser of IR effects than IRL communication or videos. As what we say has higher consciouse control, easier to follow general rules (which reduce interpersonal traits), easier to adopt to other people.
    Okay looks like I've read about your IR test before joining the forum, interesting.
    Totally what i thought because i usually spend almost an hour for a single reply sometimes, plus point that's bc english is not my mother language lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    They pay more of attention on different. Te are about geting info and practicism, while Ti more about formal side, structure and links in that info. Both may perceive each other as far from important and some boring, having not easy style. In contrary IR you feel that the most.

    Later you may change opinion about her or own type. I have doubts in your Ti type.
    Now that's an interesting input So far we've typed ourself as that because we have different approach since she's rather pragmatic and reality-based while i usually come from abstraction and system understanding. Both of our logic functions are creative function tho, but of course we can be false about anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I strongly recommend a video. But I'll look at anything. Your face should be seen good.
    after thought i forgot where i placed all my photos (that's some kind of material photos for a task and i rarely take a photo). Between i'll search for them, take a new one or just go for video later, i'll send you if i need it later, sorry.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,749
    Mentioned
    966 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagata View Post
    jump from one article to another because each of them usually related
    The best way to study is to undersand the basics (given by good books) as theory and practice (on own typing and watching types IRL) and only then read the rest.
    Filatova + Jung was good start for me.

    > About the theory, sometimes i'm skeptical about how a concept about personalities could be grasped scientifically since the only one who could do it is another human with personality and subjective perceptions that might be biased from the truth.

    I was skeptical until the moment of noticing the theory fits to what I see, - until understood own type after monthes of typing and some reading. With your positive subjective experience - to which you may trust to some degree - you may accept some parts of the current theory.

    Also, there are rules for experimental check of theories which allow to be objective. But at now Socionics has no enough of experimental checks of own theory, indeed.
    I did myself one experiment for nonverbal method. The match above average shows 2 things: types exist as people may see them (in other case the match would be 1/16, but not 15-20%) and that nonverbal gives useful info about types.
    My second experiment is IR test. It checks is there positive effects of suplementary functions - the basis for IR theory. What I see - there is something. People do not know what types are in examples and sort types blindly - then it's possibly to see how their own type (which I may assume before by videointerview) fits to the sorting expected by the theory. Results are not accidental and they relatively fit to the current theory. I hope with test improvement will fit more clear.
    Also sometimes people prefer types similar to own ones (same clubs) what is strange and needs to think why that happens and how to overcome. People which placed own clubs on top could to place own duals to or near bottom. I noticed people often choose pals among close types (same clubs), - mb this experience influences. Mb negative experience of relations (as duals touch you deeper and rejecting them is a kind of protection), mb other sexual preference influence, etc.

    > take a new one or just go for video later, i'll send you if i need it later, sorry

    To understand correctly own type helps to understand types theory. A help in this for novices is useful.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •