How NOT to type people

[Aylen]

Once you dig further beneath the surface, you find the inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory that makes typing with certainty impossible. It bothers me when I see people overconfident about their conclusions based on so little information. It perpetuates stereotypes and I often observe a type of bullying that occurs when someone claims to be a type that someone disagrees with. It leads to illogical claims, such as "you expressed(or have written about) emotion, therefore, you can't be a logical type." How is this suppose to help an individual come to a better understanding of themselves? One must assume that the individual has more information about themselves than the most skilled practitioner of typology. Any other assumption is just plain arrogance.

I completely agree that I know myself better than anyone else knows me. I have discovered things about myself through my interactions with other people and through therapy. It wasn't because the therapists knew me any better but they were able to coax me, over time, into revealing more about myself, and bringing buried memories to the surface, which led me to sudden epiphanies but more often slowly emerging insights outside of therapy. I have fired a therapist because he tried to label me PTSD and he was so wrong. We kind of argued about it. It was the disorder most frequently diagnosed at the time and I did my research. He also wanted to pray with me too which was totally inappropriate because it was not that kind of place. I allowed it because it made him feel better but I left soon after since I wasn't there for spiritual guidance and I don't expect to have religion forced on me when I want to talk to a professional about a problem. If I wanted to pray away my situation I would have gone to a church.

I have seen several therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists since early childhood and the interesting thing is they didn't even agree on diagnosis. I wrote them all down but can't even remember how many I was given, at the moment. The first was ADHD but that was thrown out by the next one and each new one would do the same with the last professionals diagnosis. Many times I sat and listened to their personal stories and problems through most of my session and gave them advice. I actually didn't mind though because I was able to get into their minds and see what made them tick. It gave me confidence.

I haven't needed therapy in awhile but one of my last therapists told me I was "an ethereal being". She said that she didn't think there was anything wrong with me. We became friends of sorts and we talked about stuff like MBTI and enneagram. We laughed more than anything during sessions and I told her about my inner imaginative world and she told me about her work and family. Then she had to leave and I was assigned a new therapist which I typed ESE. I had been here, on the forum, for awhile at that point and she just fit the type. She reminded me of my youngest sister in every way. I didn't even think about it. She was full of sunshine and she enjoyed our time together too. She said she scheduled me last because after a full day I always made her laugh and feel better. She said she didn't think anything was wrong with me either. I kind of miss them both.

I also believe that some people do not know anything about themselves. I don't know if it is due to type or an inability to introspect. I am thinking the latter since I believe anyone can learn to introspect. To some it just comes naturally.

[consentingadult]

I don't know if it is due to type or an inability to introspect. I am thinking the latter since I believe anyone can learn to introspect. To some it just comes naturally.

Even SLEs can come to introspection, usually forced to by life's hardships. If they're lucky, there's an IEI around when it happens...

[Aylen]

Even SLEs can come to introspection, usually forced to by life's hardships. If they're lucky, there's an IEI around when it happens...

I can attest to this.

[Jeremy8419]

Once you dig further beneath the surface, you find the inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory that makes typing with certainty impossible. It bothers me when I see people overconfident about their conclusions based on so little information. It perpetuates stereotypes and I often observe a type of bullying that occurs when someone claims to be a type that someone disagrees with. It leads to illogical claims, such as "you expressed(or have written about) emotion, therefore, you can't be a logical type." How is this suppose to help an individual come to a better understanding of themselves? One must assume that the individual has more information about themselves than the most skilled practitioner of typology. Any other assumption is just plain arrogance.

It's better to logic how one person, with all known information of them, is most certainly all types rather than a single type. That is, to take a viewpoint on the type of an individual, go backwards through the logic, and repeat for the various types. Then forming a framework between these various frameworks' existence.

Due to the inconsistencies and contradictions, although I have studied the logic, what I actually was studying was people's breaking of logic and reconstruction of it. By watching this expanding and collapsing and restructuring of logic, it's possible to see the unmoving aspects, and reach the source of what is, basically, an illness. So, although I studied typology and Socionics, what I was actually studying was the psychology behind typology and socionics, to find the illness which starts people investing into it.

Make sense? Hadn't attempted to describe it previously lol

[Skepsis]

It's better to logic how one person, with all known information of them, is most certainly all types rather than a single type. That is, to take a viewpoint on the type of an individual, go backwards through the logic, and repeat for the various types. Then forming a framework between these various frameworks' existence.

Due to the inconsistencies and contradictions, although I have studied the logic, what I actually was studying was people's breaking of logic and reconstruction of it. By watching this expanding and collapsing and restructuring of logic, it's possible to see the unmoving aspects, and reach the source of what is, basically, an illness. So, although I studied typology and Socionics, what I was actually studying was the psychology behind typology and socionics, to find the illness which starts people investing into it.

Make sense? Hadn't attempted to describe it previously lol

I don't think it is an illness so much as limitations. Either way, a broader perspective is a good cure !

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Oh wow you have "not-for-profit" status.

Did you have to file all the paperwork to claim that status? It seems like a pretty straight forward process. Or, do you mean you use that title because the money only goes toward funding your hobby and the proceeds go specifically toward hooking up with other people into socionics (and those "other WSS Services")? Neat way to fund your social life/hobbies, btw. I wish I had thought of it.

I now have a tax number for WSS that I had to register with HM Revenue & Customs. When it was just me taking interviews privately, I made a small profit. But now there are multiple people putting in their time on WSS, so it would be unfair for me to take profit from these endeavours. Instead, money is donated over Patreon and it goes to help WSS with meetups around the world in our 12 chapters and the support of a diagnostics website. T

I didn't say you should listen to MY advice. I said you should learn to take constructive criticism, which was an opinion, OR you can be a pompous dick about it and blame Fi polr, or some other cognitive affliction beyond your control. I don't care either way as I have made no investment in the future of you hobby. I have invested in my future and have some experience. Let's just say I don't have to form a not-for-profit to fund my hobbies/social life.

I don't recall blaming my vulnerable function. Instead, I have said that I do take constructive criticism. I simply reserve the right to decide what criticism is constructive and what is to not be taken seriously.

Another opinion is that I am not convinced that you are better at typing than the majority of forum members and I have seen quite a few videos. The way you choose to defend yourself against criticism is being noted by many and will play a part in whether or not they choose to take WSS seriously. If you don't take it seriously yourself why should anyone who might potentially donate to your "not for profit"?

Ok, the way I see it, I am at least better than those who do not provide rationales for their typing. Beyond that, if I have yet to convince you that I am better than most at typing, I doubt there is much I can do to convince you otherwise and I don't intend to try. I imagine that if my typing ability changes in a way that causes people I respect to say that I have 'improved', it will not be in the direction that you have come to imagine as being 'good typing'.

Also I didn't realize you were so well educated and working in the field of psychology. You must have so many clients and tons of experience working with all kinds of types. I wonder if it is hard to stay objective, stick to your training and keep socionics out of it...

I'm not working in the field of psychology yet. I am not a professional. Next year, I intend to be, assuming I don't fail my exams.

FTR, I never claimed to be a lot older than you. I just said I had some years on you. You sure know how to take a leap though. You are coming off like a pompous little know it all at this point so I will make sure not to engage you further so take my advice, this once, and don't engage me either. All the education in the world is not going to make up for the lack of experience you exhibit but go ahead see for yourself. I am not one to laugh and say, "I told you so." Really I'm not... seriously.

A few years on me is hardly a chronological gap that warrants claims of special wisdom. Either you are a lot older than me, or you are slightly older than me and don't have much more in the way of life experience.

Please don't bother to answer any of my questions as they are all rhetorical (I pretty much know what you will say) but if you feel you have to defend yourself against someone who is clearly not as qualified as you, go ahead but I am no longer interested in what you are selling.

The old 'rhetorical slap down' is not something I am inclined to play along to, as it is simply you being able to say whatever you want about me in a public space, while avoiding a rebuttal by setting the impression that any further response from me is futile and thus immature. It is an intellectually dishonest trick.

However, now that you have said you will not respond, that surely means you won't respond to this.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Worldview -> terms. Not the other way around. The structure and the terms placed into the structure are two different things.

You start with behaviors with others, and you dissect them. You then move to worldviews behind each, and you dissect them. You then move to reasons behind each, and you dissect them. You then move to terms, and you dissect them. Once you do all these things for various types of people in the general population, you may compare and contrast the parts of each level. Once you do this, you may translate effectively.

It's innate to me. Do you understand?

No, I don't. Sorry.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

This is comparing different concepts. This is comparing a priori principles with biological predispositions. A priori is a philosophical concept that pertains to epistemology. How can one have a priori discrete states? That seems like a contradiction of terms. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Typology is essentially an insertion of certain philosophical concepts into science that have little to do with the philosophy of science.

A baby doesn't have a preference until they have the experience. Most babies have a predisposition to sweet foods and its measurable and may very well be encoded in our DNA. But, a preference for sweet foods, and something more specific like preferring sweet peas over carrots is based on experience. In addition, this changes throughout one's life. One may prefer sweet foods as a baby and dislike them as an adult. This has nothing to do with a priori states. Genetic information is not a priori as it is generally understood.

What we do seem to agree on is an understanding that our brains process information and that it is different from person to person. I don't think most people would disagree with that. I think most typologists have it backwards though. The dominant function, and maybe the creative function, is just a very vague description of an overall personality type that likely consists of various traits that include information processing systems and corresponding behaviors, and not one specific function, or a priori state, that accounts for most of the information processing. Many of the other other cognitive functions are implied by the first two functions and are not really needed. Functions themselves aren't really needed, as they are descriptive in nature The overall type descriptions serve a similar purpose in that there is a high correlation between them and their theorized first three dichotomy preferences. For example, the INTp description fits well with introversion, the ability to think logically and abstractly, as does the INTj description. They have way more in common than they should based on socionics theory, and essentially master the same "functions" upon closer inspection. Anything more specific is quite subjective and open to interpretation. I'm obviously highly skeptical of "true types" that exist solely to serve as a confirmation bias of the theory.

