Considering Confirmation Bias

[Atomic Fiend]

I don't type people unless I'm prompted to, and sometimes not even then. I had ideas of what I thought you were, but unless you were genuinely curious as to what they were I wasn't going to tell you.

 

[Tater]

I don't type people unless I'm prompted to, and sometimes not even then. I had ideas of what I thought you were, but unless you were genuinely curious as to what they were I wasn't going to tell you.

If I had asked you what type I was before I told you I was Tater, what would you have said?

 

[Turi]

I for one am critical and skeptical of the type people list.
There isn't any chance in hell, I would ever fall prey to confirmation bias.

If anything, it's the opposite - I detect when people are attempting to direct a typing a particular way, and I look for things that conflict with their self-typings.

The only time I play the 'confirmation bias' game is in some threads ala "is the person above you accurately typed?" like on PerC - where it's almost to keep the conversation flowing, and not a real thorough dissection of anybodies type.
If they want that, they should - and do - make a thread for themselves in the appropriate section.

Good luck tricking me into believing you're a particular type (goes for everybody).
I do keep these thoughts to myself more often than not - choosing to simply not respond to such clear attempts at deceit.

There's an example in the what my type thread here at the moment - a very clear Sensing type is trying their absolute hardest to appear as an intuitive.
I won't link or name-drop, but it's incredibly obvious.

Ain't nobody fallin' for that.

 

[Jaguar]

There's an example in the what my type thread here at the moment - a very clear Sensing type is trying their absolute hardest to appear as an intuitive.
I won't link or name-drop, but it's incredibly obvious.

Ain't nobody fallin' for that.

Meanwhile, you're probably the sensor and they're the intuitive.

 

[Turi]

Meanwhile, you're probably the sensor and they're the intuitive.

Couldn't care less.
Have a nice day.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

If I had asked you what type I was before I told you I was Tater, what would you have said?

Some kind of SFJ honestly.

 

[Jaguar]

Couldn't care less.
Have a nice day.

Get a sense of humor.

 

[Turi]

Get a sense of humor.

If they're on sale I'll pick one up, but I'm not paying full price.

 

[Tater]

It would have been very interesting to start a new Johari/Nohari and compare results with the INFP typing vs. the ISTP typing.

I'd like to find a way to try that out in a more controlled setting. It became clear that sometimes people start to see you a certain way when they think you're a sensor. At best, you're a badass. At worst, you're a dumbass. For example, at least one person thought I played aggressively in the Mafia game to the point of comparing it to physical violence. I kind of got the impression that Mal thought I was Se because I was hostile or something.

So, it would be nice to have full, illustrative samples of biases like that via Johari/Nohari.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not trying to misinterpret your comment. How does the distinction apply here?

I was referring to people second-guessing others' types. There are many reasons why a person might be uncertain about their type, or claim a type that really isn't theirs. Confirmation bias is just one of them, and applies to much more that people claim about themselves, not just type. Unless another person is a very good friend or otherwise knows quite a bit about them, they still have more insight on which to base a type decision than that other person, though that person might be able to offer helpful observations.

I think what it means to be a Christian or a Baby Boomer is pretty uniform. All Christians believe that "Christ", as mentioned in the Bible, is the son of their god. Of course, a wide range of variance exists in terms of other beliefs they hold, what character traits they possess, and what sects they associate with. However, the key here is that religious affiliation says something at all.

Contrast this with MBTI. For some people, the J/P dichotomy contradicts the functions they prefer. Most notably, this is the case for people who believe that Socionics more accurately describes their cognition and behavior.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

From another angle: Categories of religion and generation apply so broadly because they say so little, while categories like MBTI apply so narrowly because they say so much.

This is more like it, and part of my point. Categories of religion and generation say very little about us, but we still find utility in them. Types are narrower but still rather broad. There is considerable variation within each one, though they still say something meaningful about how members of that group approach the world. That is because of the kinds of information type includes, as opposed to many of the other categories we use.

 

[Fidelia]

Floki, you feel Ne flavoured to me. But I have no idea what you have been typed throughout your time here.

 

[Jaguar]

I kind of got the impression that Mal thought I was Se because I was hostile or something.

Well, then, that would make Salome ISTP.

 

[Tilt]

I just figured you were female but your posting seemed a bit off compared to a few self-proclaimed female ISTPs but I never read into it.

 

[Tater]

Well, then, that would make Salome ISTP.

Salome. Everyone's favorite princess.

Too docile. Too pure for this world.

I just figured you were female but your posting seemed a bit off compared to a few self-proclaimed female ISTPs but I never read into it.

I identify as male and I have a peepee.

 

[Tilt]

Salome. Everyone's favorite princess.

Too docile. Too pure for this world.


I identify as male and I have a peepee.

I know who you are now.. I was around from 2008...lol i remember you distinctly telling me that I seem to have a lot to say but hold back so it's hard to read me.

 

[senza tema]

It's all a bunch of hogwash anyhow.

 

[Snow as White]

Type touches upon something that is there: you can see the outlines of the archetypes when interacting with others. It just seems to be more fluid than boxes such as generational cohort or religion. After all these are supposed to be our preferences and therefore can be subject to subjectivity.

Consider the development of a person along the lifespan and the factors that effect that development. Much of what is learned is for survival and the best survival trait is the ability to adapt. Someone who may prefer introversion may have to adapt and learn to tolerate more and more extraversion in order to achieve goals in school, relationships, and professional settings.

So I have wondered if perhaps some of the type issues such as that in this thread stem from this.

*throws words into the ether to see if they stick*

 

[Tater]

Type touches upon something that is there: you can see the outlines of the archetypes when interacting with others. It just seems to be more fluid than boxes such as generational cohort or religion. After all these are supposed to be our preferences and therefore can be subject to subjectivity.

Consider the development of a person along the lifespan and the factors that effect that development. Much of what is learned is for survival and the best survival trait is the ability to adapt. Someone who may prefer introversion may have to adapt and learn to tolerate more and more extraversion in order to achieve goals in school, relationships, and professional settings.

So I have wondered if perhaps some of the type issues such as that in this thread stem from this.

*throws words into the ether to see if they stick*

Is it really there?

Thoughts about archetypes and typology systems add a layer of abstraction away from what's in front of us. As more data is accumulated, the pieces build onto the base of the abstract thoughts, removing us even further from the present moment. If we are not in the present moment, are our perceptions about the people in it accurate?

Btw, congratulations on your first post. :hi:

 

[Snow as White]

Is it really there?

Thoughts about archetypes and typology systems add a layer of abstraction away from what's in front of us. As more data is accumulated, the pieces build onto the base of the abstract thoughts, removing us even further from the present moment. If we are not in the present moment, are our perceptions about the people in it accurate?

There are many different theories that divide people up by groups. Ancient concepts like the four humors, astrological elements of air/fire/water/earth that impact its 12 signs, similar concept in Chinese astrology with their year zodiac and elements... all the way up to modern interpretations in the form of MBTI, enneagram, and socionics. Why do these concepts persist? I think because innately we can all sense there is something there. Something to be explained. We all also want to know who we are and what that means, and these systems can help create a structure upon which self discovery can possibly take place.

Btw, congratulations on your first post. :hi:

Thanks!