type consensus

[Tropski Bolest]

since socionics is a mental construct, consensus is really the only thing that matters.

thoughts?

Perhaps I'm wrong but couldn't intertype relations be used to statistically prove one's type?


For example a person says they're, I dunno, type X. If there is an informational metabolism, and it is fixed, then over time, as that person interacts with other people intertype relations will emerge. And you wouldn't need to know much about either those other people or the relations themselves. The other person could be just an irrational type. And the relation could be just of occasional miscomprehension. Given enough of these bits and pieces one could build up a picture of the original person's type. Consensus and the person's personal opinions aside. Question mark.

[Absurd]

Anyway, I don't know, for example if Absurd says that he is a "high energy and hands on person" and the definition of Ni dominance says something like the opposite, then...the argument would have to start with a re-definition of the term Ni dominance etc. etc. so not *that* easy to accomplish.

Yup.

I think I know where this ILI typing comes from and lungs better shield that person if I get to him. That after I get "my hands" on some gamma people, beta people and alpha people, and maybe that wank who self-types IEE. More to come.

9/11. Never forget an attack on the free Absurd Sovereign State.

This is the consensus you asked for, lungs.

[ashlesha]

Perhaps I'm wrong but couldn't intertype relations be used to statistically prove one's type?


For example a person says they're, I dunno, type X. If there is an informational metabolism, and it is fixed, then over time, as that person interacts with other people intertype relations will emerge. And you wouldn't need to know much about either those other people or the relations themselves. The other person could be just an irrational type. And the relation could be just of occasional miscomprehension. Given enough of these bits and pieces one could build up a picture of the original person's type. Consensus and the person's personal opinions aside. Question mark.

theoretically perhaps. but it doesn't actually play out that way. i got a pm once outlining an argument for me being ese based in part on my wonderful understanding with gulanzon. people are weird and see weird things. maybe if you invent a scientific process for determining levels of intertype compatibility lol.

[ashlesha]

Aren't you overestimating yourself a bit?

Anyway, I don't know, for example if Absurd says that he is a "high energy and hands on person" and the definition of Ni dominance says something like the opposite, then...the argument would have to start with a re-definition of the term Ni dominance etc. etc. so not *that* easy to accomplish.

haha i probably couldn't do it right now, without actually believing it, cuz i'm not good enough at bullshitting. but part of what makes me think of this is how people have changed types. like at one point you self-typed SLE, right? and it made sense to you at the time? and at one point i self-typed EII and when i did it was easy to justify intertype relationships and behavior within the context of EII. and now that doesn't make sense anymore but it does make sense to label everything in the context of being ESI. i haven't dramatically changed as a person, have you? but somehow different types have both made sense. i mean i guess you could call that smartening up and understanding more, etc etc. but i can't just look back at how sure i was then and compare it to how sure i am now and feel totally comfortable with that. its dissonant. it tells me something is weird. and i think whats weird is how fluffy socionics actually is.

[Words]

^ This is why I care not of particularly assigning a type to myself. I do wonder when people do assign a type to themselves, what it means to them individually, because, surely there must be some sort of recognition in oneself within that particular type, and does the person merge into the type or try to change the type to fit them, can't see how anything can always be an exact fit. Hence I don't wish to box myself in unecessarily, I just do what I have to do and adapt as much as possible. There, heh.

[Words]

Aren't you overestimating yourself a bit?

Anyway, I don't know, for example if Absurd says that he is a "high energy and hands on person" and the definition of Ni dominance says something like the opposite, then...the argument would have to start with a re-definition of the term Ni dominance etc. etc. so not *that* easy to accomplish.

I'm not saying this to re-type Absurd, not something i'm interested in, but to answer your question, if you mean the definition of Te dominance (or ESTj specifically) is high energy and hands on person, then it seems to me you are associating a function/type with vitality, and vitality is as much a health related physical thing. You could have an ESTj without much vitality and the idea is it doesn't change the type.

[Absurd]

and at one point i self-typed EII and when i did it was easy to justify intertype relationships and behavior within the context of EII. and now that doesn't make sense anymore but it does make sense to label everything in the context of being ESI. i haven't dramatically changed as a person, have you? but somehow different types have both made sense. i mean i guess you could call that smartening up and understanding more, etc etc. but i can't just look back at how sure i was then and compare it to how sure i am now and feel totally comfortable with that. its dissonant. it tells me something is weird. and i think whats weird is how fluffy socionics actually is.

Considering it was easy, the type switch, nothing is going to stop you from switching again and again just depending on a "oh, it makes sense". You're opening yourself to an array of, I don't know, possibilities in which you can be anything you want. Having that in mind you're going to have to play the role assigned by each and every Sociotype and intertype relations are not flexible.

At times I think I'm reading smilex when responding to you, hah.

I do wonder when people do assign a type to themselves, what it means to them individually, because, surely there must be some sort of recognition in oneself within that particular type, and does the person merge into the type or try to change the type to fit them, can't see how anything can always be an exact fit.

You've got lungs being ESI,

You've got Aiss being ILI,

You've got WA being IEE,

You've got DA being LSE.

To name a few of course.

Why don't you ask them?

[FDG]

I'm not saying this to re-type Absurd, not something i'm interested in, but to answer your question, if you mean the definition of Te dominance (or ESTj specifically) is high energy and hands on person, then it seems to me you are associating a function/type with vitality, and vitality is as much a health related physical thing. You could have an ESTj without much vitality and the idea is it doesn't change the type.

No, I am not referring to the definition of Te, but rather to the anti-definition of Ni dominance, meaning a set of characteristic which reduces the likelihood of that "typing" being true. You can be joyful and vital, yet stil prefer to slowly and carefully do your intellectual job (for example). Or you can be low-energy and run a marathon, while an high energy person may get bored and prefer going to the gym for one hour (just a stereotypied example).

[Words]

You've got lungs being ESI,

You've got Aiss being ILI,

You've got WA being IEE,

You've got DA being LSE.

Why don't you ask them?

I do? When did you ask me....

[ashlesha]

haha i probably couldn't do it right now, without actually believing it, cuz i'm not good enough at bullshitting. but part of what makes me think of this is how people have changed types. like at one point you self-typed SLE, right? and it made sense to you at the time? and at one point i self-typed EII and when i did it was easy to justify intertype relationships and behavior within the context of EII. and now that doesn't make sense anymore but it does make sense to label everything in the context of being ESI. i haven't dramatically changed as a person, have you? but somehow different types have both made sense. i mean i guess you could call that smartening up and understanding more, etc etc. but i can't just look back at how sure i was then and compare it to how sure i am now and feel totally comfortable with that. its dissonant. it tells me something is weird. and i think whats weird is how fluffy socionics actually is.

also about changing my type, i decided on EII before joining the forum and my thinking was a lot more insular. its easier self-typing ESI in the context of interaction on the forum because of 1) intertype relations, and 2) not feeling like i constantly have to tell everybody that they are wrong when they are talking about "my" type and it doesn' t match me, like i did when i was EII.

so in that respect, it is based in part on "consensus." which is another way of saying it matches up better with outside checks (see radios post).

Considering it was easy, the type switch, nothing is going to stop you from switching again and again just depending on a "oh, it makes sense". You're opening yourself to an array of, I don't know, possibilities in which you can be anything you want.

exactly. you're a fucking genius.

(edit: it wasn't really easy, it didn't flip like a switch, but i could definitely change types again if my understanding of things changed again.)

[InvisibleJim]

Why make threads titled type consensus and then get cross when people discuss type consensus?

ohemgee.

[ashlesha]

hi jim how are you

[InvisibleJim]

hi

hihi hi

I'm delicious, are you sharp?

[Absurd]

exactly. you're a fucking genius.

Thank you.

(edit: it wasn't really easy, it didn't flip like a switch, but i could definitely change types again if my understanding of things changed again.)

All the stuff above, that is, matching this and that and change plausible if under certain circumstances again, okay. Would like to know though do you see(?) me as ILI just now, few days/years after and just as forum ILI in that case?

What I mean is, I would have a damn good time playing stuff on Gamma people, a quality time. Even better than from this current position. Persuade woofl to "put" me in Gamma and no one will ever know what hit them.

I do? When did you ask me....

No comprende.

[Words]

Ah right, I read it that you had me typing them as those types, not that that is the types they have for themselves. I could ask them, maybe i'll get round to it. I can see lungs posting in this thread so there's some information there coming my way without the effort, I could always ask you? *Asks*

Edit: When I say effort, there's effort there because to some questioning their type identification is quite possibly seen as questioning their identity in many other ways, so i'll choose my moment when I think offense is limited/non-existent.

[Absurd]

Ah right, I read it that you had me typing them as those types, not that that is the types they have for themselves. I could ask them, maybe i'll get round to it. I can see lungs posting in this thread so there's some information there coming my way without the effort, I could always ask you? *Asks*

I can't speak for any of those people although I would like to see people running on the street and their Sociotypes carved in their foreheads with numerous stickers and patches on their body/clothes just so they and every one else won't forget about it...

