-
-
Last edited by Dee; 02-26-2009 at 02:24 AM.
The type that I'm claiming to be now??
Isn't it already about best fit? Isn't that rather the point?
dee, 'best fit' is what you are. This is what socionics is.
dee, the point is that we don't HAVE to pretend; that's how Socionics already works
Okay, I'm going to hazard a guess... Are you maybe stuck in the fuzzy area between which type(s) you like the best (or would prefer to be) and which one(s) might fit best? Like when you say "best fit" what do you mean by that? How do you think others are typed if not by what fits them the best? ???
Too?if socionics was about "best fit" too, which type you be?
Oh! Can I pretend I'm sitting in a chair, too? Or better yet, could I pretend that I'm writing a post?Originally Posted by dee
dee, you seem very, very stuck on your type.
I assume that most of these threads are in some way related to your typing.
I think you're probably ILE. I see Ne > Ni, Si > Se, Ti > Te and Fe > Fi. On top of this, EP temperament is pretty much obvious to all (anyone want to dispute that?), and you are most likely of the NT club.
Do you find anything wrong with ILE, or does anything not fit?
Guess #2: Does it seem to you that others are unfairly labeling you as a type or types that don't match your self-concept, so Socionics then begins to appear like this thing where we all label each other as certain types until enough people agree on the same type for a person and then that is declared their type by popular vote (so to speak)? Which could be your way of saying it isn't fair how people are saying you are certain types that you don't feel you are?
So by your question you might mean: what if we actually went according to what really fits people rather than declaring people to be types that they are not for whatever reasons?
Count me in. I want to play the "Let's pretend your actual Socionics type fits you better than any of the other possible Socionics types!" game.
Quite the sarcasm. dee wants to know his type, and he's finding it difficult. Not everyone is as confident as you might be, Joy.
Wow, you really need to work on explaining things.Originally Posted by dee
Don't you realize people have absolutely no idea where you are coming from when you write a title like that, and then an opening post such as that?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
...
Okay, then my answer is "ILI more often than not".
I'll be LSI.
It would be real easy to say "major Te polr"Originally Posted by dee
It is like you are going further and further away from productivity, for what? The sake of wondering around about something that doesn't even matter?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I still don't understand this "too" (or "2") thing though.
Are you talking to me?
More than you realize, apparently.Originally Posted by dee
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I hoped so. UDP's an LSE. I'm an LSI now.Originally Posted by dee
And now the title of this thread has changed completely??
MBTI?
What is going on here?
Was it not earlier something about being "best fit" amongst two types (socionic types?)if socionics were like MBTI, what is your best fit profile?
Why would you change the title like that?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
You're getting more confusing with each post. You are remarkably unclear about things....Originally Posted by dee
The title is extremely poor. MBTI should not even be here.
What you are trying to say is: "based on the written descriptions of the types, if you had to pick two types that best fit you, what would they be and why?" -- right?
(Still, my position remains the same on such matters, as I said in earlier posts in this thread)
You should immediately take MBTI out of the title, because it has nothing to do with this thread. It looks totally out of place, rushed, and makes you look really.... disgruntled, disorganized, and incompetent. It is hard to believe you seriously thought that was the best title for this thread.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Hopefully it is constructive. I have nothing personally against you. I have a feeling it did not help much, as, I may possibly be coming from your opposite psychological disposition and it just seems like I am trying to personally attack you or something. But that is my honest, unaltered, "reaction". Hopefully it can be taken into consideration as you determine your type and our intertype relation.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I have drunken too much cheap French wine, I'm not sure I understand the question.
Is it, "what socionics type you are if you forget functions and go only for type descriptions"? Is that it?
The Stratievskaya ENTj profile is a very accurate description of myself, as is Meged's description of ENTj logical subtype.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
This is of course a valid exercise, but personally I don't recommend it for self-typing.
People read descriptions in different ways, and their authors also write them from different perspectives. When I first discovered Stratievskaya's descriptions, since it was so easy for me to identify with the ENTj one, I made the mistake of assuming that everyone would be able to find their types the same way . Later I realized that since Vera Stratievskaya herself is ISFj, her way of writing descriptions is particularly useful, and accurate, for Gammas and ENTj and ISFj in particular, but not so for the other quadras.
The other descriptions have different strengths, and weaknesses.
The point is that once you truly understand classical socionics, you don't even need descriptions anymore.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
It has nothing to do with "opening minds" or being "stuck up". IF you understand what the functions are, you can type a person without having to compare them to any profile.Originally Posted by dee
No, unless you use a very broad definition of "essentially".Originally Posted by dee
Any attempt to make everyone fit into 16 profiles will result in some people being more difficult to fit into any of them than some other people.Originally Posted by dee
So it's better to understand types beyond profiles. Profiles are limiting.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
We are writing profiles in the Wikisocion. Only a few are complete, but eventually we will have a good collection there.
But that happens not because MBTI is better, but because it's a dead-end. In MBTI, once you decide on a type - whether by tests or by looking into descriptions - that's basically it, unless you have mistyped yourself so badly that it's obvious to others, even in MBTI.Originally Posted by dee
The socionics types are based on functional preferences that are easier to spot by those skilled in it, which is why socionics is more "annoying" in this respect, with people readier to say others have mistyped themselves. To me it's a strength of socionics, not a problem.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
No, it doesn't really mean anything. It could mean we need to make better profiles, but also, have better means - a better process - for people learning their types, as opposed to just gazing at profiles.Originally Posted by dee
When people do that they are prone to do what you do and see ".55" of yourself in just about every profile, which is not learning socionics at all. It just makes things vague.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
They're here in English:
Category:Stratievskaya descriptions - Wikisocion