Joy's type

**Joy** · 09-07-2009, 12:42 PM

lol @ the LSE vote

(I shouldn't have even included that as an option, in hindsight.)

**Joy** · 09-07-2009, 01:14 PM

Yeah, I don't know. Right now I'm thinking that I'm LIE > the theory is bullshit. However, SLE isn't a horrible choice for me. If I wasn't LIE, then SLE would be the next best choice. (Though I'd have to re-think the types of a few people, such as my sister.) I don't know anything about you though, so I don't know what type you are or how similar we are.

I wasn't always as "purposeful" as I am now though, fwiw. I'm 28 years old, and a few years ago my "professional accomplishments" were zilch. (Now I've got the stuff I listed there, plus something else in the works that's a pretty big deal career-wise that I didn't feel comfortable discussing here.) Also, I don't end up in leadership positions because I'm actively seeking them out. I just happened to be the most qualified/competent person who was willing to do it. It's paying off now though because of that other situation I had mentioned.

**Blaze** · 09-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Mimosa Pudica

niffweed wouldn't agree...

FWIW, I really, really doubt we are the same type Joy, and I also doubt you are an SLE. SLEs are normally a lot more laid-back - not necessarily lazy - but not as "purposeful" as you seem to describe yourself as. However, I've read that SLEs - especially women - are hard to type, as they can be so very different - from fragile looking to hard, from outgoing to private, etc, so who knows? You seem Ej>Ep , though.

I doubt you are Delta.

agree. we've already been down this road of SLE vs LIE. beneficiaries often superficially look like benefactors which explains the apparent similarity. but you've said again and again how you are rational, so badabing there we have it.

**Joy** · 09-07-2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Blaze

agree. we've already been down this road of SLE vs LIE. beneficiaries often superficially look like benefactors which explains the apparent similarity. but you've said again and again how you are rational, so badabing there we have it.

Wouldn't this apply to that conversation about supervision?

**Blaze** · 09-07-2009, 03:15 PM

the one where the supervisor is the dual's benefactor so looks the the dual instead of the supervisor. that's one convoluted mix up.

**Joy** · 09-07-2009, 03:28 PM

Welcome to Socionics.

**Blaze** · 09-07-2009, 04:07 PM

**Joy** · 09-07-2009, 04:17 PM

Sometimes I feel like I have a Fi PoLR.

**Blaze** · 09-07-2009, 04:20 PM

i could see that. it's your Fi dual seeking though. you feel better around Fi leading, not worse.

**Satan** · 09-08-2009, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Joy

Yeah, I don't know. Right now I'm thinking that I'm LIE > the theory is bullshit. However, SLE isn't a horrible choice for me. If I wasn't LIE, then SLE would be the next best choice. (Though I'd have to re-think the types of a few people, such as my sister.) I don't know anything about you though, so I don't know what type you are or how similar we are.

I wasn't always as "purposeful" as I am now though, fwiw. I'm 28 years old, and a few years ago my "professional accomplishments" were zilch. (Now I've got the stuff I listed there, plus something else in the works that's a pretty big deal career-wise that I didn't feel comfortable discussing here.) Also, I don't end up in leadership positions because I'm actively seeking them out. I just happened to be the most qualified/competent person who was willing to do it. It's paying off now though because of that other situation I had mentioned.

what i tihnk most noteworthy of you is that you're kind of boring. hence gamma.