I would say that a baby born with a "predisposition to sweet foods" has the preference for "sweet foods". There doesn't seem to be any necessity in the definition of 'preference' that requires it is founded on experience. We 'try things out' to see what we prefer. We don't 'try things out' to form new preferences. Even so, it is possible to test whether someone has a preference or not, and to later test to see if these preferences can exist earlier in a human's lifespan, and work back until infancy through careful experimentation. It is not beyond possibility.

[Aylen]

I now have a tax number for WSS that I had to register with HM Revenue & Customs. When it was just me taking interviews privately, I made a small profit. But now there are multiple people putting in their time on WSS, so it would be unfair for me to take profit from these endeavours. Instead, money is donated over Patreon and it goes to help WSS with meetups around the world in our 12 chapters and the support of a diagnostics website. T

I don't recall blaming my vulnerable function. Instead, I have said that I do take constructive criticism. I simply reserve the right to decide what criticism is constructive and what is to not be taken seriously.

Ok, the way I see it, I am at least better than those who do not provide rationales for their typing. Beyond that, if I have yet to convince you that I am better than most at typing, I doubt there is much I can do to convince you otherwise and I don't intend to try. I imagine that if my typing ability changes in a way that causes people I respect to say that I have 'improved', it will not be in the direction that you have come to imagine as being 'good typing'.

I'm not working in the field of psychology yet. I am not a professional. Next year, I intend to be, assuming I don't fail my exams.

A few years on me is hardly a chronological gap that warrants claims of special wisdom. Either you are a lot older than me, or you are slightly older than me and don't have much more in the way of life experience.

The old 'rhetorical slap down' is not something I am inclined to play along to, as it is simply you being able to say whatever you want about me in a public space, while avoiding a rebuttal by setting the impression that any further response from me is futile and thus immature. It is an intellectually dishonest trick.

However, now that you have said you will not respond, that surely means you won't respond to this.

I knew you would respond. I wouldn't take a "rhetorical slap down" either. I was just setting some boundaries to let you know I don't like being talked down to in the way I perceived you to be talking down to me. Teasing is fine. You insulting my intelligence and experience level felt overly dismissive as a response since I started off just playfully poking at you a bit and sincerely suggesting that your perception could change in a few years, as you gain experience. Although I do believe retyping someone (EIE with a grudge) during a disagreement, on this theory, is dishonest. I don't like seeing anyone do that but your typing ability is something you rely on to further the WSS mission. It made me wonder if you can remain objective when video typing, especially if someone rubbed you the wrong way.

Just so you know I consider a lot older to be 20 years or so. Slightly is a couple years. I am not sure of your age so it was a guesstimate that I had a few years on you. My defense is sarcasm and over emphasis of Fe when I feel like someone is not taking me seriously or I just bite, hard, if the sarcasm and Fe doesn't work.

Thanks for responding. I hope you don't fail your exams.

Edit: One other thing, I don't have a strong belief in what constitutes a "good typing". I think it is a subjective thing and I personally prefer to do it intuitively but now and then I try to explain correlations that I see between socionics, the way they express themselves and even all these fun quiz results on various theories/subjects. I don't naturally see people as a "type". I just observe and make mental notes until I have enough information to form an opinion one way or another. Most of the time I don't even attempt to form an opinion on people's type, unless asked. It would require too much energy. I am also likely to trust someone whose opinion I respected, over some random person on the internet that I have not formed any connection with. Over time I may see your typing differently. I don't leave this interaction with JOA is bad at typing. I leave with the idea that JOA is a student, interested in psychology, who hopes not to fail out of his exams. JOA is just human and not always a pompous dick. I am not going to apologize for what I felt in the moment. I just don't feel that irritation with you anymore.

[Jeremy8419]

No, I don't. Sorry.

You may want to stick with investing most of your efforts in advertisement, publicity, and gaining members, and not investing your efforts in the development of Socionics.

[Skepsis]

I would say that a baby born with a "predisposition to sweet foods" has the preference for "sweet foods". There doesn't seem to be any necessity in the definition of 'preference' that requires it is founded on experience. We 'try things out' to see what we prefer. We don't 'try things out' to form new preferences. Even so, it is possible to test whether someone has a preference or not, and to later test to see if these preferences can exist earlier in a human's lifespan, and work back until infancy through careful experimentation. It is not beyond possibility.

Then you are changing the meaning of the word preference. A predisposition, and I am referring to a genetic predisposition here, is probabilistic in nature. Preference is more certain and is discernible during and after a sensory experience. While a baby may have genes that make them more likely to enjoy sweet foods, you will never know unless you get them to try sweet foods. All that is possible is to measure the correlation between the two, which is not absolute.

[consentingadult]

Ok, the way I see it, I am at least better than those who do not provide rationales for their typing.

Flawed logic: providing rationales don't necessarily make you better, it might actually make you worse. However, you are not providing rationales, you are only providing rationalizations.

But you know what? If suckers buy into this crap of yours instead of checking your methods, I have no problem with them wasting their money on you. There can never be enough suckers in the world, they keep the economy alive.

South Park: The Biggest Douche In The Universe

[Jeremy8419]

Flawed logic: providing rationales don't necessarily make you better, it might actually make you worse. However, you are not providing rationales, you are only providing rationalizations.

