Explaining my post-based typing method

[Pionart]

I thought I should try and justify the method I use for typing people and see if people can either confirm that they’re able to see it too or explain why what I’m doing is invalid.

What I will start with is to say that what I think a person does when they write a post is to take a topic and explain it from multiple viewpoints – considering one aspect of the topic after another until they feel that they’ve explained it enough.

Generally, when a person is switching from describing one aspect of something to another aspect they’ll start a new paragraph – though, sometimes the aspects will merge together so you’ll get more than one aspect in a single paragraph, or sometimes a particular aspect will be multi-faceted, so there will be multiple paragraphs for a single aspect. Generally though it’s one paragraph per aspect.

So, what you should be able to do, is look at multiple posts by a single person, and in the majority of cases, there should be a correspondence between the different paragraphs of each of the posts. What I mean is that if they consider a particular aspect of something first in one post, they will probably also consider that aspect first in the other post, and likewise of the second aspect they consider and so on. There are plenty of exceptions to this, but it should work in enough cases that a trend appears for each person.

So, that trend – that’s the person’s type. What I mean is that these aspects that the person considers should bear a striking resemblance to the different cognitive functions. For example, a person may consider the logical, or the social aspects of something, which would correspond to Ti or Fe respectively. The aspect they consider first – that’s their dominant function. The aspect they consider second, that’s their auxiliary, and so on.

So, if that process actually does work, then that’s a way to type a person based on their posts.

I’ve personally been able to see these connections manifest when I’ve tried to look for it, but I do fear that I may have some kind of confirmation bias effecting what I’m doing. Maybe I think I can see patterns but I can’t. Maybe I can see patterns but I’m drawing the wrong conclusion about what these patterns mean.

If you can’t see what I’m talking about, then maybe I’m wrong and I’ve tricked myself into seeing it. But if you can see it, at the very least in your own posts, then that’s how we can type people. It shows what type is – it’s an order of considerations. Different people will consider different aspects of things, it won’t be that the same person will consider the exact same things as another person but in a different order (or that they themself will consider the same aspects every time), however I think there will generally be a good deal of similarity between the considerations one person uses and those another uses. The term “strange attractor” has been used in a context which I think is relevant here, though I can’t say I necessarily understand that term too well.

So, is this just confirmation bias, or can you see it too? And if others can see it, doesn’t this prove that type, and the cognitive functions, are real?

I should mention some exceptions to the rule: a person can switch up the order of the different considerations. This should be a minority of cases, and in these cases either the first consideration will be the same - same dominant function - or different – different dominant function, unless the person just happens to have jumped straight to a lower consideration, so that they’re not starting with the dominant function. It’s rare to start with a function other than the dominant and create a lengthy post though, usually only one or so considerations will be shown, and the post might sound in some way unnatural.

I think that’s about all I have to say on that matter. What say you?

--

The different aspects are, roughly:

Ni – subjective+abstract – conceptual
Ne – objective+abstract – general
Si – subjective+concrete – conventional
Se – objective+concrete – realistic
Fi – subjective+personal – emotional
Fe – objective+personal – social
Ti – subjective+impersonal – logical
Te – objective+impersonal - empirical

 

[Maou]

What would you type me, based on my last 10 posts?

 

[Jaguar]

Fi: Staying true to your beliefs, regardless of context. Prioritizing based upon what is important to you.

Hardly the description of "emotional." I often wonder if people mistype themselves because of that word.

 

[Pionart]

Fi: Staying true to your beliefs, regardless of context. Prioritizing based upon what is important to you.

Hardly the description of "emotional." I often wonder if people mistype themselves because of that word.

Those words were just a possible way of summing up the process in one word. Fi definitely correlates with emotion. Emotions and values are linked. I mean it's "Feeling" which is a technical term but "emotion" is a close fit.

- - - Updated - - -

What would you type me, based on my last 10 posts?

I'll PM you.

 

[Jaguar]

Those words were just a possible way of summing up the process in one word.

If that was your goal, you failed. Choose: values.

 

[Pionart]

If that was your goal, you failed. Choose: values.

Look, if you want to apply the method and give a demonstration that your way is better, then feel free to do so, but as it stands you're just being nitpicky and missing the whole point of the thread.

 

[Pionart]

Just to explain it again, in case it's actually a stumbling block for people to grasp what I'm talking about:

The one word summaries I used were just examples. I tried to stick as closely to what I look for, although really I could have said "memories" for Si, because I tend to look for memories as an indicator of Si, but really there are multiple aspects of any given function.

So, having said that, look for the function as a whole, rather than just a specific aspect of that function. It will start to become clearer as you go on what sort of things relate to which function, but at first just use what you already know.

--

For example, here's a template of what Ti versus Fi might sometimes look like

Ti: "It's either A or it's B"
Fi: "It's (A) for (a) and (B) for (b)"

So Ti and Fi are both about narrowing down options, but the way Fi does it is about allocating things to their proper place.

Neither the "values" nor "emotions" definitions really capture what was going on there, but it's a fundamental tendency of Fi to do things like that.

 

[Pionart]

This is how my OP divides up:

I thought I should try and justify the method I use for typing people and see if people can either confirm that they’re able to see it too or explain why what I’m doing is invalid.

Ni

What I will start with is to say that what I think a person does when they write a post is to take a topic and explain it from multiple viewpoints – considering one aspect of the topic after another until they feel that they’ve explained it enough.

Fe

Generally, when a person is switching from describing one aspect of something to another aspect they’ll start a new paragraph – though, sometimes the aspects will merge together so you’ll get more than one aspect in a single paragraph, or sometimes a particular aspect will be multi-faceted, so there will be multiple paragraphs for a single aspect. Generally though it’s one paragraph per aspect.

Ti

So, what you should be able to do, is look at multiple posts by a single person, and in the majority of cases, there should be a correspondence between the different paragraphs of each of the posts. What I mean is that if they consider a particular aspect of something first in one post, they will probably also consider that aspect first in the other post, and likewise of the second aspect they consider and so on. There are plenty of exceptions to this, but it should work in enough cases that a trend appears for each person.

Se

So, that trend – that’s the person’s type. What I mean is that these aspects that the person considers should bear a striking resemblance to the different cognitive functions. For example, a person may consider the logical, or the social aspects of something, which would correspond to Ti or Fe respectively. The aspect they consider first – that’s their dominant function. The aspect they consider second, that’s their auxiliary, and so on.

Ne

So, if that process actually does work, then that’s a way to type a person based on their posts.

Still Ne I think

I’ve personally been able to see these connections manifest when I’ve tried to look for it, but I do fear that I may have some kind of confirmation bias effecting what I’m doing. Maybe I think I can see patterns but I can’t. Maybe I can see patterns but I’m drawing the wrong conclusion about what these patterns mean.

Fi

If you can’t see what I’m talking about, then maybe I’m wrong and I’ve tricked myself into seeing it. But if you can see it, at the very least in your own posts, then that’s how we can type people. It shows what type is – it’s an order of considerations. Different people will consider different aspects of things, it won’t be that the same person will consider the exact same things as another person but in a different order (or that they themself will consider the same aspects every time), however I think there will generally be a good deal of similarity between the considerations one person uses and those another uses. The term “strange attractor” has been used in a context which I think is relevant here, though I can’t say I necessarily understand that term too well.

Te

So, is this just confirmation bias, or can you see it too? And if others can see it, doesn’t this prove that type, and the cognitive functions, are real?

Te

I should mention some exceptions to the rule: a person can switch up the order of the different considerations. This should be a minority of cases, and in these cases either the first consideration will be the same - same dominant function - or different – different dominant function, unless the person just happens to have jumped straight to a lower consideration, so that they’re not starting with the dominant function. It’s rare to start with a function other than the dominant and create a lengthy post though, usually only one or so considerations will be shown, and the post might sound in some way unnatural.

Si

I think that’s about all I have to say on that matter. What say you?

Si?

--

The different aspects are, roughly:

Ni – subjective+abstract – conceptual
Ne – objective+abstract – general
Si – subjective+concrete – conventional
Se – objective+concrete – realistic
Fi – subjective+personal – emotional
Fe – objective+personal – social
Ti – subjective+impersonal – logical
Te – objective+impersonal - empirical

Non-specific



So yeah, that should give you a feel for how the method works.

Note that the quoted post puts emphasis on the Te and Si in the form of elongating those paragraphs, due to the nature of the topic.

 

[Non_xsense]

Just to explain it again, in case it's actually a stumbling block for people to grasp what I'm talking about:

The one word summaries I used were just examples. I tried to stick as closely to what I look for, although really I could have said "memories" for Si, because I tend to look for memories as an indicator of Si, but really there are multiple aspects of any given function.

So, having said that, look for the function as a whole, rather than just a specific aspect of that function. It will start to become clearer as you go on what sort of things relate to which function, but at first just use what you already know.

--

For example, here's a template of what Ti versus Fi might sometimes look like

Ti: "It's either A or it's B"
Fi: "It's (A) for (a) and (B) for (b)"

So Ti and Fi are both about narrowing down options, but the way Fi does it is about allocating things to their proper place.

Neither the "values" nor "emotions" definitions really capture what was going on there, but it's a fundamental tendency of Fi to do things like that.

Man , you aren't doing any bad ... Of course any type can just try to understand " The surfance of what actually is " ....
But you are trying to "cage" people in concepts that are easier to understand for you .... evolution is more complex than all of us combine.

the way you are using to type people actually can failed alot 'cause is not using how the human being can actually improve.
Probabily most "Nt" are gonna find holes in your way of thinkign 'cause they spend almost all their life thinking about theories .

Maybe trying to abstract more about concepts rather than Physical clues can improve ...But what the fuck i know , Im just an idiot( look my avatar that is actually me ).

 

[Indigo Rodent]

This is how my OP divides up:

(reads, tries to divide the post, sees lots of Te, deletes)
I disagree.

I basically see a massive
block of Te + some Ni here.

You're explaining a system
and
speculating and
asking people
for objective feedback
on the system and your performance using it.

(The cottage cheese with honey is quite tasty by the way)

(ah yes, nice cheese)

Paragraphs are
used to divide the
text.
To
make
it more readable, sigh

(nice cheese)

I don't think it really works like this.

(yes, tasty cheese)

So, the paragraphs.
When someone can easily write
walls of text


They often are told
to divide the up

Lots of people have trouble

(I wish I could drink some coffee)

reading long paragraphs.

The ones in (cheese with honey tastes good) Nabokov's novels...
(coffee in a moment, yes)

They are horrible. I remember quoting Lolita
hundreds words long paragraphs.

(the coffee has somewhat watery taste)
(the cottage cheese with honey tastes nice)

So yeah. Paragraphs. They can be
a bit long

So people get told to divide them up.
It's a visual thing.

(It's exhausting to explain technical things, sigh.)
(cottage cheese with honey tastes quite nice)