Typewatching: How well do you guess other's types?

[rivercrow]

Qualify would not be an appropriate word to use in your situation.

Clarify and expound would be more fitting because 'Qualify' implies--give meaning to the statement. It already had substance, yet the real issue was vagueness.

A well-developed Ti can help you cultivated skills in the enterprise of accurate and clear thinking when assessing systems. Ti-Ne can envision the typological system, and then use the Ti to assess how variables on the outside (people) fall into this system. And hence you can match up ideas connected with types with people pertaining to those types on the outside. Having accomplished this, your accuracy in 'typing' others should be very high.

Hm. Perhaps, but I also suspect there's quite a good possibility for a high rate of failure due to type bias, either for or against.

TiNe doesn't exactly corner the market on "In the moment," "Noticing details," or "Appreciating personal differences." Or "Total grasp on reality." Speaking from experience.....

[Langrenus]

I chose the word qualify quite deliberately. You provided no meaning whatsoever.

I will speak more clearly. How do you know that your original assessment was correct, outside of your own further analysis? Do you send these people to be psychologically tested?

[SolitaryWalker]

I chose the word qualify quite deliberately. You provided no meaning whatsoever.

I will speak more clearly. How do you know that your original assessment was correct, outside of your own further analysis? Do you send these people to be psychologically tested?

I analyze very carefully to avoid type-bias, and compare what I know about them to people that we can clearly perceive as that of possessing the cited type.

Like (Einstein for INTP, Nietzsche for INTJ, Schopenhauer for INFJ, Milton/Kierkegaard for INFP).. and so on..

With some I discuss typology, and those who were familiar with it and know their type well, confirm my assessment concernign the nature of their temperament.

Some, I've had take the test, and so far I've only made one mistake. Mistyped an INTJ for an INTP. I have not spoken with him in private, only heard him discuss ideas in public.

Type bias is less of an issue with INTPs than INTJs, as INTJs, with their Ni can be confined to their perceptions more (and we know Ni is strongly linked with the unconscious mind) and can easily make hasty decisions concerning ideas based solely on their perceptions which could be poisoned by their prejudices.

INTPs, tend to make decisions more based on conscious analysis of phenomena, and thus more likely to extricate themselves from their own tastes and prejudices.

[Totenkindly]

I do not have much to add to all this, since my experiences with typing fit many of the experiences here. (RL experience is more reliable than online or other data; I usually get a quick "read" and then continually update the hypothesis as I go; 20's being the "best time" to type; and so on.)

But I guess even that much is useful, since it still supports the ideas.

[Alesia]

My gut feeling is that the late teens through the 20s are the best time to get typed. After someone's been in the workforce--especially if they're not in-line with the socially-biased preferences--then the difference between "BE" and "DO" gets fuzzy, even in a self-assessment.

Yes, I agree with this. Actually, I typed myself at age 35 and had no problems. So, maybe 20's and 30s. I sometimes wonder if teens are not sufficiently developed or know who they are to actually type.

And, yes, after getting into the workforce and being forced into roles that are not your natural preferences can really start some confusion. So, I'm thinking around age 25 to early thirties.

[Langrenus]

I analyze very carefully to avoid type-bias, and compare what I know about them to people that we can clearly perceive as that of possessing the cited type.

Like (Einstein for INTP, Nietzsche for INTJ, Schopenhauer for INFJ, Milton/Kierkegaard for INFP).. and so on..

With some I discuss typology, and those who were familiar with it and know their type well, confirm my assessment concernign the nature of their temperament.

Some, I've had take the test, and so far I've only made one mistake. Mistyped an INTJ for an INTP. I have not spoken with him in private, only heard him discuss ideas in public.

Type bias is less of an issue with INTPs than INTJs, as INTJs, with their Ni can be confined to their perceptions more (and we know Ni is strongly linked with the unconscious mind) and can easily make hasty decisions concerning ideas based solely on their perceptions which could be poisoned by their prejudices.

INTPs, tend to make decisions more based on conscious analysis of phenomena, and thus more likely to extricate themselves from their own tastes and prejudices.

In the first instance your ranking system seems flawed, since any analysis of the individuals you have mentioned (with, perhaps, the exception of Einstein) is based on documentary evidence analysed long after death. Furthermore, such an analysis, being based primarily on documentary evidence, does not seem ideally suited to comparison against observations made in a social setting.

In the second instance any careful analysis intended to avoid type-bias is going to be relatively tricky once you've a) already 'pre-'typed someone, and b) convinced yourself that you're correct in >x% of cases

Thirdly, how many is "some"? You've made one mistake - does this represent 100% of cases or 1%?

I don't disagree with your assertion that subconscious perceptions probably play a larger role for INTJ's - it is also possible that these are more exposed to prejudice. It is also possible that subconscious interpretations are actually more capable of stripping out superficial details and quickly revealing the heart of an individual's character. I believe that this is too subjective a point to argue over, but would be interested in your thoughts.

Having never met you I can't really refute your assertion that you can type people to such a high rate of accuracy. But my mind calls bullshit. Perhaps it's the preponderence of the N function within me.

[SolitaryWalker]

If you study Nietzsche's ideas and the way he writes (I have read all of his books), you will clearly see that he is led primarily by the Ni, and his presentation style resembles Te. (And of course there is plenty of evidence in his biography concerning his type being INTJ). I've also read a great deal on Schopenhauer's life and have read all of his books as well. Same I can say for Kierkegaard.

Those, are highly likely to have the type that I believe for them to have. Obviously we cant be certain about this, but I do think that we know enough about these people to believe that we can have confidence in our ability to type them.

My ranking system is oftenly misunderstood. It does not insinuate epistemic certainty and does not expect for the world to fit into those exacting molds, and my systems deal with human nature and not human personality. So in short: I am not pigeonholing people.

I am not sure if we could talk about my ranking system cogently at this point, as it is highly likely that we are not on the same page.

[SolitaryWalker]

Is that extreme-INTP for "does not compute"?

Sorry, I've misread many entities within your post and gave an inappropriate response. I edited it out as soon as possible to ensure that you dont see it.

I gave a more fitting treatment to your message in the statement that is now posted.

[rivercrow]

Yes, I agree with this. Actually, I typed myself at age 35 and had no problems. So, maybe 20's and 30s. I sometimes wonder if teens are not sufficiently developed or know who they are to actually type.

And, yes, after getting into the workforce and being forced into roles that are not your natural preferences can really start some confusion. So, I'm thinking around age 25 to early thirties.

Yeah--ya wanna catch 'em before the cynicism of old middle age settles in....

Course, with Gen Xers, that happened around age 10, so we're really hard to type.

[Langrenus]

Sorry, I've misread many entities within your post and gave an inappropriate response. I edited it out as soon as possible to ensure that you dont see it.

I gave a more fitting treatment to your message in the statement that is now posted.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, message removed.

You're probably correct in thinking that we're not on the same page - but you've made a simple post with a clear message (please do this more frequently) which, I believe, helps us to move on.

I still take issue with your typing system for several reasons, but happy to discuss at a later date.