View Poll Results: Which type or types does this description sound like (multiple answers allowed)

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • IEE

    5 22.73%
  • SLI

    2 9.09%
  • Not type related

    3 13.64%
  • ILI

    0 0%
  • LIE

    0 0%
  • ESI

    1 4.55%
  • LSE

    0 0%
  • EII

    4 18.18%
  • ILE

    0 0%
  • SEI

    4 18.18%
  • ESE

    1 4.55%
  • LII

    0 0%
  • EIE

    0 0%
  • LSI

    0 0%
  • SLE

    0 0%
  • IEI

    1 4.55%
  • SEE

    1 4.55%
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: What type does this description sound like?

  1. #1
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What type does this description sound like?

    Abraham Maslow's characteristics of self-actualizing individuals

    Perceptions are reality based
    Acceptance of self, others, nature
    Resistant to acculturation
    Spontaneous, simplicity, naturalness
    Problem-centered rather than self-centered
    Need for privacy and “down time”
    Autonomous of environment and culture
    Freshness of appreciation of life
    Periodic peak experiences
    Identification with all humankind
    Deep friendships with a few
    Acceptance of democratic values
    Strong ethical sense
    Unhostile sense of humor
    Creative

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Contradictory. Some of it suggests EII or IEE, but then you have the "reality-based" thingy. So ESI or SEE, but "creative" suggests intuititon, although of course any intelligent person can be creative.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, "Acceptance of democratic values" suggests that you're invoking the Reinin Democracy/Aristocracy thing; so this combined with "Perceptions are reality based" and "Strong ethical sense" suggests that you're thinking of an SF type. "Deep friendships with a few," "Need for privacy and “down time”," and "Autonomous of environment and culture" appear to suggest introversion. So this narrows things down to SEI and ESI.

    Although ESIs can be spontaneous, creative, and have other qualities in common with SEI, a number of things on the list suggest SEI more.

    So I'd have have to go with SEI.

    But I'd agree with Expat that an EII may possibly appear similar.

  4. #4
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Perceptions are reality based = not NT/TN; so SF/FS, NF/FN; ST/TS

    Acceptance of self, others, nature = not beta ST, not SFj, NT/TN; so ISFp, ESFp, ISTp, ESTj, NF/FN

    Resistant to acculturation = not type related

    Spontaneous, simplicity, naturalness = not type related

    Problem-centered rather than self-centered = not type related...many IPs are problem centered though many people say their self centered, many EPs are self-centered, as are many EJs and IJs, as well as some of each being problem centered

    Need for privacy and “down time” = not type related, even extroverts and Fs need privacy and downtime

    Autonomous of environment and culture = not type related

    Freshness of appreciation of life = not type related (the autonomous, freshness, and resistance to acculturation suggests someone who's not been "tested" as a child)

    Periodic peak experiences = not type related; not tested

    Identification with all humankind = how can they identify with all human kind if they are autonomous of environment, culture, resistant to acculturation? They can think they identify, but it's not really identifying

    Deep friendships with a few = not type related, even extroverts and Fs may have only a few deep friendships

    Acceptance of democratic values = as in republican vs democrat? or as in democratic vs dictatorship?

    Strong ethical sense = not type related (NTs are perhaps the most "ethical" types)

    Unhostile sense of humor = not type related (though i'd rule out estps)

    Creative = not type related; each type has their own creativite abilities...yes, even istjs
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    in general, it sounds delta NF.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    = not type related

    = not type related

    = not type related
    Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

    Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    = not type related

    = not type related

    = not type related
    Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

    Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."
    Uhh, so you're saying that there's nothing exclusive to any type and any type can act like any other type and the thing that makes a type is what is focused on when describing one type? Why shouldn't I consider this ridiculous and ignore socionics as an overglorified cold reading?
    That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    = not type related

    = not type related

    = not type related
    Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

    Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."
    well, sure, but if you restrict yourself to working with specificities and eliminating everything that might be characterized as overly general from conversaion than activities like this where you're not dealing with a real person become impossible. obviously, many traits might be too general, but that's a different story.

  9. #9
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    = not type related

    = not type related

    = not type related
    Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

    Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."
    the phrases given that i responded to were too general
    it'd be better to ask questions like
    Creative how? with what?
    Strong ethical sense.....which ethical rules? how strong? believe strongly in certain ideals? tolerant of others' "strong ethics"? takes action to promote or possibly push own ethical sense onto others? takes action to force others into following this person's ethics?
    Autonomous of environment and culture....what environment? which culture? how autonomous..an outcast? does own thing? rebel?
    Needs privacy and downtime...under what conditions? what thresholds prompt the need for downtime? how much privacy? which specific privacies?


    when i'm asked to guess at or help determine someone's type, there are three common questions i ask myself.....
    Given description A....
    1) do all or at least the vast majority (greater than 85%) of a specific type fit description A?
    2) are there other types that could also commonly fit description A (greater than 35%)
    3) could something other than type be involved regarding description A?

    (i don't actually calculate percentages, it's an over general feel....like a balancing weight machine...if i put type A into one side, and type B or more into the other side.....does A's side seem far heavier?)

    If there is not a significant difference, then I cannot refer to it as type related.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    the phrases given that i responded to were too general
    Well you're right. From a Ti-like point of view, it's fine to show how the way he phrased it wasn't correct. But it's also possible to understand intuitively what was meant behind the phrases...where Rick was coming from. The phrases themselves don't capture it; you're right there.

    I think the most interesting thing in the thread is that it again highlights the perceived similarities between EII and SEI. As artists, these types may seem somewhat similar, valuing Si/Ne and being feeling introverts. What are the major differences between their forms of expression and typical forms of speech and creations?

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what do you attribute to type then? what makes a type cohesive (if anything)?

  12. #12
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What type does this description sound like?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    NTs are perhaps the most "ethical" types
    Yeah. I've been thinking for a while that perhaps I'm a quite ethical ENTp.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  13. #13
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, let me tell you where I got this list. This is Abraham Maslow's list of characteristics of self-actualizing people.

    I thought there might be a slight bit of typocentrism in the list or in the spirit of the terms that the results here may have confirmed. As Anndelise says, they can (at least they are supposed to) be applicable to any type, however, the phrases still seem to ring with certain types (or their common stereotypes) more than others.

    Or it's possible that the version of the list I found is a bit biased. This one with explanations, come to think of it, sounds quite a bit better:
    http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was certain that it was another one of the Forer tricks. Hasn't this gotten old?

    In any case probably a very healthy ESI would be well described by that list.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I was certain that it was another one of the Forer tricks. Hasn't this gotten old?
    Gotta keep everyone on their toes . Actually, in this case I am much more interested in talking about whether Maslow's understanding applies to all types equally well or whether there is any typocentrism in it (presumably that would give undo weight to his own type's version of self-actualization) than in tricking people.

  16. #16
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Basically, what I'm getting at is, what is self-actualization for the types that are harder to see in the description Maslow gives (LSE, LSI, SLE, etc.)? Or does this list apply to them equally well? (if so, our stereotypes of what the types are supposed to be like are showing)

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).
    Hm... yeah, especially the SLEs and LSIs. I think SLIs are the mildest of the bunch.

    I think that Maslow focused (read these descriptions -- http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm -- they are much clearer) on interpersonal qualities, character, wisdom, and internal serenity but left out common sensing and logical qualities (especially logical) that are probably equally present among these self-actualizing individuals.

    Why didn't he write, for example:
    - highly intelligent
    - highly focused
    - highly persistent
    etc. ?

    Aren't these common characteristics of his list of "SAs" just as much as the traits he writes? I think he's slipping in a little ethics + intuition emphasis.

  19. #19
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).
    Hm... yeah, especially the SLEs and LSIs. I think SLIs are the mildest of the bunch.
    Yeah, but still every SLI that I have met has a veeeeery pronounced sense of self-importance, albeit usually very well hidden.

    I think that Maslow focused (read these descriptions -- http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm -- they are much clearer) on interpersonal qualities, character, wisdom, and internal serenity but left out common sensing and logical qualities (especially logical) that are probably equally present among these self-actualizing individuals.

    Why didn't he write, for example:
    - highly intelligent
    - highly focused
    - highly persistent
    etc. ?

    Aren't these common characteristics of his list of "SAs" just as much as the traits he writes? I think he's slipping in a little ethics + intuition emphasis.
    It's just that in a community the people that present the traits listed by him are the most accepted and liked. Highly persistent individuals need to lose some gentleness, because otherwise they could not be persistent. In doing this they will lose the sympathy of other individuals. A self-actualized individual must have qualities that are universally recognizable as attractive, and thus they can't be ST qualities, simply because they sacrifice attractivness for effectivness.

    In any case, what do you think about Maslow's type? The qualities he describes are anti-beta, IMO. Perhaps IEE?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  20. #20
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    In any case, what do you think about Maslow's type? The qualities he describes are anti-beta, IMO. Perhaps IEE?
    That would be my first intuitive guess.

    Also, I think Carl Rogers is an IEE or EII. His ability to listen nonjudgmentally was considered phenomenal and made a great impression on the Russians when he visited Moscow in his old age to demonstrate his approach. Also, I knew an IEE who knew Rogers personally and considered him his friend.

  21. #21
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    personally, i like the newer link better than the original post of this thread.

    here's some of my thoughts on the first three descriptions:

    Characteristics of Self Actualizing People
    Realistic
    Oriented towards realism
    Efficient perception of reality
    Comfortable relations with reality
    Unthreatened and unfrightened by the unknown
    Superior ability to reason
    Superior ability to see the truth
    Is logical and efficient
    Many T types would suggest that this suggests a T type.
    Many F's know that just because a person is a T type does NOT mean that they have a higher perception of reality, nor a higher ability to reason.
    T types, however, WOULD have a higher ability to communicate these things.
    NFs are commonly referred to idealistic types, so the realistic orientations would not fit the NF biases. (NFs know better…we are the realistic ones, it's the NTs who are the idealistic ones. )


    Self Acceptance
    Accepts self as s/he is
    Accepts others as they are
    Accepts the natural world as it is
    Does not see shame nor guilt for being human
    Does not regret his enjoyment
    Does not apologize for his enjoyment
    Has no unnecessary inhibitions
    Upon first read, many people might suggest that it's referring to an Fp.

    However, this is basically a removal of "shoulds" from one's thoughts. We feel guilt or regret when we feel/tell ourselves that we should be different from what we are, when we tell ourselves we should be doing something which we are not doing, when we feel we should be correct and precise in all things, when we should perfect something, etc. It's the "shoulds" that inhibit our spontaneous actions and expressions.

    After knowing about the shoulds, many people would suggest then that this removes ethical types out of the picture. Because we all know that T types aren't ethical and never attempt to establish rules (theories) of behavior/actions. *rolls her eyes*


    Spontaneity, Simplicity, Naturalness
    Spontaneous in inner life
    Thoughts unhampered by convention
    Impulses unhampered by convention
    Autonomous ethics
    Motivated to continual growth
    Ok, the first three pretty much say the same thing as the "lack of shoulds" description.

    The other two…actually seem to contradict the lack of shoulds description.
    Here it's saying that the person has his/her own set of ethics….so basically, the person as his/her own set of shoulds.
    On top of that, the person is motivated to continual growth. This could imply that somewhere inside the person, something is shoulding the person into continually growing.

    Most people would suggest this description is describing a p trait.
    Others might say it's more of an Ep trait.
    Others even that it's an E trait.

    I figure, even an istj can spontaneously express istjness. Being able to express one's own type is in itself "simplicity" and "naturalness". Why anyone would feel a need to force an expression of their type is beyond me.
    -----


    i will do the others if requested
    but i didn't desire to waste anyone's time/space if it's not particularly desired
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  22. #22
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    btw
    the first two...and possibly the third as well....have a same basic thing
    realism vs idealism

    when we "should" ourselves or anyone else, we have an ideal in mind as to how we should be, how they should be, how the world should be, etc.
    this pulls us out of a focus of how things really are

    so basically the first two descriptions..possibly the third..
    are suggesting that a self actualized person pays attention to what actually IS rather than what should be.

    (this goes along with.....i cant remember her name...some lady who suggested that all neurosis comes from the conflict between how we are...and what our ideal is)

    ___

    also, in discussing this with someone, we figure that to include the description "motivated to continual growth" actually prevents a person from accepting themselves as they are (since they have to keep growing), and thus prevents a person from becoming self-actualized.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  23. #23
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds IP to me. That's about all.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  24. #24
    Topaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,340
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would have to agree that Maslow and Rogers both had in mind themselves in an ideal state. Certainly the ideal human from their perspecitve would possess all the qualities that they themselves strived for and would like to embody. It would be interesting to see how each type would describe their version of the ideal person. For example how would and LSI describe a person they feel was most healthy? How would that description differ from the description from an ILI or SLI?

    Topaz
    The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.

  25. #25
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topaz
    I would have to agree that Maslow and Rogers both had in mind themselves in an ideal state. Certainly the ideal human from their perspecitve would possess all the qualities that they themselves strived for and would like to embody. It would be interesting to see how each type would describe their version of the ideal person. For example how would and LSI describe a person they feel was most healthy? How would that description differ from the description from an ILI or SLI?
    Interesting indeed. This is one of the things I am studying. We had a discussion a while ago where we figured that Stephen Covey might well be an LSI. Also, I have typed the mystic Gurdjieff as SLE. There are other philosophers and psychologists I am trying to figure out, too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •