Maritsãonics

A while ago, I compiled some stats tallying up the self-typings of forum members, with all the flaws inherent in doing so.

The stats were as follows:

http://s22.postimg.org/5x3h3exr5/image.jpg


I have now done something similar with Maritsa's typings, based on her latest update. Normally, I would consider it a little unfair to single out one forum member for such an exercise. Normally.

Obviously, this table isn't exactly comparable to the self-typings one...Maritsa doesn't necessarily have to type people of all types in direct proportion to how they appear on the forum, and the self-typings data may also have its own inherent biases. I do think however Maritsa's typings form a sufficiently large data set to be capable of some analysis. It is possible that this table will make for Interesting reading, but alternatively, it is also possible that it may tell you what you already know.

The following people had two types listed, hence I gave each of the relevant types a score of 0.5: Brilliand, Capitalist Pig, Haley, lungs, Ryene Astraelis, Subteigh, Twitch


http://s29.postimg.org/q4mgtrgev/image.jpg

:lol:

"You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a shark, but are only 17 times more likely to be typed SEE by Maritsa than EII"

SEE and SLI are her favourites:love:

Hahaha TE-Attack

I favour the "inspired TI attacks on religion" approach :)

You know what would make this more interesting?

If you did this for everyone and then we could have a huge pool to compare data with.
How thrilling, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrangea

You know what would make this more interesting?

If you did this for everyone and then we could have a huge pool to compare data with.
How thrilling, I know.

---

Data vrs idea :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LostInDreams

SEE and SLI are her favourites:love:

---

No. ILI IEE SLI ESE everyone except the very rare ESI and some wonderful SEE

Aww someone's ass hurt that they didn't get an EII plaque

You type @aestrivex as a SEE.

I think most people will quite understand if I say that I consider your opinion on my type as essentially worthless and that I really do not care what you type me. I could not be any more truthful than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

You type @aestrivex as a SEE.

I think most people will quite understand if I say that I consider your opinion on my type as essentially worthless and that I really do not care what you type me. I could not be any more truthful than that.

---

And because you don't care you opened this thread . How ironic

I said I didn't care what you typed me.

Keep doing your stats as far as I'm concerned EII don't give two squats about that sort od DATA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

I said I didn't care what you typed me.

---

But you opened this thread fully knowing that others know how I type and what the trends of my typing are to show what? What exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

But you opened this thread fully knowing that others know how I type and wheat the trends of my typing are to show what? What exactly?

---

I did an analysis of forum self-typings in another thread because I foremost thought it was interesting, and secondly, because I thought it would encourage debate or be useful in some wider way.

With this analysis, I wanted to statistically evaluate your large collection of typings. When you pursue others and type them for example "SEE. CONFIRMED AND FINAL" on a regular basis, and selectively quote people like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Minde - (SEI) ISFp Confirm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minde

Then again, I've also been told that I have a very expressive face.

---

LOL

For my pleasure I'm going to add this under her type:

INFJs have a very characteristic dispassionate facial expression. DarkAngelFireWolf69

---

I think it is good to record the phenomenon and get a sense of proportion.

I find your responses in your thread completely puzzling, especially considering your past behaviour.

Let us not forget that on top of all this, it was you who created the "Your typing of forum members" thread because you were "curious".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Keep doing your stats as far as I'm concerned EII don't give two squats about that sort od DATA.

---

:lol: this is the typical Typist nonsense that you regularly churn out. You're no Grand Humanist, regardless of your type...you also do not act in a professional manner for helping others...and you are also entirely oblivious to scientific scrutiny, as you have again shown. Your self-image is a total sham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

:lol: this is the typical Typist nonsense that you regularly churn out. You're no Grand Humanist, regardless of your type...you also do not act in a professional manner for helping others...and you are also entirely oblivious to scientific scrutiny, as you have again shown. Your self-image is a total sham.

---

Now you resort to ad hominem attacks and hitting someones weak functions how sad for you and others who come from the school of Expat and his typing nonsense that produced this culture of stereotypes that you can't shake. How sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

I did an analysis of forum self-typings in another thread because I foremost thought it was interesting, and secondly, because I thought it would encourage debate or be useful in some wider way.

With this analysis, I wanted to statistically evaluate your large collection of typings. When you pursue others and type them for example "SEE. CONFIRMED AND FINAL" on a regular basis, and selectively quote people like this:


I think it is good to record the phenomenon and get a sense of proportion.

I find your responses in your thread completely puzzling, especially considering your past behaviour.

Let us not forget that on top of all this, it was you who created the "Your typing of forum members" thread because you were "curious".

---

You really know how to be direct and straight forward. How about try "I opened this thread to what others thinkbof your typings" now that is a condensed simplified and brief statement that doesn't do dance abouts. How does that compare to your own is what you may want to preoccupy your self in studying and why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Now you resort to ad hominem attacks and hitting someones weak functions how sad for you and others who come from the school of Expat and his typing nonsense that produced this culture of stereotypes that you can't shake. How sad.

---

It is not an ad homnem if it is directly relevant and appropriate to the debate, which it is. You have continuously said someone wasn't a humanist like you, that they don't value facts...that they smiled too much...etc. as it suits your own ends, always taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion. You have also claimed to have Socionics expertise because you've known "experts"...you claim to help people in Socionics matters, you would like us all to think you are knowledgeable about the human condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

You really know how to be direct and straight forward. How about try "I opened this thread to what others thinkbof your typings" now that is a condensed simplified and brief statement that doesn't do dance abouts. How does that compare to your own is what you may want to preoccupy your self in studying and why.

---

:lol: I know how to be direct and straight forward but I'm apparently being criticised for supposedly not being direct and straight forward in my first post in this thread? I thought the thread spoke for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

:lol: I know how to be direct and straight forward but I'm apparently being criticised for supposedly not being direct and straight forward in my first post in this thread? I thought the thread spoke for itself.

---

This thread would have been better conducted via private message
or between you and Maritsa on your visitor messaging boards.

This did not need to be a thread. If anything it goes entirely against
your mission which is apparently being direct and straight forward.
This is passive aggressive. Not direct. Direct would have been
talking to Maritsa, not making a thread like this.

I've already given my reasons for posting this thread, and I don't see it as problematic.

Consider that Maritsa considers herself a Socionist and has created a public thread with her typings of forum members. What is your issue really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

I've already given my reasons for posting this thread, and I don't see it as problematic.

Consider that Maritsa considers herself a Socionist and has created a public thread with her typings of forum members. What is your issue really?

---

I am sorry it came across as though I have an "issue" with the way you conduct and
choose to express yourself. Not my intention in the slightest. I was just giving you
an outsider opinion on how this doesn't come across as direct or straight forward.

We all know how Maritsa would feel, and does feel, about this thread. I am providing
an observation that isn't personally invested.

Ah ok, I thought you were seeing this thread as an attempt to indirectly tackle Maritsa for her perceived overbearingness...it isn't: I have covered this directly in the relevant places (or as relevant as can be...there may be offshoots now that necessitate thread splits)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Keep doing your stats as far as I'm concerned EII don't give two squats about that sort od DATA.

---

Why have you posted your friend Rod's type statistics to your personal blog?

I see that according to Rod Novichkov's stats (if they are his), the most common male type is SLI, and the most common female type is SEE.

Inferred type distribution according to Rod:

http://s10.postimg.org/ctm9aez4p/rod.jpg

SubT I type You SEE confirm and final for your liking to gather data check facts (Se) and use forms of social manipulation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

SubT I type You SEE confirm and final for your liking to gather data check facts (Se) and use forms of social manipulation

---

Gathering data and checking facts is at the forefront of the mind of SEEs, right.

Is this what EII's do? I don't want no part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divergentwacey

Is this what EII's do? I don't want no part of it.

---

Yes. When we have a hobby it becomes like a job. We do it steadily

Have we not learned our lesson yet, guys?

Delta conflicts seem kinda proper and follow some kind of rules of engagement. You guys sure know how to pull your punches. After my recent war in Beta it feels relaxing here...Some Alpha seem almost cordial in their conflicts. Haven't really seen the Gamma's go at it yet. Maybe I want to defect to Gammaville. :lol:

the figures in the blog post say what % of males, and what % of females are thinkers, sensors etc. and do not give a figure for everybody together, but yes, that is what the data would suggest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

Are you trying to demonstrate that SEE's and SLI's are the types most commonly interested in socionics forums? Or are you just being a cunt who's wasted his time gathering someone else's typing stats and made a stupid passive aggressive thread about it.

---

There's nothing passive-aggressive about exposing peoples biases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercutio

There's nothing passive-aggressive about exposing peoples biases.

---

This is why I deleted my post.... everything he's (not) said in the thread is and I really can't be bothered reading it again to demonstrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrangea

You know what would make this more interesting?

If you did this for everyone and then we could have a huge pool to compare data with.
How thrilling, I know.

---

Once upon a time, @ragnar had dendrograms up of how similar different people's typings were, or such. That was definitely one of the better things to come from this community.

Quote:

---

Are you trying to demonstrate that SEE's and SLI's are the types most commonly interested in socionics forums? Or are you just being a cunt who's wasted his time gathering someone else's typing stats and made a stupid passive aggressive thread about it.

---

If you have an issue with passive-aggressive behaviour, best not to carry out an exemplary example of it while contributing nothing whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

gibberish

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylen

Delta conflicts seem kinda proper and follow some kind of rules of engagement. You guys sure know how to pull your punches. After my recent war in Beta it feels relaxing here...Some Alpha seem almost cordial in their conflicts. Haven't really seen the Gamma's go at it yet. Maybe I want to defect to Gammaville. :lol:

---

From my experience, Gamma conflicts seem to be brutal but swift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

.

---

You are one of the few people who I can say has not made a net positive contribution to the forum. You have "wasted time" being passive-aggressive to many members on this forum, offering nothing. When you have actually stated a definitive opinion on a subject you have been found wanting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

You are one of the few people who I can say has not made a net positive contribution to the forum. You have "wasted time" being passive-aggressive to many members on this forum, offering nothing. When you have actually stated a definitive opinion on a subject you have been found wanting.

---

Haha you really like to create drama don't you. Just fuck off and stop hating on people and you might find your own experiences and impressions of what people do might change. Although I think there is something wrong with you, i'm putting it out there for your advice just in case there's hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narc

From my experience, Gamma conflicts seem to be brutal but swift.

---

Yeah, a protracted war amongst gammas seems pretty pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

Haha you really like to create drama don't you. Just fuck off and stop hating on people and you might find your own experiences and impressions of what people do might change. Although I think there is something wrong with you, i'm putting it out there for your advice just in case there's hope.

---

You're the one churning out the insults and the unsubstantiated claims...and have a history of doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

You're the one churning out the insults and the unsubstantiated claims...and have a history of doing so.

---

Like I said, sadly the case for you.

subt and words can you please stop talking to each other.

A person would only need to compare our last 20 or 40 posts to see if your claims have any weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

A person would only need to compare our last 20 or 40 posts to see if your claims have any weight.

---

Subt. He retracted his claims, and you still went with it, and turned it into an attack upon his character. I see you as first at fault, and so nothing else after that matters. There's no meant getting into any kind of debate about it. It won't help anything- and I would see it in your best interests to maintain any degree of class, to apologise to Words for your actions and continue onwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercutio

Subt. He retracted his claims, and you still went with it, and turned it into an attack upon his character. I see you as first at fault, and so nothing else after that matters. There's no meant getting into any kind of debate about it. It won't help anything- and I would see it in your best interests to maintain any degree of class, to apologise to Words for your actions and continue onwards.

---

I would have let it pass if he hadn't then replied to you by saying:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

This is why I deleted my post.... everything he's (not) said in the thread is and I really can't be bothered reading it again to demonstrate.

