Would someone please tell me how to figure out my quad type? Better yet, could you please explain the theory to me, briefly?
Thank you!
Would someone please tell me how to figure out my quad type? Better yet, could you please explain the theory to me, briefly?
Thank you!
SLI
Is quad type the extra bit of (function) going on.. say like an INFp having extra Ne???
Hakuna Matata
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Tests aren't very common in the Socionics typology, especially in English, and in any language that aren't reliable. Dual type is essentially an effort to capture both a person's "true" type and how they appear to and interact with others. (in more "technical" socionics terms, capture both their EM (energy metabolism) and IM (information metabolism))
ENTp-INFp-ISTp-INTp
But I'm just picking types I like.
The end is nigh
lol but they have to be from all four quadrassssssssssssssssssssss
also hi. I broke my promise. But I am evading flame wars.
The end is nigh
Dual-typing is Tcaud's thing, and Tcaud is confusing. Labcoat might understand it, as he discussed it with Tcaud in the old days... I'd tell you to go ask Tcaud, but I'm pretty sure that you've already done that (and gotten no answer). Hmm, actually I have some memories of Tcaud's wiki posts on the topic...
Your dual-type describes what each of your functions think about. So if you use to think about -related things and keep your very stereotypically to its natural domain, then you'd be ESE-LSE. Supposedly that would also mean that you use on topics, on topics, on topics, etc. Basically, overlap your actual type on top of your secondary type; the function on top is the way you think, and the function on bottom is what you think about.
I recall Tcaud typing Expat as LIE-ESE on the idea that Expat thought about in introspection (supposedly related to the id)... I was of the opinion that Expat was just contemplating his super-id values, but whatever.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari