Accuracy of Self-Perception

[AWellArmedCat]

While inspired by Eudaimonia's recent typing by GulenCo™, this question is only incidentally related.

I am wondering what you all think about the accuracy of people's self-perception of their type. My policy has always been that I consider all my typings tentative until the typee agrees with me that they are the type I believe them to be and usually prefer to also have the agreement of at least one other typist I trust. One of my aunts (SLI) and one of my cousins (EII) are both super into Socionics as well, and I often try to get their input on my assessments because we're all sure of each other's types and have similar standards.

That's a bit of a tangent though.

I think it's important for the typee to agree with the typing because I assume most people are always holding back some information about themselves, and if they seem to seriously disagree with some aspect of my typing of them (without reason as far as I can discern), I attribute it to withheld information that I don't know about. Either that, or dishonesty somewhere in their answers to my questions. I don't hold this against people by the way. I think people are naturally dishonest and secretive about some things. I'm not making any kind of moral judgement about this. I just think it's important to keep in mind when typing people, especially if they passionately disagree with your typing of them. It may of course be other reasons too. They might have a misunderstanding around some element, or not like the image the have in their minds of the type you think they are, but I think in many cases the problem lies in the quality of information transferred from typee to typist. It may not be the typee's fault in any way either. They might just not know how to articulate their internal workings effectively, and get frustrated when they feel they can't communicate something they know to be true about themselves.

What do y'all think though? How much emphasis do you place on the typee's self-perceptions? Why do you or don't you care?

P.S. Just to reiterate, this isn't about you @Eudaimonia. Your thread just inspired me to write about something else I'd been thinking about lol

[AWellArmedCat]

I just realized I made it sound like me simply being wrong about a typing wasn't also a possibility. inb4 someone points that out; yeah. I might just be wrong lol

[adage]

The stuff inside my head is a mess, coding can describe it somehow to make it more digest to others but it's pale. If I could accuratetly describe the stuff in my head, it would be an immersive experience for all the senses but to me it doesn't even include senses at all, so it would be innacurate lol

Also, it'd be stuck in the past and wouldn't represent much the next second, which I find highly frustrating.

More than types, what I like to read about is actually how people percieve things, life, others...


I rarely type people, at least not actively, it sort of happen that it hits me someone uses so and so function.
I've found most people say, for exemple, Fe but what happens behind it may be heavily different, it kind of is because of how types are different in how they percieve and judge each element, and there's a must to add individual factors to the mix.

[ouronis]

You can look at yourself through 1000 different angles and get 1000 different answers. I think the mistake is to think there's a core to perceive.

[The Reality Denialist]

Words are usually just words. How it is constructed is more meaningful. It is kind of hard to get in there.

[Tarnished]

I use socionics as a tool to improve my abilities to deal with other people (Te pov). I didn't use it much for self perception anyway.

Typing doesn't need to be exactly right, as long as it work for more than 50% cases, then it worth. I consider both my typing and other person self-typing, it's some kind of ...data, it's not only help for one case, but also the cases later. Someone who can't give a clear presentation of themself is also a valid information about themself.

[Vis]

I mistyped myself many times before, so I don't really believe what the "typee" says to be the golden standard (Also I mostly type people in my life who don't know socionics, for my own information, so...). If people don't have a good understanding of the system, they can't type themselves right. I think instead of just looking at their video, it's probably better to actually interact with the person so you can type with interpersonal relation info as well.

I would not tell my typing result to people who are new to personality systems either. Because there are a lot of stereotypes about different types (more in MBTI than socionics), and they might see garbage/false info out there which could negatively affect their self-perception.

It's weird every time I hear someone says they got typed by Gulenko, the result always seems to be LSI...

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

it's accurate to me unless there is enough data or they seem to dislike other people of their same quadra too much/too consistently and not have easy or comfortable communications with them. Like with socionics people often overly idealize it to the point of romance but often it's just a ease in communication thing it's information metabolism- like I know I can talk to another Beta and usually be understood even if we don't want some romantic picnic on a hillside with one another or whatever- or maybe even if we dislike each other- there's just something that is getting through. I think like with Deltas, they've tried to impart their values on me but it just doesn't take you know- and vice-versa.

like I loved having a Beta LSI therapist after having so many Deltas because- I wouldn't ever be friends with her or anything (again, over idealizing it is so retarded to me ugh) but the fact that she just seemed to 'get' what I said so easily without blowing it out of porportion or just taking it the complete wrong way... etc. and then like if it does happen when you can talk that easily and also be quadra buddies, well that *is* super nice and sweet of course!

[aixelsyd]

I could see myself as potentially any type and that is the problem. I can only get a more accurate perspective of myself by comparing and contrasting myself with people I interact with face to face.

[Aster]

yes and no


Peoples self perception can be influenced by a ton of things…having a big ego and believing you are better than what you are….having depression and believing you are worse than you are…others treatment of you…societies treatment of you as an insider or outcast…expectations from family or society…


no ones perception is exactly the same because it’s been being influenced by all the experiences a person has had + genetic makeup (prob Brain structure, hormones etc)


So I see a persons self perception as exactly just that, their self perception. Not exactly right or wrong. Just influenced. I don’t exactly trust it, but it says a lot.

[Ave]

This is an interesting and extremely complex question.

It's complex because it boils down to several factors whether someone has typed themselves correctly or not, whetehr their self-typing is credible or not. First, do they understand the theory? Second do they understand themselves? Third, do they type themselves because they wish to see themselves a certain way, perhaps because it is the image they wish to project to others, or because upbringing/social environment has shaped a certain perception of themselves that they associate with a type for some reason.

To the first question, it gets even more complicated when you realize there isn't just one theory, but several interpretations of socionics. Usually people read information from different (sometimes contradictory) sources and their viewpoint is a potluck of various approaches. This is fine, but I wish people would be more aware of where they are getting information from rather than believeing everyting they read until...the same author types them or someone they know in a way they disagree with. There are many overlaps between different schools of socionics (it's all Jungian after all) but there are also differences, especially in diagnostics.

The second point, understanding themselves, depends entirely on the person in question. I do think that self-discovery is a lifelong process, however I don't think that one has to take years to figure out one's type. But it can take years. In any case, it depends very much on the individual, also some people think they know themselves really well, but in reality, we all have our blindspots.

The third point, self-image, is also very subjective and dependant on the individual. I wrote about it here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1497789

In Gulenko's book, he criticizes the "logical positivist" approach to socionics. I am not sure what he means by this, but I suspect he means taking a person's conscious preferences and opinions on society at face value, for example someone with collectivistic views might be put into beta without looking at the deeper aspects of the person's psyche.

Gulenko and his school remind typologists that a person's conscious perception of themselves is not always in line with thee way they perceive their type. I agree with this, but I also think Gulnko goes too far in placing an emphasis on subconscious and automatic processes such as dreams, eye movement, emotional reactions, when trying to determine people's types. Type is seen almost as an automatic process, whereas DCNH subtype is how he justifies people's perception of themslves. DCNH is a layer above the type, a more conscious, deliberate effort at being something.

While I agree that sometimes people's self-perception is wrong, I also don't think the way type manifests, especially quadra values and one's attitudes towards them, is a solely automatic process. Often it is conscious and manifests itself through group conflicts and how one expresses one's values in groups of people. DCNH can amplify certain things, such as rebellion and independance in C subtypes, but that rebellion and indepenance is always within the confines of one's type (as Gulenko himself writes in his book). An LSI-C would still behave as a hive mind in a group and even enjoy it, albeit perhaps they would be attracted to groups which are less norm abiding, than say, N subtypes.

Quadra impacts one's behavior in a group and thus how one sees oneself, not simply DCNH.

Note that perhaps I misunderstand Gulenko's school here, I'd have to ask Mitchell for confirmation of this exactly, but it is part of my thoughts on the subject of how type affects how we see ourselves. Instead of repeating myself, I'm gonna reference old posts more and more as I see myself having to repeat my thoughts alot. This isn't a critique of your thread, AWellArmedCat, because I think it's a topic we should be discussing, but I find it easier to requote than repeat.

I do think that what Gulenko is speaking out against here is taking what someone says about themselves literally at face value. For example. "This person says they are logical, an ethical type wouldn't say that" and the typist will affirm the person is logical based on that. Or "he said he doesn't like betas, this is telling and he must be a delta". C'mon. This is really ...there is no better word word for it - numbskulled - as of course people lie to others, to themselves etc. Believe it or not, I see many socionists and typologists do this.