---

...reaffirming his deleted post and showing that could not provide evidence for his claims.
Also, he may have deleted his initial post but it does not then mean he suddenly does not have this savage mindset that he has always demonstrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

I would have let it pass if he hadn't then replied to you by saying:


...reaffirming his deleted post and showing that could not provide evidence for his claims.
Also, he may have deleted his initial post but it does not then mean he suddenly does not have this savage mindset that he has always demonstrated.

---

Let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

Inferred type distribution according to Rod:

http://s10.postimg.org/ctm9aez4p/rod.jpg

---

Oh great that you have added this ridiculous chart, how anyone can believe these heavily biased stupidsonics is hilarious.

These type distributions are fucking atrocious, just for the record.

I'm neutral, but what do people find so atrocious about these type distributions?

I don't really get what the issue is if someone has a bunch of typings which apparently disagree with most others. Why does it matter? It's not like you can prove any one of them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holon

I'm neutral, but what do people find so atrocious about these type distributions?

---

The main reason would be that Rod's stats run contrary to the stats collated by "other" socionists which show a more balanced distribution. A secondary reason, as Rick has said before, would be that such an uneven distribution would mean that most people would have little chance of ending up in long-term relationships with their duals (this is an argument about why our genes bother with personality traits and how they are inherited in a way that is advantageous to our species). Thirdly, I think people would find that 83.47% of females being perceiving types, 82.33% of females being "emotional" types, and 22.45% of men being "Intellectual" "Emotional" types does not come close to their own experiences.

To emphasise these points, having an implied figure of 40.78% of females being SEE + 22.60% of them being SEI, and 25.61% of males being SLI and 23.84% being SLE seems especially absurd to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holon

I'm neutral, but what do people find so atrocious about these type distributions?

---

It's the way in which they are distributed and the reasoning behind them. For example one person of such and such "rare" type believes themselves to be superior (not unlike white supremacy and etc) and then takes it upon themselves to bestow all other types with new types according to how they fit into their pyramid of hierarchy. It is incredibly offensive to argue against ones self typing and insist they are a 'lesser' type in the re-typers eyes. Hope that makes sense. Not to mention how fundamentally flawed the whole thing is. It is not difficult to see how types are distributed in various areas... internet typology forums tend to have more introverted and intuitive type distributions... for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subteigh

The main reason would be that Rod's stats run contrary to the stats collated by "other" socionists which show a more balanced distribution. A secondary reason, as Rick has said before, would be that such an uneven distribution would mean that most people would have little chance of ending up in long-term relationships with their duals (this is an argument about why our genes bother with personality traits and how they are inherited in a way that is advantageous to our species). Thirdly, I think people would find that 83.47% of females being perceiving types, 82.33% of females being "emotional" types, and 22.45% of men being "Intellectual" types does not comes close to their own experiences.

To emphasise these points, having an implied figure of 40.78% of females being SEE + 22.60% of them being SEI, and 25.61% of males being SLI and 23.84% being SLE seems especially absurd to me.

---

I dunno but Mr Jung said F types were predominantly females in his chapter 10 what-ever-it-is.

Anyway you are sounding a bit like this is a religion - we don't need to do group consensus to enforce behaviour. Also re Ricks point - something discussed recently on chatbox is that marriages have been predominantly a business contract, whether it was to exchange a daughter for cattle, land, money or a mutual support ie arranged marriages this stuff is quite the norm and you don't need your dual for that. Infact plently people appear to dislike certain members of their dual or quadra group if their typings are 'right'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boudica

It's the way in which they are distributed and the reasoning behind them. For example one person of such and such "rare" type believes themselves to be superior (not unlike white supremacy and etc) and then takes it upon themselves to bestow all other types with new types according to how they fit into their pyramid of hierarchy. It is incredibly offensive to argue against ones self typing and insist they are a 'lesser' type in the re-typers eyes. Hope that makes sense. Not to mention how fundamentally flawed the whole thing is. It is not difficult to see how types are distributed in various areas... internet typology forums tend to have more introverted and intuitive type distributions... for obvious reasons.

---

That's an interesting point. I suppose if there are biological differences in a species there could also be psychology related differences, just which ones are more favourable or not should influence their chances of being duplicated.