the16types.info Socionics Forums - Is it Type Related?

Type this video.

Thanks Arthur — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:30:55 GMT

YouTube - The Magnificent Universe

Is THIS type-related???

Airborne — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:45:00 GMT

More Types!

Huitzilopochtli — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:57:42 GMT

since you guys like sitting around yelling at each other all day about who is more understanding vs more serious or more decisive vs more reasonable or about whether you have a personality at all or whether MBTI can be converted to socionics or if dual-type theory is correct of if socionics is even a science, I found you even more subtypes to spend the rest of your lives fighting over:

Joking Type: Merry ego / Serious id

witty - dark clean complex
shocking - dark vulgar spontaneous
provocative - dark vulgar complex
sarcastic - dark clean spontaneous
comical - light vulgar complex
corny - light clean spontaneous
mischievous - light clean complex
idiotic - light vulgar spontaneous

OkCupid | Take The 3 Variable Funny Test

Loving Type: Serious ego / Merry id

romantic - traditional aggressive giving
classic - traditional submissive receiving
suave - traditional aggressive receiving
exotic - radical submissive receiving
carnal - radical aggressive receiving
devoted - traditional submissive giving
surprising - radical submissive giving
liberated - radical aggressive giving

OkCupid | Take The Lover Style Profile Test

I got sarcastic and romantic, which means I am dark, clean, spontaneous, traditional, aggressive, & giving

:muaha:

Easy ice-cream test!

twitch — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:05:56 GMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritsa33 (Post 688917)

Here:

Take my easy test:

Please do discuss your favorite flavors of ice cream and try to include as much information as to what about them that you like. You can even do this extensively with just one or two.

I'm hoping someone will be able to type me by the easy icecream test maritsa33 invented. This test got me quite excited!! I had just seen the Gelato-van out in the street, and its a nice warm day :) .

Here is my answer!

My favourite icecream is a mixture of gummy bears, warheads, chocolate and sour worms with hokey pokey bits and pieces. Though i must admit, it's i who adds the assortment of goodies!! :D.
So to start my icecream eating ritual off, i scoop large amounts into a tiny bowl, stir until slightly metled with a tiny bubba's spoon (i like my icecream in small doses). when icecream is quite melted and a nice creamy, smooth/slightly runny texture then its acceptable to drink it straight from the bowl! *SLLUUURRRP*

Writing Style and Type

Default — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:19:51 GMT

What kind of correlation is there, if any?
Also, if there is... What is the distinction?

I've noticed that writers like Mark Twain and Frank McCourt (the general consensus is IEE on the former and I strongly believe that holds true for the latter) like to write in a satirical, anecdotal fashion. There are always little side stories that don't really have a strong connection to one another but serve altogether to move the plot... From reading a couple of each of their books it feels like time blurs and I'm never really given any direct insight as to how much time has passed between each episode.

Thoughts?

Talking too Quickly

katashideus — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:35:17 GMT

I've been often accused of talking too quickly, and recently it has become a problem in my French orals and in Debating. It also becomes a bit of an issue when I suggest something in class, especially something in my philosophy class, or deliver an explanation of my thinking, and no one actually knows what I just said. Usually the teacher will then restate what I just said in a more concise manner.

Possibly related to me not being able to be concise at all.

So, yes, the question is: Is it Type Related?

Buddhism: Ti or Te dominance?

Airborne — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:28:01 GMT

from wikipedia:

Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.

Some scholars assert that early Buddhist philosophy did not engage in ontological or metaphysical speculation, but was based instead on empirical evidence gained by the sense organs (ayatana).[1] Buddha is said to have assumed an unsympathetic attitude toward speculative thought in general.[2] A basic idea of the Buddha is that the world must be thought of in procedural terms, not in terms of things or substances.[3] The Buddha advised viewing reality as consisting of dependently originated phenomena; Buddhists view this approach to experience as avoiding the two extremes of reification and nihilism.[4] Nevertheless, Buddhist scholars have addressed ontological and metaphysical issues subsequently.

Particular points of Buddhist philosophy have often been the subject of disputes between different schools of Buddhism. While theory for its own sake is not valued in Buddhism, theory pursued in the interest of enlightenment is consistent with Buddhist values and ethics.

[...]

Early Buddhism displays a strong streak of skepticism; the Buddha cautioned his followers to stay aloof from intellectual disputation for its own sake, saying that this is fruitless and distracts from the practices leading to enlightenment. However, the Buddha's doctrine did have an important philosophical component: it negated the major claims of rival positions while building upon them at a new philosophical and religious level.

In a skeptical vein, he asserted the insubstantiality of the ego, and in doing so countered those Upanishadic sages who sought knowledge of an unchanging ultimate self. The Buddha created a new position in opposition to their theories, and held that attachment to a permanent self in this world of change is the cause of suffering and the main obstacle to liberation. The same skeptical approach negates the existence of any high god or essential substance, and undercuts both traditional and iconoclastic spiritual goals. He broke new ground by going on to explain the source for the apparent ego: it is merely the result of the aggregates (skandhas) which make up experience.

In this breaking down into constituent elements, the Buddha was heir to earlier element philosophies which had sought to characterize existing things as made up of a set of basic elements. The Buddha, however, eliminated mythological rhetoric, systematized world components into five groups, and used this approach not to characterize a substantial object, but to explain a delusion. He coordinated material components with psychological ones. The Buddha criticized the Brahmins' theories of an Absolute as yet another reification, instead giving a path to self-perfection as a means of transcending the world of name and form.[5]

Yoga

Skeptic — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:44:55 GMT

Type it. If you don't think it's type related, give the stereotypical function/function relation you think it is connected with.

Theme Parties

cinq — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:12:16 GMT

What types or what quadras are most likely to engage in/enjoy 'theme parties'?

Being entranced

HaveLucidDreamz — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:14:13 GMT

Being in an entranced state of some kind.... like having some mood repeat over and over and over rhythmically.

Is it type related.....

I've heard physically being in a trance is :Si:
Mentally being in a trance is :Ni:

I also think Ixxp's have a tendenacy to be more entranced

Refusing to have children..

jxrtes — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:10:17 GMT

..because they might have deformities. Like being Siamese twins or having three legs.

Capacity for intimacy in relationships (lotsa open-ended questions)

redbaron — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:24:49 GMT

I'm not talking about physical intimacy, obviously, but emotional intimacy.

Do you consider yourself to have a low capacity for this, or high?

Do you have different people that you share different parts of your life with? Is there any ONE PERSON you share everything with? Or do you share everything with several people? Is there any one person in your life who truly knows you, inside and out?

My answer to that is: probably not. I'm beginning to think I have a low capacity. Either that or I need to make some new friends. :?

Maybe another way to talk about this is to ask: do you normally hold people at arm's length? And if so, why? Is this a learned behavior or do you think it's related to type?

Talk about what you think it means to really know someone.

showing feelings vs. talking about feelings

aixelsyd — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:56:40 GMT

Is it?

Some speculations based on things I notice:

ExTxs: More inclined to show feelings but rarely talk about them.

IxTxs: Better at talking about feelings than they are at showing them.

ExFxs: Can talk about feelings readily but prefer showing them.

IxFxs: Can show feelings but prefer talking about them.

I'm not talking as much as showing feelings by doing favors and such as I mean just expressing them.

Everyone does both, but some people find it hard to really talk about them, at least in depth just as some have a hard time letting their feelings show. I think ethical types manage fine with both but have preferences.

Te and Stoicism

Azeroffs — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:39:39 GMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

Stoicism (Greek Στοά) was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions. Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved. Later Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness," a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase 'stoic calm', though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.

I don't know a whole lot about stoicism, but from what I've heard/read stoicism seems like a good representation of what pure Te is. It's essentially a way of approaching the world indifferently and totally impartially so as to have totally clear and unbiased way of handling it. The stoic will admit to his guilt because it is true. The stoic is indifferent to his personal attachment to anything and he does what he does because that's just how it should be. He does not react to pain or pleasure, he just recognizes it's existence and acts according to what would result in the greatest good. It's about having a picture without letting emotions disrupt the clarity needed to know what needs to be done.

any thoughts on this?

Privacy

redbaron — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:41:01 GMT

Is being a "private" person type-related?

What are the types that are MOST reticent to share information with others? Maybe this boils down to trust. But I mean you hear people say things like "he's a private person" so it's implied that you shouldn't ask him what's wrong because he might not want to share. And there are types who don't want to go on facebook at all due to "privacy issues". I mean, what the heck? Do they think they're 007 or something? What is there to hide?