So all that said, I suppose I don't take people at face value when it comes to their self-typing. I am polite about their opinion, as battletyping is counter productive. I also don't consider myself a good typist, so I generally don't have an inflexible opinion anyways. That said, how someone types themselves is likely to influence my perception of their type nonetheless.

[Vis]

Quite important to read different authors because everyone has bias. I find socionics experts usually have accurate descriptions of people's behaviors, but their interpretations of the motivations is the place you see most bias, e.g. judgers assume perceivers know what they are doing quadra bias, etc.

I wish there's a list of the personality types of all the socion experts. Would help people read more critically...

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I think self-perception is extremely useful, others opinions are of course necessary to have a full picture of you're socionics type. Saying self-perception is 'wrong' I'm not sure exactly what that means. Socionics is about information exchange, it's not really supposed to define everything about you. You shouldn't identify too much with it either. To figure out the information elements you prefer, what ones you are comfortable with, and ones you have difficulty with, means you can better understand your strengths and weaknesses and what types of environments will be favorable to you.

The problem with typing someone is that people behave differently in different circumstances. If you get typed by Gulenko and you send in a video of you answering questions while you stare at your camera alone in a room, you are going to behave differently from if you were face to face with Gulenko. You will behave differently around a close friend or family member than you would Gulenko.

This is why self-perception is important, the individual being typed is the common thread in all these different contexts. They know how they may behave, or have behaved, in all sorts of situations. If someone sees their behavior in one context and they think the person is one type, then they should also be open to being wrong and hearing the input from the person they are typing. The person has to be open to being wrong as well. The tricky part is all parties attempting to become aware of their implicit biases about one another and come to a determination of their type.

Gulenko has typed many people, I see him as very knowledgable, but he isn't infallible. No one is.

People can tell you things about yourself that you never noticed so others' input is absolutely necessary to be typed. An outside observer like a professional typist will give a fresh view of a person's type.

Well, basically the answer is that there's no clear answer.

[Vis]

I think self-perception is extremely useful, others opinions are of course necessary to have a full picture of you're socionics type. Saying self-perception is 'wrong' I'm not sure exactly what that means.

Self-perception can be wrong from Te standard.

However I agree that without enough self-learning/perception as the basis, it's pretty useless to get an "expert" typing even if it's correct (having the correct type does not mean one knows how to use it well in life, might cause more damage if believing false info/claims about that type).

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Self-perception can be wrong from Te standard.

However I agree that without enough self-learning/perception as the basis, it's pretty useless to get an "expert" typing even if it's correct (having the correct type does not mean one knows how to use it well in life, might cause more damage if believing false info/claims about that type).

Self-reporting is not an uncommon method in gathering data in psychology and other medical fields. Its all you have to verify type, there is no objective method of verification for a socionics type. Additionally there's no utility in typing someone a type they don't agree with or understand. An expert would be a person more suited to figuring out someone's type than the general public.

Saying that someone may or may not benefit from knowing their socionics type is a moot point since its hypothetical and entirely dependent on the situation and person.

[Vis]

Self-reporting is not an uncommon method in gathering data in psychology and other medical fields. Its all you have to verify type, there is no objective method of verification for a socionics type. Additionally there's no utility in typing someone a type they don't agree with or understand. An expert would be a person more suited to figuring out someone's type than the general public.

Saying that someone may or may not benefit from knowing their socionics type is a moot point since its hypothetical and entirely dependent on the situation and person.

Your argument "there's no utility in typing someone a type they don't agree with or understand" is exactly what I was saying in my second paragraph, if you minus the 3 words "agree with or".

self report = conscious "self perception" + subconscious ”how they speak". I would mostly look at the second part, as the first part does not provide much useful information.

Actually, there is an objective way of assessing typing accuracy: intertype relations. If you can type yourself and others correctly, the intertype relations descriptions will be spot on (for average human beings). If the relations theories seem fuzzy and foggy, you are likely not typing yourself/others accurately.

I feel I'm being obnoxious with Te now Please forgive me if that's the case

[Vex]

There was a saying I can’t find, so maybe I made it up ages ago, but it’s that whole concept that a man never really knows himself until after passing. Because you can’t look back at life and judge your own character until your character is fully formed, and we’re always changing throughout life. In that way, can we really properly judge ourselves until after death?

the concept applies to self bias, self perception, etc and typing, it’s really difficult to look at the self objectively and to type others objectively, and to find objective data online. So many mistype themselves and others and not just in Socionics but in MBTI, enneagram, and now PY/Attitudinal Psyche.

Obviously I’m pro getting typed by a typer of your choice, and I’ve even made a thread about resources on where to get typed. “Intertype relations” only go so far since people think it’s crushes (which can be any type) or whatever and not basically just a really helpful friend dynamic.

G does not type based off of behavior. That’s just a 6 perspective since they type on behavior. Socionics isn’t even about typing based off of behavior, but functions, clubs, installations, temperaments, etc.

All this said, I think battle typing is counter productive. I’m not saying that typing should only be done by typists, bc then what would be the point of having a hobby. I do think people should be allowed to have self typings, but they shouldn’t expect a type from anyone.

[persimmonism]

I place a lot of emphasis on my own typing of the person. In socionics, only. Enneagram is iffy and not particularly interpersonally interesting.
If I know someone well enough, I know their type. This might come off as delusion. I don't/can't type people from questionnaires/interviews/online etc. It naturally happens if I get to know the person in real life.
It's not like I type just anyone. I put a lot of thought into how others are, and always put definitive typings on hold if I feel there isn't enough information. And obviously, someone's self perception, but more interestingly, where it stems from, is something to be taken into account.

I feel like a lot of people approach typing someone in Socionics as how you would type someone in Enneagram. A Socionics type is fundamental and undeniable from the outside. Enneagram, on the other hand, deals with inner drives and such so it's a bit more tricky. Easier to intentionally or unintentionally hide, distort, not be aware of things, I would think.

More generally, I believe that having the sexual instinct diminishes ability to type as well and social instinct enhances (among other things, of course!). In addition to a mostly indiscriminate interest in others, or at least in "tracking" them, for example in terms of personality for those interested in Socionics, the social instinct is all about witnessing others for who they are. Pairing that with sexual-blindness gives someone who has an especially sterile perception of others.

[lookin4waifu]

I think it's important for the typee to agree with the typing because I assume most people are always holding back some information about themselves, and if they seem to seriously disagree with some aspect of my typing of them (without reason as far as I can discern), I attribute it to withheld information that I don't know about.
…
What do y'all think though? How much emphasis do you place on the typee's self-perceptions? Why do you or don't you care?

It depends how into socionics they are. If they aren’t into socionics theory, it would be more useful to ask, “Does this profile / do these statements sound like you?” Rather than, “Do you irrevocably agree that you are quadra delta over quadra beta?” OTOH if they are very invested in socionics, they are likely to already have some investment and personal bias towards themselves being some particular type(s), and many would deny their similarities to certain other types to preserve that.

Some people are not very perceptive about themselves, and/or they deviate a lot from the 16 stereotypes (they aren’t easily typeable). In which case, there isn’t going to be that much merit to assigning a sociotype to them and considering their behavior through that lens anyway, nevermind expecting them to themselves agree with cookie-cutter standards for a profile you think they match.

In other words, if you have an easy-to-understand, agreeable situation, it’s likely you wouldn’t need to ask such a person for their agreement anyway. If you have to ask them a lot whether or not something fits with them, it’s likely because the system is too restrictive to incorporate them, or they are already determined to not agree with you. Which is why I think it’s more important to build and place into high consideration one’s own understanding of socionics, and also one’s own understanding of people in general beyond the theory. Truth isn’t something that needs to be labeled or agreed upon.

[Aquamarine]

I agree with reconsidering a typing if the person being typed seriously disagrees with it. I do think people's self perception is important. Very important. But also not to be solely relied on.

A part of becoming more self aware is looking at yourself throughout your life and seeing the decisions you've made and why. But also, hearing feedback from others. They can also have insight into subconscious behaviors of yours. As people's behavior can sometimes reveal more than their words.

I feel that after doing this, a person can take all the information into consideration. Comparing it to what they've observed themselves and might be able to accurately choose a type.

I personally listen to someone when they are adamant on a certain type. I don't feel that it's my place to force another type on them. I might not have seen all that there is to them.