dbmmama's type possibilities

[Joy]

She's one of the most difficult people I've known as far as typing goes. For every type, there's something that doesn't fit. These are the types that have more than a 2% chance of being her type though, imo.

SLE
EIE
LSI
LIE
SEE
ESI
IEE

Some of these types are more likely than others, but like I said, it's only a list of the types that there's more than a 2% chance she is.

[Joy]

btw, anyone who would like to suggest that ESE should be included on that list should visit this topic and answer "no".

[Ritella]

She's one of the most difficult people I've known as far as typing goes. For every type, there's something that doesn't fit. These are the types that have more than a 2% chance of being her type though, imo.

SLE
EIE
LSI
LIE
SEE
ESI
IEE

Some of these types are more likely than others, but like I said, it's only a list of the types that there's more than a 2% chance she is.

Every type has at least a 6.25% chance of being hers.
In order from most to least likely, I would say:
EIE
ESE
LSI
SLE
SEE

EDIT: I see EIE and ESE as the top two choices by a landslide. Also, I know that Rick has typed her as ESE and initially I strongly favored EIE, but I am beginning to think that she very well could have Ni PoLR, is generally very positive and optimistic in a stereotypical ESE way, and seems more caregiver-ish.

[Joy]

http://the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22710

[Joy]

Every type has at least a 6.25% chance of being hers.

Assuming random odds.

[FDG]

Clearly EJ, and Fe.

[munenori2]

Unless I forget, she's said she tends to be a little more stern and straight irl than she comes off here. I think she values Fe from the kind of compliments she has concerning her husband. I'd guess SLE possibly over any sort of alpha NT. EP or EJ could fit for her temperamentally, so I wouldn't discount EIE. Even SEE seems like it could work on some level. She's incredibly enigmatic, in a cyclical way.

[Ritella]

Assuming random odds.

Sure, but had you assumed not and were creating a "more likely" list based off of ruling out certain options and favoring others, each type on your list would have a probability of greater than 6.25%, so greater than 2% as well.

[Joy]

indeed

As to the Fe/Ti vs. Te/Fi valuing, I haven't seen anything clear one way or another. Ni/Se > Si/Ne is much more apparent to me, but even with that one of the Ne/Si types made the list.

[Ritella]

indeed

As to the Fe/Ti vs. Te/Fi valuing, I haven't seen anything clear one way or another. Ni/Se > Si/Ne is much more apparent to me, but even with that one of the Ne/Si types made the list.

I think Fe/Ti is practically blatantly obvious.
I was originally leaning toward Se/Ni, but I am beginning to think that I was misreading her general optimism and constructive attitude as sort of a "suck it up" Se thing, which it may not be. She actually seems remarkably open to personal differences in a way that I don't see in EIEs and I do see in ESEs; so, in other words Ne-valuing.
My main problem with saying that she is Se/Ni is basically that it would put her in Beta, which means aggressor or victim. She's clearly not victim- I see her as definitely more of the leader in a relationship- so that leaves SLE and LSI. I think rational is clear, so then she'd have to be LSI, which I'm not sure I LOVE. OTOH, if we assume Ne/Si, then she would be a rational caregiver. Hence ESE. And there's not much wrong with that IMO.

[FDG]

I think Fe/Ti is practically blatantly obvious.
I was originally leaning toward Se/Ni, but I am beginning to think that I was misreading her general optimism and constructive attitude as sort of a "suck it up" Se thing, which it may not be. She actually seems remarkably open to personal differences in a way that I don't see in EIEs and I do see in ESEs; so, in other words Ne-valuing.
My main problem with saying that she is Se/Ni is basically that it would put her in Beta, which means aggressor or victim. She's clearly not victim- I see her as definitely more of the leader in a relationship- so that leaves SLE and LSI. I think rational is clear, so then she'd have to be LSI, which I'm not sure I LOVE. OTOH, if we assume Ne/Si, then she would be a rational caregiver. Hence ESE. And there's not much wrong with that IMO.

Yeah, I agree. ESE always seemed to be the most valid option.

[Joy]

Ne valuing, maybe. Ni PoLR, no.

[Ritella]

Ne valuing, maybe. Ni PoLR, no.

lol why????

btw. that leaves us with NO Ne-valuing options. She's clearly rational and doesn't have Ne ego, so the only Ne-valuing choice would be ESxJ.

