These are the most apparent things about me:
Te > Ti
Ni > Ne
Se > Si
and I clearly value Fi over Fe
my third and fourth functions seem to be Si and Fe
If you vote for a Ti type, please post in this thread.
Multiple choice... I don't think we've done this before
These are the most apparent things about me:
Te > Ti
Ni > Ne
Se > Si
and I clearly value Fi over Fe
my third and fourth functions seem to be Si and Fe
If you vote for a Ti type, please post in this thread.
Democracy > Aristocracy
And I am also clearly the narrator.
hmmm... votes for ENTp, ISFp, and ESTp that appear to have been placed at the same time...
Aristocracy <3
AHAHAHAHHA... all 16 types are within 2 and 4 votes, lol.What types are most likely for Joy?
ENTp
[ 4 ]
ISFp
[ 3 ]
ESFj
[ 2 ]
INTj
[ 2 ]
ESTp
[ 3 ]
INFp
[ 2 ]
ENFj
[ 2 ]
ISTj
[ 2 ]
ENTj
[ 3 ]
ISFj
[ 2 ]
ESFp
[ 4 ]
INTp
[ 3 ]
ESTj
[ 2 ]
INFj
[ 2 ]
ENFp
[ 2 ]
ISTp
[ 4 ]
that's because only 4 or 5 people voted and 2 of them voted every type
and there's another...
it's okay though... I prefer they do that than vote specific types just for spite.
How do you rule that out?Originally Posted by Joy
*raises hand*oops sorry, that was me...I just like checking boxes. Well, that and me typing you would be like a blind man standing next to me telling me which chicks on the other side of the room are hot, just wouldn't make much sense.
<3 cracka
http://the16types.info/groups.php?groupid=11How do you rule that out?
How that possible?
uhhhhhh
elaborate please
Anyone who thinks you're taciturn is trying to spite you?<3 cracka
http://the16types.info/groups.php?groupid=11How do you rule that out?
lol no... I wasn't saying anything about myself.Anyone who thinks you're taciturn is trying to spite you?http://the16types.info/groups.php?groupid=11How do you rule that out?
well this:
Aristocrat:
- Aristocrat often receives and determines itself and other people through the group belonging (division into the groups it can occur on the most varied criteria: professional belonging, floor, age, nationality, the place of residence, etc.), for example: "4 - representative", "this - from such ones". Collectivism is more inherent in aristocrat.
- relation to another person is formed under the effect of its relation to the group, to which belongs this person. To aristocrat it occurs incomprehensibly, as it is possible simultaneously to belong to two quarrelling or opposite groups: "you either with us or with them - then against us".
- in the speech of aristocrat frequently sound expression "group", "typical representative", "our", "they all such", etc.
Democratic:
- Democrat receives and is determined himself, first of all, through the personal qualities. With the perception of other people for it is also primary the personal qualities of man (is how is personally to it it close, interesting, pleasant or unpleasant; its mind, idea, appearance, tastes, etc.). Individualism to the larger degree is inherent in the Democrat: "4 - this 4".
- Forms its relation to any person, on the basis of the relation to the personal qualities of this person (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.). The advantage of individual personalities on the basis of their individual qualities is recognized itself. The relation of Democrat to another person not will be based on his belonging one or other group or another, or on its relations with the representatives of this group.
- 4. Democrat is not inclined to use into the speeches of expression, which generalize "group features" of individual people (for example, "typical representative").
examples of it:
http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5631
http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5635
http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5703
When I bitch, I'm mainly talking about specific behaviors that certain groups exhibit (aka- the basis of socionics), not saying ALL people in that group are that way. When I meet someone new, I don't think of that person in terms of what group that person is in. I see that person as an individual. For example, Kelly is INFp. I'm not thinking about that when I talk to her though. I love Kelly. I like FDG. I like Vague. There are others, of course. Honestly, I like many more of then than I dislike. You I like as well, but I'm not totally convinced that you're an ethical type.
I'm reminded of a conversation we once had... just today I was thinking about if it was related to this dichotomy.
Let's say I say, "Red heads are hot." It seems to some, this sentence would mean that I think that all red heads are hot. This seems absurd to me... IMO, it's clear that I was saying that there are red heads who are hot. *shrugs*
The way I see it by simply proclaiming statements like that, unconsciously, they could be taken as indicators of type.
