# Your socionics type?



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

ESTP's, I'm curious to know what most of your sociotypes are. Take this test: Socionics Tests and post your results below!

For example, I am an SLE-Se, which basically means I'm a socionics ESTp that favors his creativity function Se more than his Judging function, Ti.

It even goes so far as to say you can type people by sight. So here is Henry Rollins, an SLE-Se









versus a more judgemental looking SLE-Ti, Dennis Miller









Socionics is another system very similar to MBTI that gives more insight into relationships, and actual thought patterns through the Reinin Dichotomies here:
Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichtomies

along with the erotic attitudes (which I think were pretty awesome to read, considering ESTP's are the pickup artists, you might find these interesting)
Socionics - the16types.info - Erotic Attitudes

So anyway, what are your sociotypes and subtypes? I'm curious to know how many of the MBTI ESTP's fit into socionics.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

DJArendee said:


> ESTP's, I'm curious to know what most of your sociotypes are. Take this test: Socionics Tests and post your results below!
> 
> For example, I am an SLE-Se, which basically means I'm a socionics ESTp that favors his creativity function Se more than his Judging function, Ti.
> 
> It even goes so far as to say you can type people by sight. So here is Henry Rollins, an SLE-Se


That is utter bullshit, that claim about typing people by sight.

Anyway, I'm probably Ti-SLE in that system, but I don't care about socionics

(SLE-2Ti in that test btw, I took it a while ago)


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

I think you can do it, to an extent, or at least you can see the functions being used.

I think your SLE-2Ti was probably a typo or something, I got SLE-2Se, the 2 doesn't make any sense.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

DJArendee said:


> I think you can do it, to an extent, or at least you can see the functions being used.
> 
> I think your SLE-2Ti was probably a typo or something, I got SLE-2Se, the 2 doesn't make any sense.


I suppose it's strength of the Contact/Creative function. It can give you a number of 1, 2, 3.....

And YES, it is bullshit. I sent my photos to a few "experts". I got: SLI, ILE, LSE, EIE, the list goes on.......... never SLE, though one guy got close, then he said he wasn't sure after all lol. But seriously, the fact that I got so many different answers points out the unreliability of this typing "method".


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> That is utter bullshit, that claim about typing people by sight.


There are many studies published (a few are listed here) that show that there exist certain correlations between appearance and personality, so trying to gauge what someone is like from the way they look is not bullshit. You and everyone else does this unconsciously every day of your waking life.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> There are many studies published (a few are listed here) that show that there exist certain correlations between appearance and personality, so trying to gauge what someone is like from the way they look is not bullshit. You and everyone else does this unconsciously every day of your waking life.


That would have to be weak correlations. So the idea of basing a personality typing process on looks is still utter BS. Have you not seen above how I got so many different guesses on type based on pictures?!

Also, IRL I only do it on a very basic level: if someone's in dirty clothes, smells bad and seems drunk then the person is probably a homeless person. That's not a personality type, that's some other kind of category.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> That would have to be weak correlations. So the idea of basing a personality typing process on looks is still utter BS. Have you not seen above how I got so many different guesses on type based on pictures?!


The correlations are significant enough such that every human being on this globe is prone to draw conclusions about another's personality based on their looks. You have been primed to do this by natural selection because guess what, it works.



itsme45 said:


> Have you not seen above how I got so many different guesses on type based on pictures?!


There are many inexperienced typists who will give you different guesses even if you wrote out the entire biography of your life.



itsme45 said:


> Also, IRL I only do it on a very basic level: if someone's in dirty clothes, smells bad and seems drunk then the person is probably a homeless person. That's not a personality type, that's some other kind of category.


This study shows that it's not done at basic level like you suggest, but that some essential personality traits such as extraversion, openness to ideas, how friendly and nice someone is, can be judged from how a person looks: http://socionix.com/vi/Personality Judgments From Natural and Composite Facial Images.pdf


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> The correlations are significant enough such that every human being on this globe is prone to draw conclusions about another's personality based on their looks. You have been primed to do this by natural selection because guess what, it works.


Nope doesn't work. E.g. I have a close friend who looks quite different from what his personality really is even at the simplistic level that my limited guesses would aim for.

Also if it works, why are there so many failed relationships in general that were started based on looks mostly? ;P 




> There are many inexperienced typists who will give you different guesses even if you wrote out the entire biography of your life.


The thing is, the guesses based on my "life story" information were a LOT LESS varied than the guesses based on my photos. (Guesses based on actual information boiled down to three types only and there were a lot more types based on photos.) So which would you say is the more reliable method?........




> This study shows that it's not done at basic level like you suggest, but that some essential personality traits such as extraversion, openness to ideas, how friendly and nice someone is, can be judged from how a person looks: http://socionix.com/vi/Personality Judgments From Natural and Composite Facial Images.pdf


Thanks for the link, I've started reading as it does seem like an interesting text , but let me mention a few things. 

The abstract itself already has this statement: "Nevertheless, the extent to which such judgments are veridical is unclear and somewhat controversial". No wonder. Coincides with my own experience. I've found it too controversial so the simplest for me is simply not rely on it.

Then, I looked at the example faces. Maybe it's just me who sucks at such guesses but trust me when I say that I cannot perceive how the differences between the faces should correlate with the personality traits. E.g. the photos for people with high and low extraversion, if I was to guess, I would have guessed this at chance level. The same for the other personality traits...

I also don't like the correlations in the tables in the study, too weak for my liking.


All in all, I find it's more to the point to plain ignore looks when trying to get to know someone's personality.


edit: Quoting from the conclusion in the study.



> Our data indicate that the accuracy seen in personality perception is above chance, although still quite low.


Oh yeah... so why don't you focus on the fact that it's "still quite low"? 




> Even low levels of accuracy, however, may give individuals a slight edge in predicting how others
> will behave in social interactions over individuals who made no such judgments.


Not really, unless there is NO other information available whatsoever. But that's not a realistic scenario at all.




> Such a process may explain our readiness to attribute personality on the basis of facial cues alone, and raises the possibility that we may underestimate the capabilities of human social perception.


No, my hunch is some people (in practice, not in terms of scientific research) overestimate it. 

As for readiness... I can be affected by looks but that is without actually guessing at personality, as it's limited in terms of me feeling "this person looks cool", "this person doesn't look cool". Cool kind of just means nice to look at, aesthetically. I certainly don't choose friends based on "cool looks".


----------

