Life Personality System

[Raver]

I have made my own typology system based on what I have noticed life is about. It may not be politically correct, but its the truth. Also, unlike other type systems, certain types are actually better than others.

Intelligent ---------------------------------Dull
Organized ---------------------------------Chaotic
Dominant ---------------------------------Submissive
Creative ----------------------------------Grounded
Socially Suave ----------------------------Socially Awkward
Good -------------------------------------Evil

So if someone possesed all the traits to the left, they would be known as IODCSG. If someone possessed all the traits to the right they would be known as DCSGAE. Most of us are quite balanced, but we all lean in one direction or another.

[717495]

ok

[Raver]

ok

[DirectorAbbie]

Your system is dull, socially awkward, and evil. I'm not sure about the others.

[Brilliand]

"Dull" should be renamed to "Stupid". At first I thought it meant "Boring".

How do relationships work in this typology?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm ICSCSAG type.

The Intelligent, Chaotic, Submissive, Creative, Socially Awkward, Good type.

[Kent Lorne]

Amen! I think I have a bit of a middle ground between dominant and submissive. Though I feel very blinded with dominance... it's a high... but when everyone is looking at you... no time to scan the others. )-:

[Absurd]

[ashlesha]

IOSGAX, i think.

now what?

[anndelise]

I suppose typing some parts of this can only really be done based on relativeness/interactions.

For example, whether a person is considered intelligent or dull would depend largely on who you're asking, and what their criteria for it is.

Another example, dominance/submission are actually generally based on the particular relationship, or even a particular activity. A person can easily be dominant to some people, submit to other people, fight for dominance with yet other people, try to submit to someone's who's trying to submit to them. And even be dominant in certain situations, while being willing to submit in other situations.

While yes, the OP did say that we can be both, but our typing would lean us to one way over another, ..is it an accurate dominant typing if the typee is in 50.5% situations where they are 50.5% dominant? Should they be held to the same expectations, and descriptions of a person who is closer to 90% situations where they are 90% dominant?



If I were to try typing myself based on this system, I'd probably wind up with XcXXA(?)G.
(Though if the criteria for Good involves a lot of caretaking type behaviors, I'd more likely fall into X there, too.)

[Pa3s]

When will the camps for those worthless DCSGAEs be ready?

[Raver]

I'm ICSCSAG type.

The Intelligent, Chaotic, Submissive, Creative, Socially Awkward, Good type.

I would classify myself as the same type.

"Dull" should be renamed to "Stupid". At first I thought it meant "Boring".

How do relationships work in this typology?

I just did not want there to be to be too many Ss.


Well, I would say that certain traits must be similar and other traits have no effect.

So Intelligent and Dull, Socially Suave and Awkward, Good and Evil types would not get along.

However, Chaotic and Organized, Dominant and Submissive, Creative and Grounded types could get along.

I suppose typing some parts of this can only really be done based on relativeness/interactions.

For example, whether a person is considered intelligent or dull would depend largely on who you're asking, and what their criteria for it is.

Another example, dominance/submission are actually generally based on the particular relationship, or even a particular activity. A person can easily be dominant to some people, submit to other people, fight for dominance with yet other people, try to submit to someone's who's trying to submit to them. And even be dominant in certain situations, while being willing to submit in other situations.

While yes, the OP did say that we can be both, but our typing would lean us to one way over another, ..is it an accurate dominant typing if the typee is in 50.5% situations where they are 50.5% dominant? Should they be held to the same expectations, and descriptions of a person who is closer to 90% situations where they are 90% dominant?



If I were to try typing myself based on this system, I'd probably wind up with XcXXA(?)G.
(Though if the criteria for Good involves a lot of caretaking type behaviors, I'd more likely fall into X there, too.)

I agree with you that there is a lot of grey area and that people are not necessarily black or white. Though you could make that argument for any type system including Socionics. Though I guess you can use X if you are almost evenly split, but it has to be something you are truly 50/50 with.

[redbaron]

I have made my own typology system based on what I have noticed life is about. It may not be politically correct, but its the truth. Also, unlike other type systems, certain types are actually better than others.

Intelligent ---------------------------------Dull
Organized ---------------------------------Chaotic
Dominant ---------------------------------Submissive
Creative ----------------------------------Grounded
Socially Suave ----------------------------Socially Awkward
Good -------------------------------------Evil

Intelligent, chaotic, submissive, creative, used to be socially awkward but now a lot more suave, good.

[Simon Ssmall]

And would anyone willing choose the "Dull" type?

[willekeurig]

IXXCXX

[anndelise]

And would anyone willing choose the "Dull" type?

I chose X on that one.
Cuz I think the answer to that one woud depend on who was doing the typing.

[Raver]

I guess I should point out now that I do not take this system seriously. I just wanted to know what you guys thought of it.

[EyeSeeCold]

http://static.themetapicture.com/med...tude-quote.jpg

I like this. I like it a lot.