Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Type diagnosis
¶
Warning
This page or section is
incomplete
. Additional contributions are needed.
There are many approaches used to identify socionic types.
Theory
¶
Approaches
¶
Comparison to type descriptions
¶
One of the most common and obvious methods to type someone, and oneself,
is to make comparisons to type descriptions written by presumably
qualified socionists. This is probably the preferred method to all
newcomers to socionics, not so much by more experienced socionists, who
eventually build up their own conception of each type in their minds,
not needing to rely very often on descriptions written by others.
For the less experienced socionists, type descriptions ideally provide a
quick glimpse of what representatives of each type typically are in real
life, “on average” so to speak, and are often helpful in at least
eliminating types that are very obviously different from the person
being typed.
The major flaw of this approach is the risk of confusing information
conveyed by the type description as being essential to the type when
that is not the case. For instance, a description may mention that
representatives of one type tend to display particular behavioral
traits, or interests in certain activities, which may well be indeed
very common among that type and yet not be essential to it functionally.
This may lead one to dismiss a certain type as likely for a given person
for what is in reality a minor reason.
Type descriptions are very useful as illustrations of how the functional
preferences are commonly manifested in external behavioral traits, but
they can also be misleading if such behavioral traits have other origins
in particular individuals. Above all, the “check-list” approach to type
descriptions, as in marking which percentage of the traits described in
descriptions can be observed in the person being typed, maximizes this
problem and should be avoided.
Some socionists are of the opinion that type descriptions should be best
regarded as a didactic tool to learn socionics rather than tools for
typing.
Written tests
¶
Usually written tests provide multiple-choice options that are supposed
to distinguish between poles of
dichotomies
. The goal
of written tests is to objectively assess type, eliminating any one
socionist’s biases from the procedure. However, the difficulty is to
accurately convey to the test-taker what the dichotomies or
elements
really mean. Problems of interpretation get in
the way, especially if the test-taker is unfamiliar with socionic types.
An experienced socionist often does not expect these problems, and gets
a rude shock when they appear.
If the socionist augments multiple-choice tests with further explanation
and examples, their accuracy can increase.
Interview methods
¶
Visual identification
¶
Challenges
¶
Many professional socionists who use an interviewing method have to deal
with the issue of “
masks
,” or behavior that people exhibit in
unfamiliar or unwelcoming circumstances or when they are asked about
themselves. Some of these masks can even be explained socionically.
Self-concept, or one’s self-knowledge, is the basis
of one’s answers to traditional type tests and is not necessarily
exactly in line with one’s socionic type. Many circumstances can
influence self-concept and make the individual present a picture of
himself that may be inaccurate. However, the objectivity of self-concept
is almost impossible to assess during one visit or interview.