That's not a very good explanation. I want to know what these nonverbal signals are and how they are determined. And who sets the criteria for them within the socionics system? They didn't just pull themselves out of thin air one day. How do you know that someone who raises their eyebrows is Fe, or people who aren't overly animated are said to be Fe devaluing, etc? Without a baseline to compare it to, and it being pulled out of your asshole, it has no consistency.Originally Posted by Sol
I don't want you to inaccurately type me based on some nonverbal cues, without analyzing the other content. You can not determine IR through a picture. It's a process of information. No amount of pictures is going to match people perfectly to their so-called 'dual'. The only way you can actually do it more accurately is by putting the theory to practice, and figuring out what works and what doesn't work.
What the hell are you talking about here? Not a single person has VI'd me ever. You're also just assuming things here, and also assuming that your method is more important than the foundations of the theory itself. Okay, I admit that I might have overstepped a built by declaring Beta ST 'as a fact', but the more I think about it as a type in terms of the IMEs, then the more it makes sense over something like xEE or EIE. Nothing wrong with that making sense.I suppose you want to get some concrete types:
"the fact that I am a Beta ST"
Fact is objectivity. There are no known objective traits to say 100% about some types. There are only probabilities based on _more common_ behavior of some types.
To control your nonverbal behavior is much harder, unlike with what you say. So you may try to mislead by words to get wished types and more fail to get wished opinions by VI. Probably unwished types goten by VI predisposes you to reject VI without good rational reasons.
Nope, I just want to think about things and decide for myself the best fit type and not be shoved into the wrong box. I don't hide important typing information about myself, and I don't care about controlling other people's perceptions of me. If anything, they're trying to control and push the indefinite narrative that "DEAD=SEE" when I have explained my stance multiple times. I do not trust their objective data at all. Why do you think I have made so many threads?If you don't want to give normal data for your typing, what is videointerview. Then it's better to identify your type yourself.
T types tend to do so after initial geting of opinions about own types and then reading theory themselves. Typing is T region, - where they are assured.
It's more F types problem to ask about own types for too long, to trust too high some typer without objective reasons (when knowing about low typing matches and no objective proof of skills), to doubt in own types for years instead of noticing the needed data to understand the type, to reject some methods without adequate reasons, etc not so reasonable activity.
What you do is doubtful for T types. And seems you want get such opinions by irrational reasons and so hide important typing info about yourself. Or mb placed a video/photos in the past and now just want to get other types by more controlling ways from your side.
Objectivity is not what you follow or mb want.
I also know that VI can be easily manipulated, especially with photos. NO two images will be the same, and you can easily manipulate images (i.e. lighting, changing your hair, different times of day, etc). And there is no one set behavior for set type either. As far as I am concerned, Socionics is about how people process information (IME) and how well they can process it (Dimensions) within the system (Socionics). Yes, there may be correlations between how X is and how X type is on the surface, but VI isn't always accurate. And even when you are doing a video questionnaire, you can only select questions from a certain scope of information, and a lot of that information can and will be biased. It's only within the confines of said data. Heavily controlled data.
Even within this reply, you are limiting the scope of accuracy by not actually thinking about all the factors involved. You're drawing to conclusions and assumptions too soon. I don't think that based on how I actually organize and process information in terms of function usage, I am an ethical type > logical type.
If you're just going to go by behaviors and VI as your chief typing method, then what is the actual point in working out the strength of IMEs and how people process information and their focus areas? Doesn't that nullify a lot of the actual theory itself?
And you have also assumed that I, a private person am not objective because I don't spill out my life on a socionics forum to strangers? No, that's not the way it works. Some people are private, and that has nothing to do with type. Maybe they aren't hiding or looking to change anything. Maybe they want to keep their real-life separate from their online life because of privacy concerns, or because they don't care about other people's opinions/reactions to how they live, etc.
There are plenty of t-types who make more than one thread, and who don't settle for vibes or opinions alone. They want to collect data, and they want to compare the data with their own understanding, which I am doing now. You also have made a lot of unclear assumptions about me that are incorrect, and that you are using as a basis to determine my type, which isn't how it works.
It's a system, and you can't break the chain. You can try and make the chain more accurate and stronger, but you can't break it. How someone acts is a [small] part of how they process information. Yeah, it can be a result of it, but most of the process takes place cognitively, within the mind. The final result has been processed to adapt to the outside world.
Also, I'm not rejecting your methods, I am questioning them. I want to know how they make sense. I question everything that I want to make sense of, in order for me to make sense of it. The reason why I reject any 4D Fe type (and especially SEE) is because I see contradictions between my own evaluations on how I use the functions, and what people see of me online. Something isn't lining up, and I think that's causing frustration. And people aren't reliable anyway. No one is really that consistent. They get swayed too easily. At least I am trying to make sense of why I think I am X type.
See? You're basing that off 'vibes' and 'what you can see', and not actually properly measuring the ITR. How do you actually know that you're typed right as the baseline, and those SLE are actual SLE, and not another type?