But you know what? If suckers buy into this crap of yours instead of checking your methods, I have no problem with them wasting their money on you. There can never be enough suckers in the world, they keep the economy alive.

South Park: The Biggest Douche In The Universe

Most of those people should spend their money going get counseling lol

[consentingadult]

Most of those people should spend their money going get counseling lol

Problem is that there are many counselors who are selling a lot of BS as well, as Aylen demonstrated. It is easy to find a counselor that says what you want to hear, and difficult to find one that helps you to understand that life is complicated, hard and that there are no shortcuts. But that's exactly what most people seeking help are really in need of.

[Jeremy8419]

Problem is that there are many counselors who are selling a lot of BS as well, as Aylen demonstrated. It is easy to find a counselor that says what you want to hear, and difficult to find one that helps you to understand that life is complicated, hard and that there are no shortcuts. But that's exactly what most people seeking help are really in need of.

Sounds like the people don't want help, then. You can't force help, unless you're in a position to do so; e.g., parents.

[ashlesha]

@Jack Oliver Aaron your reasoning and temperateness in the face of a lot of opposition on the forum make me think I haven't given you enough credit. I think the thing is, at least as far as I'm concerned, people are skeptical about the standardization and applicability of socionics based on years of experience seeing people being typed different things based on equally compelling information and analysis, debates about typings and concepts that go nowhere and seem to have nowhere to go, etc...so what you're advocating flies in the face of everything that is completely obvious to some people because we've seen it for ourselves with our own two eyes. essentially its a dubious promise about potential future prospects that contradicts all previous evidence.

even assuming there literally were such thing as a person's base function, and a standard idea of what functions consisted of, and everybody had a generally similar idea about typing methods (and we are a long ways from that), locating it would still require sifting through at least the following layers:

base function > thoughts/feelings/assumptions stemming from base function > cultural/external influences > reported self-perception and its accuracy > observed outward behavior (limited in scope) > observer's perception of outward behavior > observer's interpretation of the motivations behind outward behavior > observer's cultural/external influences and awareness of their influence > observer's bias about the subject and awareness of such > observer's inclination to believe subject's self-perception > (and I'm sure I'm leaving things out, including the influence of type related differences in perception, if applicable)

and then even just communicating all of these observations for the sake of shared understanding and application becomes tedious and confusing. for example, like earlier in the thread, a person reacting negatively to having their feelings dismissed vs. a person reactive negatively to being told to calm down their emotions. somebody could easily read that 'beta NFs react negatively to being told to calm down' and infer the following things: beta NFs react negatively to having their emotions ignored, non-beta NFs are fine with having their emotions ignored, if someone becomes stoic and impassive after being told to calm down they must not be beta NF, betas never tell others to calm down, etc., and all of these inferred assumptions could take on a life of their own and become propagated. also, what if the 'calm down' is implied in couched language, and two observers interpret the message differently? it seems like a huge hurdle just to be able to communicate these concepts to others (even assuming they were uniform to begin with) with the clarity and specificity needed to avoid confusion.

[marooned]

Flawed logic: providing rationales don't necessarily make you better, it might actually make you worse. However, you are not providing rationales, you are only providing rationalizations.

saying why we type someone a certain type, imo, is almost always better than just being like IEE! and not giving anything. that leaves us perpetually stuck at square one.

[Aylen]

Problem is that there are many counselors who are selling a lot of BS as well, as Aylen demonstrated. It is easy to find a counselor that says what you want to hear, and difficult to find one that helps you to understand that life is complicated, hard and that there are no shortcuts. But that's exactly what most people seeking help are really in need of.

Finding a good professional when you want psychological help is like spinning a roulette wheel. You just gotta keep spinning until you find the right fit. I am not knocking therapy because I have been lucky to talk to some really wonderful and dedicated true professionals. I have also met more than my share of freaks.

When I was 19 I had a male therapist who would lead me into talking about my sex life, then proceed to ask me to talk dirty to him as part of my "therapy". He was attractive and not that much older than me, that it scared me, so being young and naive I went along with it, (I was getting something out of it too) until I got scared when he started sitting too close to me. I felt it was my fault by going along with it and I didn't know how to get out. Lots of mixed feelings. I refused to make an issue of it legally because of my participation plus I had developed a crush on him. I had started to manipulate him too and felt like I had done something that made him break his oath to do no harm. My parents let me make my own choice on how to handle it. I think parents should thoroughly check out who is treating their children and be a part of it whenever possible. I wouldn't dump my child on a therapist for this reason. Granted I was a woman, sort of, but still it could happen with younger teens and even children.

The guy who wanted me to pray with him told me I was deluded and tricked by demons and he wasn't speaking metaphorically. Not in the beginning though. The first time he suggested it, I was truly shocked and allowed him to hold my hands and pray for me. I left feeling violated tbh, more than I ever felt from the therapist who wanted dirty talk. I also felt like he needed to do that because of the mentality he had of being christian first. It was at a highly respected mental health clinic where I had previously seen a really good female psychologist but she was promoted and he was her replacement. I think I stayed so long because he presented himself as a fatherly figure to me and I didn't want to hurt his feelings. :/

He was an older man (60s) and I am pretty sure a fundamentalist, christian, ILE. He appeared to be kind and almost gentle at first (like many therapists) until I started disagreeing with him. He knew I had a traumatic childhood history with christians, from my records, (I was not there for anything related to religion) yet he started insisting I needed to find god again and the devil had a hold on me. This was over a period of a couple months, after he had my trust.

