Hello! I'm Joe
And I'm still not 100% on anything so I would like to interact with as many types as possible to help clarify my own type. If your up for a chat about... well... anything really, please feel free to send me a PM or add me on AIM.
IEIs SEIs and ILIs preferred as one of those types are most likely my dual.
EDIT: would enjoy discussing socionics types and how they relate to you, or difficulties you are having with your own type.
Easy Day
Your own type is Ti ESTp. Deal.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Half plus seven. That's the rule you do not go below that limit.Originally Posted by Mimosa Pudica
I'm 19 so half of that is 9.5, plus 7 is 16.5 so I can't talk to any one below that age limit. This rule is valid through college, and applies to all males. I however increase my personal age limit to 18 out of preference for talking about dirty things and making sexual references that I would feel inappropriate making with anyone below the a fore mentioned age.
The age limit is only lower, there is no upper age limit aka Dirty Grandma's; BRING IT ON!
Easy Day
This is legit, and I'm pretty sure I've adhered to it.
The age limit is only lower, there is no upper age limit aka Dirty Grandma's; BRING IT ON!LOL
I think so. I mean, it's not as perverted for a 23 year-old female to 'talk' with an 18 year-old male, as it is the other way around, just due to gender roles and maturity (i.e. young guys can 'learn' and experience, whereas young girls shouldn't be 'taught' in such a manner imo).Males ONLY???
4w3-5w6-8w7
Dude, I totally did not give you permission to hit or be hit on by anything. You'd best get back in the bedroom and put on that nighty I bought for you.
Stan is not my real name.
Well despite the fact that you are indeed a very attractive woman and also older than me I was not referring to you directly. It was more of a general statement since there are so many older woman on this forum who I personally would deem as physically attractive.
Well the parts about relationships could be not type related and simply due to the fact that we have had similar experiences when it comes to the opposite sex. Regardless It was a pleasant chat, we should do it again sometime. aka LOG ON TO MSN! that is allAnd btw, in what way was chatting with me not enough to decide your type???
Easy Day
*whines* But it's pink! You know I don't like pink!
Easy Day
It's likely we're in opposing quadras, but who says super-egos can't have fun?You can choose one of many messengers to contact me on if you'd like!
<~~~~~
I don't trust guys who brag about their conquests on the internet. Pics or it didn't happen ya know?
In the locker room or at starr, (been around males most of my life) I heard some stories and really most of them turned out to be fibs or exaggerations. In short, I don't believe how good of a lover you are until you have your hands on me. But you're straight, so that will never happen. So therefore, either way- you're screwed and I won't believe you. =D
*laughs* What on earth are you talking about? I haven't bragged about anything... have I? I really don't think I have...
Link or it didn't happen!
Easy Day
OK, so when I was fourteen I liked this girl that was 6 months younger than me (she was still in my graduating class). So I wouldn't have been allowed to date her until I was fifteen!
14(my age) /2 = 7. 7+7 = 14(how old she has to be) > 13.5 (her age at my given age)
14.5/2 = 7.25. 7.25+7 = 14.25 > 14.0
15/2 = 7.5. 7.5+7 = 14.5 = 14.5
Stan is not my real name.
Yup... The rule actually only comes into play at about HS, the age where sex usually becomes a concern.
Easy Day
I made a graph of this rule once. It's somewhere on this forum. I can date ment between 17 and 26
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
That doesn't make sense, the rule doesn't have an upper age limit. You mean you can date men older than 17?
The trick is if your dating some one way older than you, is to make sure they don't know about the rule.
Easy Day
Okie dokie, but for the record ILIs are too victims!
Victim - Wikisocion
Also after reading the quadra values I've decided I value the fuck outta
Completely agree that the silent treatment is the worst thing you can do to some one
Quadra - Wikisocion
At least if that wiki is to be trusted
Easy Day
I meant in regards to the specifically mentioned age group (16-25 or so). But I agree that past that age range, it is more normal for older men to be with younger women.I always saw it as the other way around - older man/younger woman is far more common than the converse. Women like Demi Moore and Madonna are far rarer than the millions of rich men with trophy wives. Isn't that also why there's no popular male equivalent of the term "cougar"? I guess "golddigger" is also more widely applied to women, but it's probably all just a byproduct of the way society prefers to look down on female sexuality...
4w3-5w6-8w7
I did the silent treatment to someone for a month, it almost killed meWhat a bitch move! Did they like have a heart attack and die or something? Personally I prolly woulda had an ulcer.
Easy Day
you know, the first time i read of this whole half + 7 rule was in malcolm x's biography, talking about it being a big islamic thing.
Lura.net - Half Your Age Plus Seven - the calculator!
If Your Age is 27:20.5 to 40 If Your Age is 28:21 to 42
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Which can lead to certain dilemmas:
I guess when the first one isn't old enough, some girls go for even older, which can get very confusing - to the point where the object of fixation turns back to the same sex
The two scariest things in the world; the silent treatment and sharp objects... You ma'am, are scary.I know, I felt terrible. I did the frostily-polite-interactions-only manoeuvre too. He just looked at me like a rabbit in the headlights when I talked to him and tried to be extra cheerful while I just glared, it was actually kind of fun at the same time. He eventually apologised and then jumped a mile when I took a swipe at him with a sharp object.
Actually, someone once did the silent treatment to me, and I just entertained myself by standing in his way all the time and laughing at what a douche he was being. I didn't really care about him though, if a friend did that to me I'd apologise right away. Unlike the first guy, who clearly doesn't learn from experience...
Really? I almost read that just last month! I decided against cause this website is stupid and addicting.
Easy Day
You have to do better than that. You have to actually connect it to the last thing I say, you can't suddenly switch contexts. There has to be continuity, otherwise we might as well throw playground insults at each other. You're an excellent writer, and capable of much more than this - and I am an intelligent enough human being that our standards can be kept high. In your previous post you were talking about girls, so I responded back talking about girls, now for you to suddenly switch it like this totally destroys the integrity of this exchange.Omg lol! Are you going gay with Elda??
What would've been better is if you took the exact same point I made to you and flipped it around and found a context where it could connect with something you know about me or can try to pin on me based on openings in my post.
So for example, in response to this:
Something slightly better would've been like, "You must be experienced enough with this sort of confusion - work out the confusion yet? Because it looks like you're very confused"
While this is slightly more effective, it is still quite typical of, and has a striking resemblance to, an Allie-like response, which doesn't say much.
-I would've probably responded to that with a jesting comment about the confusion of your type.
A much more effective response would've been, "I can only imagine what you know about objects of fixation of the same sex"
It has a much more penetrative quality, and leaves the reader's imagination open to possibilities. It's like setting up a situation of potentials that would sort of trap me, AND, the attention would be shifted off of you and back onto me, which is what you'd want.
Anyway, see how that response preserves the original context but turns it around back on me? I wasn't talking about male homosexuality in my initial post, but about female homosexuality, so you can't make a comment implying that I was referring to male homosexuality because it comes across as you missing a link in the chain here. What you CAN do, is acknowledge the female homosexuality and then given the context turn it back around at me like I did in the example above.
Hmm, you're right to an extent. I thought it was implicit since the topic of the sentence was about what some girls do - finding older guys. Though I should have further specified as follows:
"I guess when the first guy isn't old enough, some girls go for even older guys, which can get very confusing for the girl - to the point where they begin to turn the object of their fixation back to the same sex"
Which would probably leave much less wiggle room.
This is fun. It's like free debate class.
that exchange was funny to me
4w3-5w6-8w7
im just here for the wine coolers.
The end is nigh
The subject of the paragraphs in the exchange was the girl. Any mention of guys were only either as direct objects or objects of prepositions, never as the subject "doing" something. Therefore unless distinctly specified it is fair to assume that the original subject remains. By thinking guys were mentioned as the subject, you go off on a tangential possibility, one that in order to be realized, must come with specific mention, of which there was none.
Just like in music where a note is sharped in a measure, the note continues to be sharped for the rest of the measure unless specifically noted.
I didn't take debate class, I prefer real life debates insteadAcademia is useless up against real world experience.
One priceless thing that no class could ever provide is the magnificent demonstration of an ability to pick apart contexts, processing them as discrete abstract variables with intrinsic properties, according to underlying external rules or criteria that you continually define- that we've seen from you today. I'm impressed. At least it proves the notion that all quadra functions are "strong".
Careful, the ice may melt.
*burp*
=O
oh snippity snappage!
The end is nigh
While what you said contains is an entirely plausible interpretation, I still think that the subject of "who" is having the fixation is left equally ambiguous, and therefore by default the assumption is to go with the subject mentioned previously. Since "guys" were never a subject in the sentences in the conversation, there is no unique signal that would prompt one to assume it is "guys" when choosing from a 50/50 guess of who could be the subject.
Fortunately now it is clear what I meant with the original comment. Carry on.
And that, my good friends and gentle readers, is the story of how even threads with seemingly no topic can get de-railed.
Easy Day
lol!
I'm so glad you got the humor and didn't get all pissy
Easy Day
This is a very good explanation for something which doesnt matter at all
Actually it was right on accurateI'm so glad you got the humor and didn't get all pissy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
