# Differentiating between what someone says and their "cognitive focus"



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Okay so this is something I've thought about occasionally but I haven't put it in thread form before.

There are often discrepancies between what people say they are and what their conversations, interactions, and mental focuses are. I especially want to emphasize the "mental focus" part, because someone who claims to be very focused on making things happen, moving forward, and other behaviors stereotypically isolated to Se, can do so by:
a) creating an environment that encourages self-expression (Fe), or
b) by laying forth a clear vision that people can implement (Ni), or 
c) presenting a lot of options and creating enthusiasm in others about the potential of these options (Ne), or 
d) creating a structure and a scheme of actions to be taken to achieve a specific result the right way (Ti)
AND SO ON. There are so many ways this can manifest. 

But the point is you can say you're achieving the point of one function by actually utilizing others.

So the point of me saying this is:

*1.* What methodology can be effectively employed to distinguish between what a person says and what they actually focus on and do? Because that's really, really important for typing someone.

*2.* What examples of this phenomenon have you witnessed yourself and how did you make the distinction?


----------



## azir (Sep 28, 2016)

yeah i agree, it makes it hard to accurately type oneself since a lot of functions may overlap or sound similar

actions are probably more reliable than words in the first case. behavior reveals more about their mindset than words ~

as for myself, i find it easier to determine others' functions (i usually don't pay full attention to what they outright say, but instead behavioral clues within what they say/do & their overall motivations) but can't pinpoint whether i use TiFe or FiTe myself lol. that's one function pair i have trouble with at times


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

I'll just throw it out.

1st: Recognize you have all cognitive functions.
2nd: Get a grip you use all of them all the time.
3rd: Understand it's situational which one is dominant.
4th: Does it really matter? 
5th: You as all humans confuse "DO" and "SAY" all the time. Sometimes we don't see our own cognitive dissonance. What we can do is recognize we all have it.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

pwowq said:


> I'll just throw it out.
> 
> 1st: Recognize you have all cognitive functions.
> 2nd: Get a grip you use all of them all the time.
> ...


Okay. First of all, while I don't disagree with your statements in essence, I think they are kind of beside the point of my thread, which is that despite these things, what effective method exists to distinguish between what someone naturally emphasizes, and what they say they emphasize, for the purpose of typing them? Yeah type doesn't matter when it comes to real life, we all use all functions etc etc, but this forum operates under the assumption that people are interested in utilizing the system to understand people. So for that purpose we must assume the system is actually applicable, and that people use different functions in different capacities. Saying that because we use all the information elements, we can't determine what people actually value isn't operating under the assumption that Socionics works. Which is an assumption we're making when we use the system.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

*1.* People have to explain in greater detail what exactly they mean by saying they do X, including _how _they do it and _why _they do it. The same is true for people saying they are _not _doing X, but if asked for explanation, even if they do it in a form of mockery or understatement, it becomes pretty clear that they aren't as bad at X as they claim to be. It requires a degree of introspection and verbosity though and not all people are eager to take this path (myself included :/ ) so that's problematic. There are many questionnaires in 'Type me' subforum with one-two line answers and it's not nearly enough to type anybody. I can't think of another way to achieve it unless make people talk about themselves though. And what would make people talk, ah, that is the real question. 

I have to observe people over time and see more of their thought processes to distinguish between the two. Sooner or later it'll become obvious. If they're saying they use only cursive, but you repeatedly see them writing in print, the conclusion wouldn't be long in coming.
*
2. *There's been plenty of examples on this very forum. I'm not comfortable at going into detailed examples (not to mention the subsequent drama ), but then again, I just compare what people say they do and what they actually show through posting on this forum.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

(1) Behavioral and cognitive patterns over time, especially outside the vacuum of a forum, although personality is discernible even in environments like this. I wouldn't call it ideal, though. (2) Specific examples rather than generalized answers, if you mean to type by questionnaire. These seem the straightforward approaches to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

That's why it's important to understand what "information" actually means in the word "information element" or "information aspect", because the word is there for a very specific reason.

Cognition is ultimately how people think and people can clearly think in a myriad of ways. That's kind of the point of typology. But when we say "how people think", we don't just mean that you like red and I like blue or I like to vote on the Democrats and you vote on the Liberals, but it's about the why. "Information" bears abstract meaning and is not necessarily linked to what people literally or concretely do; indeed, when we begin to look at what people literally and concretely do, we often get confused because people are messy and tend to do a whole lot of different things that could be explained in a multitude of ways and these are not always consistent with one another, at least when we try to differentiate these behaviors as a part of a typological theory. 

So when we talk about what an information aspect is in the world, it is not that being a logical person means that one is always using Ti because "logical" in itself is an ambiguous word; there are many ways to be logical. Moral reasoning can be logical, factual deductions can be experienced as logical, taking a decisive action in the present moment based on the data available is logical and so on and so forth. What is important to remember is that people do not on purpose try to be irrational or do things without meaning, cause or purpose. We do the things we do exactly because we do think there is some meaning to be derived from it. If we didn't, we'd find the activity itself pointless and we wouldn't do it. Even people that say "I do this without knowing why, it's so pointless, why am I doing it?" may not have a consciously felt reason why, but when they really begin to dig into _why _they do it, there is still always an underlying reason. And this meaning is derived from our cognitive style, _how_ we really think. 

In cognitive psychology, this is actually called cognitive schemas that are essentially different kinds of biases that we hold about ourselves and the function of the world. As an example, a depressed person has a cognitive schema or style of a depressed person. This means that they have several underlying assumptions about themselves and the world such as:


Life being meaningless, pointless, empty
They are meaningless
No one loves them
The world would be better without them
Being overly concerned and focused on finding and seeing flaws in themselves e.g. Jane scored 100 on a test and they got 110, but Jane is still better at sprinting so therefore they suck


In other words, what cognition is really trying to get at are thinking patterns based on various underlying assumptions that we make about ourselves and the world. We could replace the word "information" in "information aspect" and "information element" in socionics with "cognitive schema", because they are actually the same thing. What a TIM or a sociotype really is, then, is actually a very complex kind of cognitive schema that is made up of smaller cognitive schemas or ideas that we refer to as "information elements" and "the functions of model A". 

And just like how we can talk about having "a negative attitude" which is a kind of a simpler cognitive schema i.e. always looking for the negative/thinking negatively, we can talk about having a "Ti attitude", i.e. being concerned about always trying to understand the logical relationships between objects. 

This is also arguably why the very idea of a cognitive type actually stems out of analytical psychology. Jung originally designed his idea to describe why people have maladaptive perceptions of the world, so he was actually less interested in knowing what an Ne dom etc. is like as much as he was interested in understanding why some people develop into becoming hypochondriacs, schizophrenics and so on. Using more up-to-date psychological terminology, his idea of type definitely fits the idea of a cognitive schema, which results in for example being a hypochondriac, because by holding certain beliefs of oneself and the world to be true, this gives arise to a wide breadth of various behaviors and attitudes such as hypochondria. The key, then, is to understand that hypochondria in itself may not mean that one is say, an Ne dom, but that Ne dominance as a cognitive schema can give rise to hypochondria. 

So when we type ourselves and others, what we're really trying to do is to understand another person's cognitive schema. That way we can also easily resolve various contradictory behaviors in relation to a description, since it's not what you do e.g. being hypochondriac, but *why *you do what you do e.g. being an Ne dom. When you realize that you are an Ne dom that gives rise to your hypochondria, you also realize that you don't necessarily need to manifest all the things Ne doms do in order to be an Ne dom as long as your primary cognitive schema matches the definition of an Ne dom.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

So to answer the questions:

*1.* Looking less at concrete content e.g. they say they went to fish but to understand how they understand the activity of fishing. You can take two people that describe fishing as an activity, but they may describe that in very different ways. 

To take an actual example, I grew up fishing a lot with my family and dad and I have very different ideas about what makes fishing as an activity meaningful. Dad, as an LII, focuses on the comfort; he enjoys the silence and the solitude, of being alone and separate from the world and its buzz. It provides a sense of calm to sit on a rock or at a pier and watch the bobber jump up and down or to continuously cast and reel the line in. I actually think he doesn't even care so much about catching something, as much as he cares for what the environment feels like. So his disposition towards fishing is actually extremely Si and Fe.

I, in contrast, always enjoyed the action of fishing. I like the sense of stuff happening and the momentary struggle between catching and losing a fish. It's boring when you sit there and nothing happens and while I can sit and gaze at the sky and drift away into nothingness, I didn't go out to fish for that. In contrast, it's fun when you catch something, especially if it's something big and there's a bit of a struggle to reel it in. I also like how fishing fulfills a greater purpose by cooking what you catch; it feels like it's an efficient use of resources. I never understood people that sport fish but then let the fish go. If I want to fish, I want to fish for edible fish that I can catch, cook and eat myself. So fishing is fun, but only if it fulfills a more utilitarian purpose of providing food on the table. 

So what I describe is more Se and Te, and that's just an example of how two different people can differ in their perception of what makes the same activity they both enjoy worthwhile. That's also why I agree with the idea that language is extremely meaningful when trying to analyze content, to study how people describe things. 

*2.* I think this has already been covered.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Yeah, I agree this is a recurring issue. Not just with Socionics, but actually with most if not all typology, and in my experience more at the level of online and/or written communication than it is spoken. You asked for a method, so I'll give you that instead of commentary, though I have a lot of commentary on what I think of people who are clearly mistyped based on how their dialogue proceeds 

What I typically do is begin with whether I believe the Base function to be Rational or Irrational. For that, I typically use Temperament. I find Temperament to be extremely consistent, and much easier to begin with than Base Function because of how it makes its way into how people present themselves and their energy style. I do NOT look at content of what they say, but whether they are relaxed and slow/restless and proactive, rigid and fixed in their assessments vs. impulsive and flexible moving from one idea to another randomly, and so on. 

Once I narrow down to E__j, E__p, I__p, or I__j, I take the type of Base function as a given; for example, if I know someone is I__j, I know they are Ti or Fi Base and _then_ begin looking at the "cognitive style" for whether they are prioritizing more depersonalized or very much personalized standpoints in the rigidity of being I__j. Occasionally there are tricky people who, for arbitrary example, seem logical but are actually very much driven by their rigid emotional worldview and you then have to recognize I__j and go back to what you think is the main priority of what they say. Or, consider the person as say either ESI or LSI but definitely one of the two, and give it time to see which Base is operating. Subtype can also dilute the Base function and make that more difficult (though Temperament should stay in tact). 


Again, I like Temperament because the criteria you would use to define it is independent of how the person chooses to explain themselves, yet also still a key aspect of information processing. It gets rid of issues with people hiding their PoLR well, using social masks, and using language that isn't native to their Base IE. I, for example, talk and act more like an LIE than more Ni-ish ILI's, but am obviously still laid back in demeanor and life rhythm unlike the rather hectic E__j's.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

pwowq said:


> I'll just throw it out.
> 
> 1st: Recognize you have all cognitive functions.
> 2nd: Get a grip you use all of them all the time.
> ...


Genius but then this might make some uncomfortable because it further puts them into the unknown.. I noticed this, like for instance, I would rather have a clean and orderly room than a messy one and I always plan to organize everything but then I just don't do it because there are more exciting things to do and focus on. However, when I take the test, I will say I am orderly when I'm not. I just wish to be.

(I don't really ever say I'm orderly on tests but you get the picture/example.)

So really is it what we WISH we could be that reflects our true type or is it what we actually do on a regular basis that reflects our true type?

I gave up on Socionics, this will always be up for debate to me. I just found this topic interesting and thought provoking. :crazy:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> Yeah, I agree this is a recurring issue. Not just with Socionics, but actually with most if not all typology, and in my experience more at the level of online and/or written communication than it is spoken. You asked for a method, so I'll give you that instead of commentary, though I have a lot of commentary on what I think of people who are clearly mistyped based on how their dialogue proceeds
> 
> What I typically do is begin with whether I believe the Base function to be Rational or Irrational. For that, I typically use Temperament. I find Temperament to be extremely consistent, and much easier to begin with than Base Function because of how it makes its way into how people present themselves and their energy style. I do NOT look at content of what they say, but whether they are relaxed and slow/restless and proactive, rigid and fixed in their assessments vs. impulsive and flexible moving from one idea to another randomly, and so on.
> 
> ...


But then, if an LIE is an LIE-Ni, they would be more laid back than your average idea of an LIE, too, no? So how would you then end up distinguishing between temperaments without ultimately needing to look for say, dimensionality or the function each IE serves in the psyche?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Entropic said:


> But then, if an LIE is an LIE-Ni, they would be more laid back than your average idea of an LIE, too, no? So how would you then end up distinguishing between temperaments without ultimately needing to look for say, dimensionality or the function each IE serves in the psyche?


All LIE's regardless of subtype are of Temperament E__j. Subtype adds further prioritization of a given IE but does not change the overall type itself. 

Like I mentioned, Temperament is best considered in the the very beginning, and used to drill down from 16 types to 4. At that point, you have one type in the opposite Quadra (who is your Superego type) and can probably be knocked out of the running entirely. You then have your Kindred and Business types at which point you'd then need to look at other criteria like what the Base and Creative individual IE's are. 

Looking directly at dimensionality and individual IE's from the get go invites the possibility of zeroing in on one single combination too early, without excluding other types. This is especially problematic in Socionics given that there is nothing in the theory itself to stop two people with radically different interpretations of the same type description from feeling they have correctly identified two incompatible processes in the same person.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> All LIE's regardless of subtype are of Temperament E__j. Subtype adds further prioritization of a given IE but does not change the overall type itself.


Sure, but on what basis do you actually determine this if your main argument is that "a person looks like X temperament"? What is the most objective approach to determine that? You are essentially saying that EJ is by definition an EJ, which is circular and doesn't answer the main question of how to determine whether someone is an EJ or an IP in the first place; especially when regarding what you wrote previously, which is that an LIE-Ni is going to look like an ILI and thus also IP, and an ILI-Te is going to look like an LIE and thus also EJ. So how do you know which one is correct in this situation? 



> Like I mentioned, Temperament is best considered in the the very beginning, and used to drill down from 16 types to 4. At that point, you have one type in the opposite Quadra (who is your Superego type) and can probably be knocked out of the running entirely. You then have your Kindred and Business types at which point you'd then need to look at other criteria like what the Base and Creative individual IE's are.


That still operates on the assumption that you got the temperament right.



> Looking directly at dimensionality and individual IE's from the get go invites the possibility of zeroing in on one single combination too early, without excluding other types.


How is this method different from looking at say, quadras when compared to temperament, that you mentioned? Dimensionality is also open-ended since it doesn't make assumptions about the functional role of the IE in the psyche meaning that you can for example consider anything from kindred to quasi-identical. I fail to see how it's less open-ended. 



> This is especially problematic in Socionics given that there is nothing in the theory itself to stop two people with radically different interpretations of the same type description from feeling they have correctly identified two incompatible processes in the same person.


That is true for any kind of typology and isn't unique to socionics, which is due to people interpreting the source material differently. Why people do that depends on a wide variety of reasons we don't have to go into here, but similarly, seeing how your original assertion about temperament must rely on interpretation (how do you otherwise determine temperaments apart by applying your own subtype system focus?), then again, how do you know that your interpretation of temperament is accurate and what happens if someone else understands the same person and their temperament differently? Because your method invites two errors:

1. You got the temperament wrong; this means that the entire basis of why you type that person is wrong and you need to start over;
2. The typee and typer(s) interpret the temperament of the typee differently; the typee may experience themselves as much more laid back befitting IP but the typer think they are too decisive befitting EJ. The typee says that they think IP-Je fits them better; the typer(s) think that EJ-Pi fits them better. If you are saying that the typer's assertion of the typee is correct, you are forcing your own interpretation of the typee by overwriting their experiences which is also a fallacious approach. Good typing is able to integrate both perspectives without sacrificing objective accuracy.

This of course also assumes that both typee and typer can agree on what a temperament is first and that their understanding of the temperaments are objectively accurate, which is not always the case, either. I find that temperament is often a bit too definitionally vague in order to provide substantial aid in typing.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Sure, but on what basis do you actually determine this if your main argument is that "a person looks like X temperament"? What is the most objective approach to determine that? You are essentially saying that EJ is by definition an EJ, which is circular and doesn't answer the main question of how to determine whether someone is an EJ or an IP in the first place; especially when regarding what you wrote previously, which is that an LIE-Ni is going to look like an ILI and thus also IP, and an ILI-Te is going to look like an LIE and thus also EJ. So how do you know which one is correct in this situation?


There's something very simple in my post you missed - an ILI-Te does NOT look like an E__j Temperament. They have stronger Te than other ILI's within the same, I__p Temperament. 




> That still operates on the assumption that you got the temperament right.


Agreed. You'd need to get Temperament right to continue and that is not foolproof. However, compare that to needing to get a single IE AND dimensionality correct to continue, which is more easy to identify? I can't imagine it is the latter for most people. 

Plus, you are still using dimensionality and role in this method, just after having narrowed down first by Temperament. I really do not see why you believe immediately jumping to a dimensionality conclusion makes more sense than that. 




> How is this method different from looking at say, quadras when compared to temperament, that you mentioned? Dimensionality is also open-ended since it doesn't make assumptions about the functional role of the IE in the psyche meaning that you can for example consider anything from kindred to quasi-identical. I fail to see how it's less open-ended.


Dimensionality absolutely makes assumptions about functional role in the psyche. That's part of the definition of dimensionality. If you assume a given Dimensionality, you must assume the person is also one of four types as you do with Temperament however those four types to compare against changes depending on which function you decide to assess. If someone is that wonderful at picking out specific dimensionality and function and IE details then yes, this would be a very direct way to identify type however I would highly doubt this is an accessible method for most people new-ish to typing, and would require a significant amount of justification from people who do use it - which I rarely if ever see, as people who do this then rely on type descriptions to support their very specific conslusions. 

And, as a sidenote, I have never seen anyone use dimensionality to explain how they narrowed types down to begin with, only to draw an immediate conclusion as to what the type recommendation is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> There's something very simple in my post you missed - an ILI-Te does NOT look like an E__j Temperament. They have stronger Te than other ILI's within the same, I__p Temperament.


I was referring to this section of your post:



> Again, I like Temperament because the criteria you would use to define it is independent of how the person chooses to explain themselves, yet also still a key aspect of information processing. It gets rid of issues with people hiding their PoLR well, using social masks, and using language that isn't native to their Base IE. *I, for example, talk and act more like an LIE than more Ni-ish ILI's, but am obviously still laid back in demeanor and life rhythm unlike the rather hectic E__j's.*


So how are you going to distinguish between what you claim in the bolded? How am I supposed to know that if you emphasize Te which means that you imply that an ILI-Te is going to seem more like an LIE, know that you are still more laid back according to IP temperament? 



> Agreed. You'd need to get Temperament right to continue and that is not foolproof. However, compare that to needing to get a single IE AND dimensionality correct to continue, which is more easy to identify? I can't imagine it is the latter for most people.


How would temperament be more foolproof? It's not like you need to get an IE AND dimensionality to be correct in order to arrive at a correct typing, since, if we're looking at ways to narrow things down, knowing a valued IE still reduces the amount of types we're dealing with to 8. Knowing the dimensionality or the function brings that down to 4. 



> Plus, you are still using dimensionality and role in this method, just after having narrowed down first by Temperament. I really do not see why you believe immediately jumping to a dimensionality conclusion makes more sense than that.


But if one is just going to judge by dimensionality, then why even bring in temperament since temperament will find its own place naturally if you figure out the dimensions and the functions of the IEs? 



> Dimensionality absolutely makes assumptions about functional role in the psyche.


Then let me rephrase myself: No, not in relation to model A. 



> That's part of the definition of dimensionality. If you assume a given Dimensionality, you must assume the person is also one of four types as you do with Temperament however those four types to compare against changes depending on which function you decide to assess.


Yes, but dimensionality is well defined and is at least, on paper, supposed to be a good way to more quantitatively arrive at typing people. I am not sure I agree with that dimensionality is always better, but I do agree with that as a method, it's more objective. 



> If someone is that wonderful at picking out specific dimensionality and function and IE details then yes, this would be a very direct way to identify type however I would highly doubt this is an accessible method for most people new-ish to typing, and would require a significant amount of justification from people who do use it - which I rarely if ever see, as people who do this then rely on type descriptions to support their very specific conslusions.


So your method is only interested in being promoted to new people? How does your method lead to more accurate typings when new people type, though? 



> And, as a sidenote, I have never seen anyone use dimensionality to explain how they narrowed types down to begin with, only to draw an immediate conclusion as to what the type recommendation is.


That's the sole basis of the SSS typings and the point of the 80q though. I think @To_august is still learning this method? I never got much into it myself since I find I still don't really grasp the definitions of dimensions well enough to feel confident that I can read dimensions in what people say.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Entropic said:


> I was referring to this section of your post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol I don't "promote" my own typing methodologies. This thread is actually the first time I've ever truly spelled out how I go about typing. I probably should do so more often. To be honest I don't particularly enjoy typing people at all to begin with, because I find that suggesting types to people makes them less likely to learn the theory for themselves. And, that typing in person is a lot more effective than online. 

Look, you've raised several concerns to my method of typing here, in contrast to the way you type. I'd agree that one concern you raised, with the method not being foolproof is valid (though not unique to my method). I'm not sure that you're really understanding the rest of the process, but perhaps you are and I'm not picking up on it; nothing you've mentioned here so far would directly invalidate the method, aside from being different than your way. 

You've made me very curious to know more about your own method, and I have some questions. 

Let's say we have a hypothetical person come onto the Type Me thread and ask to be typed. You believe them to be 3D Te, and 4D Ni. Can you bullet out 3 or 4 specific observable criteria that would lead you to that conclusion? They don't have to be specific personal things, just general traits of someone you would think is 4D Ni, or 3D Te and what would lead you to that conclusion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> Lol I don't "promote" my own typing methodologies. This thread is actually the first time I've ever truly spelled out how I go about typing. I probably should do so more often. To be honest I don't particularly enjoy typing people at all to begin with, because I find that suggesting types to people makes them less likely to learn the theory for themselves. And, that typing in person is a lot more effective than online.
> 
> Look, you've raised several concerns to my method of typing here, in contrast to the way you type. I'd agree that one concern you raised, with the method not being foolproof is valid (though not unique to my method). I'm not sure that you're really understanding the rest of the process, but perhaps you are and I'm not picking up on it; nothing you've mentioned here so far would directly invalidate the method, aside from being different than your way.
> 
> ...


It's not whether you promote your own methodologies or not, but you did bring it up because clearly you think it's useful and leads to accurate typings, no? And I was interested to know on what criteria you base that on, pretty much. 

As for the rest, I've laid out some general ideas about my own methodology in the above; you are free to criticize that based on the posts provided here, for example.

As for this hypothetical scenario, I can't answer it because I don't fully type by dimensionality as I already mentioned. I don't feel confident enough at doing that. Exactly how I type or what I look for is already laid out in this thread, which is the cognitive focus of the person. One way to observe that is to study the language people use when describing things. This also removes any potential bias of IRL/online interaction since we use language the same sans that written tries to compensate for lack of body language.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> That's the sole basis of the SSS typings and the point of the 80q though. I think @*To_august* is still learning this method? I never got much into it myself since I find I still don't really grasp the definitions of dimensions well enough to feel confident that I can read dimensions in what people say.


Not currently. I gleaned what I could from dimensionality and understand how it works in practice, but as with anything in Socionics, dimensionality may help you to narrow down the type only if person provides information that meets the criteria of dimensionality evaluation. I mean, someone may write an essay and it still would have little to no information relevant for figuring out dimensionality. Sometimes things person says fall neatly into dimensionality and at other times such information is simply absent. As you mentioned, 80q was made with the purpose of bringing out dimensionality and pushing people into explaining things in its terms, but still we have pretty short answers that tell us _what _someone does but don't contain necessary information on _why _someone does it and should it be always done this way, and if yes why, and if no why, and so on.

On the topic of temperaments, I agree that it's problematic. What is temperament in Socionics anyway? It doesn't even have a definition but only descriptions of four temperaments. There's a lot of subjectivity involved. For example, when someone thinks if they are more high or low on energy, with whom they compare themselves and what are the criteria for such evaluation? Or, what if person is impulsive and spontaneous with some things but is rigid about other things? What if they have fixed opinions in some areas but are indecisive and not sure about some other ones? What if their state of relaxation or readiness depends on place and time? What if they suffer from anxiety or other mental tribulations? I'm not even exaggerating, like, one in five people have some mental issue nowadays, and these are only diagnosed ones, with majority falling into anxiety and depression spectrum. How this affects their demeanor and self-perception as well as their perception by other people for example on how stable or unstable, or calm, or proactive they are?

Useless personal anecdote time - the only temperament I relate to is Ij. Other three don't come even close. Whatever that means.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> One way to observe that is to study the language people use when describing things. This also removes any potential bias of IRL/online interaction since we use language the same sans that written tries to compensate for lack of body language.


You're referring to this:

Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements

...or no?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> You're referring to this:
> 
> Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements
> 
> ...or no?


Yes. I think that's potentially one of the most objective and simplified ways to type, though I am not entirely sure how to make it more quantified without relying on buzzwords. You'd have to deconstruct a multitude of texts and speeches done by the same type in order to figure out a common speech pattern.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Figure said:


> Yeah, I agree this is a recurring issue. Not just with Socionics, but actually with most if not all typology, and in my experience more at the level of online and/or written communication than it is spoken. You asked for a method, so I'll give you that instead of commentary, though I have a lot of commentary on what I think of people who are clearly mistyped based on how their dialogue proceeds


Just putting this out there, I would love to see that commentary, especially if you have any about me. 



Figure said:


> What I typically do is begin with whether I believe the Base function to be Rational or Irrational. For that, I typically use Temperament. I find Temperament to be extremely consistent, and much easier to begin with than Base Function because of how it makes its way into how people present themselves and their energy style. I do NOT look at content of what they say, but whether they are relaxed and slow/restless and proactive, rigid and fixed in their assessments vs. impulsive and flexible moving from one idea to another randomly, and so on.


It's interesting that you say that. I have recently managed to (I believe) successfully type someone that has been very difficult for me to type, as she identifies quite strongly with MBTI INFP (to the point of it being tied up in her identity), yet because of Temperament it seems certain to me that she is EP. I talked with her at length and explained what Temperament is, and it was a huge breakthrough for her. She said she was "coming to terms with the fact that in Socionics she must be an EP type" at the end of that conversation. I'm glad that we are getting somewhere with this, because I really do enjoy chatting about typology with her. But I had to keep stepping around her type, because she had the MBTI type stuck in her head and used to define herself. Now I can discuss Socionics at length with her and she won't get mad when I talk about intertype or other things that affect her personally. 



Figure said:


> Once I narrow down to E__j, E__p, I__p, or I__j, I take the type of Base function as a given; for example, if I know someone is I__j, I know they are Ti or Fi Base and _then_ begin looking at the "cognitive style" for whether they are prioritizing more depersonalized or very much personalized standpoints in the rigidity of being I__j. Occasionally there are tricky people who, for arbitrary example, seem logical but are actually very much driven by their rigid emotional worldview and you then have to recognize I__j and go back to what you think is the main priority of what they say. Or, consider the person as say either ESI or LSI but definitely one of the two, and give it time to see which Base is operating. Subtype can also dilute the Base function and make that more difficult (though Temperament should stay in tact).


This really sounds like a startling quick and effective typing method. I wish I'd thought of this before you explained it 

Thanks for your input, man. This is fairly enlightening! 



Figure said:


> Again, I like Temperament because the criteria you would use to define it is independent of how the person chooses to explain themselves, yet also still a key aspect of information processing. It gets rid of issues with people hiding their PoLR well, using social masks, and using language that isn't native to their Base IE. I, for example, talk and act more like an LIE than more Ni-ish ILI's, but am obviously still laid back in demeanor and life rhythm unlike the rather hectic E__j's.


Good points.

Agreed, you do seem rather laid back.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Hmm. I've finished reading the debate now. I'm not so sure that Temperament is "questionable" per se as a method like some are concerned. At least, not more questionable than other methods.

Personally, I type by matching. I recognize that the information I was given matches a Temperament, a Reinin, an IE (possibly with dimensionality), etc. etc. Once I have converted the information given into Socionics data points, I check to see if everything is roughly pointing to any one Socionics construct. Usually, I find Quadra the most reliable. Generally speaking people look like they fall into at least one of the Quadra-defining Reinins, Merry/Serious or Judicious/Decisive. If I cannot even identify Quadra, I tend to get lost, as the data doesn't flow together into a single type if that makes sense.

Temperament to me seems to be a way around that. Its one of those things that can give a little nudge, something that shows where information is sort of flowing in a sense. It is useful information.

Actually, really all of the small groups help. I remember I typed one person based on their obvious Humanitarian Club at first, and after a long back and forth arrived at a type for them that seemed to match their inner experience and my outer perception.

The biggest thing that I feel I have to stress is that typing is NOT SIMPLE. You have to get input from them, and then return conclusions and data and CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING. If I think you said you believe Glork and you actually believe Glumph, then my typing will probably fail. But if I repeat back to you that I heard Glork, and you tell me you meant more Xanadu, and I realize that Xanadu is actually part of Glumph but not Glork, and then repeat back Glumph to you and explain why Xanadu is part of Glumph, then we can get somewhere. The back and forth part is where all the understanding becomes mutual, and mutual understanding is necessary for typing IMHO.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> It's interesting that you say that. I have recently managed to (I believe) successfully type someone that has been very difficult for me to type, as she identifies quite strongly with MBTI INFP (to the point of it being tied up in her identity), yet because of Temperament it seems certain to me that she is EP. I talked with her at length and explained what Temperament is, and it was a huge breakthrough for her. She said she was "coming to terms with the fact that in Socionics she must be an EP type" at the end of that conversation. I'm glad that we are getting somewhere with this, because I really do enjoy chatting about typology with her. But I had to keep stepping around her type, because she had the MBTI type stuck in her head and used to define herself. Now I can discuss Socionics at length with her and she won't get mad when I talk about intertype or other things that affect her personally.


I'm not sure what it is about Ne and Fi together in the Ego block but I've noticed that both can be extremely difficult to re-convince of something once they've established an opinion (albeit _much_ more so with EII's). They become glued to the opinion, but simultaneously appear to not want to be "boxed in" by having other flexible ideas. I had always seen as being related to being Te-seeking, and needing a large supply of explanations and factually-based argumentation but hats off to you for possibly debunking that  

Did you find that the IEE being Flexible Maneuvering helped you be more persuasive? I could see an IEE being flippant to having a different type suggested, but considering different ones on their own just for novelty's sake and/or being receptive to some new kind of input a type like yours or mine would give and trying to see if it was to their novelty and liking. Whereas an EII would have an immediate reaction and probably just say "no" with 10 + ties to outside sources courtesy of Ne that connect to an impression of why they cannot relate XD




> This really sounds like a startling quick and effective typing method. I wish I'd thought of this before you explained it
> 
> Thanks for your input, man. This is fairly enlightening!


Great! Yeah, what I kept finding was that because IE's are always associated with some temperament, if you can tell what the temperament is you can then look for the specific flavor of the IE as well. For example, Fe within an I__p/Receptive Adaptive Temperament looks very different, is used to different ends than, say, Fe within an E__j/Linear Assertive temperament.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Hmm. Well, let's look at a temperament @Figure.

IPs. That's SiFe, SiTe, NiFe, NiTe.
These types share: Introversion, Irrationality, Dynamic. All use Creative Je, all use Base Pi. This means we can also say they have Inert Dynamic Introverted Perception with Contact Dynamic Extroverted Judgment in common. That's a lot of information just right there!

These similarities would logically make these types look somewhat similar, as these three dichotomies are some of the most useful to spot. If you can tell someone is Dynamic, that tells you a great deal about them. But perhaps the crowning dichotomy here, the most useful and easiest to spot, is the Irrational/Rational divide. Telling that someone is an IP is about telling that they seem Irrational-Dynamic, essentially, and have the low energy of an Introvert. This is like a double-check system, actually. If they seem Dynamic and they seem Irrational but they have very high energy, they are probably not one of those two things! The energy levels, which are admittedly hard to spot through online interaction, should support the conclusions on those two dichotomies in order for Temperament to be viable. So you have a built in litmus test to double check the veracity of using Temperament.

It of course becomes important in the rest of the typing process to remember that if their Static/Dynamic or their Rational/Irrational dichotomies are called into question, so is your decision on Temperament! 

I can't always type by these dichotomies, but when I can it is always very helpful. So if the component parts of Temperament are useful it follows that the Temperament would be useful! 

EDIT: And nah, I didn't find that her Flexible Maneuvering made the process easier. Or maybe it did. Let me explain.

In order for me to get through to her, I had to explain that I was not contesting that she is the Big Idea version of the INFP that MBTI talks about at all. That my opinion of her Socionics type does not at all impact her MBTI type, nor am I saying anything about whether or not she is a "true INFP". I then went on to explain that there is a "big picture" INFP concept, and that the concept of EII in Socionics correlates to that concept at about 60-70%. I went on describing potential differences, and used the air in front of me to draw out and emphasize what I was saying as though the concepts were physical things to be picked apart and rearranged. I find that helps her with grokking what I am talking about for some reason.

Once I made it clear that the two systems were entirely separate in my mind as it pertains to her type, and thus nothing I said was a reflection on her established self identity but instead an attempt to provide additional information about her identity that she can take or leave at her option, she became much much more willing to listen and discuss. She basically sort of "switched modes" from stubborn-defensive to flexible-maneuvering at that point.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

@Fenix Wulfheart the same happened with a friend that typed as MBTI ISFP, but her energy levels are quite higher and she has this scattered way of thinking that I've noticed more in SEEs. She also showed signs of not having the rigid ideas that one could expect more from an ESI as well.

The hardest part was to show proof of her being an extrovert, which wasn't that difficult as all her 'social introversion' traits were actually part of her being a type 4 (I thought 7 first but her motivations didn't line up deep down). She sometimes still believes that she's an introvert but I know that she's getting the idea that's not related to how she actually deals with information.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

@Mordred Phantom how often do you think this happens? People being convinced they are an introvert type when they think in an extroverted way and vice versa, I mean.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @*Mordred Phantom* how often do you think this happens? People being convinced they are an introvert type when they think in an extroverted way and vice versa, I mean.


I think I've seen mostly extroverts thinking that they're introverts, specially with this idea that introversion is deeper than extroversion. Sadly younger people tend to pick whatever sounds cooler or unique. For the reverse, I suspect that outgoing people assume that they're extroverts even if their way of filtering data relies more on an introverted mindset.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Mordred Phantom said:


> I think I've seen mostly extroverts thinking that they're introverts, specially with this idea that introversion is deeper than extroversion. Sadly younger people tend to pick whatever sounds cooler or unique. For the reverse, I suspect that outgoing people assume that they're extroverts even if their way of filtering data relies more on an introverted mindset.


I've seen that a lot too - a friend of mine at work claims to be an introvert and acts very differently to other people who claim and I consider introverted. 

I think the main issue could be the connotations of certain functions and types...also that some people want to be seen a certain way and so answer with a bias. You have to ask questions in a way which makes them reveal their true feelings and thoughts and actions, rather than what they want you to see (this is a major issue in all psychological studies, especially with questionnaires etc).
It seems that asking very innocent questions (ones you can't easily link to type unless you're very confident in the theory) is the best way to get a correct answer?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

azir said:


> yeah i agree, it makes it hard to accurately type oneself since a lot of functions may overlap or sound similar


IKR, It's hard to know if someone is a Se lead or Te lead because they are both achievers, the difference is in the motives behind the achievement: Se being more about power over things and Te more about getting shit done, just get shit done and move on to get more shit done.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I think it's really hard to see yourself, and I'm sure the analogy has been made before that it's like trying to see the back of your head or a dog spinning around endlessly trying to catch his tail.

"Seeing yourself" requires that the "objective" and subjective views align. But you can't be objective. You simply aren't omniscient, and therefore can't be objective, and rely on your own subjectivity. Other people may provide conflicting, enhancing, or neutral views of you that improve your information about yourself. But ultimately, you are testing these things against what you say. You are filtering them through your insight, which is what you've been doing all along. Even if you pay lots of attention to your thoughts, it's likely you are only going to see certain parts of them, and you'll form your conclusion about yourself from that. But there's always more to the story, because the story depends on perspective and is therefore virtually infinite.

Furthermore, there's a strange negating property that goes along with adapting and changing as a result of being who you are and living life. You're not in stasis, you are going to change and be changed in return and vice versa. In a way, sorting through all this for the gold of the "objectivity" would leave you with a shadow of self (not THE shadow, but something like the shadow - THE shadow doesn't actually exist, it's the negative of a "positive" filtration process, the ego).

So I think when you wonder why someone's self image doesn't meet your image, you are more asking why that person's thoughts aren't in your image (which type[along with the billions of other personality factors]) may be able to help you answer).

Yeah tbh I don't even know but it definitely feels like you can't know yourself "objectively" at this point and similarly there is no what someone "actually does".


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> You're referring to this:
> 
> Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements
> 
> ...or no?


Curious how useful or accurate people have found this list to be? It's interesting and I'm curious how well it could be applied

On a personal note I'm curious about: "superfluous use of diminutive and augmentative suffixes" for Fi because I know I do that even though English doesn't really have that option, since I was a little girl I've been trying to force it and confusing people, just the other month I was telling people that I was looking for 'my little notebook' and they thought I was looking for a notebook of peculiarly small dimensions and I just meant that it was...I was just downplaying it. I would also wonder if this could be Fe though since you're almost trying to affect how people emotionally view the object by adding a suffix or word that makes it seem more or less cute/attractive/etc

I do all the Fe ones more - spot-on actually - just curious about this in particular. Though I wonder if it's specific to Russian and native speakers of Russian in particular (I think I overuse diminutive in Russian too - yablochka for yabloka lol - but it's not my first language)


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

The Night's Queen said:


> Curious how useful or accurate people have found this list to be? It's interesting and I'm curious how well it could be applied
> 
> On a personal note I'm curious about: "superfluous use of diminutive and augmentative suffixes" for Fi because I know I do that even though English doesn't really have that option, since I was a little girl I've been trying to force it and confusing people, just the other month I was telling people that I was looking for 'my little notebook' and they thought I was looking for a notebook of peculiarly small dimensions and I just meant that it was...I was just downplaying it. I would also wonder if this could be Fe though since you're almost trying to affect how people emotionally view the object by adding a suffix or word that makes it seem more or less cute/attractive/etc
> 
> I do all the Fe ones more - spot-on actually - just curious about this in particular. Though I wonder if it's specific to Russian and native speakers of Russian in particular (I think I overuse diminutive in Russian too - yablochka for yabloka lol - but it's not my first language)


It's an interesting article and there's some merit to it, I think, but it's questionable imo. It makes an attempt to put quite complex nature of language into neat boxes and find out certain trends, but the results of findings can go either way. For once, I find myself thinking about how do we learn first language itfp, and that the majority of language patterns are absorbed from the environment we were surrounded with at the very early stages of our life. Later we reproduce these patterns and some of them subconsciously. Even some of the patterns we learn in and of themselves are the product of subconscious reproduction made by someone else. And if so, are language patterns really an extension of our cognition or they are reflection of our social, professional and cultural past and present background? How much control do we have over choosing syntax or lexical morphology, for example? And where did polysemy go? Or even applying Socionics terms, why these patterns can't be indicative of non-ego blocks?

In short, I seriously doubt it's that simple.


----------