[strrrng]

She very much is Ni polr IMO. And it's not because she arrives late to work. She just seems to base a lot of her spiritual stuff on Ne tangential stuff -- interpolations and external connections -- in a fairly scattered manner, which could work well for an Si-ESFj's Si-->Ne focus. I know she seemed all Ni mystical when she first got here, but there is a point at which that stuff stops. As far as energy levels, EJ temperament seems pretty clear. Regardless of subtype, she does seem to have the energy thresholds that I would expect from an extrovert, and the general psychological control that comes with being a rational. Fe seems very pervasive; I'm not sure how anyone could think she's gamma or delta (ENFp being the only remotely possible type). I'm not sure how one could conclude Se/Ni? Maybe her whole ambitious, exercise consistently, etc. stuff makes people think = willful, etc? Seems much more concerned with maintaining (and allaying) the immediate emotional atmosphere; responds to "threats" that a beta NF would deem pointless or that a beta ST would likely shut down immediately (like when she got offset in the pics thread in some argument against allie -- reminded me very much of how my ESFj mom reacts to conflict).

[Lotus]

Back when she was claiming to be SEE, I had made a case for why she's ESE. After which she stopped posting for a while and then came back as "SLE—because you don't know me IRL, huh?"

Anyway, I'm sticking by what I said.

http://the16types.info/vbulletin/sho...616#post420616

[Joy]

I've spent a great deal of time around Ni PoLR types, and there are just certain perspectives that they do not appreciate, certain ways that you cannot explain things to them. She and I have talked a lot and the type of thing that you just cannot say to someone with a Ne PoLR without getting a negative reaction, she's all "YES!" to.

[Park]

Back when she was claiming to be SEE, I had made a case for why she's ESE.

Sorry darling, but all you did then was bark like a dog at an unknown stranger.

[Joy]

I get an EJ impression from her, and I think she's a positivist.

Well, there is a type that fits that bill on the list.

[Joy]

Yeah, but do you think there is a decent possibility for this? Of course that would certainly be interesting if she ended up being LIE after all; I'm guessing a lot of people are going to naturally throw this idea in the dirt though.

You know, I could see evidence for a Fe role... and if this is true maybe that is what causes her to come off as 'annoying' to some of the Fe types that have so publicly expressed this.

I'm not particularly opposed to the idea. I see nothing that necessarily contradicts it other than the flowery way she talks online... which she says she doesn't do irl. It's certainly far more likely than a Ni PoLR type. (However, I'm not saying I think it's more likely than other types on my list.)

[FDG]

Yeah, if IRL she's completely different from the way she is online, then LIE is definitely possible. It's also equally possible any other type.

[Park]

She's an awesome person and a great mom, whatever her type.

[Joy]

It's also equally possible any other type.

Except Ni PoLR types. Whether her demeanor is different or not, the values behind what she says would remain the same.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not particularly opposed to the idea. I see nothing that necessarily contradicts it other than the flowery way she talks online... which she says she doesn't do irl. It's certainly far more likely than a Ni PoLR type. (However, I'm not saying I think it's more likely than other types on my list.)

Who the fuck put you in charge?

[Joy]

Who said I was?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Who said I was?

You it would seem.

It is difficult enough determining someones type on line without starting threads for them, because if they don't start the thread themself then it is highly unlikely they are willing to talk about themselves, then in many cases it is pointless, and intrusive. If someone wants to discuss their type they know where the new thread button is. If they don't want to discuss their type then it is in many cases, almost impossible to get their type right, with nothing much more than guesswork.

[redbaron]

You it would seem.

It is difficult enough determining someones type on line without starting threads for them, because if they don't start the thread themself then it is highly unlikely they are willing to talk about themselves, then in many cases it is pointless, and intrusive. If someone wants to discuss their type they know where the new thread button is. If they don't want to discuss their type then it is in many cases, almost impossible to get their type right, with nothing much more than guesswork.

I doubt dbmmama cares and she herself would acknowledge that she's an interesting case. Joy's not putting herself in charge, she's just interested in talking about it. nothing wrong with that.

[redbaron]

I don't necessarily think Ej for her. But it's possible. She mentioned something once about how her husband told her she never smiles. That hardly sounds like ESE to me. My husband smiles a LOT, as do all the other ESEs I know. That alone might cause me to rule out ESE.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I doubt dbmmama cares and she herself would acknowledge that she's an interesting case. Joy's not putting herself in charge, she's just interested in talking about it. nothing wrong with that.

It's not just dbmamma though is it? There's been JuJu thread started recently for some unknown reason also.

To have a hope of typing someone correctly on line, you need their co-operation in most cases. So here we often get a situation were a wrong type is put on someone, who even may genuinely care more, and it's a wrong type, and they are stuck with that label. Or you get people like for instance UDP and Fabio who seem to spend years fighting some ridiculous group typing. This is what contributues largely to mis-typing on forum and general mis-understanding of types and etc's.

Feel free to disagree, free country.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't necessarily think Ej for her. But it's possible. She mentioned something once about how her husband told her she never smiles. That hardly sounds like ESE to me. My husband smiles a LOT, as do all the other ESEs I know. That alone might cause me to rule out ESE.

Exactly. You've got people hopping around with Fe, then not Fe. Then EJ then something else. Then it gets to which role function the person used etc.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Are you feeling left out?

Oh I see so now you gang up on me now? Why not give me estp or intj or istj or enfj or something with some ridiculous functional analysis or other.

[Joy]

Oh I see so now you gang up on me now?

With who?

Why not give me estp or intj or istj or enfj or something with some ridiculous functional analysis or other.

Do you want me to start a topic about your type? I will, if you'd like.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

With who?



Do you want me to start a topic about your type? I will, if you'd like.

If you haven't been able to work out that this sort of thing doesn't work, that I think it is pointless, and that I said..if someone wishes to discuss their type then they know where the new thread button is..if you can't piece all of that together to say the answer to your question would be no, then I don't know what to think.

[Joy]

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I thought you were likely trying to take the piss, but seeing the quality of your typing I thought I would give you benefit of doubt that you couldn't work it out on own.

[Ritella]

Sorry darling, but all you did then was bark like a dog at an unknown stranger.

[hellothere]

I get an EJ impression from her, and I think she's a positivist.

how come? I remember her saying once before that she more naturally sees what's missing rather than what's there. I agree about her EJ-ness though

[Kristiina]

I still think ESE for her. She's either EIE or ESE because she's very Fe-oriented and has a lot of energy like most EJ's. And I do like her, but whenever she says anything related to Ni in any way, I can't help but roll my eyes. She speaks of spirituality and the way she phrases it, I immidiately think, "pfffff. That's not what it's all about!". If it was just something that happens once or twice, I wouldn't speak of it, but I never relate to her posts when she talks about her inner world.

There are some horribly awful distorted EIEs in this forum. I might not like them and I might want to tell them to stop posting to preserve what little reputation EIEs have, but I do understand where they're coming from. They express thoughts I have had at some moment in my life and I understand very personally what makes them think like that. But with dbmmama, I am just not on the same page. Again, I do like her, but I just can't agree with EIE typing!

[strrrng]

I still think ESE for her. She's either EIE or ESE because she's very Fe-oriented and has a lot of energy like most EJ's. And I do like her, but whenever she says anything related to Ni in any way, I can't help but roll my eyes. She speaks of spirituality and the way she phrases it, I immidiately think, "pfffff. That's not what it's all about!". If it was just something that happens once or twice, I wouldn't speak of it, but I never relate to her posts when she talks about her inner world.

This is kind of my take on it as well. I don't think ENFjs propagate the types of spirituality she does in the same manner. Ni is an internal context function, so any *spiritual* insights related to it are likely to be highly personal and, to some degree, ineffable. The stuff she speaks about incessantly sounds like it came straight out of some oprah book club best seller, and most of those books are written by Ne/Si valuers. But it's about the connections: they're localized and external, a sort of de-synthesis of what 'is' into a bunch of disparate correlations that are supposed to make sense but at times seem very convoluted. This is classic Ne permutating from the Si external context, where the physical interactions are held constant and tracked, so that the objects themselves may be divided and interpreted on a more latent level ("this is like this, so then this," etc.). Ni does NOT work like that at all; it's internal and concentric.

[Kristiina]

This is kind of my take on it as well. I don't think ENFjs propagate the types of spirituality she does in the same manner. Ni is an internal context function, so any *spiritual* insights related to it are likely to be highly personal and, to some degree, ineffable. The stuff she speaks about incessantly sounds like it came straight out of some oprah book club best seller, and most of those books are written by Ne/Si valuers. But it's about the connections: they're localized and external, a sort of de-synthesis of what 'is' into a bunch of disparate correlations that are supposed to make sense but at times seem very convoluted. This is classic Ne permutating from the Si external context, where the physical interactions are held constant and tracked, so that the objects themselves may be divided and interpreted on a more latent level ("this is like this, so then this," etc.). Ni does NOT work like that at all; it's internal and concentric.

lol, "sounds like it came straight out of some oprah book club best seller" Exactly!

[strrrng]

lol, "sounds like it came straight out of some oprah book club best seller" Exactly!

lol, you should have seen the thread on the eckhart tolle bullshit recently. big ugh @ all of those authors. I wouldn't waste a second of my time on their pseudo-psychology.