# Typing Methods (e.g. by Quadra)



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

I would be interested in hearing how people here go about typing others. Also of interest are things that you may notice as potential problem areas (e.g. "look alikes") as well as things you find people do that can lead to poor typing.

I've tended to type by first considering Quadra to get an overall feel of what a person is like (assuming a particular function isn't immediately obvious), though I wonder on a general level (meaning, disregarding what I may/may not understand about the quadras) what the salient problems may be with that. Or conversely whether quadra typing is underemphasized and why it should be considered over another method.

Otherwise, I mean for the thread to be as general and vague as it seems.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Dying Acedia said:


> Or conversely whether quadra typing is underemphasized and why it should be considered over another method.


Obviously, this is my opinion. I find many aspects of socionics theory -- reinin dichotomies, structured interpretations of nonfundamental intertype relations (e.g. benefit, illusion), the all-the-rage cognitive styles -- to be trivially inapplicable to real people that I have come to understood as examples of what the types are in the classical school.

By contrast, quadras are conceptually powerful and seem to offer some explanation of how the other things -- the "failed" and the "not-so-failed" parts of the intertype model, and why people emphasize the things that they do -- all fit in to place.

By no means is it necessarily the right explanation; personality structure is a hard problem to solve. But it is a good attempt. The other constructs (reinin dichotomies etc.) I've mentioned seem like trivially untenable attempts. MBTI seems like a trivially uninteresting attempt that takes away all of the conceptual power that quadra differentiations carry. The enneagram is an interesting and conceptually powerful complementary attempt. The big five is a not particularly interesting and not-exactly-perfect but for these reasons, easily testable attempt. And so on.

Expat would not agree with absolutely everything that I have said here -- but his writings scattered throughout the internet between 2006 and 2009 are my primary inspiration for why quadras are the conceptually important domain within socionics. He put the pieces of socionics together before I did.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

My primary mode of typing relies heavily upon determining the valued IE's and then placing them according to how well they fit the functions in model A. Quadra values, other Reinin dichotomies, and Gulenko's cognitive styles only serve as supplements to that. I don't use dichotomies to determine valued functions because two different forms of cognition combined with influences from life and enneagram can generate similar outputs in terms of behaviors. Just because type X is more inclined to certain behaviors, doesn't mean that the explanation for the person manifesting that behavior is because they're type X. As for intertype, I avoid using it because I always operate under the assumption that the other party in the interactions is of an unknown type. I generally avoid self-referencing or comparing specific people I have typed in determining someone's type for this reason as well.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I have found quadras most useful to consider when you're looking at someone's behavior in a group. Individually, it can be hard to place a person in a quadra, because traits don't apply homogenously to each of the four types (i.e. an INFJ will not be as motivated by Se information as an ESTP, though both share those Se-related Beta values). In a group, however, you can use quadras to note how they deal Fi and Fe in what kind of emotional environment they tend towards; you can see Se and Si in how they manage space; you can see Ni and Ne in how they try to steer or add to conversation; you can see Ti or Te in how they discuss topics at hand. These are only several examples.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

RoSoDude said:


> In a group, however, you can use quadras to note how they deal Fi and Fe in what kind of emotional environment they tend towards; you can see Se and Si in how they manage space; you can see Ni and Ne in how they try to steer or add to conversation; you can see Ti or Te in how they discuss topics at hand. These are only several examples.


Elaborate on these please?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't tend to look for quadra when I type people. I find that I have an easier time telling someone's IM preferences first and go from there. Quadras only apply when I have issues typing someone and I only get vague impressions. 

I don't really look for Model A either though. I first of all look for individual IMs and what place the person seems to come from cognitively. My methods have been the same since I began typing people, just more refined over time. If I have pinned down what seem to be the preferred IMs but I am unsure about the order of preference I might try to see how it checks with other systems e.g. Gulenko's cognitive styles or Model A.

Usually I tend to get a good grasp of someone's cognitive make-up though.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Elaborate on these please?


Take some of the examples of valued/subdued quadra elements on this page. It gives some good examples how types of each quadra will handle groups.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dying Acedia said:


> I would be interested in hearing how people here go about typing others. Also of interest are things that you may notice as potential problem areas (e.g. "look alikes") as well as things you find people do that can lead to poor typing.
> 
> I've tended to type by first considering Quadra to get an overall feel of what a person is like (assuming a particular function isn't immediately obvious), though I wonder on a general level (meaning, disregarding what I may/may not understand about the quadras) what the salient problems may be with that. Or conversely whether quadra typing is underemphasized and why it should be considered over another method.
> 
> Otherwise, I mean for the thread to be as general and vague as it seems.


I've found that the only way to type people accurately, and minimize room for bias and stereotyping, is to apply lower-tier dichotomies (rational/irrational, static/dynamic, judicious/decisive, and so on) in typings. Temperaments and v.i. can be useful to a limited extent. Among people I know well, intertype relationships is another thing that I consider, but I don't use them at all when it comes to those I barely know at all (such a typing posters on this forum or celebrities).

The problem with typing by Quadra Values is that often personal values override them and create a mess. Additionally, there is significant bleed-through from enneagram and instinct stackings which muddles the issue. For example, one article pointed out that social instinct is very easy to mix up with belonging to Socionics "Aristocratic" quadra. I've found that typing by quadra values to be inaccurate methogology, but I will look for signs of valued IEs in typing questionnaires.


----------

