View Poll Results: How do you see typing by comparison to others?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's the most practical and reliable method. I prefer it.

    2 5.71%
  • I use it to get a first impression, but I don't let it be the "final word" on any typing.

    17 48.57%
  • I avoid using it as it leads to mistakes. How do you know you typed the other persons correctly?

    3 8.57%
  • I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type.

    13 37.14%
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Typing by comparison with other people

  1. #1
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing by comparison with other people

    I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

    However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

    Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

    Where do you stand?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that typing by comparison is a good way to catch the essence of a type, but a poor way to determine which type a person is in the socionics system. Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.
    Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?
    Yeah, that's what I think. I think that if somebody observes well, the similarities between people are evident, and also the fact that people tend to group according to quadras. So yes it can totally end that way. Obviously I suppose at least a basic knowledge of socionics too.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's generally a bad idea to type because people seem similar. I do find that sometimes people remind me of people whose type I'm pretty sure of, and I'm sure that influences me, but I'm careful to not let myself assume two people are the same type because they seem kind of similar to me. For one thing, I can't be sure person A is correctly typed, and beyond that two people can seem similar for a number of reasons, type being only one. And even within Socionics there are reasons other than identical types for two people to seem similar - maybe an ISTp and ISFp might be somewhat similar, maybe two Eps might seem a bit similar, etc. And then the other thing is that two people might seem similar in one circumstance, but that circumstance might be behind their similarity more than type. Like, two people talking about the same thing who have the same basic opinion aren't necessarily the same type. And two young women who get flirty online with an attractive young man might not be the same type.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type.
    that's precisely it.


    i think the only real criticism here is that typing by stupid traits like "he dyed his hair green." obviously, that's bullshit. comparisons based on legitimate socionics traits, i think, hardly constitute a reprehensible typing method.

  7. #7
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I try (am trying) to identify the sort of "essence" of IM elements so I can hone in on them... I feel I've made some progress in that area. The area that isn't together quite so well yet is differentiating, say, strong-valued from weak-valued, and that kind of thing (which is why my attention has been turning more to Model A at present). Also there is the sea of what isn't relevant to type (context-dependent and "why" dependent) that has fuzzy boundaries in my mind with the sea of what is related.

    I think that comparing people can be helpful in trying to see the scope of what is related to type and what is not, how the same IM element may manifest itself differently in different people depending on a multitude of factors, seeing the essence of the IM element as similar patterns emerge in different people that all match the abstract idea the IM element takes in ones mind. Also, watching the interaction of others yields information.

    (Please note, I could still at any time decide that this theory is largely arbitrary, subjective, and illusory... a model that appears to match people, and can be fitted to them, but doesn't necessarily approach any sort of "truth." I am waiting. Even if it starts seeming more and more that way, the other factor that can hold my interest is if it remains interesting nonetheless.)

  8. #8
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I compare other people mainly when they have either the same socionic types or physiological profiles. (i.e. Etypes / Phitypes)

    But relative typing, in Ganin's sense, is just a n00by trick, unless you're VERY experienced on typing.

  9. #9
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

    However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

    Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

    Where do you stand?
    On its own, typing by comparison is not reliable, so it should be used as a supplementary means of typing and not the sole means. No method of typing should be the sole means, but many methods should be used as a means of supporting the conclusion reached.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  10. #10
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I build up a knowledge base of each type. However, I can separate the legitimate differences (such as the fact that one person is brilliant at getting others to do what they want them do to; who is good at facing problems head on etc. and the other refuses to order others about, so they blatently can't be the same type) from the silly ones (she gets quite angry when someone drinks her tea but he doesn't, so they can't be the same type), enough to be able to discern types from one another.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  11. #11
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do a combination of both - I have a distinct vibe that goes with each type, but also have connected socioncs theory to what I pick up about different types, so I guess I sorta see stuff play out in a person.

    I do plenty of comparing too, sure. But I try to compare based on stuff that doesn't seem as fickle. For example two houses could be made by the same builder, but one could be an English Tudor while the other could be a Country French.

  12. #12
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are (at least) two different things.

    One is to use your experiences of people you know to understand how functions (and temperaments, etc etc) are manifested in real life. That is unavoidable, and desirable IMO.

    Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

    Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  13. #13
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    i think the only real criticism here is that typing by stupid traits like "he dyed his hair green." obviously, that's bullshit. comparisons based on legitimate socionics traits, i think, hardly constitute a reprehensible typing method.
    Sure, but that's not really "typing by comparison" but using real examples to understand the type, or the functions.

    I'm thinking more like, as it happens often here, for instance: some people would say that so-and-so isn't an ILI because they'd see you, niffweed17, as the "template" ILI, so if someone doesn't come across as you (in their view), they'd not type them as ILI.

    Like, for instance: "Herzy is SLE. FDG doesn't come across online as Heryz does, therefore I don't think FDG is SLE. And if he is, then Herzy isn't".

    That happens here very often. Especially when people use ill-defined and possibly non-type-related as "funny", "dry", "agitated" etc etc.

    It's different, however, when people use examples to illustrate functional use, because then we know better what their comparisons are based upon.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  14. #14
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't type by comparison to other people but more along the lines of determine the validity of my typing. Like, I may hold a person to be of a certain type but when I look at their friends and the like, if they prefer to spend time with their supposed conflictor then I know there is something wrong with my typing of them.


    EDIT: I think I misunderstood what this thread is about. I don't type people by comparison as meant by this thread. I can find similarities between people, a link, which tells me there is something that bonds them in some way, actually similar to my statement above, if a person and their conflictor seem too alike then I think there is somethign wrong there. But these impressions are too vague and undetermined to be of any validity in typing. At best they make me (re)consider other possibilities.

  15. #15
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I'm thinking more like, as it happens often here, for instance: some people would say that so-and-so isn't an ILI because they'd see you, niffweed17, as the "template" ILI, so if someone doesn't come across as you (in their view), they'd not type them as ILI.

    Like, for instance: "Herzy is SLE. FDG doesn't come across online as Heryz does, therefore I don't think FDG is SLE. And if he is, then Herzy isn't".
    Hmmm. Yes, that is weak. I'm beginning to think that I actually don't use that method as much as I think I do.

    That happens here very often. Especially when people use ill-defined and possibly non-type-related as "funny", "dry", "agitated" etc etc.
    But it is true that SLIs and ILIs are not inclined to churn out raucous sex jokes and that ESEs are not going to be the dryest people you've ever met. Irrational Logical Introverts are, by their very nature, dry people. This has to do with Fe PoLR, IMO. I'd like to see another explanation for their being like this.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  16. #16
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    But it is true that SLIs and ILIs are not inclined to churn out raucous sex jokes and that ESEs are not going to be the dryest people you've ever met. Irrational Logical Introverts are, by their very nature, dry people. This has to do with Fe PoLR, IMO. I'd like to see another explanation for their being like this.
    Yes, but you're already taking the discussion to a level that is more appropriate. It allows us to examine what exactly is going on. I am referring to far more "primitive" argumentations than this.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #17
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

    Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.
    Such thinking is rather stupid as the person may not agree, seeing things from your own personal bias, and you in fact may merely be projecting your own values on them.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  18. #18
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I picked I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type. I know there are very mixed opinions on the use of VI, but I often use a sort of "VI database" that I've built up in my mind over time, which I tend to use for first impressions before I get to know the person better. The first impressions are quite often correct but not always. I think I also use behaviour comparison to a certain extent, but I can't think of any examples of this. Finally, I'm only able to do this with people I know IRL - I have a very hard time typing people online.
    Last edited by BLauritson; 01-25-2008 at 08:38 PM. Reason: Some pedantic grammatical edits (I even edited my wording for this reason for editing. Yes, THAT pedantic)
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  19. #19
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I kind of use it a lot in the sense that I group together people who seem to be of same type. For example I have several cases of "ISTjs" who are almost identical in so many ways. I don't see this as a problem as such. It is not that error prone to type these people as being the same type. The problem is that you can't be sure which type these people are exactly. Perhaps my "ISTjs" are all the same type but not at all ISTjs. I would think you need some other means to verify that the people actually are of the type you think they are.

  20. #20
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  21. #21
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.
    I agree with every single word.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  22. #22
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Where do you stand?
    I trust that those who appear consistent and exhibit fluid use of the theory are probably a good guide for this sort of thing. Of course, it also makes sense to remember there is error in everything.

  23. #23
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can a method be better than others if there is no way to (dis)prove the conclusion? Is there a way to be certain about a type without going trough "opinions"?
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.
    But this is only a problem if you consider yourself infallible. There's nothing inherently wrong with building up a type database for comparison as long as you don't fall into the trap of dismissing inconsistencies when you discover them or when someone else points them out to you.

    EDIT: personally I only use it as an afterthought.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    About the poll options:
    It's the most practical and reliable method. I prefer it.
    To those who picked this option, do you also use other methods? In my opinion, it's always better to combine several different methods and take into account several different opinions, because that tends to cancel out errors.

    I avoid using it as it leads to mistakes. How do you know you typed the other persons correctly?
    How do you know you understand the functions, quadras, temperaments, etc. correctly?

  26. #26
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find that typing by comparison is useful, especially to those new to socionics, but in the end all of the typings need to relate to reality. It's basically a short-cut, so it's only good if you know where you're going. It's important to consistently discuss these typings with other people using socionics before even thinking about telling Regis, "Yes, this is my final answer" lol

    That being said it goes the other way too, functional descriptions on their own mean nothing if they can't be practically applied, typing by comparison is therefore a good testing ground for transferring theory to reality.

    I've been using socionics for over two years now and found that at the beginning I focused almost solely on typing by comparison and over time as I became more familiar with the functional definitions I used them to reinforce certain typings and correct other ones.

    F types seem more comfortable with typing by comparison, T types with functional definitions. But in the end they must be combined for a deeper understanding. There's certain types that I've become quite astute at picking out, I'd even say I'm almost capable of intuitively typing them within 5 minutes, whether it's in a movie, a book, or real life, the pattern/mannerisms catch my eye. There's other types though that it seems like I'm almost oblivious to- so much so that I don't even think about socionics when I think of them (i.e. I can't seem to type ISFps, ISFjs, ISTps, to save my life and won't be able to until I learn the functional descriptions better). Like even though I know an ISTp in real life, the fact that I haven't yet grasped what an ISTp actually is prevents me from using typing by comparison to type more ISTps.

    Also I've found that typing by comparison makes gender and subtype a lot more relevent. There's certain types that I can only recognize in males or females, but not yet both, and there's certain subtypes that I haven't recognized at all. For example I took me a while to realize that ENFj-Ni subtypes and ENFj-Fe subtypes were both actually ENFjs. To avoid confusion I try to avoid typing types that I'm not yet comfortable with, as I eventually have Eureka moments where I'm suddenly able to to mass-type a bunch of previous unknowns I've filed away lol
    Last edited by misutii; 01-27-2008 at 07:57 PM.
    INFp-Ni

  27. #27
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misutii View Post
    F types seem more comfortable with typing by comparison, T types with functional definitions.
    Interesting that you say that. I think you may be on to something, but not sure if T/F is the best division.

    Quote Originally Posted by mm View Post
    How do you know you understand the functions, quadras, temperaments, etc. correctly?
    That's a very good question. All I can say is that if you analyze as many people as possible, trying to type them individually as well as their relationships, and at the same time discussing your conclusions with other socionists, and everything seems to fit, then either you have understood everything reasonably well, or you have created an alternative system.

    It is necessary, though, to be pitilessly self-vigilant, never take for granted that you have understood everything perfectly. To me, if someone claims to have already understood socionics after a few months of study (especially online), and therefore needs no further help in terms of typing, etc, that's to me a strong indication that that person hasn't yet got it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  28. #28
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why was this thread on the front page? No one's said anything for months.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  29. #29
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Why was this thread on the front page? No one's said anything for months.
    There is now a phenomenon of very old threads surfacing without a reason. I have seen at least ten already. It is a sign.

    Edit: It could be because of an open ended poll which someone answered. I think it is good to make polls have a deadline (at least in the old forum you could do that)

  30. #30
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The end is near!
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  31. #31
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2012 Mayan doomsday prophecy!
    INFp-Ni

  32. #32
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,935
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misutii View Post
    2012 Mayan doomsday prophecy!
    You shouldn't cause needless panic - the human race may become extinct way before then.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People are just people and when you interact, you are experiencing someone. There's no need for socionics. Someone's psyche, is what we are emphatizing. And socionics just notes that, peoples psyche, on objective and macro level, can be differed into 16 types, pluss explained down that is filled with the information, circeling in certain ways, what can be used to explain, why people have such psychic lives and interactions with the others. And that's it.
    Semiotical process

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •