On suggesting someone is mistyped

[Metaphor]

We need a machine that types people. Then the problem would be solved.

Okay, result type.

[AWellArmedCat]

I think there's a few moving parts to this phenomenon. Firstly, not everyone is on the same page with regard to typing methodology, so it's really no wonder that if a large enough pool of typists are sampled and asked about person A's type, they'll give at least three or four answers. The thing is, they're all probably correct. At the very least they could all be said to be internally consistent with the way that they type other people, so for them they'll probably have plenty good reasons for thinking someone is whatever type. Socionics, at least in the Anglosphere, isn't centrally managed. It's a collection of hobbyists with varying levels of interest in the system who are coming from a variety of backgrounds. There is no way for this to NOT result in a plurality of functional typing methods. I'm not arguing that some are or aren't better than others, but rather that this is the reality of Socionics on this forum. People subscribe to different methods, some gleaned from more "official" sources, and others based on their own personal theories and/or intuitions. So when someone tells me I'm EIE or IEE, I assume they're reasonably likely to be correct within the bounds of their own system. I myself may not agree with their assessment though because my understanding of Socionics is not identical to theirs. I recognize that they're "correct" insofar as they are following their own logic that they use when typing people, but my rejection of those typings of myself isn't based on that - rather, it's based on me not operating within the same framework that they are working within. I can't change my self-perception of my type until I've adopted a framework that sees type in a similar enough way to them. Personally people insisting I'm whatever type really doesn't upset me because I basically agree with them. I just am not using whatever framework they are at the moment, so I don't change my self-typing.

To speak more concretely, I really enjoy @blaecaedre 's analysis of my type, but they're working within a system of typology that I don't understand well enough to adopt (and if I did it would affect all, or at least a great many, of my typings of people I'm sure). Perhaps something about it will click with me at some point, but for now at least that hasn't happened.

As another example, many people take issue with @Alive 's typings of people, and to me this is simply because his methodology is far from the dominant one when it comes to people on this forum at least. The type results he gets usually make plenty of sense to me though when I consider his approach. It can indeed be a little comical sometimes when it feels like he types everyone on the forum as IEI, but within context it makes sense to me, and it certainly doesn't make me upset. I may have a different methodology that I feel works better for me, and for what I want to get out of typing, but there's more than one way to approach these things, and my system isn't automatically better.

Of course as I said before, I have my own opinions about what approaches are superior as far as I'm concerned, but honestly I find it weird that so many people get super hung up on not everyone agreeing with their self-typing. It seems strange to me to think that everyone would type you in perfect accordance with your self-typing all the time, and it's even stranger still to me to get upset over it. It's much more useful to have your own system, but to keep an open ear to the other ideas people throw at you. While not everything people say may be useful to you, occasionally pursuing those alternative perspectives can help lead you to your own breakthroughs. I think it's a bit of a waste to not at least consider for a moment other people's perspectives on your type.

That being said, if you're clearly upsetting someone by telling them they're a particular type, maybe it would be prudent to stop doing so unless all you care about is trolling them. At some point it just turns into drama for drama's sake with no clear benefit to anybody aside from mild amusement

[Lilith]

There are multiple ways to type oneself according to different schools of thought, SHS, Archetype Center, Talanov, Wikisocion articles, and so on. I see a lot of fans of socionics taking info from different schools and creating their own school of thought. Which is perfectly fine especially since updated and new information is especially difficult to come across in the west. People who adhere to one school for the most part, will have different images of the types in their methodology. So this brings to question "what is mistyping" since there can be so many different images of the types.

This didn't really answer the question but this thread title made me thonk.