ILI humorOriginally Posted by niffweed17
obviously the only plausible solution to such a conundrum is suicide.
ILI humor
obviously the only plausible solution to such a conundrum is suicide.
I understand the concern with these issues, but I think the methodology used by Oleg Khrulev for the Russian benchmark list is best. They had a lot of discussion on it. They had to live with the fact that the influence of different schools of socionists might be felt, that different socionists might consider each other incompetent, etc. But the end result is very informative and worthwhile. I think the same thing will apply here. The only difference is that their list was compiled from all available lists of celebrity typings, which implied a certain level of prominence in the socionics community, whereas here we are asking people to create lists of their own, which people in this community may not have put much thought into before and hence might be more influenced by others' views.I don't like that idea. It would artificially increase the homogeneity of the results.
Yeah, or you could just save each file in text format directly from the spreadsheet (Save As -> txt), which would accomplish the same thing as copying and pasting.* If there's a big response, it should be possible to create a macro that loops through all the results of speadsheets in a given directory, so no copying and pasting would be needed.
Everybody? I doubt there will be a widespread demand for this. Even if there is, people should consent to making their typings public first. Otherwise, if you have ideas about how to process the data, then we can consider them as a group.* In any case, if you make the raw results available somehow (e.g., post the spreadsheets in a directory that allows directory browing, or just name them in a way that anyone could download them all), then you can get the benefit of everybody's statistical analysis ideas and skills.
Thanks in advance for your help!
In theory I am fully in favor of this approach since the fastest way to learn to type people is to simply have the correct types pointed out and then start picking out similarities to other people, but in practise I remain skeptical. It is one thing to compare experimental results independently observed and another entirely to declare the majority opinion the scientific fact. In this kind of context the faith of Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift is often cited. Even when all the experts agree, they can all be wrong.
Reaction
In his work, Wegener presented a large amount of circumstantial evidence in support of continental drift, but he was unable to come up with a convincing mechanism. Thus, while his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England, the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1924, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. By the 1930's, Wegener's geological work was almost universally dismissed by the scientific community and remained obscure for some thirty years.
In the 1950s and 1960s, several developments in geology, notably evidence of seafloor spreading in the form of symmetric magnetic anomalies around mid-ocean ridges, led to the rapid resurrection of the continental drift hypothesis and its direct descendant, the theory of plate tectonics. Alfred Wegener was quickly recognized as a founding father of one of the major scientific revolutions of the 20th century.
Wegener
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Yeah, I agree with this, in general. Majorities or consensus don't make something right. Where I find Socionics benchmarks helpful is that they help clarify what the current position of the Socionics community is on how the functions are displayed in real life. Hence, one can have a somewhat stable picture of the current state of Socionics, which one can then agree or disagree with. Without such benchmarks, one has a moving target. Clearly, the Russian Socionics community has a very different view of the functions than other typologies based on Jung. I don't think that would be so evident if you didn't have historical typings.
I do think that having a Socionics benchmark project on this forum is a very interesting and useful experiment. Nevertheless, it still is unlikely to be quite as useful because here we're dealing with a more disparate community that has a number of competing views on how the functions manifest themselves in real life. On the other hand, at least would could see what sort of typings people come up with for famous people who are known in the West, whereas the Russian typologists tend to focus more on typing famous people in that part of the world.
humor? you think that was humor?ILI humor
obviously the only plausible solution to such a conundrum is suicide.
so.... uh, i would definitely do this much more productively if we were provided a list of people to investigate and type. rick, can you post some of the people you've typed and/or are looking at?
so.... uh, i would definitely do this much more productively if we were provided a list of people to investigate and type. rick, can you post some of the people you've typed and/or are looking at?
I'd recommend looking through the "What's My Type" section and seeing if you have a strong opinion on people there. Also, you can look at the people on my site and on Socionics.com, which will be included in the project as well.
I'd recommend looking through the "What's My Type" section and seeing if you have a strong opinion on people there. Also, you can look at the people on my site and on Socionics.com, which will be included in the project as well.
Three lists received so far. We need at least a dozen.
I think people are maybe uncertain about who to type - e.g. they see a list on socionics.com and don't really think to question a substantial proportion of them at once - maybe people should consider the types of their (top 5 or whatever) favourite musicians, actors, writers etc. in greater detail, while trying
I think this way you'll get rid of a reluctance to do the project (I might even do it myself, even though I've exams in a few weeks :wink: ).
I recommend going through old "What's My Type?" threads and recollecting all the people whose typing you participated in and had an opinion on. If people have no list of their own -- whether written or mental -- then it's best not to force oneself to suddenly start typing people for this project.I think people are maybe uncertain about who to type - e.g. they see a list on socionics.com and don't really think to question a substantial proportion of them at once - maybe people should consider the types of their (top 5 or whatever) favourite musicians, actors, writers etc. in greater detail, while trying
I think this way you'll get rid of a reluctance to do the project (I might even do it myself, even though I've exams in a few weeks :wink: ).
I've just noticed that for the most part nobody knows or is interrested in typing the people that I post here... and I'm not really interrested in or have even heard of 95% of the people that others post to type. I feel like I live on a different planet than most of you alot of the time
Time is running out...
We will extend the project till we get a minimum number of docs for it to be worthwhile (say, 10 or 12). We are close, so keep sending 'em in.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mine is ready, I will send it to you today. Please extend it at lest until then --
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Oh I don't know... deadlines are deadlines!Mine is ready, I will send it to you today. Please extend it at lest until then --
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
i'll get it in today, although what i've done so far has been very minimal in terms of historical figures.
uh... so what is the status of this project at this point?
We have 8 submissions. We need 10 minimum. However, if there's no response in the next week, we will go ahead with 8, but the resulting list may be very small.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The only people I've even considered typing are classical composers, but I haven't even had the chance to check much biographical information on them.
Has anyone even sent any typings in for classical composers?
By the way, letting people know which people have been typed (without saying what their types are) may be a way to inspire other people to send their forms in (i.e., if they have opinions about some of the same people).
That will be the inspiration for the second round. Maybe along with the benchmark list this time we will produce a list of all people typed, but with the list authors unknown.The only people I've even considered typing are classical composers, but I haven't even had the chance to check much biographical information on them.
Has anyone even sent any typings in for classical composers?
By the way, letting people know which people have been typed (without saying what their types are) may be a way to inspire other people to send their forms in (i.e., if they have opinions about some of the same people).
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Well, you and I at least will know who they are.Maybe along with the benchmark list this time we will produce a list of all people typed, but with the list authors unknown.
We could do convergence statistics on the lists (as in Khrulyov's project), though I don't know how meaningful it would be.
I am making a point of not looking at people's lists... but I have seen a couple typings... I feel like Clinton who said he "didn't inhale"
Well, you and I at least will know who they are.Maybe along with the benchmark list this time we will produce a list of all people typed, but with the list authors unknown.
We could do convergence statistics on the lists (as in Khrulyov's project), though I don't know how meaningful it would be.
I think convergence statistics will become meaningful after the benchmark list has grown to some X number of people. Obviously, if there's 5 people on it, convergence will become meaningless. Also, if the individual lists are too short, convergence will be meaningless (1 match out of 1 typing shared with the benchmark list = 100% convergence). So maybe, when the list grows to 20 people and the average number of shared typings (i.e. the number of people in the benchmark list who participants have typed) is 10, we can calculate convergences. Or, even better, thehotelambush can just tell us what the convergences are, and we will see whether they are meaningful or not.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
yeah; i put an extremely low number of famous people on my list, largely because i tried to do the list quickly and couldn't think of good people. additionally, my list has a number of authors whose books i've had to read for english class this year, in addition to a number of other people that are sufficiently obscure so that my list has very few actual celebrities or famous people who are actually widely known.
@ jonathan
are you familiar with harry partch?
I thought you meant we wouldn't know who contributed (obviously impossible).I am making a point of not looking at people's lists... but I have seen a couple typings... I feel like Clinton who said he "didn't inhale"
Well, you and I at least will know who they are.Maybe along with the benchmark list this time we will produce a list of all people typed, but with the list authors unknown.
We could do convergence statistics on the lists (as in Khrulyov's project), though I don't know how meaningful it would be.
As for seeing people's typings, I can't promise anything. I'll try my best not to look at them, but I may have to in the process of developing the program. Actually, I'll probably have to look just to make sure all the name variants are lining up right. If I don't, people would have to make pretty damn sure that everything is spelled correctly, etc.
Yeah.I think convergence statistics will become meaningful after the benchmark list has grown to some X number of people. Obviously, if there's 5 people on it, convergence will become meaningless. Also, if the individual lists are too short, convergence will be meaningless (1 match out of 1 typing shared with the benchmark list = 100% convergence). So maybe, when the list grows to 20 people and the average number of shared typings (i.e. the number of people in the benchmark list who participants have typed) is 10, we can calculate convergences. Or, even better, thehotelambush can just tell us what the convergences are, and we will see whether they are meaningful or not.
Oh well, before I sent the lists off to thehotelambush, I took a peek!
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
are those people mostly forum members or real people? it seems to me that we'd be infinitely more likely to converge on the types of people on this forum.
Most of the people on the resulting list will be famous people.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I forgot to answer you...sorry. Yeah, I know a little about him...that he was innovative and invented a number of unusual instruments. I don't really know his music well though. Do you like it?
I forgot to answer you...sorry. Yeah, I know a little about him...that he was innovative and invented a number of unusual instruments. I don't really know his music well though. Do you like it?
honestly, i don't know much about it, but my dad, who is a musician, has some specialization in partchian music, so i have developed a basic familiarity. it's really bizarre; nothing like any notion of music that you will ever have had previously.
i included him on my type list, although you're probably the only person on the forum that i would have figured to have a rather minimal chance to also have picked him, even though i did create a thread on his type a while back (which proceeded to garner about three replies).
You peeked?! I went to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing that...Oh well, before I sent the lists off to thehotelambush, I took a peek!
Sorry about taking so long, everybody. Here are the results.
With the same requirements that our Russian precedent used (at least 4 socionists, with at least 75% convergence), the results are rather poor:
Alpha
ILE: Albert Einstein
SEI: Bionicgoat
ESE: Bill Clinton
LII: tcaudilllg
Beta
SLE: FDG, Mike Tyson
LSI: Joseph Stalin, Rocky
Gamma
ILI: Jonathan
LIE: Expat
Delta
SLI: Harrison Ford
LSE: Arnold Schwarzenegger
However, if we loosen it up a bit (at least 3 socionists, at least 2/3 convergence), it starts to look impressive:
Alpha
ILE: Steven Spielberg, Stephen Hawking, Gilligan, Steve, Albert Einstein
SEI: Bionicgoat, Johnny Depp, George Lucas
ESE: Salma Hayek, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, cracka
LII: thehotelambush, Immanuel Kant, tcaudilllg, UDP
Beta
SLE: FDG, Herzy, Mike Tyson
IEI: XoX, Marilyn Monroe, ScarlettLux
EIE: Kristiina, David Bowie, Salvador Dali
LSI: Vladimir Putin, Rocky, Joseph Stalin
Gamma
SEE: Britney Spears, Sylvester Stallone, Elizabeth Taylor, Mikhail Gorbachev
ILI: Jon Stewart, Jonathan, Niels Bohr, Stanley Kubrick
LIE: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Expat
ESI: Diane Sawyer
Delta
IEE: Dioklecian, Slacker Mom, Rick
SLI: Harrison Ford
LSE: Arnold Schwarzenegger
EII: Abraham Lincoln, Richard Gere
I'm still not sure how much information I'm allowed to divulge (Rick?). We had 10 people participate, with a total of 864 people typed.
Some notes for the future, based on my experience with compiling the data:
Last name first, first name last is generally not a good idea. But don't worry about changing the ones already there; I made sure they were covered. Also, since I'm using Wikipedia to look up and standardize celebrities' names, use only ONE form of a name, no slashes or parentheses are necessary (including for forum members who have changed their names at one point or another). If you're not sure, look it up on Wikipedia yourself. Please spell things correctly (it's tcaudilllg).
It took a long time for me to get the list to this point; it started with exactly one name!* There may still be names left out, and I will update you guys here and here, where the results will be posted.
*Harrison Ford. I logged each run as I went along, if anyone is interested.
Great work. I think including two versions of the list (one with the loosened criteria) is a good idea. You can simply copy your message from the forum (not the edit page, but the final page) to the wiki page, and the rest of us will work on it.
I think the other 800 + typings should be kept confidential, but perhaps a simple list of all people who were typed (without the versions) could be made public in .txt format or something to encourage people to think about them and participate next time around (in a year?). Also, maybe you can provide rules for writing names of people in the future. The rules I established would have made it easiest for me to do it by hand as I expected to do.
Also, we will need to know alternative typings of the people in the benchmark list, like the Russian project did.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Alright, I'll get to compiling the list. As for celebrity names, just write them in their most common unambiguous form, and it should be fine. If they aren't in Wikipedia, it's not likely to matter. Forum members' usernames should be written exactly as they appear.
ok.Also, we will need to know alternative typings of the people in the benchmark list, like the Russian project did.
Are we going to publish the participants' names or their individual typings?
Most? But just because some of these forum names and celebrities appear on these do not mean that they will not be disupted, especially by those who are sensitive to the idea that the celebrities who may have once been in their quadra have shifted.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
i'm disappointed in you people. dioklecian an IEE?
it makes zero sense! absolutely none! you people just go on as mindless drones by what expat says.
Are you really convinced that Dio has strong Ti?
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...htm/issues.htmMost? But just because some of these forum names and celebrities appear on these do not mean that they will not be disupted, especially by those who are sensitive to the idea that the celebrities who may have once been in their quadra have shifted.
absolutely. i do not understand the IEE typing one iota.
dio does not act anything like any IEE i have ever seen. his complete incapacity to explain himself does NOT resemble IEEs that i know at all, who frequently act like typical Fi types and need Te to explain things thoroughly every step of the way. rather, dio's extreme Ti subjectivity comes out at every single typing he has ever made, and being a Ti system he has absolutely no desire to compare his findings to reality (again, very very different from IEEs, who are concerned with finding things but also with helping people and with personal relationships, which dio has not one clue about). i have no idea how this could be mistaken for lack of Ti. dio also takes every possible opportunity to show off his Fe dual seeking and need for emotional support. he has his own way of doing it, much like other LIIs i know.
Me or those who will actually contest the list?http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...htm/issues.htmMost? But just because some of these forum names and celebrities appear on these do not mean that they will not be disupted, especially by those who are sensitive to the idea that the celebrities who may have once been in their quadra have shifted.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