If I hadn't finally spoken up and directly discussed my previously being christian (which I think was what he was most curious about) I don't think he would have turned on me like he did. He turned into a warrior trying to win me back for Jesus and it was one of the weirdest experiences I ever had in therapy. He went with the PTSD diagnosis as the reason for me discarding religion. He didn't say that directly but I knew it. He directly told me that all my confusion and problems since were due to turning my back on god. I argued that my situation didn't warrant that kind of diagnosis since I had not been to war or experienced very extreme sensory trauma . It was a mess because he just totally went crazy on me, imo, when I didn't just give in and accept his sagely knowledge. So yeah... Thankfully I have met some sane people along the path. It's pretty bad when the client is saner than the professional.

[consentingadult]

saying why we type someone a certain type, imo, is almost always better than just being like IEE! and not giving anything. that leaves us perpetually stuck at square one.

Something tells me you actually didn't read the whole thread.

[marooned]

really my only thoughts regarding the video in the OP are that i am not sure what type this person is. i am not really very convinced by her being beta because she needs people to meet her in the place of her feelings (or however it was said). although i do think that the overall trend for Fe types (especially beta) is that there is often a working out of emotional issues and tangles through direct expression of those emotions to one another - a seeking or appreciation of being confronted on those feelings so as to "work them out." this is after all one of the things Ti does for Fe. it helps by providing a clear and unbiased "analysis" to better organize the emotional content - to unscramble it - and help balance it so one directs one's upset where it belongs. that way one can act with clear purpose and direction with the emotional impetus for doing so backing what it should and in the proper proportions. so yes, i see beta as being a quadra where heated emotional exchanges and arguing are primary means by which to work through feelings. (beta being the most "emo" quadra overall.)

unfortunately, people in all 4 quadras may work through some of their feelings in this manner when Fe is running on hot, as it were. it's just that Fe tends to make fewer appearances out in the open like this in the Fi valuing quadras, and alpha is less fond of direct confrontation or putting psychological pressure on others to force emotional resolution.

so although i agree with the idea i suppose of "meeting in the place of one's feelings" being something quintessentially beta in terms of how beta deals with Fe, the mechanism is not exclusive to beta. it is a human mechanism that just comes out more frequently with beta.

i am hesitant to take the leap to saying that Fi types primarily do not use such a mechanism - rather than cry and shout openly together, a serious (and comparatively dry) discussion takes place, followed by each party going off to handle his/her emotions in private.

[Jeremy8419]

Finding a good professional when you want psychological help is like spinning a roulette wheel. You just gotta keep spinning until you find the right fit. I am not knocking therapy because I have been lucky to talk to some really wonderful and dedicated true professionals. I have also met more than my share of freaks.

When I was 19 I had a male therapist who would lead me into talking about my sex life, then proceed to ask me to talk dirty to him as part of my "therapy". He was attractive and not that much older than me, that it scared me, so being young and naive I went along with it, (I was getting something out of it too) until I got scared when he started sitting too close to me. I felt it was my fault by going along with it and I didn't know how to get out. Lots of mixed feelings. I refused to make an issue of it legally because of my participation plus I had developed a crush on him. I had started to manipulate him too and felt like I had done something that made him break his oath to do no harm. My parents let me make my own choice on how to handle it. I think parents should thoroughly check out who is treating their children and be a part of it whenever possible. I wouldn't dump my child on therapist for this reason. Granted I was a woman, sort of, but still it could happen with younger teens and even children.

The guy who wanted me to pray with him told me I was deluded and tricked by demons and he wasn't speaking metaphorically. Not in the beginning through. The first time he suggested it, I was truly shocked and allowed him to hold my hands and pray for me. I left feeling violated tbh, more than I ever felt from the therapist who wanted dirty talk. I also felt like he needed to do that because of the mentality he had of being christian first. It was at a highly respected mental health clinic where I had previously seen a really good female psychologist but she was promoted and he was her replacement. I think I stayed so long because he presented himself as a fatherly figure to me and I didn't want to hurt his feelings. :/

He was an older man (60s) and I am pretty sure a fundamentalist, christian, ILE. He appeared to be kind and almost gentle at first (like many therapists) until I started disagreeing with him. He knew I had a traumatic childhood history with christians, from my records, (I was not there for anything related to religion) yet he started insisting I needed to find god again and the devil had a hold on me. This was over a period of a couple months, after he had my trust.

If I hadn't finally spoke up and directly discussed my previously being christian (which I think was what he was most curious about) I don't think he would have turned on me like he did. He turned into a warrior trying to win me back for Jesus and it was one of the weirdest experiences I ever had in therapy. He went with the PTSD diagnosis as the reason for me discarding religion. He didn't say that directly but I knew it. He directly told me that all my confusion and problems since were due to turning my back on god. I argued that my situation didn't warrant that kind of diagnosis since I had not been to war or experience very extreme sensory trauma . It was a mess because he just totally went crazy on me, imo, when I didn't just given in and accept his sagely knowledge. So yeah... Thankfully I have met some sane people along the path. It's pretty bad when the client is saner than the professional.

Awww, wtf... I was totally expecting the second paragraph to go somewhere more interesting... /kicks a can

[marooned]

Something tells me you actually didn't read the whole thread.

nah. i've read most of it. what is it you wish for me to re-read?

[consentingadult]

nah. i've read most of it. what is it you wish for me to re-read?

The parts where I provide a rationale for why I do not provide an explanation for my typing (FTR in the 10 years I have been on this forum, I have hardly ever typed anyone), and the rationale for keeping one's mouth shut if one does not have enough knowledge and/or experience to make warranted claims.

[marooned]

The parts where I provide a rationale for why I do not provide an explanation for my typing (FTR in the 10 years I have been on this forum, I have hardly ever typed anyone), and the rationale for keeping one's mouth shut if one does not have enough knowledge and/or experience to make warranted claims.

i still think providing an explanation is more valuable than not providing one - i disagree with your ethereal hands-off approach. you seem to want to frame matters so no one can ever sufficiently defend a typing and i can't be for that because it means we can't advance (although we can grow our own individualized understandings alone - which, let me tell you about how convoluted mine has become . . .)

also, if you mean to ask me to keep my mouth shut because you deem me to not have enough knowledge or experience, then i think you're being kind of arrogant - as the only things i lack to make such claims about myself are sufficient confidence and delusions of grandeur. (if you don't mean to, then disregard!)

[Aylen]

Awww, wtf... I was totally expecting the second paragraph to go somewhere more interesting... /kicks a can

You would.

[consentingadult]

i still think providing an explanation is more valuable than not providing one - i disagree with your ethereal hands-off approach. you seem to want to frame matters so no one can ever sufficiently defend a typing and i can't be for that because it means we can't advance (although we can grow our own individualized understandings alone - which, let me tell you about how convoluted mine has become . . .)

No, it is nonsense. Sometimes it is a lot wiser to sit back, listen and learn instead of already expressing an opinion as if it were a final conclusion. Granted, in this fact free age apparently everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.

also, if you mean to ask me to keep my mouth shut because you deem me to not have enough knowledge or experience, then i think you're being kind of arrogant - as the only things i lack to make such claims about myself are sufficient confidence and delusions of grandeur. (if you don't mean to, then disregard!)

No, I did not mean that. If I meant you personally, I would have used the word "you" instead of the word "one". In this particular case, "one" refers to people like Jack Oliver Aaron. Perhaps you are such a person as well, but as far as I know, I do not know you at all.

[marooned]

No, it is nonsense. Sometimes it is a lot wiser to sit back, listen and learn instead of already expressing an opinion as if it were a final conclusion. Granted, in this fact free age apparently everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.

i see the WSS typings as conclusions from what information there was (often the interview video) following certain methods with explanations given. to me, this approach is too transparent to be terribly concerning - it can be challenged on its own grounds because it is so transparent. i don't detect a threat in it. of course not all the typings will be "true" or "accurate" not even by their own methods (unfortunately that's just how typology works).

i'm more threatened by typing methods that don't show some sort of basis because to me that means the process of typing can be completely overrun by ones own personal biases, misunderstandings, and idiosyncrasies. there is nothing to challenge because there is no explanation given other than "i see it." people forming cliques based on that kind of typing is something i'd find quite threatening (battle typing for reasons of social competition).

with purely VI typings sometimes an explanation is given regarding physical features - without saying why a particular set of features corresponds to a particular type or why there would be such neat obvious correlations between physical features and type. (i'm not mentioning the VI typings off of vibe and impression exactly in this because the physical features sort was more extreme and i was going for extreme.)

--

also, for like preferring to sit back and wait, you sure had an opinion about the girl in the video in the OP: IEE. i could call it a "final conclusion."

if you are against typing people by and large, it seems you would take issue with just about anyone trying to draw a typing conclusion. it's an overly cautious approach perhaps, and one by which we may not draw many conclusions at all. so what good is it? (although admittedly, i do something similar - i wait.)

[ashlesha]

i see the WSS typings as conclusions from what information there was (often the interview video) following certain methods with explanations given. to me, this approach is too transparent to be terribly concerning - it can be challenged on its own grounds because it is so transparent. i don't detect a threat in it. of course not all the typings will be "true" or "accurate" not even by their own methods (unfortunately that's just how typology works).

i'm more threatened by typing methods that don't show some sort of basis because to me that means the process of typing can be completely overrun by ones own personal biases, misunderstandings, and idiosyncrasies. there is nothing to challenge because there is no explanation given other than "i see it." people forming cliques based on that kind of typing is something i'd find quite threatening (battle typing for reasons of social competition).

do you find cliques formed on the basis of WSS-style typings to be less threatening? to me, they are more threatening because i think the typings are lent more legitimacy than they are in a lot of casual 16t typings for instance, and the opinions of people/behaviors towards people based on them are considered to have a more solid and irrefutable basis ie ostracism is justifiable when you're using a 'scientific' method to determine who deserves it.

[marooned]

do you find cliques formed on the basis of WSS-style typings to be less threatening?

currently, yes.

but personally, it is threatening to me when i'm put in a box that i don't agree with because i don't think the one(s) assigning me that box even understand or see me or see which things might be most relevant. it's troublesome when someone forms an impression early on and can only see that impression of me from then on, while not really seeing me at all. to then back a typing of me with a bunch of justifications that i can't argue around because they will all be turned back in my face to support this impression that isn't even me... that is a pretty threatening prospect (if my sense of identity is overly involved in this). it can be socially threatening too if typing cliques are formed, because now i've been assigned a social position/role as well as a confining and unfitting definition.

however, the very threat in this could be transformed into something that only helps reaffirm my sense of identity if i find the typing enough of a match - in which case, i wouldn't have a huge issue with it unless i still feel largely misunderstood (as though i only look like something more on the surface but am not really it - a fake). i guess by placing too much emphasis on typology when it comes to my identity i create a situation where i can be upset about what i am typed, or validated by it. this sounds like only liking the mechanism then when it serves my ego while scorning it when it doesn't.

that aside, i find methods with examples (something transparent) less threatening socially even if there's a potential it could threaten my sense of identity. as i said, it's because it can be challenged more directly (or at least it appears as though it can). even if there are still some ways in which the "typologist" didn't show their hand and there's a hidden bias or two at play, some explanation is usually better than none at all. and you can argue that this explanation doesn't wholly account for the typing if you like (and suggest there are biases at play). the point is you now have a window into the "why" and "how" of the typing. this makes further and more specific communication more possible (and that opens the potential for further growth or development of one's understanding).

i guess what we often do on the forum now seems the least socially threatening? we seem to make loose little suggestions and back off - tip toe around type? even larger arguments seem to fizzle back into some no man's land where we don't really know what type anyone is anyway or if this isn't all bullshit anyhow... the forum has felt more threatening to me in the past and for some reason it feels more open now than it did before i came back. maybe i've become too accustomed to it since i spend all my time in the shout box.

[Jeremy8419]

Stuff.

Aha! SLE! I knew it all along...

[Jeremy8419]

I'd probably say IEI.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

I knew you would respond. I wouldn't take a "rhetorical slap down" either. I was just setting some boundaries to let you know I don't like being talked down to in the way I perceived you to be talking down to me. Teasing is fine. You insulting my intelligence and experience level felt overly dismissive as a response since I started off just playfully poking at you a bit and sincerely suggesting that your perception could change in a few years, as you gain experience.

Teasing is not a good thing to do on a text-based forum. Your words will be taken at face value.

Furthermore, I have not said anything that should insult your intelligence. You can be an intelligent person without understanding or appreciating a radically different philosophy to how Socionics should be approached as an academic discipline with the provision of clear, falsifiable rationales. By that philosophy, I would be clearly better at typing than most people here. People who do not appreciate that are not necessarily unintelligent, but likely operate from a very different paradigm and set of criteria for what makes typing 'good'.

Although I do believe retyping someone (EIE with a grudge) during a disagreement, on this theory, is dishonest. I don't like seeing anyone do that but your typing ability is something you rely on to further the WSS mission. It made me wonder if you can remain objective when video typing, especially if someone rubbed you the wrong way.

I do not believe I have 'retyped' anyone during a disagreement. That would require me to have had a different opinion beforehand and to have refuted the evidence of that previous opinion to offer a new opinion. On the contrary, I have never had an opinion of the OP that contradicted EIE, or at the very least, a Beta NF, and so cannot have retyped this person. However, it is quite acceptable to type someone based on the evidence they show of their actions and motivations during an argument. This can often be a good setting to observe a person showing type-salient characteristics.

Just so you know I consider a lot older to be 20 years or so. Slightly is a couple years. I am not sure of your age so it was a guesstimate that I had a few years on you. My defense is sarcasm and over emphasis of Fe when I feel like someone is not taking me seriously or I just bite, hard, if the sarcasm and Fe doesn't work.

Not helpful in text-based communication.

Thanks for responding. I hope you don't fail your exams.

I wish you all the best, too.

Edit: One other thing, I don't have a strong belief in what constitutes a "good typing". I think it is a subjective thing and I personally prefer to do it intuitively but now and then I try to explain correlations that I see between socionics, the way they express themselves and even all these fun quiz results on various theories/subjects. I don't naturally see people as a "type". I just observe and make mental notes until I have enough information to form an opinion one way or another. Most of the time I don't even attempt to form an opinion on people's type, unless asked. It would require too much energy. I am also likely to trust someone whose opinion I respected, over some random person on the internet that I have not formed any connection with. Over time I may see your typing differently. I don't leave this interaction with JOA is bad at typing. I leave with the idea that JOA is a student, interested in psychology, who hopes not to fail out of his exams. JOA is just human and not always a pompous dick. I am not going to apologize for what I felt in the moment. I just don't feel that irritation with you anymore.

Exactly, you operate on a very different paradigm. Case in point.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Flawed logic: providing rationales don't necessarily make you better, it might actually make you worse. However, you are not providing rationales, you are only providing rationalizations.

But you know what? If suckers buy into this crap of yours instead of checking your methods, I have no problem with them wasting their money on you. There can never be enough suckers in the world, they keep the economy alive.

