Printable View
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Yeah, a protracted war amongst gammas seems pretty pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You're the one churning out the insults and the unsubstantiated claims...and have a history of doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Like I said, sadly the case for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
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.
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 Subteigh
I would have let it pass if he hadn't then replied to you by saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by mercutio
...reaffirming his deleted post and showing that could not provide evidence for his claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
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
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.
I dunno but Mr Jung said F types were predominantly females in his chapter 10 what-ever-it-is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
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'.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boudica