How do YOU type people?

[Joy]

As for me, I look at whichever factors appear to be relevant (meaning something stands out and appears to be type related), including the overall concept being expressed in type descriptions, dichotomy descriptions, duality descriptions, function descriptions, and quadra descriptions. However, it's important to consider that different types do the same exact things for different reasons. For this reason, the primary characteristics/concepts which I use to type people are quadra values and temperaments.

To better explain how I view types and quadra values, I'll quote something I said in another thread:

My "model" consists of 8 "types", the rational and irrational dual pairs from each quadra. I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.

Any reference I make to type descriptions, dichotomy descriptions, duality descriptions, function descriptions, and quadra descriptions solely for the purposes of using that medium to communicate an overall concept, and I only intend for people to reference the overall concept of those descriptions in regards to what I am saying. (If one attempts to apply specific examples of type behavior, it is very easy to take what's written in descriptions out of context.)

[Joy]

As for me, I look at whichever factors appear to be relevant (meaning something stands out and appears to be type related), including the overall concept being expressed in type descriptions, dichotomy descriptions, duality descriptions, function descriptions, and quadra descriptions. However, it's important to consider that different types do the same exact things for different reasons. For this reason, the primary characteristics/concepts which I use to type people are quadra values and temperaments.

To better explain how I view types and quadra values, I'll quote something I said in another thread:

My "model" consists of 8 "types", the rational and irrational dual pairs from each quadra. I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.

Any reference I make to type descriptions, dichotomy descriptions, duality descriptions, function descriptions, and quadra descriptions solely for the purposes of using that medium to communicate an overall concept, and I only intend for people to reference the overall concept of those descriptions in regards to what I am saying. (If one attempts to apply specific examples of type behavior, it is very easy to take what's written in descriptions out of context.)

[aestrivex]

i look almost exclusively at temperament, behavior as it relates to functional tendencies, clear manifestations of functions, overall life outlook (probably less useful than the others, but i'm prejudiced toward its influence all the same) and whether or not the subject fits my conception of a particular type.

[aestrivex]

i look almost exclusively at temperament, behavior as it relates to functional tendencies, clear manifestations of functions, overall life outlook (probably less useful than the others, but i'm prejudiced toward its influence all the same) and whether or not the subject fits my conception of a particular type.

[KSpin]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

[KSpin]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

[aestrivex]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

[aestrivex]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

[Jarno]

1) By comparison meaning someones behaviour matches exactly with someone who's type you already know
(this only works when you have a big database of typed people in your head). FAST
2) Look at the whole picture. Sometimes a person is just a clear stereotype. FAST
3) Visual Identification (mostly as a first glance, or sometimes as backup). FAST
4) Figuring out the 4 dichotomys or keirsey's 4 temperaments. SLOW

In my beginning days i only used nr 4.
Nowadays nr 1, 2 and 3 are sufficient in most cases.

[Jarno]

1) By comparison meaning someones behaviour matches exactly with someone who's type you already know
(this only works when you have a big database of typed people in your head). FAST
2) Look at the whole picture. Sometimes a person is just a clear stereotype. FAST
3) Visual Identification (mostly as a first glance, or sometimes as backup). FAST
4) Figuring out the 4 dichotomys or keirsey's 4 temperaments. SLOW

In my beginning days i only used nr 4.
Nowadays nr 1, 2 and 3 are sufficient in most cases.

[KSpin]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

[KSpin]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I look at the emotions of people and see in what way they manifest themselves in a particular person - e.g. the way + reason they are being happy or sad, and how they deal with problems - e.g. do they moan to the nearest person, asl questions, speak out loud etc. I also think about what quadras\temperments\clubs they belong to, depending on the data available - I usually type someone as IxFp for example, then think about which quadra they might belong to. Sometimes, to type someone as IxFp is enough, as I have a general idea of what that person is like.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I look at the emotions of people and see in what way they manifest themselves in a particular person - e.g. the way + reason they are being happy or sad, and how they deal with problems - e.g. do they moan to the nearest person, asl questions, speak out loud etc. I also think about what quadras\temperments\clubs they belong to, depending on the data available - I usually type someone as IxFp for example, then think about which quadra they might belong to. Sometimes, to type someone as IxFp is enough, as I have a general idea of what that person is like.

[Joy]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J is in itself a HORRIBLE way to think of or determine types. Asking people will only provide you with confused answers.

[Joy]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J is in itself a HORRIBLE way to think of or determine types. Asking people will only provide you with confused answers.

[aestrivex]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J is in itself a HORRIBLE way to think of or determine types. Asking people will only provide you with confused answers.

what she said.

[aestrivex]

I ask them. Usually looking at each individual section one by one. Such as Introvert/Extrovert, then Sensing/Intuition.

that's an extremely poor way to go about anything type-related.

Reasoning?

E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J is in itself a HORRIBLE way to think of or determine types. Asking people will only provide you with confused answers.

what she said.

[KSpin]

I don't ask them directly, I'll ask questions to determine which they have preference for. I believe they have a very similar system on Socionics.com

[KSpin]

I don't ask them directly, I'll ask questions to determine which they have preference for. I believe they have a very similar system on Socionics.com

[aestrivex]

I don't ask them directly, I'll ask questions to determine which they have preference for. I believe they have a very similar system on Socionics.com

even worse

[aestrivex]

I don't ask them directly, I'll ask questions to determine which they have preference for. I believe they have a very similar system on Socionics.com

even worse

[KSpin]

I'll take your opinions under advisement but I'm afraid that I don't agree.

[KSpin]

I'll take your opinions under advisement but I'm afraid that I don't agree.

[Not A Communist Shill]

So am I - I'm extremely afraid.

[Not A Communist Shill]

So am I - I'm extremely afraid.

[BLauritson]

Back when I was into the whole MBTI thing, I typed people using the whole "E or I? T or F? etc." system. Now that I am something greater , and know the types of various acquaintances, I tend to use a mixture of VI by association and simply narrowing the type down in my head, based on my knowledge of the types and how that person corresponds to them. Oh, intertype relations. That's the other one I use to type people.

[BLauritson]

Back when I was into the whole MBTI thing, I typed people using the whole "E or I? T or F? etc." system. Now that I am something greater , and know the types of various acquaintances, I tend to use a mixture of VI by association and simply narrowing the type down in my head, based on my knowledge of the types and how that person corresponds to them. Oh, intertype relations. That's the other one I use to type people.

[machintruc]

4) Figuring out the 4 dichotomys or keirsey's 4 temperaments. SLOW

You can't assess a socionic type by assessing Keirsey's Temperaments, because they are not based on the same things than socionics.

For example, let's compare socionics and keirsevian T/F :

Socionics T/F = logical/ethical
Keirsey T/F = tough-minded/friendly

And I have a number of cases of tough-minded ethical types...

If you're using Keirsey's temperaments to assess socionic types, you're taking the risk to generate bogus typings and a bogus database, unless you are using your own (proprietary) socionic model, which would be compatible to Keirsey's temperaments. A few professional socionics actually do...

Keirsey's temperaments are not symmetrical, so they are not logical.

[machintruc]

4) Figuring out the 4 dichotomys or keirsey's 4 temperaments. SLOW

You can't assess a socionic type by assessing Keirsey's Temperaments, because they are not based on the same things than socionics.

For example, let's compare socionics and keirsevian T/F :

Socionics T/F = logical/ethical
Keirsey T/F = tough-minded/friendly

And I have a number of cases of tough-minded ethical types...

If you're using Keirsey's temperaments to assess socionic types, you're taking the risk to generate bogus typings and a bogus database, unless you are using your own (proprietary) socionic model, which would be compatible to Keirsey's temperaments. A few professional socionics actually do...

Keirsey's temperaments are not symmetrical, so they are not logical.

[Jarno]

I'll take your opinions under advisement but I'm afraid that I don't agree.

As in my first post in this topic, I would say it's a good choice of typing people using the four dichotomy's when you don't have a big database of already typed people in your head.

But the more experienced you get the more you would probably start to rely on the quicker methods.

[Jarno]

I'll take your opinions under advisement but I'm afraid that I don't agree.

As in my first post in this topic, I would say it's a good choice of typing people using the four dichotomy's when you don't have a big database of already typed people in your head.

But the more experienced you get the more you would probably start to rely on the quicker methods.

[Gilly]

- VI - Physical similarities to people I have typed (it's not really "Hey, x looks like y, they must be the same type;" it's based on movements, vocal intonations, expressions, and (in specific cases) facial resemblence.

- As Joy said, the "feel" of the type descriptions is very important. You have to realize that Socionics types signify a very distinct "kind" of person, and once you pick up a feel for type descriptions and can get at what they are essentially trying to convey, you can usually get at least one "point," as I call it, towards a type for any individual just by picking up their vibe.

- Functional breakdown of a person's behavior. Learning to recognize informational elements in peoples' speech and what they are apparently able to give to others and are open to receiving can allow you to type someone in a pretty short amount of time. This takes a complete understanding of the functions, how they manifest when blocked with another function, and how they operate in specific types and their respective blocks.

- Quadra "feel," like type, can lead to a easy "point" for one type over another when interacting with people. Notice how they interact with other people you've already typed for sure, and what they seem to like or dislike about the people around them.

- Intertype relations are important, but should probably be considered last of all these. It's really easy to type people by saying "Oh, they are best friends, they must be at least in the same quadra," or "they're married, so I'll see if duality works for them" (and, if you take this approach, it almost assuredly WILL work; unfortunately, selective thinking is apparently rampant in Socionics typing).

[Gilly]

- VI - Physical similarities to people I have typed (it's not really "Hey, x looks like y, they must be the same type;" it's based on movements, vocal intonations, expressions, and (in specific cases) facial resemblence.

- As Joy said, the "feel" of the type descriptions is very important. You have to realize that Socionics types signify a very distinct "kind" of person, and once you pick up a feel for type descriptions and can get at what they are essentially trying to convey, you can usually get at least one "point," as I call it, towards a type for any individual just by picking up their vibe.

- Functional breakdown of a person's behavior. Learning to recognize informational elements in peoples' speech and what they are apparently able to give to others and are open to receiving can allow you to type someone in a pretty short amount of time. This takes a complete understanding of the functions, how they manifest when blocked with another function, and how they operate in specific types and their respective blocks.

- Quadra "feel," like type, can lead to a easy "point" for one type over another when interacting with people. Notice how they interact with other people you've already typed for sure, and what they seem to like or dislike about the people around them.

- Intertype relations are important, but should probably be considered last of all these. It's really easy to type people by saying "Oh, they are best friends, they must be at least in the same quadra," or "they're married, so I'll see if duality works for them" (and, if you take this approach, it almost assuredly WILL work; unfortunately, selective thinking is apparently rampant in Socionics typing).

[Animal]

I do everything Gilly lists above, but mostly I just use myself as a litmus test - how smooth/strained are our interactions, and in what ways? It's flawed, but it's worked for me.

[Animal]

I do everything Gilly lists above, but mostly I just use myself as a litmus test - how smooth/strained are our interactions, and in what ways? It's flawed, but it's worked for me.

[machintruc]

I don't use VI, because VI doesn't work. VI has 70% correlation rate for each trait, which is insufficient for serious typing.

I use mainly observation for typing : dichotomies (Jung and Reinin), relative typing (calculating type with intertype relationships), direct element typing and direct full-type typing (taking types as "separate", like in enneagram).

[machintruc]

I don't use VI, because VI doesn't work. VI has 70% correlation rate for each trait, which is insufficient for serious typing.

I use mainly observation for typing : dichotomies (Jung and Reinin), relative typing (calculating type with intertype relationships), direct element typing and direct full-type typing (taking types as "separate", like in enneagram).

[Gilly]

[quote="machintruc"]I don't use VI, because VI doesn't work. VI has 70% correlation rate for each trait, which is insufficient for serious typing.[quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? What traits? Where the hell did you get these statistics? You are completely full of shit in my book as of this moment.

[Gilly]

[quote="machintruc"]I don't use VI, because VI doesn't work. VI has 70% correlation rate for each trait, which is insufficient for serious typing.[quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? What traits? Where the hell did you get these statistics? You are completely full of shit in my book as of this moment.