Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: List of remote typing services

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a list of payed typers which use English language.
    Non of them has an objective basis to suppose he types good. All of them should to have low real typing match between them. All of them should do significant % of mistakes. They can be better than random people who read about types, as generally have not bad theory knowledge, an experience in a typing and watching of people with known types. They may help to understand own type. Tests may do this also. To be sure in own type is useful to check it positively by IR effects with people IRL.
    The problem is that many novices who identifies own types do not know about low typing matches or do not understand the lack of objectivity of typing methods. That same data by today speculative methods can be interpreted to different types, even by same typer after a time. Novices redundantly trust to typers and underesteemate the need of own types studing to understand own correct type.

    The ones who uses for a typing a theory about types besides hypotheses of Jung and Augustinavichiute or methods which have no good link with those hypotheses (as physiognomy) - are not "Socionists". To trust in a usage of random baseless hypotheses is doubtful way. Socionics texts have doubtful parts too. That those are doubtful sometimes is said directly in texts alike for the most of Reinin's traits. It's better when doubtful parts are not used.
    The problem is that types are mainly identified by novices which do not know what theory is Socionics and what is not. They think as "Socionics" anything what uses this label.

    MBTI related typers may be useful too as they use same types as Socionics. They partly contradict to Jung and have theoretical mistakes, but mainly type by correct dichotomies theory. It's not even clear what is worse: cases of Socionics with intensive usage of its doubtful parts (as Reinin traits), random baseless hypotheses (as subtypes), baseless methods (as physiognomy), or a typing by MBTI related approach. I recommend to think MBTI related typers as comparable to many ones who claims to use "Socionics".
    The problem is that many novices are misleaded that MBTI uses other types than Socionics. Despite MBTI texts use types notation written by dichotomies only which are same and compatible with used in Socionics, and that MBTI typing practice is much centered on dichotomies.

    There is not much worse way to know own correct type than to ask "Socionics" payed typer, especially among the ones who derived from normal types theory or who uses baseless methods. It's to use tests (many of which are free) and opinions of people who know the theory (as on forums). It's better when those people know the theory for longer and typed more of people. Do not say them beforehand opinions of others about your type so to remove the conformism.
    The good way to know own correct type _also_ includes types studing and checking of own type by IR effects with people IRL. As it's risky to trust to a typer's opinions, same as to trust to a test. This info helps to understand own type, but is not enough. Typing mistakes even of an experienced typer which would use a correct theory can be tens % due to a speculativity of today typing methods.

    also:
    1
    Last edited by Sol; 12-16-2020 at 05:16 PM.
    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
  •