# A thought about typing people...



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

I've noticed that people use different methods. Some analyse the answers paragraph by paragraph, some look for examples of each functions used, some look at the answers as a whole and get an idea.

My most natural approach is to glance through the questionnaire in order to catch a glimpse of someone's personality, a general idea of how they're like (and my gut feelings are usually right). It just happens, I don't have to make myself do it. Then I read the questionnaire more carefully and check if there's something that contradicts my idea - if there is, indeed, I try to change my approach. I don't want to look like an uneducated fraud who types people by "vibes" and guesses, so I try to find things that support my idea - to go backwards and find what triggered my gut feeling. I talk to the people I'm trying to type, because I believe that they know themselves better than strangers on the internet and I think that honest communication is important. Besides, I might learn something as well.

My questions are: 
Is there something in Socionics that would explain how people type others?
How do you approach typing others? (in any system)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aconite said:


> Is there something in Socionics that would explain how people type others?


Yeah, according to thinking styles different types would go think about it differently. I would expect IEI, SLI, LIE, ESE to do something similar to what you do, look at someone's questionnaire holistically, pick up a lot of random snippets of info and see how it all "adds up" or "clicks" together. That article also mentioned that CD types have the most difficulty with learning socionics, and this will extend to typing. These types are SEE, LSI, EII, and ILE.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Yeah, according to thinking styles different types would go think about it differently. I would expect IEI, SLI, LIE, ESE to do something similar to what you do, look at someone's questionnaire holistically, pick up a lot of random snippets of info and see how it all "adds up" or "clicks" together. That article also mentioned that CD types have the most difficulty with learning socionics, and this will extend to typing. These types are SEE, LSI, EII, and ILE.


Thank you. I read the article previously, but the thought just didn't occur to me. I definitely relate most to Vortical-Synergetic.

By the way, it's ironic that among the types that have the most difficulty learning Socionics is ILE, the type of Socionics' founder.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I do the same thing as you with any personality theory, I try to get a 'feel' of what their personality is, then look for anything that contradicts it. If not then I'll stick with the original conclusion. It kinda frustrates me sifting through the details and analyzing it in depth (trying to decipher function usage is hell).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aconite said:


> Thank you. I read the article previously, but the thought just didn't occur to me. I definitely relate most to Vortical-Synergetic.
> 
> By the way, it's ironic that among the types that have the most difficulty learning Socionics is ILE, the type of Socionics' founder.


It is ironic. In socionics community she is often blamed for adopting an overly behaviorist approach to the subject matter, which is consistent with her being Ti-ILE and CD type. I think she did a good job with the theoretical part of socionics but mediocre with its application. Often ILEs who join socionics communities start systematizing and developing pet theories while struggling with applying it to typing. EIIs/INFj is the other type that has a lot of problems from what I've noticed and often opts out for behaviorist approaches to typing.


----------



## StellarTwirl (Jul 1, 2012)

Kito said:


> I do the same thing as you with any personality theory, I try to get a 'feel' of what their personality is, then look for anything that contradicts it. If not then I'll stick with the original conclusion. *It kinda frustrates me sifting through the details and analyzing it in depth (trying to decipher function usage is hell)*.



I don't have any difficulty with analysis, but I prefer to go with impression because I've noticed that when people who focus too much on the details, they begin to miss the point. 

The answer will be staring them in the face, but they are too tangled in all of the contradictions they see when what they actually need to do is step back.


----------

