View Poll Results: Do you generally trust people's self typings?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes; I tend to assume that they know themselves best.

    7 58.33%
  • No; my knowledge and observation capability allow me to notice that many of them are mistyped.

    5 41.67%
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Do you trust people's self-typings?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    Posts
    827
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do you trust people's self-typings?

    Yes? No?

    Why?

  2. #2
    voider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    TIM
    SEE-Se-N
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,090
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,960
    Mentioned
    608 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    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
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  5. #5
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    317
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,230
    Mentioned
    935 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Aylen; 11-12-2019 at 12:28 AM.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  7. #7
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    14,547
    Mentioned
    798 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    / / /
    Posts
    1,353
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?

    Last edited by lemontrees; 11-12-2019 at 03:20 AM.

  9. #9
    lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    / / /
    Posts
    1,353
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,751
    Mentioned
    331 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,194
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,960
    Mentioned
    608 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    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
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  13. #13
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sol's emo club
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Measuring you right now

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1037 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    average typing match is <20%
    it's a idiotism to think that people rarely mistake in own types too
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  15. #15
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    it's a idiotism

  16. #16
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,442
    Mentioned
    213 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  17. #17
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,194
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    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

  18. #18
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    6,317
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    No cuz people suck dick at typing themselves. Like literal dick.
    I wonder if my next GF will be able to type herself?

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    Posts
    827
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    14,547
    Mentioned
    798 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    Posts
    827
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Landlady of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,595
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    260 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  24. #24
    MegaDoodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Does absolutely nothing, then dies.

  25. #25
    LemurianLo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Eagleland
    TIM
    SLI-Si 6w5 spsx
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  26. #26
    Heaven and Hell Samson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    309
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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...

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    272
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    Posts
    827
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    260 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

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