Do you trust people's self-typings?

[mclane]

Yes? No?

Why?

[voider]

I tend to use people's self typing as a general guide of where to look in forming my own opinion about their type but ... Honestly, I don't really care. If it's not glaringly wrong with reference to their behavior, and they're not spewing shit that's against the basic principles of the theory, I take it at face value. After all, the only person their typing will actually affect is themselves.

[Ryan]

Random self-typings, not always. Self-typing through tests, will definitely give it more weight.

Regardless, I will take self-typings over self appointed experts handing out types.

[Beautiful sky]

Sometimes. I see a person who does a certain function and you try to explain and provide compassions and they can not see it in themselves so what are you going to do? You just have to be patient I guess and they may see it eventually or not. You have to be patient

[myresearch]

No, I also don't trust the test results. People sometimes define things differently hence they may answer the test according to their self definitions. People sometimes give a certain value to some adjectives, descriptions due to nurture, values of society or their personal thoughts/impressions/values. Therefore, they may feel closer ot distant to some types or IEs this can also caused by illusory superiority effect or dunning kruger effect. People sometimes get under the spell of barnum effect and they can't go out. People sometimes get personally attached to some types, and detattaching from it creates an illusion of identity loss. People sometimes don't know themselves and even if they do, they try to type themselves without understanding socionics. People may think that they have different types/IEs at different periods of their life. People may experience some life changing events to change how they define themselves in life. Overall, people may fail to objectively type themselves and everyone can be wrong.

Briefly, I don't trust people's self-typings and I may think that people typed themselves correctly. One doesn't rule out the other. Hence, I also don't assume that people type themselves wrongly. Besides, I also don't think that people are telling the truth when they describe themselves in real life. Again, I don't necessarily assume that they are lying even if I have concrete proof that they are wrong.

[Aylen]

Don't really care if people are larping a type or not but if starts to be trolly it can get annoying. I get a sense of people. Sometimes it matches up with their self image and sometimes it doesn't. I have never lost sleep over it. If I did I would find myself a therapist and stay off the site.

Edit: Having said that, I have grown more confident in my own intuition over time. I wasn't always sure if it was "real" or "all in my head".

Edit2: I am not really singling out anyone on the forum with this. I was thinking of various discord servers I am on. I was being distracted when I first responded so it might have sounded like I was annoyed. In general I accept what people type themselves when I don't know them. If they ask questions to help figure out their type I sometimes jump in with some advice or suggestions on where to start. <3

[ashlesha]

Re: people at a relative distance...I take their self typing for granted. And if something about it clashes with my perception, I assume it's likelier that I have a distorted perception somewhere than that they're wrong. (Humility, motherfuckers)

Re: people I talk to regularly or have closer psychological distance with... bets out the window. Maybe I feel protective of their introspective or analytical abilities to the degree that even observations that I would otherwise agree with are WRONG. Maybe I don't respect said abilities and I oppose their self typing loudly. Maybe I oppose it quietly, but I respect them as people and don't give a shit or again assume something is funky with my perception. Maybe I don't fucking type them and don't care. Could be anything.

[lemontrees]

I often don't agree with what people have typed themselves, and it may be something small (like I think IEE v EII) or something big (wrong club or quadra). But I was "taught" socionics by a friend who grew up with it, her mom was Russian lol, and she gave me exemplars of the types in our friends. So I guess I carried around this idea that it's possible to have standarized types. Then I observed people and mulled over how they played against the theory.

I think I interpret socionics differently from some others, who use it not as literally but just another form of introspection, or as maybe a shorthand to explain some patterns in people, even if it's an imperfect system.

For me socionics isn't about archetypes but really down to the details, and it's not based on traits like if someone is passionate they are beta. For instance I might type an emo poet SLI not IEI, it's really about how it feels like they reached their insights. I think introspection or general emotional intelligence, etc, are a lot less tightly type related than stereotypes suggest.

Maybe the more interesting question is what types help us learn about ourselves. If I consider myself an introvert, does "correctly" typing myself IEE instead of EII bring something to my life? If it can help me see that I need outside stimulation more than I think I do, that might be helpful. Or if I'm hellbent on chasing down a dual and have typed myself wrong... etc. But if I'm the Ne-base who is happy Ne-basing at home chasing down all my intellectual interests, it might not even matter so much. Maybe it would just add something interesting to introspect on?

[lemontrees]

One way I've used my version of socionics to help me is that I've much less self-critical about certain weaknesses, and also that I try to use my strengths to compensate to be effective. I.e. there's more than one way to be good at... most things.

One thing that I thought was really irresponsible was that my friend's mom told her she shouldn't chase her artistic dreams b/c of her type. Everyone brings something unique and different.

[Kiba]

There are a lot who don't know theory well enough and some are not even truly interested in it.

But obviously one knows oneself better than strangers on the web.

[Rebelondeck]

Many seem to view themselves as the types they want (or are expected) to be rather than who they really are; in work performance reviews, many are surprised by how their behaviour and abilities are really perceived by others. Few people seem to be able to take truly objective looks at themselves and or their situations. Ijs tend to be slightly better at it than other types provided they have no other overriding issues. Three out of four who have actually typed themselves seem to question it for some reason or another so I've preferred to make my own determinations.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Beautiful sky]

Many seem to view themselves as the types they want (or are expected) to be rather than who they really are; in work performance reviews, many are surprised by how their behaviour and abilities are really perceived by others. Few people seem to be able to take truly objective looks at themselves and or their situations. Ijs tend to be slightly better at it than other types provided they have no other overriding issues. Three out of four who have actually typed themselves seem to question it for some reason or another so I've preferred to make my own determinations.......

a.k.a. I/O

Ij tend to be self reflective also self involved

[mr provocateur]

Apparently I have always been able to go into categorical depths inside of myself. Based on how others perceive how I set myself on a self and others and other stuff on contact is quite good. Is this same as typing? No. Language is a tricky imprecise thing. So therefore variation exists. Even with good self knowledge correct self typing can go wrong or other way around. This is about understanding theory and correlating with externalizes and internalities. I would not really set correlations. Ij's might want to be set on fixed ideals being the thickest type category there exists.

[Sol]

average typing match is <20%
it's a idiotism to think that people rarely mistake in own types too

[sbbds]

it's a idiotism

[Number 9 large]

No cuz people suck dick at typing themselves. Like literal dick.

[Rebelondeck]

Ij tend to be self reflective also self involved

I'm not sure whether or not Ijs would be any more self-involved than other types. I refer to their thinking processes. They rationalize 'static' (removed from the environment and stored) information at a distance because they have to remove themselves from the fray in order to think properly - thinking on their feet really isn't their thing. By static, I also imply that they turn off input when they rationalize. This detachment of rationalization from information processes permits them a more objective view of even information about themselves. Now, Eps have a similar detachment but their input focus often causes them to cut-off or ignore their rationalization so although some my get clear images of themselves, they're less likely to draw valid conclusions........

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

No cuz people suck dick at typing themselves. Like literal dick.

I wonder if my next GF will be able to type herself?

[mclane]

And it is idiot too to not trust someone whom already experience in electricity for many years to fix their own house electrical problem.

Someone might have "many years of experience" at something and still be in diapers. What you should gauge is actual ability, irrespective of status as "expert" or anything of the sort.

[ashlesha]

I agree that experience doesn't really say anything, but that's my subjective opinion in reference to the subjective opinion that we should use solely our subjective opinion when determining the skillfulness of the subjective opinions of others.

And then argue about how other opinions are wrong

Is there any valid verifiable criteria?

[mclane]

I agree that experience doesn't really say anything, but that's my subjective opinion in reference to the subjective opinion that we should use solely our subjective opinion when determining the skillfulness of the subjective opinions of others.

And then argue about how other opinions are wrong

Is there any valid verifiable criteria?

Some people are better at being objetive than others. But the most objetive entity, is a machine.

[Subteigh]

I don't tend to disagree publicly with others' self-typings anymore unless it seems obviously wrong and I've been asked about it, or if I think that a person is politicising their self-typing in which case I prefer to say that it isn't worth typing someone who is trying to act a type. I don't trust myself to type myself any specific type, although I think I have a general impression of how I am.

[Singu]

Only Te types are able to correctly type themselves and others, so if you're not a Te type then you shouldn't even bother.

This would assume that Te types have some sort of infallible reasoning abilities as well as infallible sensory perception... which is, impossible.

But even if that were so, if you're not a Te type, then you can't correctly type others as Te types, so you have no way of knowing whether anyone is correct or not. Or even know whether the entire Socionics theory is correct or not, because of your natural lack of ability in reasoning abilities or sensory perception.

The absolutely worst thing is that you can't even know yourself perfectly, as even that is subject to error, and therefore you can't even type yourself as a Te type.

So you end up with the conclusion that you can't "trust" anyone with their typings, including your own self-typing. The belief that Te types are always correct, and Te types are not always correct, end up with the exact same conclusion. You could not have absolutely trusted them, even if they were infallible.

The entire reason why this happened, is because you gave reason precedence over "trusting" anyone. You took the idea of Te-type infallibility seriously, and the entire thing self-exploded and therefore refuted.

[Protozoa]

Well I don't trust myself to know people well enough through the limited, anonymous, and persona-esque nature of internet forums. Most of the self-typings are probably right, even if they differ from forum interactions.

[ContractedCriminalboy]

In Socionics where most people actually study the types sure. Hard to imagine how someone who is knowledgeable on the system can mistype themselves and stay mistyped.

In something like MBTI or anything where people just rely on online test results no.

[Samson]

It isn't about trust. The nature of internet typings is that people tend to get lost in their own narrative. Words justifying more words and the spinning of tales continues ad infinitum. Trust needs to not get involved as I am not personally / emotionally involved - which is why I did not vote in the poll either. This in turn makes it so that challenging people's typings is more often than not fruitless, as it can never be verified. Challenging conceptions on theory OTOH...

[Aeris]

I don't care.
It isn't my "problem" if someone is typed wrong or not, plus is there even one person who is typed the same by everyone? I don't think so. Typings can show a perception, and perceptions can be harshly flawed by many factors.
Who is right in the end doesn't matter, at least idgaf.

[mclane]

Only Te types are able to correctly type themselves and others, so if you're not a Te type then you shouldn't even bother.

This would assume that Te types have some sort of infallible reasoning abilities as well as infallible sensory perception... which is, impossible.

But even if that were so, if you're not a Te type, then you can't correctly type others as Te types, so you have no way of knowing whether anyone is correct or not. Or even know whether the entire Socionics theory is correct or not, because of your natural lack of ability in reasoning abilities or sensory perception.

The absolutely worst thing is that you can't even know yourself perfectly, as even that is subject to error, and therefore you can't even type yourself as a Te type.

So you end up with the conclusion that you can't "trust" anyone with their typings, including your own self-typing. The belief that Te types are always correct, and Te types are not always correct, end up with the exact same conclusion. You could not have absolutely trusted them, even if they were infallible.

The entire reason why this happened, is because you gave reason precedence over "trusting" anyone. You took the idea of Te-type infallibility seriously, and the entire thing self-exploded and therefore refuted.

What beef you have against Te, dude? Also, the self-typings of people could be trusted in the basis that they make sense or not (i.e. that they are observable and consistent in behavior with the claim). I also know my type with 100% certitude, and knew it back in MBTI.

Things can be observed to see if they make sense or not. There's an objetive reality out there.

[Singu]

I have nothing against "Te types".

Saying "You can't correctly type, because you're an F type (or not an "expert")" is actually irrational, because by that token, they cannot trust themselves with confidence to type you as a T type. And so this argument is wholly unconvincing.

The only way to solve this dilemma is to assume that everyone has the exact same capability of being rational, and so therefore should be settled by a rational argument that could be understood by any rational person. And not relying on "trust" like "T types or experts are always right". Or even trusting their self-typings.

And that requires a rational, mechanistic explanation of how typing works. Which has never been proposed yet by anyone.