TypeC Wiki project - general discussion

[entropie]

Mod note: This thread is for discussing the Typology Central wiki project.

Discussion moved from http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44695&p=1496713

------------------------------

Then write some damned decent descriptions. You've ridden this horse before, it gets old.

I dont think this is the right way to thank orangey for pointing out an obvious flaw by unloading all the work onto his shoulders. The people who did the mbti should work on that. Or maybe this community should, we at least should have the best ideas for it

 

[strychnine]

If we want thorough descriptions they're gonna be pretty long, so I wouldn't dump it one one person either Perhaps we could write wiki-style descriptions where people agree or disagree with some parts in a thread, and the various parts only stay in if a lot of people agree. That way things that apply to one person of a given type won't be in a type description that is supposed to fit as many people as possible. And they'll be ISFP (for example) descriptions written by ISFPs rather than by INTPs eg. Keirsey.

Not that I'm volunteering. hahaha.

 

[wolfy]

If we want thorough descriptions they're gonna be pretty long, so I wouldn't dump it one one person either Perhaps we could write wiki-style descriptions where people agree or disagree with some parts in a thread, and the various parts only stay in if a lot of people agree. That way things that apply to one person of a given type won't be in a type description that is supposed to fit as many people as possible. And they'll be ISFP (for example) descriptions written by ISFPs rather than by INTPs eg. Keirsey.

Not that I'm volunteering. hahaha.

Type Description Wiki I did that. It was fun... but hard to keep up.

 

[EJCC]

I think one that is far more prevalent than some cynical bias against N writers on your part is simply that that people really don't understand N, and so they naturally try to label it as "creativity." But all types are creative, and it's the style of creativity that tends to change among N vs S. Both Ns and Ss make this mistake, and S's who are creative automatically think they must be N because they are creative, and no one wants to be called "not creative."

And every single SJ type description that tries to be humorous mentions a lack of creativity. Which is sad because we can have very inspired Ne moments from time to time.

Personally, I don't think the issue is that S descriptions are bad (although they can be); I think it's that N descriptions are over-inflated. They make NFJs look like they have mystical powers, they make NTJs look like they are destined to rule the world, they make NTPs look like the only people capable of innovation, and they make NFPs look like figures of unsurpassed artistic brilliance which none but themselves can understand. Whereas, SPs and SJs look like... normal people.

I agree that it would be better to just write up a better description. But I don't know other types as well as I know myself, and what's really needed is an N (or two, or three) who can write type descriptions in a less egotistical fashion.

Edit: OMG, Wolfy! I'm so impressed
Nice work!

 

[Randomnity]

Perhaps we could write wiki-style descriptions where people agree or disagree with some parts in a thread, and the various parts only stay in if a lot of people agree.

I'll organize this (in some form TBD) in the next few days whenever I have time to stop and think about it for a bit. If I remember. It would be a great community project.

 

[Randomnity]

Type Description Wiki I did that. It was fun... but hard to keep up.

I was thinking on different lines, but I also like this. Maybe the two can be combined.

 

[wolfy]

I was thinking on different lines, but I also like this. Maybe the two can be combined.

Yeah, the original idea was a more true wiki. But I ended up working within the forum limits.

 

[InvisibleJim]

*Perspective shift*



Perhaps the people writing the type descriptions are sensors. What would be the ramifications?

 

[garbage]

Type Description Wiki I did that. It was fun... but hard to keep up.

The wiki idea is a nice one, and it 'ensures' that no one person writes all of the type descriptions.

Wikisocion pulled this one off really nicely, and I'm surprised that there isn't an equivalent for MBTI.

Perhaps the people writing the type descriptions are sensors. What would be the ramifications?

if the thing you said, and also if N descriptions are considered more glamorous, then perhaps we'd be seeing "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome?

 

[Randomnity]

if anyone has the technical know-how to make an actual wiki here, please share! I really don't know much about that kind of thing.

I think I will be going more in the direction of collecting information from multiple people of X type (as many as will participate) and compiling it into one article, that may be updated later as additional info is given, since that seems the most technically feasible.

But a "real" wiki would also be cool if it's not too much trouble to assemble.

 

[InvisibleJim]

http://www.wikispaces.com/content/wiki

 

[garbage]

But a "real" wiki would also be cool if it's not too much trouble to assemble.

It's really not too hard.

Ideally, it'd have "objective"/"sacrosanct" descriptions of types, descriptions of types from the perspective of people of those types, function descriptions, descriptions of the different models in use (including the simple four-dichotomy model), etc.

So yeah, let's split this off into a separate thread and do it already!

 

[Randomnity]

Ok, I made a page for each type, if I remembered them all. Surprisingly, all were free except intp, which was already made but the page is blank so hopefully we can edit it. If not we can make a new page.

I made them all "protected" so you have to be a wiki-whatever member to contribute. I think (hope) that means you just have to sign up (for free), and I'm not sure if it tracks the people who've contributed. If not, let me know and I'll figure something out....

The page location is type.wikispaces.com ex istp.wikispaces.com.

Feel free to start contributing now if you like. We can sort out organization etc later. I think it would be best if we stick to describing our own type at least for now, for the best accuracy (in theory). If you'd like to share info on other types, that's fine, but I ask that you put it under a heading like "as seen by others" or something, so we can keep the sources of the information separate.

I'll also start some threads at some point to gather info and will add that info to the wiki.

Maybe if it doesn't track contributing members, add your username at the bottom of the page somewhere, so we'll know who's contributed? Like "last updated by randomnity March 4/2011 1pm" or something?

edit: looks like it does keep track of who contributed! cool.

 

[Totenkindly]

I dont think this is the right way to thank orangey for pointing out an obvious flaw by unloading all the work onto his shoulders. The people who did the mbti should work on that. Or maybe this community should, we at least should have the best ideas for it

You kind of missed my point: If the problem is that N's write biased descriptions, then we need S's to pick up the slack rather than just bitching about the bad descriptions. The reason it never gets fixed (if there's a fix to be made) is because there are many complaints but no one investing in a solution they approve of.

Of course it makes more sense for the community to do so, it's a bit much for just one person.
So I'm glad R started this thread.

And every single SJ type description that tries to be humorous mentions a lack of creativity. Which is sad because we can have very inspired Ne moments from time to time.

I'm actually more a supporter of type perspectives, rather than "Ne" moments or "Se" moments. I think the idea of "perspective" permeates an entire engagement of life no matter what type we are, and we all cry, we all laugh, we're all conventional, we're all unconventional at times.

Personally, I don't think the issue is that S descriptions are bad (although they can be); I think it's that N descriptions are over-inflated. They make NFJs look like they have mystical powers, they make NTJs look like they are destined to rule the world, they make NTPs look like the only people capable of innovation, and they make NFPs look like figures of unsurpassed artistic brilliance which none but themselves can understand. Whereas, SPs and SJs look like... normal people.

Well, I can only critique the example I saw; and any set of type descriptions (where the only point is to separate and distinguish) automatically tries to accentuate the differences in order to be as distinctive as possible. But then you're only see extremes of a type, rather than as a type naturally and realistically will manifest in daily life. And in daily life, we are all very human and more alike than different that way. I don't see those type descriptions as typically manifesting themselves tangibly.

I agree that it would be better to just write up a better description. But I don't know other types as well as I know myself, and what's really needed is an N (or two, or three) who can write type descriptions in a less egotistical fashion.

What? You're gonna trust us with this after all?

I'm always willing to help polish something, if need be.
If there is an inequity in the type descriptions, then I want it balanced out and fixed.
But I think it would be good for self-designated S's to take the lead.
Pretty much any type profiles I can think of have been written by N's, and we don't need more of them.

 

[Orangey]

You kind of missed my point: If the problem is that N's write biased descriptions, then we need S's to pick up the slack rather than just bitching about the bad descriptions. The reason it never gets fixed (if there's a fix to be made) is because there are many complaints but no one investing in a solution they approve of.

Yes, of course it's the fault of sensors everywhere.

Of course it makes more sense for the community to do so, it's a bit much for just one person.
So I'm glad R started this thread.

It IS a cool project, despite your...annoyingness.

I'm actually more a supporter of type perspectives, rather than "Ne" moments or "Se" moments. I think the idea of "perspective" permeates an entire engagement of life no matter what type we are, and we all cry, we all laugh, we're all conventional, we're all unconventional at times.

Agreed.

Well, I can only critique the example I saw; and any set of type descriptions (where the only point is to separate and distinguish) automatically tries to accentuate the differences in order to be as distinctive as possible. But then you're only see extremes of a type, rather than as a type naturally and realistically will manifest in daily life. And in daily life, we are all very human and more alike than different that way. I don't see those type descriptions as typically manifesting themselves tangibly.

That's soooo far from the explaining or even touching on what she said in that quote.

What? You're gonna trust us with this after all?

I'm always willing to help polish something, if need be.
If there is an inequity in the type descriptions, then I want it balanced out and fixed.
But I think it would be good for self-designated S's to take the lead.
Pretty much any type profiles I can think of have been written by N's, and we don't need more of them.

I'll be more specific and say that we don't need more self-proclaimed Ns to write descriptions that serve to glorify themselves because they've over-invested their identity in the perceived worth of their type.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yes, of course it's the fault of sensors everywhere.

Yes. It is. Stop moaning and provide product.

 

[garbage]

The page location is type.wikispaces.com ex istp.wikispace.com.

thanks for getting the ball rolling on this

Is each account a separate page? It'd be nice if we could set up an entire wiki rather than one account per type. That'd open us up to have pages on, say, the functions as well.

Something along the lines of a typology wikia?


If nothing else, I'll throw some wiki software on a server and host it myself. Or TypoC can. You know, whichever.

 

[Orangey]

Yes. It is. Stop moaning and provide product.

Shut up.

 

[Randomnity]

thanks for getting the ball rolling on this

Is each account a separate page? It'd be nice if we could set up an entire wiki rather than one account per type. That'd open us up to have pages on, say, the functions as well.

Something along the lines of a typology wikia?


If nothing else, I'll throw some wiki software on a server and host it myself. Or TypoC can. You know, whichever.

Go for it! It'd be a nice complement to this to have an overall view, for sure.

I thought having a separate page for each type would help make it easier to read, especially if it gets long! I like the idea of an "overall" or individual function page too, though. If you're up to the task by all means.

 

[Randomnity]

If I'm understanding correctly, you have to be a member of the wiki to contribute, so anyone who wants to add stuff, sign up (for free) on the wikispaces site and tell me your wikispaces username, and I'll add you as a member to the wiki so you can edit it.

Absolutely everyone is welcome to contribute to your type description.

...is the intp page run by anyone here, by any chance? It does seem to be public, anyway. It seems to have been created in 2008 by "gust 0261" and never touched, so a hijacking is in order!

edit: I think I have to invite members to each wiki page separately, so if you have a burning desire to add to other types' descriptions let me know when you ask to be added, otherwise I'll default to adding you to your own type page only out of sheer laziness economy of effort. Of course I can always add you to other ones in the future, just let me know.

To that end, please tell me your type when I add you so I know which one to put you in. Please only contribute if you're fairly sure of your type, to increase the descriptions' accuracy (let's say 90% confident for a completely arbitrary number).