Category talk:Type descriptions

From Wikisocion

Contents 1 redirects for type descriptions 2 "The individual" 3 Typical representatives 4 'tim 5 Common social roles 6 Idea for the pages in this section 7 Subtypes 8 Comparisons Between Types 9 Suggested naming convention 10 New direction

[edit] redirects for type descriptions

typing out those full names for the individual type descriptions when you link to them is bunk. We need to make redirect pages for all of them that use the three letter names instead. Example: EIE redirects to Ethical Intuitive Extratim (EIE) which is much less to type when you're trying to link to that type description. (I started on it but lost the motivation for the moment) Bionicgoat 08:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Aha! I didn't guess to do that. Of course, let's do it. (Admin 08:47, 31 May 2007 (CDT))

done! Bionicgoat 12:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

amazing! :) (Admin 16:54, 31 May 2007 (CDT))

actually, linking to these three letter abbreviations is bad practice. EIE is a redirect page; which will create double redirects. double redirects aren't a problem per se, but if you then have something that redirects to EIE, you will wind up at the EIE redirect page rather than the page Ethical Intuitive Extrovert Ethical Intuitive Extrotim. Niffweed17 15:38, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Are you saying that the redirect process allows for only one stage of redirecting? (Admin 15:48, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

yes. As an example, take this page; which redirects to EIE.

Come to think, I'm not exactly sure why Wikipedia dissuades linking in articles to redirects, but you definitely can't redirect to a redirect. Niffweed17 22:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, that is too bad. Next question: can you think of a situation when we would redirect to a three-letter type name? (Admin 23:18, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

no, but i can think of a situation in which we might have a double redirect: if people move pages around (ie Intuitive Ethical Extratim => Intuitive Ethical Extrovert) you will have a double redirect from the EIE page. all that need be done is then fix the EIE redirect and anything else that links to the old page, which is doable but will likely be rather a pain, because you're likely to have upwards of thirty or forty different pages linking to each of the types. Niffweed17 13:49, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

As I understand it, we can avoid these problems by making sure we always use internal links of the "EIE" form. This way we will only have to change 16 redirects if we decide to spell "extratim" differently or make any other changes. (Admin 14:44, 11 June 2007 (CDT))

presumably misspellings such as Intuitive Ethical Extravert will also be redirects. Niffweed17 16:10, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

wrong type but you get the idea. Niffweed17 16:10, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that is something we definitely need a bot for. Thehotelambush 23:12, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] "The individual"

Is there any way to get away from phrases like "the individual" in our descriptions of IM elements and types? I couldn't think of anything better at the time. --Admin 04:20, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

One improvement is to have "the individual" in the first sentence of each section for the elements, and he/him afterwards. For the types just use "the XYZ" whenever possible, and preferably in the singular (that way we could replace "the XYZ" with a person's name and see how it fits :). Thehotelambush 22:57, 16 August 2007 (BST)

It's probably a small matter, but reading type descriptions with gender specific pronouns has always bothered me for some reason. I personally like "the XYZ" or "XYZs" best I think. Bionicgoat 14:09, 29 September 2007 (BST)

What about using gender-neutral neologisms, or the epicene they? --Tanehem 06:41, 18 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Typical representatives

In our "original" type descriptions, what about including, below the "common social roles" - or maybe connected to them? - typical representatives for the types, those we in principle all agree on? As in Weird Al Yankovic for ILE? Or is it getting too complicated? Expat 13:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)

finding people "we in principle all agree on" might be difficult but otherwise why not? Although I can see how this could turn into a big can of worms rather easily Bionicgoat 14:06, 10 August 2007 (BST)

You're right about "can of worms", yes. Expat 14:50, 10 August 2007 (BST)

[edit] 'tim

Have we decided on using extratim/introtim in type names? I don't think it's going to catch on, honestly, and it's just more terminology for people to learn. Thehotelambush 23:14, 16 August 2007 (BST)

Hopefully I will be able to propose some terminology solutions for discussion within the next month. --Admin 17:06, 25 September 2007 (BST)

...What do you mean? I thought the opinions on terminology you heard at the conference were interesting, but 'tim/'vert is just a matter of convention (as opposed to the element/aspect thing). So unless anyone has a reasonable argument for the 'tim ending, I will rename the pages. Thehotelambush 05:17, 29 September 2007 (BST)

Using the 'vert convention could suggest to readers that the definitions are the same as those proposed by MBTT, or the "lay" definitions. Using the 'tim convention could also help distance socionics from MBTT, which I think is an issue. --Tanehem 06:48, 18 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Common social roles

I ran across some criticism of the common social roles at the16types. Niffweed17 thought they should be removed or put on another page. This can be done, but I think we have to be careful to avoid making the type descriptions too dry and abstract (i.e. no sensing or ethics in them whatsoever). The social roles, however, are often quite recognizable, and the fact that several are listed instead of just one is important. --Admin 16:38, 25 September 2007 (BST)

I think you're right; if this wiki really is to be a mirror of the socion, we shouldn't exclude any major aspects of type. Thehotelambush 05:17, 29 September 2007 (BST)

Wait. How are social roles "major aspects of type?" It's just a bunch of stereotype. How can you possibly justify stereotypes as being central to socionics? Niffweed17 02:44, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Social roles have always been a part of the meaning of socionic type (hence socio-), and each type naturally takes on certain roles in society. Taken by themselves, of course they can lead to oversimplification, but that's up to the reader's discretion. If you understand socionics at all (and I think you do), you must have seen many of these for yourself. Thehotelambush 06:27, 1 October 2007 (BST)

So, someone decided to delete all of the common social roles, just like that. Shouldn't we talk about it a bit? Expat 09:25, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Of course. I will block that user for a few days to prevent further damage, and undo the changes. I think we will switch to registered users only shortly to prevent anonymous changes like this in the future. --Admin 09:27, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Not that it really matters "who dun it"... but it was 16T user Ezra. I think he had good intentions, he just jumped the gun in his enthusiasm. Bionicgoat 10:42, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Preventing anonymous users from editing is a bad idea, just because of this particular incident. Personally, I still think that getting rid of the social roles (or at least moving them somewhere else) is a very good idea, and I don't think that what ezra did could remotely be considered vandalism or bad-faith edits. He was merely trying to improve the wiki by deleting information that he found to be erroneous.

Also see WP:BE BOLD Niffweed17 21:29, 4 October 2007 (BST)

back on the discussion at hand... maybe a proper generic disclaimer or explanation of what these roles imply/don't imply would be a good idea to add as a preface to this section of the descriptions. Would that not satisfy both ends of the argument? (just to facilitate, do the text as a template and add it in, that way we can edit the template and change the disclaimer for all 16 type descriptions at once ;) )Bionicgoat 10:56, 4 October 2007 (BST)

first, I think that a registered-user only is a good idea. Second, the disclaimer is ok, but I mean, come on -- I don't know what we can say to people who'll start typing using those common social roles. If people will be stupid, they will be stupid. Expat 09:10, 5 October 2007 (BST)

What I see happening here is that people are using their nonregistered status to hide their identity and avoid responsibility and discussion of their contributions. Nonregistered users don't participate in page discussions and don't behave like responsible community members. In similar wikis with a professional or specialized emphasis — which is what this wiki is, because you can't competently edit the wiki with the aid of "common knowledge" — registration is mandatory. In the best professional wikis I have seen, users are even encouraged to use their real names. If knowledge of facts were enough to contribute competently to this wiki, we would want to encourage unregistered visitors to contribute. Here, this has obviously become a deficiency. --Admin 11:05, 5 October 2007 (BST)

I totally, completely disagree that "this has obviously become a deficiency" and vehemently oppose the restrictions of editing to only registered users. Wikis are excellent forms of informational media precisely because they allow editing by anyone. First of all, communication with anon users is not impossible. While there is no good reason (in my mind, at least) of not associating oneself with a username, some people might be casual contributors that might run across a typo and try to fix it, for example, or add in a slight clarification to some description. There are a lot of good things that anon users can do for a wiki, and there is absolutely no reason to block them just because one anon user made some questionable edits (this wasn't even vandalism; far from it).

Rick's allegations that unregistered users merely stay unregistered to "avoid responsibility and discussion of their contributions" is way off base. There's absolutely no difference in terms of the potential contribution of an anon user and a registered one. There is no reason whatsoever why an anon can't participate in page discussions, or why the contributions of an unregistered user should fall under any less scrutiny than those of expat, rick, myself, or anyone else. (One might argue that often the anon will not respond. Fine then; just revert or modify any questionable edits... whats the problem?). Finally, there's no reason why an unregistered user has less knowledge of socionics: I would argue that many of the unregistered users who have edited here have a better understanding of socionics than registered users such as User:Tcaudilllg or User:Hitta.

Why don't they just register? I don't know. But there's no reason that they should be blocked just because they haven't done so. Niffweed17 21:19, 5 October 2007 (BST)

I'm curious about other people's opinions. I don't care about the registration policy and can easily change it back, but I don't want to have to waste time policing anon users all the time and reverting their edits without even knowing who did it and why in the first place. There are significant psychological differences between anon and registered users. Anons do not feel accountable for their actions and often edit on a whim. They don't expect to have to justify themselves. If there are enough registered users acting as policemen, this doesn't matter. However, when the proportion of anons gets too high, this creates too much work for the active registered users, who have to check all anon edits to make sure they make sense according to socionics theory. With registered users, you can almost always skim over their recent edits and can trust that they generally know what they are talking about. --Admin 23:12, 5 October 2007 (BST)

The story with Ezra removing the common social roles is just the latest example. Previously we also had the little edit war with Hugo. Regarding scrutiny, I think changes by everyone should be "scrutinied", and I don't always agree with changes other registered users have done, but at least we can assume that those won't have any malicious intent or be totally uncontrolled. If it's simple for us to revert changes, it is even more simple for them to register. Expat 17:14, 7 October 2007 (BST)

Who is to say that registered users are any more accountable for their actions than anons? I really don't understand why you say that "there are significant psychological differences between the two." No matter what, there are going to be both registered and anon users who vandalize pages. There are going to be both registered and anon users who have insane hypotheses like Dual-type theory that create pages on these topics. Just because somebody is registered, you think that's going to make them think long and hard before they make edits to confirm that they are correct? Socionics should tell you that there are some people who will do that, and some people who will not (for example, somebody like dee, if he ever registers, or machintruc). Niffweed17 20:08, 7 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Idea for the pages in this section

What do you think about including at the bottom of type description pages links to different type descriptions available on the web and in socionics books (the two that currently exist in English) with a plus-minus-question mark-exclamation mark rating system similar to what we have on our links page?

Here's an example of what I mean. --Admin 09:45, 28 October 2007 (GMT)

OK, I just did it for all the types. It would be nice to collect constructive feedback on the descriptions linked to. --Admin 11:31, 28 October 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Subtypes

So we're letting subtype descriptions on this category, despite the fact that most classical socionists assert that subtypes don't exist ? Machintruc 00:59, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

shut it already. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:33, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Comparisons Between Types

A couple of Enneagram authors put out a book that was supposed to be a practical guide to the types. One of the features of the book was a comparison between each of the Enneagram types to help one differentiate between each type, in case they are close. For example, someone who favours both Nine and Five descriptions would be able to differentiate between Nines and Fives through the fact that Nines do not like conflict, while this is not really an issue for Fives. I think that a future WikiSocion project could be to differentiate between, for example, INFjs and INTjs, in the event that someone identifies with both types. It wouldn't be necessary to distinguish between every two types, but just for cases in which it is likely that they will be confused. In theory, you would think that a lot of people could read the descriptions and see the differences, but I notice that some people are having a hard time deciding between several types at The16Types forum, and I myself have had this problem. What do you think of this idea? jason_m 02:58, 1 October 2008 (EST)

It seems like a good idea and I'm not against it, but there are 15*16/2 = 120 type pairs. Granted, most are not generally confusable, but... people's ideas of which types seem easy to confuse always seems to be evolving: today it's 'business' types (or "lookalike" or whatever), tomorrow it might be super-Ego types or kindred types or mirror types. Sometimes even duals can be easily confused. In the case of LII and EII, only a subgroup of these types might be easily confused with each other. Other LIIs might be more confuseable with ILEs. I think the problem comes down to being able to distinguish the functions in use, especially the knee-jerk judgments and behavior of the leading function. Just my 2 cents. --Admin 16:02, 1 October 2008 (BST)

In my experience it's pretty consistent which types are easiest to confuse (namely mirror, kindred, and quasi-identical types, and perhaps business), although certain subvariants appear more like certain other types. But first priority should be better type descriptions, rather than trouble-shooting. Thehotelambush 10:47, 1 January 2009 (GMT)

[edit] Suggested naming convention

For secondary/non-original type descriptions I suggest having, e.g., "LII (Filatova)" or "LII (male and female)", plus DEFAULTSORTing with the parenthetical first ("Filatova LII" or "Male and female LII"). Thehotelambush 10:39, 1 January 2009 (GMT)

I agree. --Admin 01:36, 7 January 2009 (GMT)

[edit] New direction

I think that we need to revamp the type descriptions. The pages can made longer. We need to capture the political dimension, or else of a type will not be able to agree on the validity of the descriptions. Instead of holding people as types, we need to focus on "types" which are held by people. In social psychology, they bias is natural and unavoidable in research. Let's leverage understanding of that bias to give the best assessment possible of how types interact with other aspects of personality. Meged, Gulenko, Boukalov, etc. are hardly in agreement as to how the types manifest, so let's give them all their respective days in court, and specifically note where the experts differ. tcaudilllg 00:24, 25 February 2009 (GMT)