I don't question my self-typing.
I just thought some people might be of the opinion that I am not INTj.
Please vote...
JohnDo's type
I don't question my self-typing.
I just thought some people might be of the opinion that I am not INTj.
Please vote...
you know that this is naieve. There are ALWAYS people who disagree with your selftyping.Originally Posted by JohnDo
There are probably people on this forum who say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is INFP.
Is that a reason to open up a poll about Swarzenegger in the famous personas forum?
Just ignore those mistyping dumbasses.
Since when do INTj's care about what other people think of them, or is it something else? Can you elaborate on why you are posting this thread?
I can't see your problem. I'm just a little bored so I ask people on this forum to type me. What's wrong?
btw: I didn't post an article about typing. I just posted in a thread in the category articles...
Since you've made up your mind...say I vote and it disagrees with INTj...then you ask why...then I come up with a bunch of reasons for someone who is already sure of their type anyway, so what is the point?
I do agree that it is rather naive - people won't agree on everything.
(btw - first paragraph was a supposition, i've not really cared or thought that much about your type up to and for now).
I like that. Isn't it some kind of INTj-humor?
Removed at User Request
ENFp would probably be the next type I'd suggest after INTj.
Huginn: ISTj
Labcoat: ENFp
No, I can't be extraverted AND introverted, sensory AND intuitive, thinking AND feeling, judging AND perceiving.
Why not - it's easy.
Huginn: ISTj
Labcoat: ENFp
No, I can't be extraverted AND introverted, sensory AND intuitive, thinking AND feeling, judging AND perceiving.
My opinion carries more weight than Huginn's. S/he has only recently established her type and has no more experience with the theory than s/he could have built up since that time.
I think your clearest two characteristics are Ne and the Negative/Result/Static trait, which creates the image of a calm, stable person with subtle control of events that doesn't overextend their reach, dosing their energy very carefully. Negative/Result EPs can look a lot like IJ types under some circumstances.
A lot of your posts are just like your last one: brief, based on common sense, not containing any type of intelligent deliberation. You use smilies to allude to typical social contexts and gut reactions. At one point you thought throwing about puking smilies was a good way to argue the point that you were a better typer than Rick. What a joke.
I disagree.
1.) I'm pretty sure she isn't INTj but INTp.
2.) That does not necessarily mean she can't type others.
3.) I don't know if you are INTj, either. INTp would be my second guess. INTjs rather like to make fun than to criticize...
That is true.
I try to keep everything short and simple which is typical of-egos.
I like allusions very much which is typical of-egos...
No, I never said I was a better typer than Rick. You don't like smilies? Unusual for a merry quadra...
You said his typings were bad, which implies that you thought you could type better than him to the point of being able to criticize his typings and declare them bad across the board.No, I never said I was a better typer than Rick. You don't like smilies? Unusual for a merry quadra...
Okay, I really disagree on some of his typings. I think that at least Lenin, Powell and Cheney are in no way ESTp.
Lenin - Ni-INTj
Powell - Ti-INTj
Cheney - Te-ESTj
I really don't understand why he types them as SLE, maybe he doesn't like them and therefore thinks they are Beta...
But I never said I was better at typing than he is...
I can understand it. LIIs often have a very poor understanding of how other people view them. I've often been curious about that sort of thing myself -- it's not extremely important, because we generally think that the opinions of other people don't matter; it's mainly idle curiosity that drives it. At least, that's been my experience.
On another note, John, I've slowly come 'round to the idea that you are in fact LII. Outside of our disagreement regarding your theory about the correlation of physical features with DCNH subtypes, we seem to operate on much the same wavelength. However, I think it's likely that we're both Creative subtypes -- our clashes have been solely due to the opposing creative ideas we have generated. I think if you were actually Harmonizing, we would not likely argue as much as we have.
Quaero Veritas.
Cool.
I'm going to send you something I read about an LII "acid test" if you will, sort of curious on what you think, and also that you may be interested in it.
Well, if I show my cards, I think he's LII too. Highly focused on Ti, creates some "weird" ideas that I see Ne often do when it's been fed by dominant Ti, and he's got the people skills too :-;On another note, John, I've slowly come 'round to the idea that you are in fact LII. Outside of our disagreement regarding your theory about the correlation of physical features with DCNH subtypes, we seem to operate on much the same wavelength. However, I think it's likely that we're both Creative subtypes -- our clashes have been solely due to the opposing creative ideas we have generated. I think if you were actually Harmonizing, we would not likely argue as much as we have.
Maybe it's an introtim thing? I'm certainly not LII
Removed at User Request
Nice. I never questioned your self-typing. Just allow me one question: Does your face rather have the shape of a square (like Victor Gulenko or Al Gore) or does it rather have the shape of an oval (like Carl Jung or Che Guevara)?
Exactly. As soon as you realize that this 1:1 correlation really exists you won't call it "Che's theory" but "our theory". It was your idea to use acc/prod description for getting DCNH descriptions. I've used them every day for several months and without them I would have never been able to discover this correlation.
If we want to improve "socionics in the west" we will have much more arguing to do. What do you think how Augusta, Gulenko, Weisband and the other early socionists came to their conclusions? They argued and argued and argued...However, I think it's likely that we're both Creative subtypes -- our clashes have been solely due to the opposing creative ideas we have generated. I think if you were actually Harmonizing, we would not likely argue as much as we have.
I googled pictures of the people you mentioned, and to be honest I can't even really tell what criterion you're using to distinguish between "square" and "oval" faces. Is it the angle of the jaw? The presence or absence of fatty tissue?
Do obese people all get classified as "oval"?
I do see more of a similarity between the first three as opposed to Che, which supports my continued assertion that he is Beta NF.
In my own case, I would say the lines of my face are more angular than rounded, but I wouldn't really describe it as "square". I dunno.
Quaero Veritas.
You need criteria to distinguish between a square and an oval?
Just look at my previous threads. It should be quite obvious what I mean...
This one...
Or that one...
Yeah, I honestly tried to see what you're seeing, and I just don't see it. Al Gore and Thomas Jefferson, for example, both look fairly rectangular to me -- tall faces, fairly angular jawlines. Christian Rach, in the photo you posted in the other thread, looks more oval than any of the others, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier has a softer, shorter face, but I wouldn't really call it "round", not in the same way that Cheney's face is round. But then again, that may just be because he's bald. If Cheney had a full head of hair, and lost weight, would his face still be round?You need criteria to distinguish between a square and an oval?
Just look at my previous threads. It should be quite obvious what I mean...
This one...
Or that one...
I'll tell you what, we'll do a blind test: send me a list of people whose faces you've classified by shape, but don't post which shapes you've assigned to which people. I'll post what shapes I think their faces are, and if there's anything more here than subjective impressions, our results should mostly match.
Quaero Veritas.
Is this Gay Chevera?
Removed at User Request
^ so very true.
ETA: I rather think you are LII, JohnDo. As to the arguments regarding your writing about subtypes, it is my understanding that being LII doesn't guarantee your logic isn't directed at proving internal correctness of reality-detached theories.
Last edited by Aiss; 05-14-2010 at 04:10 PM.
What you don't know is that reality becomes the theory! Hahahahaha!
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
It's better than the reverse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote