One reason why it doesn't matter how someone else types you, is that it's pretty obvious there are different schools of thought on not only what the types are, but on the functions and quadras as well. The only time I've argued with someone about my type was when the basis for the typing - his reasoning for it, was incredibly insulting and showed a lack of understanding as to who I am as a person.
Basically, you're talking about a completely different arrangement. How a person fits and what their type is in one, is not how they'll fit in another. Some people have bionic and I as the same type -- which to me makes little sense. You have someone who has been a competitive Type A-ish personality her whole life, except for a period of extreme stress and depression, and bionic who is about as naturally laid-back as you can get, and put them as the same type? However, it works somehow for some people's system, apparently they're going off a a different set of criteria, have a different data set, put more emphasis on certain things, etc.
I only bring this up because I was poking around socionix the other day, reading the type and categorization theories, seeing how they sort folks out.
Anyway, I have very little use for categorizing people, except by the broad categories of how well I get along or not with them, whether or not we're at odds with each other, that sort of thing.
Some systems at all of the socionics sites just seem to be a means of self-aggrandizement - think tc as an example, but there's lesser examples too. Others go to the opposite extreme and take on the whole "woe is me, I have to face life as this horrific type. . . "
Oh man is it ever beautiful outside right now, I wish I was in the air. Anyway, those are some pretty obvious remarks about personal systems and stuff. I'm sure it's not anything everyone else hasn't already noticed . . . just doesn't seem like people always take that into account and instead assume they're all on the same page, when they might not even be in the same chapter.
__________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
We may be able to understand each other and understand if each other's conclusions are right by defining a common language, with words that map to the different "subsets" of people that are contained in the different systems. For example, having followed its evolution I understand the way Ashton has been classifying information, and I understand how it's exactly the same way it's been classified as, say, Smilingeyes, just with different names. It's like writing the equation of a geometric figure, or drawing it on board: conceptually they can both be used to describe a plate, but if the two parties don't know that they're talking about the same thing, they will butt heads. Unfortunately even IRL many people don't take the time to reach this basic understanding. I think that both minor (say, marriages) and major (international) issues would be more efficiently solved this way. Not everything, yeah, but at least something.
We may be able to understand each other and understand if each other's conclusions are right by defining a common language, with words that map to the different "subsets" of people that are contained in the different systems. For example, having followed its evolution I understand the way Ashton has been classifying information, and I understand how it's exactly the same way it's been classified as, say, Smilingeyes, just with different names. It's like writing the equation of a geometric figure, or drawing it on board: conceptually they can both be used to describe a plate, but if the two parties don't know that they're talking about the same thing, they will butt heads. Unfortunately even IRL many people don't take the time to reach this basic understanding. I think that both minor (say, marriages) and major (international) issues would be more efficiently solved this way. Not everything, yeah, but at least something.
-- Edited by FDG at 16:40, 2007-10-28
Yes, I agree, and I think some headway was made in the long discussion over there as far as understanding each other, but there's still distance to go. I haven't been following the progression of Ashton's system, and see that there are likely some disagreements on the basics - such as how the functions are defined, etc. I have some disagreements with a lot of folks at 16types also. Too many people have this idea that Fi is about being a moralistic prick -- I tried to explain what Fi leading is like in that "describe your first function" thread, but I don't know how many will even read that or care enough to reevaluate their views. Ann's been trying to do that forever - and people end up trying to retype her for it. It'd definitely be nice to get a common basic understanding with everyone speaking the same language.
I also haven't gotten around to reading the economic theories cpig mentioned yet, lol, somewhat resisting doing that because I'm suspecting they'll be a giant Ti-fest, full of mathematical equations and models based on such and such data, with quotes from various economists I've never heard of. I could be wrong, but I'm not ready to find out yet as once I start looking into it, I'll be stuck there until I come to a conclusion. So, on the back burner it goes.
__________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
