IMO:
Ethicals: flood the forum with personal stuff
Logicals: type people, build theories
Do you agree?
Logics-Ethics and behaviour in the board
IMO:
Ethicals: flood the forum with personal stuff
Logicals: type people, build theories
Do you agree?
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Not really.
No
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
IMO:
Slater: makes simplified stereotypical statements
the rest of board: disagrees
I agree with slater trying to view behaviors as patterns; I don't agree with siuntal that no one agrees with Slater
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
The Sixteen Stereotypes.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I would further refine this to:Originally Posted by 1981slater
ExFx types: flood the forum with personal stuff.
IxTx types: type people, build theories.
ExTx and IxFx types: somewhere in between.
[Insert standard disclaimer about this being a general rule of thumb, exceptions to be expected, etc.]
Quaero Veritas.
I would further refine this to:
SF types: flood the forum with personal stuff.
NT types: type people, build theories.
ST and NF types: somewhere in between.
[Insert standard disclaimer about this being a general rule of thumb, exceptions to be expected, etc.]
i see people of all types typing and analyzing other people. i think people who have more real-world experience and knowledge tend to do it in a more realistic way, while those who don't often seem to over-rely on socionics to analyze and understand people.
i think women in general might be more likely to talk about personal stuff and their relationships and such, but Ethical women talk about their actual feelings/emotions more, while Logical women talk about it in a more matter-of-fact way, and when they mention their feelings it's more stuff like "i'm confused" rather than "i feel sad/hurt".
i think Ethical types, both men and women, are more likely to bring in their feelings/emotions and ethical judgments into a discussion or argument, while Logical types can often remain a bit more emotionless and impersonal.
i noticed that the people who theorize and talk about the theory in-depth are more likely to be male and probably Logical. lots of people may post their musings on what they think the IMs are and such, but that's different than the rigorous theorizing, analysis, and knowledge-building i'm referring to.
the most "impersonal" people tend to be IXTx males - often they are the ones whom i know little about regarding their their personal lives, because they rarely talk about them. even when they do talk about their personal lives, they often don't talk about their respective feelings/emotions.
We're probably both right.
ESFx types: flood the forum a lot with personal stuff.
ENFx and ISFx types: flood the forum quite a bit with personal stuff.
ENTx and ISTx types: type people and build theories quite a bit.
INTx types: type people and build theories a lot.
INFx and ESTx types: somewhere in between.
It seems related to something I've hypothesized before: that there are three main factors involved with being socially outgoing and having social skills, namely, Extraversion, Ethics, and Sensing. The more of each of those a person has, the more of a "social person" they will be. Consequently, ESFx types are the most social, and INTx types the least, with the rest distributed between them.
Also, I concur with glam's observations.
Quaero Veritas.
Interesting hypothesis. I do think it's correct.
btw..i've seen labocat writing something related, more than once.
oh, here, found it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post585573
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post585581
I do a lot of both. I'm male and have an overactive Ti hidden agenda because it's sexy.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote