Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Relative Importance of Diagnostic Methods

  1. #1
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    NFp
    Posts
    1,116
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Relative Importance of Diagnostic Methods

    In your opinion is there a hierarchy of importance when it comes to different diagnostic methods?

    Say for example that someone appears very strongly to be Te-program, yet in other regards you feel that they make more sense as an Ep type. Then on the other hand they look to be an Aristocratic type or something. How do you reconcile conflicting diagnostic information? Does a hierarchy exist wherein, for example, Jungian always trump Reinin dichotomies? Or like is ITR more important than apparent Quadra values?

    Is there a hierarchy? If so, what is it? If not, how do you reconcile conflicting info?
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  2. #2
    Self-proclaimed typing expert Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    2,484
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The hierarchy depends on what type I think the person should be.
    (just kidding)
    (sort of)

    Aspects of type that I consider low priority (evidence that is nice to have but not convincing enough to stand on its own): cognitive styles, reinin dichotomies, + or - functions, buy in from the crowd (the audience isn’t always right)

    Higher priority: temperament, rationality, other jungian dichotomies, valued/unvalued functions

    I identify which traits are most strongly expressed and start from there. I don’t feel the need to decide on someone’s type right off the bat. For example, if someone seemed to have Te program and EP temperament, I’ll pencil in “Te-valuing extrovert”. I’m comfortable leaving it open ended until more information emerges.

    I also try to consider the context of the personality by looking at the non-socionics factors at play.

  3. #3
    Rarely here yet exists somewhere else
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    1,021
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    that someone appears very strongly to be Te-program, yet in other regards you feel that they make more sense as an Ep type. Then on the other hand they look to be an Aristocratic type or something
    SLE : Te demonstrative + Ep temperament + Aristocratic

  4. #4
    Rarely here yet exists somewhere else
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    1,021
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I rarely care about typing someone irl , and if I do , I just type that person visually

    I start by observing the person's nonverbal language and facial features

    If the person is identical in his movements to something I know, for example: the non-verbal movements of a function, I start from it (though I keep in mind that it may not necessarily be in an ego block, it may be a role function, a demonstrative function, or a mobilizing function)

    I sometimes start with
    visually determining the irrational axes in the person , then I search for other functions and arrange it at the end

    In these rare events when I stay away from the non-verbal things , I find the most obvious functions (and as I said, I keep in mind that it is not necessary in the ego block) and start from it, I bring person's behaviours closer to the functions / type descriptions until narrow all possibilities to the nearest

    I don't look at temperament or basic 4 dichotomies ( I/E , N/S , T/F , J/P ) at all

    Temperament are affected by DCNH mostly , based on my experience

    I use Subtypes

  5. #5
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,698
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    There should be no hierarchy once you know it. Functional strengths can be wonky. Character is a very bad metric in every way.
    So there should only be the essence.
    I think it should be judged based on what they give and not what they prefer (it is a disservice).

    So I align the way Gulenko and TypeTips guy. The basis should be based not on given information but communication then comes circumstances.

    I think eye movements tell a lot what happens sort of things happen inside (it is not thought reading). Naturally restless are dynamic types and so on.
    .
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  6. #6
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,698
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    VI, expressions > everything else
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  7. #7
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    EII-Fi
    Posts
    14,219
    Mentioned
    632 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah some diagnostic methods are more "important" or useful than others sure ... its hard for me to talk about this tho cuz it seems super logical type under the hood. And besides, no offense to anybody else but I'm not some asshole str8 male engineer type that cares so much if one method of typing is 'better' than the other in that way ((even if something is shitty it still holds value in it to me in the sense that the group can make fun of it appropriately)), but ironically I do seem to care about efficiency, in the sense I'm always telling ESEs "that's not efficient enough" despite it being my polr which is kinda funny lol. I do seem to value when things are done in a timely manner tho, Te polr or not.

    I guess I go more about what they've said and what types of ppl annoy them. Fe vs Fi clashes kinda 'stand out' the most to me in a way- if the person prefers serious vs merry communication, that is often one of the easiest to spot so I go from there.

  8. #8
    Popcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    In your opinion is there a hierarchy of importance when it comes to different diagnostic methods?

    Say for example that someone appears very strongly to be Te-program, yet in other regards you feel that they make more sense as an Ep type. Then on the other hand they look to be an Aristocratic type or something. How do you reconcile conflicting diagnostic information? Does a hierarchy exist wherein, for example, Jungian always trump Reinin dichotomies? Or like is ITR more important than apparent Quadra values?

    Is there a hierarchy? If so, what is it? If not, how do you reconcile conflicting info?
    I think there's two different types of Socionics users. Some people want hierarachies and systems and approaches and VI and all of that stuff to, I guess, predict types or infer types without getting to know someone, or maybe before getting to know someone. I don't really like that because it's very similar to statistics, in that you will have to accept a percentage of inaccuracy and if any parts of Socionics are poorly understood or people are masking themselves for whatever reason, then the error becomes amplified in your conclusions and self-fulfilling in your results. But I guess that's a way of applying Socionics more proactively. Perhaps this more proactive energy makes it more a Te approach than Ti.

    Then there is the other type of user. They want to better understand their interactions with other people from a Jungian or Socionical abstract framework. It's then more of a reflective tool (like going to a therapist and talking things out) to help understand people and yourself. This is what I like because there is more potential for accuracy and less subjective bias, as well as a focus on understanding yourself, since you only type and analyze based on your deeper interactions and communication conflicts/issues (and that's good for social retards like me that need more help). The subtle things that come up when you communicate with people that reflect conflicting IE values will start to show and help understand and connect Socionics together in a big picture way, rather than focusing on approaches and hierarchies and in that sense -> details rather than big picture. It's also easier to correct for errors in understanding Jungian elements because you are always working to reframe things in a way that matches your interactions and understanding from a past reflective nature, rather than trying to think of some perfect system to guide your future. You are basically forming big picture viewpoints of everything - types, personal values, Information Elements, and learning to discover and accept your own needs and wants and limitations and differences from other people. Because, truly, reality is messy and will never be perfect and you are just trying to reflect on trends and overall patterns anyway for typing. Eventually, despite that there will always be inconsistencies with life and people to some degree (Tom Clancy — 'The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense'), you will see the overarching trends, archetypes, and patterns that reflect socionics relations.

    That said, I think if the understanding of Jungian functions is good, it's the IE conflicts that make type most noticeable. But I don't know, that's how I use it and it seems to work and get better over time and I'm at a point where it really makes a lot of sense now, so I'm comfortable saying all this.

  9. #9
    Popcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazaam View Post
    yeah some diagnostic methods are more "important" or useful than others sure ... its hard for me to talk about this tho cuz it seems super logical type under the hood. And besides, no offense to anybody else but I'm not some asshole str8 male engineer type that cares so much if one method of typing is 'better' than the other in that way ((even if something is shitty it still holds value in it to me in the sense that the group can make fun of it appropriately)), but ironically I do seem to care about efficiency, in the sense I'm always telling ESEs "that's not efficient enough" despite it being my polr which is kinda funny lol. I do seem to value when things are done in a timely manner tho, Te polr or not.
    Btw lol, I know I'm probably being pedantic and annoying and you probably don't care anyway, but I don't think efficiency belongs to Te, but T in general. A lot of times Ti is used to simplify or make things more efficient, such as instead of having everyone be a jack of all trades, you have jobs people master and do well. Divide and conquer, organize, structure the chaos for less work, have good instructions and quality standards to minimize rework and more problems, that sort of thing. Te people will often do that as a result of jumping into something and making mistakes and learning from them and over time learning better ways to do things, but I think that's usually a secondary concern. It's like a military officer that just wants to win a battle - they don't go for the most efficient solution that protects their people and resources and minimizes work, but the most effective solution that decimates the enemy, even if it goes against all those things.

    So it's not so crazy that you care about efficiency, if you are Te polr, imo.

  10. #10
    The Crucified Space Sheriff godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,039
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imho, it depends on the person you are typing. Sometimes even a very basic knowledge of Socionics without any particular protocol or procedure is enough to correctly type a person if his or her type is very obvious. That being said, you can choose to use a systematic method from different schools that works for you and with which you feel comfortable (This preference might be Type related btw).

    Dr. G's SHS has its method and it works very well in its own context, I mean it gives a coherent result from a short video questionnaire . Other schools have their own method and approach but it takes more time (several one on one interviews) and refinement. Sometimes drastic changes in diagnosis can happen but the result is more acceptable that way giving the decent amount time and work that have been invested in the investigation imho. In general they determine the Temperament, The quadra values and from their the core Type. ITR have their importance but I haven't seen it used as a main typing tool.

    With that said, to me the first thing I got from a person is his or her overall energy. It's what their external attitude reveals about their internal state, So Fe informations (or lack thereof) are probably the first that I tend to be aware of. That also includes all the Non-Verbal communication like Extroversion/ Introversion and things relative to my own personal judgement like Sympathetic/ Antipathetic etc...

    All those informations constitute the very first "echo return" I get from a person and those very simple first impressions are already (probably unconsciously) filtering and ruling out some types . That's what we call a "Vibe" which is like a perfect pitch applied to people (some frequencies (vibes) correspond to a note name (Type of person)) It's an association thinking.

    I am guilty of being biased by my "Types images" (which is our subjective representation of the overall characteristics each TIM).
    In reality , the Type must fit the subject and not the other way around. I like to think of the typing process like some kind of "Haute couture" and the typologist is like a tailor adjusting a TIM to the subject cuz at the end of the day, your TIM is always custom-made. What I mean is that "Pure Types" are rare and for a subject to check all the boxes relative to a TIM available in our typing tools is nearly impossible. Sometimes less is more. That's why our real Type is said to be our "best fit" type i.e. a unique incarnation of a TIM.

    Anyway, Once I get that energy I really try to make abstraction of my biases and concentrate on the IEs and come up with arguments to support where I think those IEs found place in the Model so it makes sense. I usually begin by determining the Temperament and build from there (Quadra values, Reinin etc..).

    Edit : I realized that I didn't answer to the initial question of the thread

    I asked myself the same question because I don't like informations canceling each others (not really contradicting). Now, of course everybody will agree that The core Type is the top priority meaning that as a rule the core type has the upper hand over the Temperament. Why is that ? Because it has been a priori established that the Core type in inborned and the Temperaments can change, in fact that change (or evolution) is expected at some critical points of our existence. So why beggin by Temperament then ? I guess it's because the core type has a core temperament that goes with it.

    we are looking for contestant traits of temperaments ( consistent over a long time period) stuff that characterised us from our childhood up to our adolescence which is the period where our true temperament start to shine. We look for consistent traits of characters which are carried with us. Now, there are different tools to look for those traits and one the most important are the non-verbal communications. Those NVC gives us the core Temperament according to some pre-established Dichotomies formulas (extraversion-introversion / static-dynamics / rationality-irrationality) and we get the EP Ip Ij EJ. From their we can start to finetune the quadra values dichotomies etc...



    Anyway, I think at the end of the day the way we type depends on our own Type because we are all biased. Some have a scientific approach and other use their "feelings". As for me, like I said before the method depends on the subject some are very easy to type and some are tricky. It takes times and in any case my typing method has always had something to do with : "Use the Force Luke !"
    Last edited by godslave; 12-08-2022 at 10:02 AM. Reason: OMG, even I couldn't understand myself ! I cleaned up the mess (a bit) !

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Popcorn View Post
    I think there's two different types of Socionics users. Some people want hierarachies and systems and approaches and VI and all of that stuff to, I guess, predict types or infer types without getting to know someone, or maybe before getting to know someone. I don't really like that because it's very similar to statistics, in that you will have to accept a percentage of inaccuracy and if any parts of Socionics are poorly understood or people are masking themselves for whatever reason, then the error becomes amplified in your conclusions and self-fulfilling in your results. But I guess that's a way of applying Socionics more proactively. Perhaps this more proactive energy makes it more a Te approach than Ti.

    Then there is the other type of user. They want to better understand their interactions with other people from a Jungian or Socionical abstract framework. It's then more of a reflective tool (like going to a therapist and talking things out) to help understand people and yourself. This is what I like because there is more potential for accuracy and less subjective bias, as well as a focus on understanding yourself, since you only type and analyze based on your deeper interactions and communication conflicts/issues (and that's good for social retards like me that need more help). The subtle things that come up when you communicate with people that reflect conflicting IE values will start to show and help understand and connect Socionics together in a big picture way, rather than focusing on approaches and hierarchies and in that sense -> details rather than big picture. It's also easier to correct for errors in understanding Jungian elements because you are always working to reframe things in a way that matches your interactions and understanding from a past reflective nature, rather than trying to think of some perfect system to guide your future. You are basically forming big picture viewpoints of everything - types, personal values, Information Elements, and learning to discover and accept your own needs and wants and limitations and differences from other people. Because, truly, reality is messy and will never be perfect and you are just trying to reflect on trends and overall patterns anyway for typing. Eventually, despite that there will always be inconsistencies with life and people to some degree (Tom Clancy — 'The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense'), you will see the overarching trends, archetypes, and patterns that reflect socionics relations.

    That said, I think if the understanding of Jungian functions is good, it's the IE conflicts that make type most noticeable. But I don't know, that's how I use it and it seems to work and get better over time and I'm at a point where it really makes a lot of sense now, so I'm comfortable saying all this.
    I mean. Have you ever seen a person who did both approaches? Trying to do both, intensely, because why not. Is that person then both Te and Ti valuing.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    In your opinion is there a hierarchy of importance when it comes to different diagnostic methods?

    Say for example that someone appears very strongly to be Te-program, yet in other regards you feel that they make more sense as an Ep type. Then on the other hand they look to be an Aristocratic type or something. How do you reconcile conflicting diagnostic information? Does a hierarchy exist wherein, for example, Jungian always trump Reinin dichotomies? Or like is ITR more important than apparent Quadra values?

    Is there a hierarchy? If so, what is it? If not, how do you reconcile conflicting info?
    Think I've given up on things like that. After a while, I've found that I trust myself the most on all this if I'm able to put into words without Socionics notation what it is exactly that I am perceiving about the other person or about their interactions with me or with others. Same applies to VI.... I'd rather just put it into words what I AM seeing, perceiving, before trying to put any Socionics on it. So I like to notice traits, the kind of worldview the person has, what expressions they make the most often, etc. And then if I can correlate that with type, great, if not then it soon becomes real boring speculation

  13. #13
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    NFp
    Posts
    1,116
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Popcorn View Post
    I think there's two different types of Socionics users. Some people want hierarachies and systems and approaches and VI and all of that stuff to, I guess, predict types or infer types without getting to know someone, or maybe before getting to know someone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popcorn
    Then there is the other type of user. They want to better understand their interactions with other people from a Jungian or Socionical abstract framework. It's then more of a reflective tool (like going to a therapist and talking things out) to help understand people and yourself.
    I mean I don't think I fall into either of those. I also have always said that if you want to be sure of someone's type you have to really get to know them and work with them to come to a conclusion that makes sense to both of you. I also want clarity though in what the system actually is. I like to feel confident when explaining how socionics works and what parts of it are more worth focusing on. My personal bias is to assume external behaviours, VI, expressions, etc. are probably the least reliable and instead focus more directly on conscious cognition. Like I try to "see past" the obvious and really dig into cognition, but a lot of people on here seem so convinced of the opposite approach that I feel like I've lost all confidence in my ability to type people. I was mainly looking to see what the actual prevailing attitude here was.

    Admittedly there's probably a happy medium, but being an enlightened centrist saying "both are equally important" also feels like too easy of a way out to me. I think it's very unlikely that there is no hierarchy at all. Some things surely must be at least a little more important than others, right?
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  14. #14
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    NFp
    Posts
    1,116
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Popcorn View Post
    it's very similar to statistics
    Lol for the record statistics was the only time math ever seemed interesting and made any sense to me. Slogged through every other math class I ever took, but left college stats with 107% and even got payed by a bunch of random classmates for private help with their homework
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  15. #15
    Popcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking it View Post
    I mean. Have you ever seen a person who did both approaches? Trying to do both, intensely, because why not. Is that person then both Te and Ti valuing.
    Yeah, your mom. She values all the ╰⋃╯

  16. #16
    Popcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    I mean I don't think I fall into either of those. I also have always said that if you want to be sure of someone's type you have to really get to know them and work with them to come to a conclusion that makes sense to both of you. I also want clarity though in what the system actually is. I like to feel confident when explaining how socionics works and what parts of it are more worth focusing on. My personal bias is to assume external behaviours, VI, expressions, etc. are probably the least reliable and instead focus more directly on conscious cognition. Like I try to "see past" the obvious and really dig into cognition, but a lot of people on here seem so convinced of the opposite approach that I feel like I've lost all confidence in my ability to type people. I was mainly looking to see what the actual prevailing attitude here was.

    Admittedly there's probably a happy medium, but being an enlightened centrist saying "both are equally important" also feels like too easy of a way out to me. I think it's very unlikely that there is no hierarchy at all. Some things surely must be at least a little more important than others, right?
    The thing that kind of sucks about Socionics is that it's really abstract and so people have to get to know lots of people, yet also be able and willing to filter out their biases in order to type people well, as well as patience in putting it all together (because it won't make sense right away and may take a long time of personal growth and lots of understanding to put things into the correct perspective). IMO, this takes time and a willingness to be wrong about everything, as well as a willingness to consider the viewpoints of people that somebody disagrees with, and an appreciationg of "analytical psychology" (which this forum does lack). Admittedly, this forum does not foster that kind of communication, it's kind of the opposite where everybody is so sure of one or another typing or what an IE means and what people's types are of people that they don't even really know... So I wouldn't worry too much about what people feel "confident" in. Most of them don't even try to explain things well and a lot of them criticize the people that do...so that's not too helpful...but it's kind of the only active socionics community...so it's this or nothing I guess...

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Lol for the record statistics was the only time math ever seemed interesting and made any sense to me. Slogged through every other math class I ever took, but left college stats with 107% and even got payed by a bunch of random classmates for private help with their homework
    I like it when it's used for analyzing computable probabilities - such as your chances of winning the lotto or your chances of getting a particular sequence out of a pool of possible patterns or applying it to cryptography which puts things into perspective. But it's easy to abuse when it comes to psychological/political studies because the premise of the probabilities don't have to be well defined or understood. Alternatively, the Scientific Method usually explains why its conclusions might be wrong or what is missed in a given experiment, but statistics when used in psychology/politics just gives conclusions and biased answers that don't consider this at all. It's a great brainwashing political tool that I'm not really fond of, but I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore, so anyway...

  17. #17
    May look like an LSI, but -Te. Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-ILI-NH
    Posts
    615
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, there is no hierarchy in typing method. For details, read this article:

    On Possibility of Falsification of TIM in Verbal Typing
    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  18. #18
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The general "heuristic" I have when typing others is that anyone can fake anything and anyone can act like anything, however, everyone is absolutely stupid or stubborn about something. Look for something that's always there. Relationships have a lot of nuance, so ITR is unreliable. Reinin dichotomies are poorly defined. Every function and IE is poorly defined, but those are ultimately what you're gonna use. That said, look for people's 1st and 4th function. They're not only rigid but jut out.

    As a side note, I also like Evaluatory ane Situational and Accepting and Producing. They're very hard to see, but when you nail them down, you will only have a few types left The latter dichtomy is what can remedy a goofy Conflict or Mirror mistyping.

  19. #19

    Default

    The most important thing to me is to be able to understand a person in layman's terms. Those things can be translated to socionics terms, and maybe you can explore things further or get a better overall picture with the associations socionics makes. Or just leave things open. What benefit is there in deciding upon a type for someone? Maybe just note that they are more irrational than rational, or more sensory than intuitive, or more extraverted, and stick a pin in it. To me the most important hierarchy is what is noticeable about a person. Some traits are more defined in a person than others.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •