1. ## On typing yourself

I have been noticing a lot of confusion as to how to best type yourself. It seems to me that too many people concentrate on what is their dominant function.

Yet a Socionics type is more than a dominant function and, as Rocky pointed out, sometimes you take some characteristics of your dominant function so much for granted that you end up not even recognizing it.

So, I would suggest again the following approach:

1) try to recognize which Quadra you belong to. This can be helped by Rick's decriptions as in here: http://www.socionics.us/theory/quadras.shtml

Mainly, it's about recognizing the preferences of your weaker functions. For instance, for a Thinking type it may be easier to recognize whether you are Fe > Fi or Fi > Fe, rather than your Te or Ti preference.

2) Having found your quadra, it should be easier to see which types you are or not.

I think that getting deeper and deeper into precise descriptions of functions and dichotomies is not the way to go.

2. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Expat
I have been noticing a lot of confusion as to how to best type yourself. It seems to me that too many people concentrate on what is their dominant function.

Yet a Socionics type is more than a dominant function and, as Rocky pointed out, sometimes you take some characteristics of your dominant function so much for granted that you end up not even recognizing it.

So, I would suggest again the following approach:

1) try to recognize which Quadra you belong to. This can be helped by Rick's decriptions as in here: http://www.socionics.us/theory/quadras.shtml

Mainly, it's about recognizing the preferences of your weaker functions. For instance, for a Thinking type it may be easier to recognize whether you are Fe > Fi or Fi > Fe, rather than your Te or Ti preference.

2) Having found your quadra, it should be easier to see which types you are or not.

I think that getting deeper and deeper into precise descriptions of functions and dichotomies is not the way to go.
*jumps up and rolls in the aisles*

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

3. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Expat
I think that getting deeper and deeper into precise descriptions of functions and dichotomies is not the way to go.
Why? I don't see how you can skip that step before moving on to other ones anyway.

4. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Rocky
Why? I don't see how you can skip that step before moving on to other ones anyway.
Well, of course you have to understand the functions to even decide the preferences of your weaker functions. But what I'm seeing is occasional discussions of very deep descriptions of very specific behavior traits or thought patterns, and attempts at attributing them to specific functions or dichotomies; this overlooks the obvious fact that both functions and dichotomies are theoretical constructs aimed at describing and explaining empirical observations ie real people.

5. according to this method, there would be a lot of people who never get typed beyond "Gamma" or "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extrovert"

6. Originally Posted by Joy
according to this method, there would be a lot of people who never get typed beyond "Gamma" or "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extrovert"
Well, no method's perfect - but I think that after you pinpoint your quadra, then you can get into those more arcane things.

However -- I do think that some people won't easily fit into any of the 16 types. That is to be expected since it's necessarily a simplified model of reality.

This thread was obviously more aimed at those who discuss INTj vs INTp. If you really are divided between only those two types, I really don't think that discussing Reinin dichotomies in deep detail is going to be helpful.

7. yeah, I tend to suggest looking to Fe and Se for the answer when quadra is being decided, but I've found that a lot of people aren't sure of these preferences

8. Originally Posted by Joy
yeah, I tend to suggest looking to Fe and Se for the answer when quadra is being decided, but I've found that a lot of people aren't sure of these preferences
agreed wholly. personally, i would tend to say that i dislike Fe intensely, but i also have gotten into conflicts with IXFjs that want me to acknowledge them by saying "hello, how are you," which i won't do unless consciously about having to say it. Fi types have also criticized me for my lack of empathy or concern for their problems, which i could not generally conceive myself possessing.

there are times when i think that Se types could be very good for me by getting me to do stuff that i'm too lazy to do on my own, and where Se types' intiative has been useful (also where i've discussed plans with Se types and seem to have been able to help them), but there have also been times when i have perceived ESFps as being concerned with completely the wrong things and have been alienated by them.

with regards to Fe/Fi preference, i really detest Fe types, and it's extremely hard for me to see it as a dual seeking function. Fi, on the other hand, is not easy to envision as a super-ego function, although i can understand where it might be accurate as a hidden agenda. Se/Si preference is hard to determine as well because i see where Se could be a polr and i have no qualms with Si types (although this, i suppose, could also come from being a logical subtype INTp).

essentially, it is based on the fact that these criteria of Se/Si and Fe/Fi preference are insufficient that i find it useful to actively pursue detailed descriptions of Ni/Ne and Ti/Te, although, as my lack of results may demonstrate, that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

some descriptions of alpha values really alienate me, where others work fine. the same holds true for gamma. expat's recent post regarding gamma values being essentially anti-alpha values of somber seriousness, one-on-one relations, proactively oriented, etc. i identified with very well. but many other descriptions of gamma being boisterous, loud, and aggressive i find somewhat out of place.

similarly, the alpha descriptions directed towards alpha NTs seem ok in that alpha types are more concerned with theories and tossing around possibilities which may not have any real value. however, any descriptions relating to lighthearted, spontaneous fun activities do not apply at all.

9. Originally Posted by Expat
This thread was obviously more aimed at those who discuss INTj vs INTp. If you really are divided between only those two types, I really don't think that discussing Reinin dichotomies in deep detail is going to be helpful.
The problem for some of us, who are most likely either INTj or INTp, is that the quadras are not that helpful either. Personally I have found the Reinin dichotomies to be more helpful -- if they are reliable at all. Besides from that, I agree with your general attitude towards these things, especially when it comes to focussing on the functions. Those who are strongly opposed to this part:

Originally Posted by Expat
I think that getting deeper and deeper into precise descriptions of functions ... is not the way to go.
probably don't have in their Ego block.

(I just happened to see niffweed's latest post above, and I more or less agree with everything he says there -- especially about the quadras.)

10. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Rocky
Originally Posted by Expat
I think that getting deeper and deeper into precise descriptions of functions and dichotomies is not the way to go.
Why? I don't see how you can skip that step before moving on to other ones anyway.
This is why that is true. By being more aware of it you are getting further and further form it.

The transcendental relationship between object and subject states an object can never be the subject.
A special situation of this case is when an object is the subject. Even then the relation is true as only a part of the subject become the object.

What happens in that case is that the subject get's "objectified" in a infinite recursive loop.
The subject observes the object, itself and takes notes. This alters the subject a little bit.
By the next measurement the mere act of making the measurement from before has altered the object, ourselves.
By repeating the procedure ad infinitum produces a state where observation mathches the change induced.

Mathematically this can be described quite easily and accurately.

Let's say have the equation

The picture reads, we are "x", the object is "y" and interaction between us and the object is "2". (I put squared on the object because no interaction between anything is entirely nonexistent. I could've put any other power that is not 0)

To determine the us is simple. 2 minus the object is us.

We now take constant measurements to see if this is true

and indeed this relation never changes.

But if we were to take "y" as "x" then the situation drastically changes.

Lets say the initial condition is

now let's take measurements to see what happens

as we can see the initial condition has changed

We now continue with taking the measurements

And as time progresses we diverge from our initial condition.

The more you become the object the more you distance yourself from yourself.

So basically, in the end the method you choose to determining your type, the formula, is your type. Logical produces logical types, intuitive produces intuitive types, ethical ethical types and so on.

From the equation is obvious that any "y" that is "x" cannot give us the "x" we started with after continus observations unless we start from the right x all along.
This means that self assesment CATEGORICALY alters ourselves ALWAYS, therefore any type reached through self assesmnet is wrong.

The only way to determine ones type is through impartial means, that is, when the link between "y" and "x" necessarily pulls a power of zero in one of them, that is, the object and subject DO NOT alter each other.

This means that the only method to find out your true type is by having it done by somebody else who is impartial. (With expertise of course)

11. Does that make you feel smart, Sneg? :wink:

12. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
From the equation is obvious that any "y" that is "x" cannot give us the "x" we started with after continus observations unless we start from the right x all along.
This means that self assesment CATEGORICALY alters ourselves ALWAYS, therefore any type reached through self assesmnet is wrong.
Here there are some logical problems in the way you proceed.

1. Type is not necessarily a discrete point-like value: it could just as well be an interval
2. If 1. is true, then even if self-assesment alters self-perception, this does not mean that the result is necessarily wrong, but rather that we should try and see how much does it change self-perception in order to gauge whether a given subject is more or less qualified to assess himself
3. Your "therefore", if 1. and 2. are true, is therefore a non-sequitur.

13. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
From the equation is obvious that any "y" that is "x" cannot give us the "x" we started with after continus observations unless we start from the right x all along.
This means that self assesment CATEGORICALY alters ourselves ALWAYS, therefore any type reached through self assesmnet is wrong.
Here there are some logical problems in the way you proceed.

1. Type is not necessarily a discrete point-like value: it could just as well be an interval
2. If 1. is true, then even if self-assesment alters self-perception, this does not mean that the result is necessarily wrong, but rather that we should try and see how much does it change self-perception in order to gauge whether a given subject is more or less qualified to assess himself
3. Your "therefore", if 1. and 2. are true, is therefore a non-sequitur.
There's PLENTY more wrong with it than that, FDG...

14. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Gilligan
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
From the equation is obvious that any "y" that is "x" cannot give us the "x" we started with after continus observations unless we start from the right x all along.
This means that self assesment CATEGORICALY alters ourselves ALWAYS, therefore any type reached through self assesmnet is wrong.
Here there are some logical problems in the way you proceed.

1. Type is not necessarily a discrete point-like value: it could just as well be an interval
2. If 1. is true, then even if self-assesment alters self-perception, this does not mean that the result is necessarily wrong, but rather that we should try and see how much does it change self-perception in order to gauge whether a given subject is more or less qualified to assess himself
3. Your "therefore", if 1. and 2. are true, is therefore a non-sequitur.
There's PLENTY more wrong with it than that, FDG...
Yeah, but I couldn't really be bothered, obviously. I just tried to point out the biggest fallacy.

15. Originally Posted by Joy
according to this method, there would be a lot of people who never get typed beyond "Gamma" or "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extrovert"
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with this. In some cases, this may be as far as is necessary to go.

16. Originally Posted by Baby
Originally Posted by Joy
according to this method, there would be a lot of people who never get typed beyond "Gamma" or "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extrovert"
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with this. In some cases, this may be as far as is necessary to go.
Yeah, plus better someone gets typed to the point of "Gamma NT" and is CORRECT about it then take wild stabs here and there at various types and never get the right one.

17. I'm not sure if "necessary" is an applicable term when it comes to socionics... when is it necessary to type anyone?

18. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

now let's take measurements to see what happens

umm... sorry, no. without even considering any other possible fallacies for the argument here, you have x=2/(1+x). if x=.5 then you have .5=2/(1.5).

that is obviously impossible. no real or imaginary values would satisfy the relation for x.

i have no idea where you got your equations; you seemed to pull them out of thin air. as a result, you cannot assume that random equations correlate to socionics.

19. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Does that make you feel smart, Sneg? :wink:
No, but I do get a buz from the sudden realization, the "AHA!" thing.

Originally Posted by FDG
1. Type is not necessarily a discrete point-like value: it could just as well be an interval
The "x" is not a discrete point-like value, it's more like an apple.
My point is that to determine "x" we have to use "x" and anything other then a one-to-one correspondence will yield a different "x" from the initial one.

2. If 1. is true, then even if self-assesment alters self-perception, this does not mean that the result is necessarily wrong, but rather that we should try and see how much does it change self-perception in order to gauge whether a given subject is more or less qualified to assess himself
Actually, I made it on the spot and was in a hurry so I didn't really have any time to nicely present my idea.

Yes, well clearly the initial condition could be 1 and the result 1.0001, my point is that it is NOT 1 and for all I care it might as well be 178276383658.
An approximation is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Gilligan
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
From the equation is obvious that any "y" that is "x" cannot give us the "x" we started with after continus observations unless we start from the right x all along.
This means that self assesment CATEGORICALY alters ourselves ALWAYS, therefore any type reached through self assesmnet is wrong.
Here there are some logical problems in the way you proceed.

1. Type is not necessarily a discrete point-like value: it could just as well be an interval
2. If 1. is true, then even if self-assesment alters self-perception, this does not mean that the result is necessarily wrong, but rather that we should try and see how much does it change self-perception in order to gauge whether a given subject is more or less qualified to assess himself
3. Your "therefore", if 1. and 2. are true, is therefore a non-sequitur.
There's PLENTY more wrong with it than that, FDG...
Yeah, but I couldn't really be bothered, obviously. I just tried to point out the biggest fallacy.
Actually, if you could that would be nice because I could then eliminate those fallacies.

20. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by snegledmaca

now let's take measurements to see what happens

umm... sorry, no. without even considering any other possible fallacies for the argument here, you have x=2/(1+x). if x=.5 then you have .5=2/(1.5).

that is obviously impossible. no real or imaginary values would satisfy the relation for x.

i have no idea where you got your equations; you seemed to pull them out of thin air. as a result, you cannot assume that random equations correlate to socionics.
Actually that's a standard method of determining a solution to an equation using convergence.

I was in a hurry when I made that. I'll now attempt to refine it.

21. Originally Posted by Joy
I'm not sure if "necessary" is an applicable term when it comes to socionics... when is it necessary to type anyone?
I'm not sure you understood my use of the word "necessary."

22. ## Re: On typing yourself

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Actually that's a standard method of determining a solution to an equation using convergence.

I was in a hurry when I made that. I'll now attempt to refine it.
oh, i see what this is. i have only dabbled briefly on this method in an introductory computer science course and the notation was markedly different based on the way the pathetic program we used functioned.

23. It is an imperfect theory, at best. There are going to be A LOT of people who don't fit cleanly into any particular type, even when you attempt to use their other functions to explain their behavior.

24. Well, first of all, you're operating under the assumption that x is equivalent to both the self AND the type that is the desired end. And as we know, people are far more than types. So, what you're saying here, is that either a) a person of a "type" cannot determine any person of that "type" (which we know to be untrue), or b) a "person" cannot determine "itself" from "itself," which is explicit in observable reality.

That's just one basic assumption.

25. Originally Posted by Joy
It is an imperfect theory, at best. There are going to be A LOT of people who don't fit cleanly into any particular type, even when you attempt to use their other functions to explain their behavior.
Uh... if we take this into account, what, exactly, is wrong with:

Originally Posted by Joy
according to this method, there would be a lot of people who never get typed beyond "Gamma" or "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extrovert"
?

In the first post, you are accepting that there will be people who we cannot type past "Gamma NT" or "Gamma extravert." In the second, you imply that these people should attempt to fit inside a specific type-box down to the letter.

This is the point I was trying to make with my earlier post.

26. okay, gotcha

27. Let's take two human beings and start observing them. Naturally there is interaction between them.

My task now it to make an abstract model that totally describes this interaction.

Ok, let's isolate them from anything else as to prevent if from interfering with our observations. So we place them in a closed system.
In that closed system rules that govern closed systems apply. Summarized, energy cannot be created out of this air and any reaction cause an equal reaction and some others.

In our closed system a change in person "A" would necessarily induces a change in person "B". Let's call this change "information exchange".

Now we have two cases:

• when a change in person A induces a change in person B
• and when a change in person B induces a change in person A.

Let's describe this as:

• a flow of information from person A to person B
• and a flow of information from person B to person A

Let's now describe these two cases as
• f: A → B
• and f: B → A

if we now define "x" as a change of person A over time

• ΔA = x

And "y" as a change of person B over time

• ΔB = y

then we can write

• f: A → B = f (y, x)
• and f: B → A = f (x, y)

Let's now continue to observe this function over time.

In moment "Δt" we have a change in person A, or a flow of information from person A. In our closed system this has nowhere to go other then to our person B.
So in moment "Δt" we have a flow of information from person A to person B.

This can be written as:

• a change occurred in person A → ΔA = x ≠ 0
• a change occurred in person B → ΔB = y ≠ 0
• a change in person A causes a change in person B and they are equal → x = y

depending on the "x", or the change in person A, we determine "y", or the change in person B.

But being that we are observing people, who all by themselves are a system, this is not necessary true.

Let's review what we know.

This is a closed system so no change in person A means no change in person B. This means

• x = y = 0

it also means that both x and y are 0 so we can make the point (0, 0) the center of our coordinate system with an "x" and an "y" axis.

Also, being that we are in a closed system a change in a person A triggers a proportional change in person B, "x" and "y" are the same. Written this is

• ΔA ~ ΔB → x = y

Consider it like heat exchange, the amount of "heat" radiated from object A is the amount of "heat" absorbed by the object B, or the temperature change on object A or "x" is the same as the temperature change on object b or "y".

But, as I have mentioned, objects A and B are people and are systems themselves so there is an interaction between the two systems. So even though the "heat" radiated from first object will be the "heat" absorbed by the second, the temperature drop on the first object does not have to equal the temperature rise on the second.
For all we know some of that "heat" radiated from the first object has been used to break molecular bonds or make them in the second object. (Notice how the condition of the two people being systems all by themselves is necessary for a non linear change. If that were not the case all changes would always be linear)

Thus, we have

• f(ΔA) ~ g(ΔB) → f(x) = g(y)

Being that f(0) = g(0) it becomes truly simple as we just observe interactions between f(x) and g(y). Some cases:

1. f(x) = x^2
g(y) = y

2. f(x) = x^(1/2)
g(y) = y

3. f(x) = sin(x)
g(y) = y

4. and so on

Ok, let's take the case of determining one's type using this method. The person A is person B.

This means that

• f(ΔA) ~ g(ΔA) → f(x) = g(x)

So basically we have an equation

• f(x) = g(x)

and it is quite apparent that unlike the

• f(x) = g(y)

which forms a plane where one can determine the value of "x" in any moment "t" using the value of "y", in the first case one cannot.
In the first case the variable "x" is dependent only on itself and as time progresses converges to a solution of the equation "f(x) - g(x) = 0"

This is how it unfolds in real life.

We start observing ourselves and we observe in discrete time intervals.

In moment "t = 0" we observe the object. But because we are the object by making the measurement we have changed.
In moment "t = 1" we observe the object. Again, because we are the object by making the measurement we have changed.
In moment "t = 2" we observe the object. We change again.
In moment "t = 3" we observe the object. We change again.
…...
In moment "t = n" we observe the object. We change again.
.......
In moment "t = ∞" we observe the object. We either do not change again or we have entered a periodic regime or we are in a chaotical regime.

What happens is that in recursive functions over time attractors appear. (An attractor is something that attracts all the values of the recursion) These can be a single point, a periodic attractor or a chaotic attractor. An attractor is independent of the initial condition.

So by observing ourselves we diverge from where we were to a new location. If we end up where we started then we are lucky.

28. You're still operating under the same fallacious assumptions that I pointed out before.

29. Why did i just have this thought about the show Numb3rs? it comes on CBS...lol

30. Ok. Expat suggested that typing should be started from finding your Quadra. The suggestion was that it would be easier to start from Quadras than from functions. But then we need concrete ways to describe Quadras WITHOUT using functions (without questions like "do you like Fe for than Fi?"). Rick has some points in his site. I would like to get deeper into that. Can YOU contribute to this? Experiences or something.

For example how to reliably tell between Alpha and Beta? How to reliably tell between Beta and Gamma? How about Alpha and Gamma? Without referring to functions. Somehow I would think Delta is one of easiest Quadras to tell. I generally only mistake some ENFps for ESFps but other than that I think Delta is not too hard to type (IRL).

#### Posting Permissions

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