South Park: The Biggest Douche In The Universe

On the contrary, by providing a rationale, I expose my reasoning to other people's critique and falsification. An argument with a rationale is inherently better than an argument without, not because it is necessarily more accurate, but because it can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong.

If you are trying to say that my rationales are just rationalisations, then ok, you can still falsify my rationalisations. Propaganda can be shown to be propaganda by looking at the facts supporting it.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

No, it is nonsense. Sometimes it is a lot wiser to sit back, listen and learn instead of already expressing an opinion as if it were a final conclusion. Granted, in this fact free age apparently everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.

No conclusion I have ever given on someone's type is final. A look at any interview I give will demonstrate that my conclusion is merely what I think from the information that I have been given. To claim that I am a giver of 'final judgements' is misrepresenting me and WSS at large.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

@Jack Oliver Aaron your reasoning and temperateness in the face of a lot of opposition on the forum make me think I haven't given you enough credit. I think the thing is, at least as far as I'm concerned, people are skeptical about the standardization and applicability of socionics based on years of experience seeing people being typed different things based on equally compelling information and analysis, debates about typings and concepts that go nowhere and seem to have nowhere to go, etc...so what you're advocating flies in the face of everything that is completely obvious to some people because we've seen it for ourselves with our own two eyes. essentially its a dubious promise about potential future prospects that contradicts all previous evidence.

even assuming there literally were such thing as a person's base function, and a standard idea of what functions consisted of, and everybody had a generally similar idea about typing methods (and we are a long ways from that), locating it would still require sifting through at least the following layers:

base function > thoughts/feelings/assumptions stemming from base function > cultural/external influences > reported self-perception and its accuracy > observed outward behavior (limited in scope) > observer's perception of outward behavior > observer's interpretation of the motivations behind outward behavior > observer's cultural/external influences and awareness of their influence > observer's bias about the subject and awareness of such > observer's inclination to believe subject's self-perception > (and I'm sure I'm leaving things out, including the influence of type related differences in perception, if applicable)

and then even just communicating all of these observations for the sake of shared understanding and application becomes tedious and confusing. for example, like earlier in the thread, a person reacting negatively to having their feelings dismissed vs. a person reactive negatively to being told to calm down their emotions. somebody could easily read that 'beta NFs react negatively to being told to calm down' and infer the following things: beta NFs react negatively to having their emotions ignored, non-beta NFs are fine with having their emotions ignored, if someone becomes stoic and impassive after being told to calm down they must not be beta NF, betas never tell others to calm down, etc., and all of these inferred assumptions could take on a life of their own and become propagated. also, what if the 'calm down' is implied in couched language, and two observers interpret the message differently? it seems like a huge hurdle just to be able to communicate these concepts to others (even assuming they were uniform to begin with) with the clarity and specificity needed to avoid confusion.

Thankyou for your points.

I do not recall seeing a lot of compelling information and analysis on people's types. On the contrary, I would say that I've seen a lack of it. I have looked at older posts with friends of mine, like Expat and thehotelambush, and even they were far less likely to express a rationale for their typings while active on here, and there seems to have been no pressure to have done so. They were also far less experienced then than they are now. Typing by subjective impression seems to be the dominant approach on here. However, my knowledge is limited. Looking at some of the articles on famous figures on the WSS blog, would you say that rationales of this quality used to be commonplace at some point in the16types history? if you find any, I want the authors on my team

I agree that some typings result in people at loggerheads, usually due to different interpretations. However, others can be discussed and debated with positive results. For instance, Expat has changed my mind on a large number of people. On a few occasions, I have changed his mind. Some people are more rational and less stubborn with their positions than others. In general, discussion of the facts leads to some sort of progress, even if that progress is simply knowing exactly where two people's opinions differ.

My first goal is to standardise based on clear definitions of what means what in the theory. This should be the easiest part of a difficult, but not impossible journey.

You bring up good points in regards to the application of a standardised understanding and the numerous pitfalls on the way. However, this is much to do with methodology, how we go about typing people and what checks and balances should be included to reduce error. It is a concern, but one that requires standardisation for it to be addressed, rather than being part of standardisation itself.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Then you are changing the meaning of the word preference. A predisposition, and I am referring to a genetic predisposition here, is probabilistic in nature. Preference is more certain and is discernible during and after a sensory experience. While a baby may have genes that make them more likely to enjoy sweet foods, you will never know unless you get them to try sweet foods. All that is possible is to measure the correlation between the two, which is not absolute.

I don't think I'm changing the meaning of the word preference. Could you find me a dictionary definition which makes it necessarily a posteriori?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

You may want to stick with investing most of your efforts in advertisement, publicity, and gaining members, and not investing your efforts in the development of Socionics.

I may want that, but I do not want that.

[Jeremy8419]

I may want that, but I do not want that.

Comparatively speaking, your ethical contributions and capabilities to Socionics are significantly higher than your logical ones.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Comparatively speaking, your ethical contributions and capabilities to Socionics are significantly higher than your logical ones.

Then I retype myself ESE

[Jeremy8419]

Then I retype myself ESE

I already suggested that, goofball lol