When I bitch, I'm mainly talking about specific behaviors that certain groups exhibit (aka- the basis of socionics), not saying ALL people in that group are that way. When I meet someone new, I don't think of that person in terms of what group that person is in. I see that person as an individual. For example, Kelly is INFp. I'm not thinking about that when I talk to her though. I love Kelly. I like FDG. I like Vague. There are others, of course. Honestly, I like many more of then than I dislike. You I like as well, but I'm not totally convinced that you're an ethical type.
I'm reminded of a conversation we once had... just today I was thinking about if it was related to this dichotomy.
Let's say I say, "Red heads are hot." It seems to some, this sentence would mean that I think that all red heads are hot. This seems absurd to me... IMO, it's clear that I was saying that there are red heads who are hot. *shrugs*
And also Joy, a democrat would've said it was a preference, not a group division "Like I said, I find the preference of read hair in individuals hot".
You never disputed the fact that it's a group division. In fact there is no indication that it even crossed your mind. For you division by group seems natural. That's what I was getting at.
I disagree. The way you stated it is unnecessarily wordy and incorrect. I was not saying that I prefer individuals with red hair or that individuals with red hair are preferable... both of those favor people with red hair above other types, which is not something I intended. I didn't say "Red heads are hot and blondes and brunettes aren't." I was saying that I am attracted to some people with red hair.
btw, "I find the preference of read hair in individuals hot" sounds like you like people who like red heads.
Hmm... so far ENTp (which I'm not even considering), ESFp, and ISTp are in the lead.
btw, I couldn't help but notice that no one bumped that Ti thread. Where is this Ti that so many of you are supposedly seeing in me? I don't think most of you actually think you see Ti... you're just voting ENTp because you don't trust me not to "change types" again.
LOL, (but a real one) that's exactly my point, you never treated them as individuals but rather as members of a group.I disagree. The way you stated it is unnecessarily wordy and incorrect. I was not saying that I prefer individuals with red hair or that individuals with red hair are preferable... both of those favor people with red hair above other types, which is not something I intended. I didn't say "Red heads are hot and blondes and brunettes aren't." I was saying that I am attracted to some people with red hair.
I was saying that I am attracted to some people with red hair.
You're rightbtw, "I find the preference of read hair in individuals hot" sounds like you like people who like red heads.
"I find red hair in women hot"
would be more like it.
"I find red hair in women hot"
Not all women look best with red hair. I do think red heads are hot, but I also think women with other hair colors are hot, too. This isn't a good example in the first place because it's dealing with personal, physical attraction, but even in this instance I see the way you're saying it is more exclusive of women with other hair colors than the way I said it.
I like dark hair and red hair in women.
I like dark-to-brunette hair in men.
ENTj
ENTp
*applause*The way I see it by simply proclaiming statements like that, unconsciously, they could be taken as indicators of type.
When I bitch, I'm mainly talking about specific behaviors that certain groups exhibit (aka- the basis of socionics), not saying ALL people in that group are that way. When I meet someone new, I don't think of that person in terms of what group that person is in. I see that person as an individual. For example, Kelly is INFp. I'm not thinking about that when I talk to her though. I love Kelly. I like FDG. I like Vague. There are others, of course. Honestly, I like many more of then than I dislike. You I like as well, but I'm not totally convinced that you're an ethical type.
I'm reminded of a conversation we once had... just today I was thinking about if it was related to this dichotomy.
Let's say I say, "Red heads are hot." It seems to some, this sentence would mean that I think that all red heads are hot. This seems absurd to me... IMO, it's clear that I was saying that there are red heads who are hot. *shrugs*
And also Joy, a democrat would've said it was a preference, not a group division "Like I said, I find the preference of read hair in individuals hot".
You never disputed the fact that it's a group division. In fact there is no indication that it even crossed your mind. For you division by group seems natural. That's what I was getting at.
Joy, she pinned you down.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
*He**applause*The way I see it by simply proclaiming statements like that, unconsciously, they could be taken as indicators of type.
When I bitch, I'm mainly talking about specific behaviors that certain groups exhibit (aka- the basis of socionics), not saying ALL people in that group are that way. When I meet someone new, I don't think of that person in terms of what group that person is in. I see that person as an individual. For example, Kelly is INFp. I'm not thinking about that when I talk to her though. I love Kelly. I like FDG. I like Vague. There are others, of course. Honestly, I like many more of then than I dislike. You I like as well, but I'm not totally convinced that you're an ethical type.
I'm reminded of a conversation we once had... just today I was thinking about if it was related to this dichotomy.
Let's say I say, "Red heads are hot." It seems to some, this sentence would mean that I think that all red heads are hot. This seems absurd to me... IMO, it's clear that I was saying that there are red heads who are hot. *shrugs*
And also Joy, a democrat would've said it was a preference, not a group division "Like I said, I find the preference of read hair in individuals hot".
You never disputed the fact that it's a group division. In fact there is no indication that it even crossed your mind. For you division by group seems natural. That's what I was getting at.
Joy, she pinned you down.
that "a" at the end of the name confuses me every friggin time
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yeah, actually the name is union of three words "sneg", "led" and "maca" translated as "snow" "ice" and "kitten"
You're a HE? You're male? lol.Yeah, actually the name is union of three words "sneg", "led" and "maca" translated as "snow" "ice" and "kitten"
PS! your name is long enough for me to always casually read, "Snegalda".
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Joy,
I voted ENTp for you. I think it's quite clear that you're EP, but I don't think you have much Se. Otherwise you wouldn't be such a slug and even if you were, you wouldn't bitch about being unable to clean after yourself. And no, I don't think I'm hurting your Si-PoLR, although I might be hurting your pride.
(PS! It is well possible that I'm more of a slug than you'll ever be, but I don't think that when people tell me I'm a lazy-ass they are hitting my PoLR)
Idea. You're so bothered with people commenting on your habits because they are hurting your Se-role. They might as well be saying that you don't have the willpower to be a tidy person. Role-hits are nasty.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Did you know that INTps are supposed to be democrats o_O
ISTp is tied with ESFp for the lead? interesting...
It's not about Se. It doesn't bother me when people say I'm "lazy".Joy,
I voted ENTp for you. I think it's quite clear that you're EP, but I don't think you have much Se. Otherwise you wouldn't be such a slug and even if you were, you wouldn't bitch about being unable to clean after yourself. And no, I don't think I'm hurting your Si-PoLR, although I might be hurting your pride.
(PS! It is well possible that I'm more of a slug than you'll ever be, but I don't think that when people tell me I'm a lazy-ass they are hitting my PoLR)
Idea. You're so bothered with people commenting on your habits because they are hurting your Se-role. They might as well be saying that you don't have the willpower to be a tidy person. Role-hits are nasty.
ENTj is the only type in which all of the dichomoties and the functional analysis fits... but I can see an argument for ESFp, and the description for ISTp fits almost perfectly (though the functions and dichotomies don't fit well at all).
apparently you didn't read the rest of the thread?
I did, but your justifications were irrilivant, since you clearly utilize aristocratic figures of speech every where naturally.apparently you didn't read the rest of the thread?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I disagree, but I can see how you would read what I've written as such. Like I said, I think that's where the issues in came from in those posts in Beta.
If this is true then it leaves basically: ESFj, ENTj, ISFp, INTp
Well these are not the most telling of all functional priorities but in this case they would probably drop ESFj (Fi>Fe) and ISFp (Te>Ti).
ENTj or INTp then?
Which is more you...
Strategic: Your end goal is fixed over long term but you are a bit unsure which is the best next step to take in order to get closer to that goal -> ENTj
You are very good at taking the most optimal next step and you have an end goal in mind but it is not fixed. Once you finally achieve your goal it has probably changed in time and is more or less different from the goal you originally pursued -> INTp
(according to smilex's charts)
Not what was meant.Did you know that INTps are supposed to be democrats o_O
"Strategic: Your end goal is fixed over long term but you are a bit unsure which is the best next step to take in order to get closer to that goal"
this is definitely me!
Actually I was unsure of what was meant here. But that was as much a reference to the pastNot what was meant.Did you know that INTps are supposed to be democrats o_OMost of all it was just a teaser.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote