The Linguistic Analysis Game

[Jonathan]

Having tried something like the "apple" game in the Alpha forum (Ti ONLY thread), I have to concur that it's hard to get it to work online as intended (although interesting ideas were expressed). However, I've thought of an experiment I believe could be very interesting and educational online.

Here's how it works:

Let's analyze each other's writing from a Socionics perspective, and also discuss the appropriate techniques for linguistic analysis. What I'm thinking about goes beyond just typical Ti or Fi phrases or whatever, and beyond just mentioning one "main" function. I'm talking about the whole structure of the discourse...the grammar, the way the sentences go together, the thoughts expressed...all from a Socionics perspective. And again, not just "oh, that sounds Ti," but getting deeper into a complete model of the discourse. In addition, it would be interesting to discuss sound methods for linguistic analysis.

What I like in particular is that this doesn't need to be linked with statements about what type a person "is" (although why the discourse may appear to be different from what type we perceive a person "is" is in itself an interesting discussion we could get into).

Past discussions on type have gotten quite heated and less productive when they ran into the "I know myself better than you know me, and I'm this type" conundrum. But if we focus on linguistic analysis, we can be objective, pointing to specific structures in people's writing.

And it could be fun knowing that any comment that's analyzing someone else's discourse could also be analyzed as well.

For a starting point, analyze *this*.

Anyhow, let's see if anyone's willing to play...

[aestrivex]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

[Creepy-bg]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

obviously ESFp IM INFp exertion metabolism with a wing and subtype.

[aestrivex]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

obviously ESFp IM INFp exertion metabolism with a wing and subtype.

*blinks*




was there some sort of actual point to that?

[Logos]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

obviously ESFp IM INFp exertion metabolism with a wing and subtype.

*blinks*




was there some sort of actual point to that?

Probably, but I am not seeing it either.

[Creepy-bg]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

obviously ESFp IM INFp exertion metabolism with a wing and subtype.

*blinks*




was there some sort of actual point to that?

Probably, but I am not seeing it either.

has there ever been a point to something I've posted???

[aestrivex]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

obviously ESFp IM INFp exertion metabolism with a wing and subtype.

*blinks*




was there some sort of actual point to that?

Probably, but I am not seeing it either.

has there ever been a point to something I've posted???

probably.

[Jonathan]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?


how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

Everything we discuss on this forum and in Socionics in general assumes that people's behaviors, posts, mannerisms....even what people look like...may be a manifestation of type.

But on top of that, if you think of the definitions of the functions, they're all about structure and approaches to structure. And any discourse has structure, which means that it can be analyzed from a functional perspective.

Now, what you're doing, basically, is saying that nobody has handed you a method, therefore what's the point? That's like saying that you don't see a bridge across the river, so therefore it's impossible to build a bridge across the river. You're dismissing the idea before even starting...before even considering how it could be done.

[aestrivex]

Everything we discuss on this forum and in Socionics in general assumes that people's behaviors, posts, mannerisms....even what people look like...may be a manifestation of type.

But on top of that, if you think of the definitions of the functions, they're all about structure and approaches to structure. And any discourse has structure, which means that it can be analyzed from a functional perspective.

Now, what you're doing, basically, is saying that nobody has handed you a method, therefore what's the point? That's like saying that you don't see a bridge across the river, so therefore it's impossible to build a bridge across the river. You're dismissing the idea before even starting...before even considering how it could be done.

i think that its more along the lines that you can't build the bridge with clay; you need some solid material.

[Exodus]

Jonathan, you don't even understand basic Socionics. How can you possibly hope to add something new to it?

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you don't even understand basic Socionics.

And what have I said that gives you that impression?

How can you possibly hope to add something new to it?

Even if my understanding of the functions were an "incorrect" one, how is that relevant to being able to add something new?

Certainly there are people on this forum who have some interesting ideas, that possibly may lead somewhere; yet there isn't always widespread agreement that their theories are correct. One might use Tcaud as an example; I think there are good grounds to dispute some of what he has says, especially regarding functional definitions. So what? He may still be onto something in terms of some of his ideas.

Whether I have the answers regarding the best approach to linguistic analysis isn't even that relevant, as I was inviting people to offer their analyses.

All you're doing is stating that I'm "wrong" without even there being so much as a single statement to be wrong about.

[Jonathan]

i think that its more along the lines that you can't build the bridge with clay; you need some solid material.

If you're saying that there ought to be a specific method, I agree; it should be discussed. What did I say that suggested using anything less than adequate tools to do the job? But one has to start somewhere.

A number of people have done their own linguistic analysis of sorts in certain posts...among them Labcoat, Anndelise, and Tcaud. And Rick's "apple" thing requires a certain ability to tell whether what a person is saying is reflecting a particular function. Also, his site refers to a study on the information elements in which common phrases related to the functions were discussed. I would think it would be interesting to go beyond that, to get to structure. But at any rate, there clearly has been interest in this topic; I was just hoping to spark a serious discussion among people who are able to recognize the potential.

So, I don't know why what I'm proposing is being met with such reactions as if I were talking about UFOs or something.

[Exodus]

Jonathan, you don't even understand basic Socionics.

And what have I said that gives you that impression?

For one thing, you still believe that there are different and equally valid "schools" of Socionics on this forum.

Even if my understanding of the functions were an "incorrect" one, how is that relevant to being able to add something new?

You can't know if you're going in the right direction if you're starting in the wrong place.

I've already told you some of what I think about linguistic analysis as it relates to Socionics.

Certainly there are people on this forum who have some interesting ideas, that possibly may lead somewhere; yet there isn't always widespread agreement that their theories are correct. One might use Tcaud as an example; I think there are good grounds to dispute some of what he has says, especially regarding functional definitions. So what? He may still be onto something in terms of some of his ideas.

I'm all for interesting ideas. But there needs to be some Ti to complement the Ne, so to speak. As for tcaudilllg, IMO he has produced little insight in a year and a half of research.

Whether I have the answers regarding the best approach to linguistic analysis isn't even that relevant, as I was inviting people to offer their analyses.

Good point.

I think casual writing on the forum is hard to socionically analyze for its *content* (because there usually is so little), and although stylistic analysis is possible, it's probably asking too much at this point.

[Jonathan]

how would one go about analyzing the language and syntax of a particular user?

To answer specifically, the way I've seen people do it so far has been to try to determine if a particular block of language is referring to, for example, "external dynamics of fields," or "internal statics of objects," etc. I'm not sure that's the best way, but it's the way other people on the forum have approached it. As I mentioned, the key phrases approach, based on the study that Rick mentioned on his site, is another possible way.

I also think that in passages that are long enough, one might begin to see certain organizing principles at work. On a simplistic level, perhaps one might expect irrationals to have more digressions or rationals to "stay on point" more.

how does anyone's precise use of language relate to socionics at all?

Perhaps people are being thrown a bit by my description. Obviously, there are basic grammatical constructions that are simply part of the language that everyone uses. Using the word "the," or using nouns and verbs, is not going to say much about type. However, I have noticed that INTjs seem to use passive voice more often, so there may be tendencies regarding the use of language that relate to the types.

[FDG]

Hey. Let's make it that I am the one that has all the right answers, and you ask me, ok?

Both Johnathan and Hotelambush are right.

[Exodus]

However, I have noticed that INTjs seem to use passive voice more often, so there may be tendencies regarding the use of language that relate to the types.

That is an interesting observation.

[Jonathan]

Hey. Let's make it that I am the one that has all the right answers, and you ask me, ok?

Okay, great, you're hired! So how would you go about it?

BTW, "Hey. Let's..." and "and you ask me, ok" do seem like good examples of Se discourse. It's about confronting/addressing people directly, asking for certain actions, etc. This is very different from IN-- types who talk hypothetically or speak in the third person.

[Logos]

Jonathan, you don't even understand basic Socionics. How can you possibly hope to add something new to it?

It is possible to add something new to a system even if you do not necessarily intrinsically understand the system.

[Exodus]

Jonathan, you don't even understand basic Socionics. How can you possibly hope to add something new to it?

It is possible to add something new to a system even if you do not necessarily intrinsically understand the system.

If so, only by chance.

[Jonathan]

For one thing, you still believe that there are different and equally valid "schools" of Socionics on this forum.

Well, there clearly are different views and approaches, leading inevitably to differences of opinion on various people's types. I've called them "schools" sometimes because it's usually not just a difference of opinion on one thing, but usually a set of related things. There are differences of opinion on a whole range of topics....the role of Reinin dichotomies (Smilex and others find them essential; Dmitri is skeptical), the nature of the temperaments (some people view them as clearly observable, others do not), the nature of certain functions and how they manifest in behavior (there are some very different views of what Ti behavior looks like), and others.

However, I've never said they're all ultimately equally valid. I've only said that I can see and follow each side's reasoning in a given discussion. I'm not claiming to have all the answers; it seems to me that there are a lot of gray areas which sometimes other people fail to acknowledge. I'll admit that I don't have a perfect understanding of the evidence pro vs. con on each of these issues. But that's different from not knowing the basics of the model and how it's supposed to work.

In fact, I would say that someone who recognizes the limitiations of his constructs often actually knows more than the person who steadfastly proclaims to know everything and who isn't even aware of other possible views.

I've already told you some of what I think about linguistic analysis as it relates to Socionics.

You mean in the Ti ONLY thread? Or if it was elsewhere, I must have missed it, sorry.

I'm all for interesting ideas. But there needs to be some Ti to complement the Ne, so to speak. As for tcaudilllg, IMO he has produced little insight in a year and a half of research.

Tcaud is probably used as benchmark example of INTj more than any other person on the forum. That doesn't mean he is INTj of course; are you disputing his type? That would be interesting. Or, do you think he's INTj with weak Ti? Also interesting...

I think casual writing on the forum is hard to socionically analyze for its *content* (because there usually is so little), and although stylistic analysis is possible, it's probably asking too much at this point.

Well let's work together to elevate the level of the discussion then. But in any case, Socionic-linguistic analysis should work even for average folks having average conversations. What good is Socionics if it only applies to people at some rarified, hard-to-attain level?

[anndelise]

jonathon, i know what you are asking for, and i know i've done such in a couple of instances, but it's actually quite taxing for me to do so, so i've been avoiding it.

the others, what i don't understand is... if jonathon is asking people for input...you know, those who want to "play along" aka those who want to do this...how can asking for that input be "wrong"? You're giving him judgement calls and expecting him to accept your judgements. He's asking for input. Telling him he's asking for the wrong input is like telling someone that they don't need to look at the elephant to see that it's an elephant.

It's one thing if you don't want to contribute the input he's asking for, if you don't want to make the effort, or even if you don't believe in it. It's a whole other thing to tell him he's wrong for suggesting an activity and them telling him that the activity can't be done...despite others having done/attempted that very same activity.

It's called trying.
It's called "hey, let's see how/if this works".
It's called experimenting.
It's called curiosity.

[Slacker]

You might want to read this:

from Rick's site

I don't know if that's specifically the kind of thing you're talking about or not. It's interesting anyway.

[Jonathan]

You might want to read this:

from Rick's site

I don't know if that's specifically the kind of thing you're talking about or not. It's interesting anyway.

Yes, thanks...that's the article from Rick I was referring to above.

@Anndelise: Thanks, well put.

[Gilly]

Tcaud is probably used as benchmark example of INTj more than any other person on the forum.

I hope not. Psychotic crackpots with dellusions of grandeur shouldn't be taken seriously enough to be used as a model for anything (except, well, crackpots with dellusions of grandeur). I would say that labcoat seems like a typical healthy, stable, intelligent LII.

[Rick]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

[Park]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

in

[Creepy-bg]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

in

haha! Rick screwed a word up!

[Rick]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

in

haha! Rick screwed a word up!

No, it depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.

[tcaudilllg]

Tcaud is probably used as benchmark example of INTj more than any other person on the forum.

I hope not. Psychotic crackpots with dellusions of grandeur shouldn't be taken seriously enough to be used as a model for anything (except, well, crackpots with dellusions of grandeur).

You could not have possibly described yourself better.

Johnathan: I do it mostly on a sentence by sentence basis. Every sentence seems to serve one function or another, and the order of servicing always follows Model A.

[cracka]

So, what's goin on here? Do we write stories or somethin?

Or just ramble on and on about nothing since I can write an entire sentence that just keeps going and going and going and going like this and I don't ever have to type a period because it's such a long sentence that I don't even know how to end it like I should because I feel wierd about not using punctuation like periods within three or four lines of text and I had a baked potato last night with butter and it tasted very nice and tasty all at the same time because it was good and I like cheese like cheddar and provalone on my subway or quizno's sandwiches because I think it's awesome and I feel like I can just keep going by putting and on the end of every actual sentence that I write so from this day on i'm going to use and as a period because it's rad.
So, what were we talking about again?

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

Yeah, I guess you're right; I'm asking people to both try doing linguistic analysis, and to share ideas of how to do it, and I suppose that's confusing people. It would be obvious in a live, real-time situation that for this to work it would need to be much more rigid, but I thought that online, a more flexible format would work. I was just expecting people to start chiming in fearlessly with their own attempts, and then others would start critiquing those approaches, and it would lead to a discussion of which techniques work the best. But that ignores the fact that people aren't like that. What type would be most inclined to just start trying something naively with no rules...maybe SEE?

[Jonathan]

So, what's goin on here? Do we write stories or somethin?

Or just ramble on and on about nothing since I can write an entire sentence that just keeps going and going and going and going like this and I don't ever have to type a period because it's such a long sentence that I don't even know how to end it like I should because I feel wierd about not using punctuation like periods within three or four lines of text and I had a baked potato last night with butter and it tasted very nice and tasty all at the same time because it was good and I like cheese like cheddar and provalone on my subway or quizno's sandwiches because I think it's awesome and I feel like I can just keep going by putting and on the end of every actual sentence that I write so from this day on i'm going to use and as a period because it's rad.
So, what were we talking about again?

See, the way I look at this, the external structure appears completely amorphous, without either a clear point or emotional thread, so that eliminates Te and Fe. And because the sentence kind of rambles and digresses, it seems irrat. So the structure overall seems Ep.

I have no idea what type you are though. What's your view about your type (just out of curiosity)?

[Expat]

However, I've never said they're all ultimately equally valid. I've only said that I can see and follow each side's reasoning in a given discussion. I'm not claiming to have all the answers; it seems to me that there are a lot of gray areas which sometimes other people fail to acknowledge. I'll admit that I don't have a perfect understanding of the evidence pro vs. con on each of these issues. But that's different from not knowing the basics of the model and how it's supposed to work.

In fact, I would say that someone who recognizes the limitiations of his constructs often actually knows more than the person who steadfastly proclaims to know everything and who isn't even aware of other possible views.

It is difficult to disagree with the point made in the last sentence above; however, it's a false choice. After being aware of other possible views, and understanding them, you can still decide which of them corresponds best to reality. Open-mindedness is not necessarily the same as inability to make a decision.

[anndelise]

Jonathan, I think this sort of thing is a good idea, but you basically need to plan out everything yourself and present the exercise to everyone is a clear form. Otherwise people are going to share opinions about the idea but not actually do anything specific.

Yeah, I guess you're right; I'm asking people to both try doing linguistic analysis, and to share ideas of how to do it, and I suppose that's confusing people. It would be obvious in a live, real-time situation that for this to work it would need to be much more rigid, but I thought that online, a more flexible format would work. I was just expecting people to start chiming in fearlessly with their own attempts, and then others would start critiquing those approaches, and it would lead to a discussion of which techniques work the best. But that ignores the fact that people aren't like that. What type would be most inclined to just start trying something naively with no rules...maybe SEE?

I feel guilty now. (don't feel guilty about my feeling guilty, though, cuz then I'll feel guilty if you feel guilty that I'm feeling guilty. and the cycle will likely continue )

Perhaps if you had pasted in something your audience could actually analyze, as well as a couple of links of posts of different ways that some people on the forum have done this, the response might have been better?
It's too difficult, for me at least, to analyze your first post. It seems that it's easier for me when some kind of assertions or seeming-to-be-assertions are made. And it's those "assertions" which I'm trying to analyze. It's pretty hard to try to do a random sampler like your original post.

[Jonathan]

It is difficult to disagree with the point made in the last sentence above; however, it's a false choice. After being aware of other possible views, and understanding them, you can still decide which of them corresponds best to reality. Open-mindedness is not necessarily the same as inability to make a decision.

Obviously being biased by knowing people's self-report types, I still think this is a good example of rational Te structure. Notice how each phrase and sentence leads to the next in a logical progression.

Acknowledgement of some truth in the quoted comment -> introduction of the disagreement with it.
-> Explanation of what is wrong with the remark in question.
-> Encapsulation of the explanation into a pithy statement.

Notice the lack of digression, the focus on the object in question, and the use of phrases in a logical cause-effect style.

That's a very rough analysis, but I do think there's something there.

[Jonathan]

Perhaps if you had pasted in something your audience could actually analyze, as well as a couple of links of posts of different ways that some people on the forum have done this, the response might have been better?
It's too difficult, for me at least, to analyze your first post. It seems that it's easier for me when some kind of assertions or seeming-to-be-assertions are made. And it's those "assertions" which I'm trying to analyze. It's pretty hard to try to do a random sampler like your original post.

I believe my own writing is tougher to analyze than most. Perhaps we can refine my analysis of Expats, or analyze Cracka's, or yours.

It's interesting that it's easier for you to analyze the writing of someone making an assertion. In theory, any post of sufficient length where the person is being him- or herself should be just as easy to analyze. However, maybe you feel more motivation to analyze the writings of people who are making assertions, because somehow you have an underlying motivation to say to people in effect "what makes you so sure of that?"

[anndelise]

It's interesting that it's easier for you to analyze the writing of someone making an assertion. In theory, any post of sufficient length where the person is being him- or herself should be just as easy to analyze. However, maybe you feel more motivation to analyze the writings of people who are making assertions, because somehow you have an underlying motivation to say to people in effect "what makes you so sure of that?"

actually, i'm probably more motivated when i see what seems to be a blatant contradiction and I'm trying to figure it out (whether it really is a contradiction or not, and how a person can hold both thoughts/beliefs at the same time, etc). But really how often have i analyzed someone's writings? that one time with phaedrus when you ..what's the term....not dared but something like that..me to. One time with tc after he'd analyzed something but failed to give any reasons for his decision on which function was being used, and the most recently in a pm with fdg (which was posted in some thread) in which he was trying to give me examples of what i was trying to say and i was having to critique them to be sure they were legit examples.

Really though, unless something really stands out to me, I won't bother. Too much of a headache. (literally)

[Expat]

Yeah, I guess you're right; I'm asking people to both try doing linguistic analysis, and to share ideas of how to do it, and I suppose that's confusing people. It would be obvious in a live, real-time situation that for this to work it would need to be much more rigid, but I thought that online, a more flexible format would work. I was just expecting people to start chiming in fearlessly with their own attempts, and then others would start critiquing those approaches, and it would lead to a discussion of which techniques work the best. But that ignores the fact that people aren't like that. What type would be most inclined to just start trying something naively with no rules...maybe SEE?

Ok, this seems to be a typical and spontaneous sample of your writing.

It's difficult to ever get a firm statement out of your posts, unless you are trying to eliminate supposed misunderstandings ("I never said this, what I did say was that"). You seem to be thinking out loud, which often makes the impression (to me) that you're sort of keeping your options open, as if to make you able to say, "I was just thinking out loud"; as in a cop-out. Which perhaps is a sign of IP temperament; not sure.

What you describe above is a sort of "failed ", that is, you are describing how you had an idea of "if I do this, people will do that" and just realized that it has failed; although, you explain it not by people not being interested, but because they simply aren't like that. The flow was derailed by not properly focusing on information, which you realize.

[cracka]

So, what's goin on here? Do we write stories or somethin?

Or just ramble on and on about nothing since I can write an entire sentence that just keeps going and going and going and going like this and I don't ever have to type a period because it's such a long sentence that I don't even know how to end it like I should because I feel wierd about not using punctuation like periods within three or four lines of text and I had a baked potato last night with butter and it tasted very nice and tasty all at the same time because it was good and I like cheese like cheddar and provalone on my subway or quizno's sandwiches because I think it's awesome and I feel like I can just keep going by putting and on the end of every actual sentence that I write so from this day on i'm going to use and as a period because it's rad.
So, what were we talking about again?

See, the way I look at this, the external structure appears completely amorphous, without either a clear point or emotional thread, so that eliminates Te and Fe. And because the sentence kind of rambles and digresses, it seems irrat. So the structure overall seems Ep.

I have no idea what type you are though. What's your view about your type (just out of curiosity)?

estj, and if I really wrote like that all the time, I would have been ran off from this site a long time ago...lol

[Jonathan]

Ok, this seems to be a typical and spontaneous sample of your writing.

It's difficult to ever get a firm statement out of your posts, unless you are trying to eliminate supposed misunderstandings ("I never said this, what I did say was that"). You seem to be thinking out loud, which often makes the impression (to me) that you're sort of keeping your options open, as if to make you able to say, "I was just thinking out loud"; as in a cop-out. Which perhaps is a sign of IP temperament; not sure.

What you describe above is a sort of "failed ", that is, you are describing how you had an idea of "if I do this, people will do that" and just realized that it has failed; although, you explain it not by people not being interested, but because they simply aren't like that. The flow was derailed by not properly focusing on information, which you realize.

This seems to be more an effort at analyzing me than one of analyzing of the passage itself.

I don't see this thread as a some sort of big failure, by the way; I think even so far it's more interesting than the average thread, although we really haven't had many serious attempts at linguistic analysis. If I had the time to keep milking this, it would probably do better. Anyhow, in that post I was just acknowledging Rick's insight and observing that unless one's dealing with a very selected group of participants, people may not respond as intended to something as open-ended as this thread. Whether people are interested....well, it seems a few people are, but it all depends on who's reading.