People wear some kind of brand clothes anyway and this is where my Absurd shop comes in.

Edit: When I say effort, there's effort there because to some questioning their type identification is quite possibly seen as questioning their identity in many other ways, so i'll choose my moment when I think offense is limited/non-existent.

It's not only reserved to Sociotype. Everything can be questioned: your beliefs, manners, the way you tie your shoelaces , how you cut your hair and so on

[Words]

I can't speak for any of those people although I would like to see people running on the street and their Sociotypes carved in their foreheads with numerous stickers and patches on their body/clothes just so they and every one else won't forget about it...

Haha

It's not only reserved to Sociotype. Everything can be questioned: your beliefs, manners, the way you tie your shoelaces , how you cut your hair and so on

lol yes I get your point, the less important something is to a person the easier it is to ask them about it.... this is why I was thinking to myself @Aiss would be one of ther easier people to ask... but usually by the time I can ask without such hassle it's usually too late ergo not as important to them. Heh, by the time I could get round to asking I probably would not care about the answer.

Maybe @FDG will notice/respond to the question @lungs asked him about SLE to LIE, well that's enough @y'all for one post.

I wonder if @Smilingeyes believed/believes in type change to cover up a loss of identity when he moved types, well I wonder a lot about stuff then forget about it for some other crap. No it wasnt @@ enough.

[Absurd]

lol yes I get your point, the less important something is to a person the easier it is to ask them about it.... this is why I was thinking to myself @Aiss would be one of ther easier people to ask... but usually by the time I can ask without such hassle it's usually too late ergo not as important to them. Heh, by the time I could get round to asking I probably would not care about the answer.

Lungs once inquired me about the same, well it wasn't worded the way it is now, but it was close, and I answered. I'm sure though beliefs and stuff like that are important to some people and you're going to meet resistance when questioning things like that especially when the person actually believes in it.

I'm not really rigid when it comes to that nor am willing to impose anything on third party.

Maybe FDG will notice/respond to the question lungs asked him about SLE to LIE, well that's enough @y'all for one post.

I bet my right arm FDG self-typed something else besides SLE and LIE.

I wonder if Smilingeyes believed/believes in type change to cover up the loss of identity when he moved types, well I wonder a lot about stuff then forget about it for some other crap. No it wasnt @@ enough.

That theory of his, providing it is a theory bypasses V.I. and intertype relations resting solely on temperament, being static.

[Finale]

the irony is in using "consensus is dumb" as a thought terminating cliche. going with the crowd and making determinations about ideas based on buzzwords like consensus are both ways to avoid thinking.

Ahh gotcha, and I can understand that result, but assuredly, that is not what I meant nor was the result of avoiding thinking.

It's not that "consensus is dumb" but instead that if the consensus is reached by a group of ninnies, then the value of that consensus is null and void. i.e. the product is simply the end to the means, with the real focus being the means vs. the end.

If you construct a hypothetical world where there are three socionics forums, one that has little to no moderation/laid-back and loosely managed (kinda like 16types), then another that is moderated heavy handed/extremely strict, and a third that is somewhere in the middle, I'd bet the moderation styles would make a large impact on the base of "regulars" that frequented and posted on said forums. In that case, I would pose that the same person posting answers to questionnaires, spending countless hours on webcam/chat and providing a plethora of pictures for VI, etc. etc. would get three different consensus results on typing by those three sources.

Hell, DJ Arendee is a real example of just that. Consensus opinion as an ISTj on one forum, ENTj on another, then ESTp here.

Lastly, the law of increasing returns also makes most forms of consensus rubbish.. Have a look at the societal example of BETA vs VHS. BETA was a superior format, more compact, greater quality product but failed over VHS as early adopters fairly randomly chose VHS, so therefore people bandwagoned to VHS as it had people that owned it vs. the unknown. This cascading increase of increasing returns is also why many people do not like elections results to be broadcast in different timezones as it DOES impact the vote when people on the west coast already see who is winning by the time they go to vote. Increasing returns + herd mentality wins the day.

[Absurd]

Question remains what is the appropriate forum. Breaking your post further would simply result in the same thing you mentioned. Only this time you do not have three forums, but one.

And you already can see what kind of blessings lungs received.

[InvisibleJim]

Increasing returns + herd mentality wins the day.

A humorous problem on this forum where the current 'dominant' typing style was formed by ejecting the original inhabitants. People are even more prone to be reactionary and cling onto the current stale consensus rather than accepting adaptation and enhancement. There are several lines of thinking that just don't match up to one another or the original theories and are in many ways alarmingly complex, undocumented or unable to be properly reviewed.

