The predominance of certain types on this forum

[SFVB]

As with ALL typological discussion boards and web-sites, there are a large number of INTjs as contributors. This is of course to be expected...as is there the usual presence of INFps, and a few INFjs, INTps and the occassional ENTp rabble rouser. It's a shame that there is not more diversity among such forums, as much could be learned from having diverse opinions from different representatives on the subject of socionics, as I have found from sharing it with my non-psychology oriented friends. I would like, for the sake of conversation, share a few reactions I've gotten from individuals I've shared the theories of socionics with whom I have also typed accurately.

ISFp (ex-girlfriend) - Bored as hell with the theories...but, nevertheless, was fascinated by (and hates) my ability to forecast the result of every relationship she's had since me, and therefore does not WANT to believe in it, but will nevertheless not disregard it completely due to the accuracy of my predictions (and no I have NO influence over her decisions). She's currenlty dating an ENTp who she's been dating quite a while...guess where I see this going (despite her every effort to sabotage it.)

ESFj (ex-roommate) - Couldn't get enough of it, but I think more because she liked listening to theories and that I was able to help her understand and appreciate herself better. Didn't base ANY of her decisions on it, but was nevertheless very fascinated by it and when she actually had the time (which was rare), she did read some articles I gave to her. I've gotten this reaction from another ESFj female as well who likes to read about it and hear me talk about it. (I think it stems more from the ability to predict results though and the position of Ne in the ESFj's structure.)

ENFp (Mom) - Is interested in socionics when brought up, but challenges it illogically and prefers to believe her own opinion on the subject despite having no background in psychology or science. She has NO interest in attempting to understand its fundamentals, or anything in relation to the scientific portion of typology.

ISTp (Father) - Couldn't care less....is fascinated for short periods of time, and has once, when asking for my help in assisting my mother through a difficult emotional period in her life, admitted that there was "something to it." That's about all I could get out of him. Most of the time he gets bored quickly with it, and would rather not discuss it.

ISFj (Brother) - INTENSELY HATES THE IDEA OF PERSONALITY TYPE. Has never, and will never attempt to understand it, and would just as soon burn a book about it then actually attempt to read about it. We actually get along fairly well despite this, but I've given up on trying to explain it to him.

ENTj (Friend) - Was very difficult to convince at first, but is now convinced (for the most part). Still has difficulty in understanding the science at times, but is able to see it intuitively and therefore is able to connect with how I explain it.

ENTp (Friend) - Fascinated and very able to understand it, but as with all ENTps has WAY too many things on her plate to make that much of an effort to understand it fully, nor does she care to.

INFj (Cousin) - Very much likes socionics and picks up the concepts fairly quickly. Is able to type people quickly and enjoys using it to understand his relationships with others better. We used to talk for hours about it when I first introduced it to him 2+ years ago, but is now a little less enthused, and uses it only when he's trying to date ESTjs (which he has a difficult time doing for some reason).

INTp (Aunt) - More interested in astrology...

ESFp (Cousin) - More interested in astrology...although socionics almost holds the same weight after I painstakingly took the time to explain why it was not linked to astrological signs and was based more on science than ancient ways of understanding personality type...will never repeat the same mistake again.

ENFj (Friend) - zzzzz. Have never tried to explain it beyond a passing thought.

There are countless more, but these are the people I've been able to both type accurately, as well as have more than a passing conversation with. They are also people that I introduced to socionics after my fifth year of studying it and other typological theories, as I am much more competent in explaining how it works now obviously, than I was 7 years ago when I first started studying it.

[Maestro]

Has anyone here succeeded in fully teaching socionics to a feeler? I did once, to an ISFJ. It was a marvel. INTJ's should be fully aware of how much they rely on correlation to type (someone looks or behaves like someone whose type they know). Correlation is not a very "deep" way to type, but I didn't realize how much I depended on it until I watched how she approached it. After a while she simply "knew" someone's type beyond a shadow of a doubt. She had to know them personally (she couldn't do VI) and most people she couldn't tell (she would never guess) but in the cases when she knew I would come to the same conclusion nearly 100% of the time...

[CuriousSoul]

Has anyone here succeeded in fully teaching socionics to a feeler? I did once, to an ISFJ. It was a marvel. INTJ's should be fully aware of how much they rely on correlation to type (someone looks or behaves like someone whose type they know). Correlation is not a very "deep" way to type, but I didn't realize how much I depended on it until I watched how she approached it. After a while she simply "knew" someone's type beyond a shadow of a doubt. She had to know them personally (she couldn't do VI) and most people she couldn't tell (she would never guess) but in the cases when she knew I would come to the same conclusion nearly 100% of the time...

I seem to have almost the same problem. I can see the similarities between people but it is often not easy to say which groups of people belong to which type. In my opinion an absolutely reliable list of celebrities could be of great use. Even though you cannot get to know them personally you can often watch their interviews and appearances, observe their mimicry, expressions, typical sayings etc. There are often so many non-verbal cues you just cannot learn from the type descriptions. Sometimes even the functions seem real, at least one can imagine how people kind of switch from one function to the next and then return to the base. Of course it is difficult to say whether one is just imagining things...