# Typing Methods



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> It may not be hocus pocus, but it _could _be like astrology-- Which is why I view this system as being fun to dabble in, rather than anything to be too serious about.


Wow um... what?!? That comment makes me think you either know nothing about Socionics or nothing about astrology. Or both.




cl0ud said:


> Yes, personality tests are _tests_ to see which category fits best. Star signs are based on an arbitrary fact about you which tells you you must fit into this group.
> 
> Its like testing you in a tennis match against a seasoned professional, and judging your skill based on your performance. Star signs are like judging your tennis ability on your eye color.



Do you see the difference? One is complete hogwash, made up and perpetuated because of the Forer Effect, whereas the other is a system of classification that organizes people based on very real preferences and abilities for certain kinds of information.


Do you perceive yourself as being good at perceiving all kinds of information? All-around perfect at everything? Or do you think you are better at some things and worse at other things--like everyone else on the planet?

People like Carl Jung, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, Lenore Thomson, Isabel Myers, et. al. were keenly aware that some people have preferences as to what kind of information they prefer to deal with and make decisions with. And perceive. 

And they based their systems on very real people out in the world who had very real preferences and abilities.

I mean, it has something to satisfy both empiricists and theorists.

Do you happen to come from a planet where everyone is perfect at systems logic and work logic and at adapting to their environments and emotional expression and generating enthusiasm and being perfectly polite and [etc]?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@emberfly

Well, some people don't agree with the behaviorism aspect of typology, and think cognitive functions and elements can exist independent of behavior in the world. Part of it, I believe, goes back to motives. Surprisingly, the little picture version of preferences on MBTI Wikipedia page gives same results as full-blown tests when I type people in person. The same with dichotomous valued/unvalued choices for elements from wikisocion and the Socionics test. What changes is when you start to tell the people what such means about their personality. In MBTI, which basically only gives the "positives", everyone agrees. When you get to socionics, which is neutral on positive/negative aspects of personalities, half the people flip a switch and start backtracking. Similarly, in society, the underbelly often has ways of validating their own behaviors, regardless of what evidence is given. Point is, doesn't matter what evidence you give to some, including brain scans. Some people just want to believe what lets them live their lives as they so please.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Hogwash! DNardi "test" has nothing on this:
> 
> Short Form for the IPIP NEO-PI, Introductory Information
> 
> The real big5 test(this is the short form) has 240 items with a whooping 48 items per domain! LOL! It has the equal number of untis per domain as the WHOLE DNardi "test"  .


Well, Ixim, that's quite something. Still, from that linked page this is a bit discouraging ...

*__ Yes, I understand that responding to all items on this inventory is time consuming and that technical difficulties may prevent the results from being displayed. I am responding to this inventory with the full knowledge of the risk that I might not receive results. I accept full responsibility and risk for the time I invest in responding to this inventory.
*ref. Short Form for the IPIP NEO-PI, Introductory Information

LQ! As if.

My guess is, at 240 items, practically everyone who finishes the test comes out as the same type. (Won't say what that is.







)

Wish them (and you) luck, though.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_emberfly_
> 
> Well, some people don't agree with the behaviorism aspect of typology, and think cognitive functions and elements can exist independent of behavior in the world. Part of it, I believe, goes back to motives. Surprisingly, the little picture version of preferences on MBTI Wikipedia page gives same results as full-blown tests when I type people in person. The same with dichotomous valued/unvalued choices for elements from wikisocion and the Socionics test. What changes is when you start to tell the people what such means about their personality. In MBTI, which basically only gives the "positives", everyone agrees. When you get to socionics, which is neutral on positive/negative aspects of personalities, half the people flip a switch and start backtracking. Similarly, in society, the underbelly often has ways of validating their own behaviors, regardless of what evidence is given. Point is, doesn't matter what evidence you give to some, including brain scans. Some people just want to believe what lets them live their lives as they so please.


Yeah, some people want to believe. Some Ni-HA people  .

But to ignore even brainscans...ridiculous!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

emberfly said:


> Wow um... what?!? That comment makes me think you either know nothing about Socionics or nothing about astrology. Or both.


I'm comparing them aesthetically. And, if you take astrology seriously, then I cannot help you. :kitteh:

Not to say it doesn't necessarily have its merits-- Just that I wouldn't use it as a doctrine to follow for any reason. In the same way that I wouldn't use Socionics as a doctrine to follow.

When you take it too seriously, that's when problems can start to develop.

I take it as something interesting and fun, something that may have its points, but that should be used with moderation, caution, and a healthy amount of skepticism.

That said, of all typological theories, Socionics is the one I defer to in discussion.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> Not to say it doesn't necessarily have its merits


That's what he is speaking of though. It has no merits, outside of people thinking it does. There is no correlation between positions of heavenly bodies and any effects on personality.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's what he is speaking of though. It has no merits, outside of people thinking it does. There is no correlation between positions of heavenly bodies and any effects on personality.


My only argument is that typology _could _be like this. Not that it is.


----------