[jet city woman]

Nah, this doesn't sound right. I've seen you offer your knowledge(?) to people on this forum when they were inquiring about some type and when they were not inquiring about it. Step by step you proved yourself useless in this case.

And? I think it's fun to try and type people. I explained this. What they think about me typing them is of no difference to me. If they are like me, they don't think much of it. Typing people online is a fun hobby for me, and that's about it.....

[Absurd]

And? I think it's fun to try and type people. I explained this. What they think about me typing them is of no difference to me. If they are like me, they don't think much of it.

Merry Christmas to you too.

[Scapegrace]

And? I think it's fun to try and type people. I explained this. What they think about me typing them is of no difference to me. If they are like me, they don't think much of it. Typing people online is a fun hobby for me, and that's about it.....

[FDG]

I would really just rather go to a disco and dance latino-american for 6 hours straight.

[Finale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Scapegrace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[jet city woman]

I would really just rather go to a disco and dance latino-american for 6 hours straight.

So, you are telling me that you have 14,168 posts, and none of them have been guessing other people's types. In this case, maybe you should rethink your options.

[Absurd]

I would really just rather go to a disco and dance latino-american for 6 hours straight.

[squark]

i think what i was originally getting at was that since its all head games and rhetoric to begin with, consensus is as "real" as it can get. (eg tree metaphor)

of course you have to realize its not "real" in the first place to get that and a lot of people here aren't at that point.

Sure. Give 100 people the labels A, B, C and D, and a vague description of what each of those labels mean, some source material on subsets of A, B, C and D which may be contradictory in nature and highly subject to interpretation, and then ask those 100 people to classify themselves and others into those 4 labels.

Without talking to each other, each will come to their own conclusions on it. They'll each probably have different people sorted under each label, but once they start talking they'll start seeing some overlapping patterns, and ways of describing the labels that create more agreement within the group as to who fits where. In order to discuss the labels themselves and understand what each one means they have to come to some level of agreement. Get enough people to agree on what those labels are and who fits where, and you start coming to some kind of standard that can be applied to any new person you wish to classify.

Without cooperation (consensus) each person has an interpretation of their own, and a categorization scheme of their own. Only through process of discussion and clarification and agreement can any standardized system of typing be reached. That process of disagreement and clarification, sorting and redefining, searching and changing minds has been going on so long in socionics without any clear end in sight because the base material is so poorly explained and poorly defined. Clean up what the labels mean so that they define something that can be easily seen, applied and used and the consensus will be much higher as to who goes where.

A back way in is to get consensus on who goes where and then back-engineer what the labels mean and describe. Either way, the mess comes from shoddily-built theory itself, and its badly-defined labels. If a person cleans up their own understanding and redefines things into something coherent that works and makes sense they may not even be able to discuss the theory with anyone else because of the different kind of understanding that others have come to.

[jet city woman]

i think it loops back to each person's understanding of socionics, in which case you have to rely on your own observations or sth along those lines.

Yes. Which is why there seems to be no more of a consensus on mbti-related sites. The descriptions are more clear, but people still interpret them differently. Sometimes due to differences in knowledge... some have read books others haven't; sometimes due to perceptions/perspectives, types, experiences, observations, intelligence, application skills, understanding, reading comprehension skills, etc.

[strangeling]

Consensus is good when the perceptions being discussed are accepted by all; because then any discussion aims to improve the rationality of using those perceptions and can be verified or constructively refuted by others, producing something better. It works well for things that don't appear to change much on their own; so something like classical physics works well with this approach, but quantum physics does not.

The problem with psychology then is that we are capable of a lot of variability and change in our behavior. This doesn't mean that we don't have a nature, but puts into question what that is when clouded with nurture and personas. I suppose if you wanted, you could even argue that nature does not exist, and then I'd wonder why you'd be interested in the phenomenological to begin with. But my point is that determining someone's nature requires being continually open-minded to what it might be because it is philosophically uncertain what it could be; consensus then destroys this process of discovery by concluding everything in advance, which is rather limiting and absolute and can produce a lot of misunderstanding in the process by playing adjudicator of truth. And Absurd would be right - fact is a different thing from truth.

I think Jung had it right when he said individuation was a continual process that evolves as we do - that process of discovery. I imagine those who use typology well do so because they keep this in mind. In a way it seems counter-intuitive when that means it can be truthful/insightful without consensus, but I suppose that's what makes it interesting anyway.