Without a videointerview a typing is too doubtful. Especially when those are too new and may know types theory to filter the info in short selfdescriptions to fit wished types or traits supposed by them before.
> I would recommend that if you are very into this, go for a professional typer
In the existing situation a paid typer, having some experience, is generally some better (if he does not use strange hypotheses and methods) than most people on forums.
But it's baseless to trust them highly as:
- There is no objective proof that some today typing method gives high accuracy.
- There is no objective typing skills certification. Only speculative opinions about someones' types.
- Some of them intensively use doubtful and baseless hypotheses as Reinin dichotomies. Or even own made ones as heretical Gulenko or may use strange methods as typing by static body traits, though they may falsly claim to that they use Socionics.
- No reasons to think that today paid typers have in average high typing match or even between some of them. Based on known experiments today typing methods may give typing matches <50% between anyone and <20% in average. This means common low typing accuracy between anyone.
- Many paid typers trust too much to what is said to them by people who may know types theory and were prejusticed to what types they have, what gives additional possibilities for mistakes. While typers know too few about common behavior of those people to be able to notice the degree they were fooled.
> people on forums can be so dense it surpasses what's realistically possible
Problems with typing by "people on forums" are the same.
Plus: 1) a lack of experience of typing and watching people with known types (it's very rare when is other), 2) some don't understand theory basics correctly, including as read a mess of texts written by random people instead of normal typology books, 3) agreement to identify types without good data for this, as for example having only a questionnaire.
Due to the said, it's common to see disgreements in what types people have. And it's more not a suprise to get disagreements from incompetent noobs which are 99% here.
As there are no _reasonable_ reasons to trust highly to some paid typer or more to say to recommend all of them as deserving good trust. The motivation for such misleading follows from: 1) don't knowing the bad situation with practice and theory in Socionics, sometimes inabbility to understand it due to lack of knowledge of normal theory and understanding of what objectivity is, 2) can be emotional reasons to trust as liking to have some type goten from some paid typer while other sourcers (as "people on forums") gave types which are liked lesser.
-
From general view, an experienced typer (as some of those who take money) can be comparable with a test which has a different approach. For example, tests of different approach are a based on dichotomies and based on 8 functions, while tests of same approach are rather similar. The accuracy of such typers following from ~17% average typing match is somewhere 30-50%, what should be close to not bad tests accuracy. When more of sources give same results - more chance those results are correct.
So an experienced/paid typer may be recommended to be used (better with an excluding of too heretical of them). But it's baseless to think such typers as deserving high trust, what is good be noted near such recommendations.
The only good way on today to be assured in your own type is by IR effects with IRL people having known types, when those IR effects fit good to the theory. You may identify types of those people yourself and then evaluate IR effects. While to understand what traits are more possible to be correct ones - helps in this.
P.S.
If @
Frddy had ENTJ type indeed, he'd uderstood the problem of logical objectivity better. And mb own type more correctly to see more use in opinions which he got on the forum and from other sources, and lesser idealized speculations of some paid typer.
@
shotgunfingers
To loose a mind is to trust highly to some typer without having for this good reasonable basis. The same is for types traits.