just follow your heart bro :love:
You’re all just ESIs like Olimpia said. Now close this thread. :justwait:
Identical twins always have different personality type. Always.
In this particular case one of them is ESTP and the other one is ENFJ. This is activity intertype relationship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn_K2FIWxA0
The one with the eyeliner is the ESTP. The one with the brush is the ENFJ.
The other solution is slightly different.
The father may be an INFP which eliminates the possibility of an ESTP daughter.
The one with the eyeliner can be an ENTJ. The one with the brush is the ENFJ. That would be business intertype relationship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn_K2FIWxA0
^ id like to add that the ENTJ girl has clearly a bit darker hair than the other. can you see it too @khcs ?
identical twins seem like an interesting research project that I don't have the time for right now. might really prove the theory that types are inborn and determined by your genetics. I remember watching a documentary some years ago about the topic, quite fascinating. I even found the link (it's in german, though). looking at it now, I think both are EIE, they work as artists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WiD...ature=youtu.be
I can't really explain why I came to that conclusion. I generally pay attention to how people communicate, their manner of speech. I try to see if they are a contact or distant subtype, because D and C have accentuated extroverted functions, so their way of communication is more direct or fluently.
You still haven't explained what you mean by "personality".
But according to studies with Big Five traits: "Twin studies and other research have shown that about half of the variation between individuals results from their genetic inheritance and half from their environment. Researchers have found conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism to be relatively stable from childhood through adulthood."
Enneagram deals with personality traits and not personality types. So it is something different. Socionics and MBTI are the same thing.
Well, it is possible to describe a type with Enneagram traits. It is more precise when personality types are described by the Jungian functions.
extraversion is the only jungian dichotomy that the big five uses, and they use it in a very different way. you could say that openess relates to intuitive functions, agreeableness to ethical functions, conscientiousness to being a normalising subtype, but then again, big five measures these traits very differently. neuroticism isn't even covered in socionics. khcs lives in an imaginative world where facts don't really exist, you won't get any evidence for his ridiculous claims. he showcases Te as vulnerable function very well though. 2+2=5, but the sad thing is he actually thinks he's correct. reminds me of the people who think that the earth is flat.
How is it fundamentally all that different though? Sure, I know some people might say that it's statistical and that the dichotomies could be defined a little different. But for example, I think it's probably something like this
openness = irrationality (S or N, depending). I think S types can be more open to the depth of experiencing things, while N is more open to breadth.
agreeable = Probably high correlation to F as a whole, since F types are going to be more sensitive and nuanced on F type stuff. It just doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise for someone good at F to conflict with everybody. Unless perhaps they are neurotic.
conscientious = rationality just makes sense because it requires premeditation. Irrationality perceives.
neuroticism = affectively Jungian neuroticism, which still applies to sociotypes because they are Jungian based. So a neurotic F type might not be very agreeable when showing neurotic elements. Someone like Jordan Peterson, for example, strikes me as agreeable when he's comfortable that becomes a lot more argumentative and disagreeable when things don't make sense to him and he thinks people are being illogical. I think T types have the opposite problem where they are fine conflicting with people, as long as it works for them, but when it doesn't, they want badly to find a way to make amends. It's like they are children that push the limits too far and get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. :lol:
which is pretty damn close.
Gukenko made a comment on the big five in an interview that I translated a couple of years ago.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Victor_DarkAngelFireWolf69
3. How does The Big 5 relate to neuroticism index?
The basic scale of The Big 5 can relate to socionics, as there are a lot of similiarities. The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling. The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but DarkAngelFireWolf69 discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally.
this question covers the other topic that we are talking about:
1. Is type innate? If so, at what age does type become set and can be observed? If not, what affects one's typing?
The type is innate, but its energy and information are filled gradually. You can observe the type from the day the child is born. Somehow, this type you can already observe within the first years of child development, and one child will be loud and whiny, another will be calm, third will be careful and fearful, the fourth will be brave and climbs everything and so on, so that means that there's already a type in somebody's person, so you can observe it from very early age. I spend a lot of time and energy to counsel children and their parents, and can confirm that you can distinguish a child's type at the age of 3 or 4, but of course you will also need to ask a questions of the child and parents, and not just by observing the behavior. How to observe the type: type is the stable psychological structure of the person, and it manifests itself via various reactions in our brain. Unfortunately, we don't have such a device to research how our brain works. We don't have some kind of constant attached X-ray to our brains to monitor such spontaneous reactions, so you can instead observe the behavior of the person to detect the type. This is also how you can detect a type: you divide a group into two groups. For example extroverts and introverts and you give them the same task. Distantly you observe the differences of task implementation. Only with this contrast you can see the difference clearly.
I think there is some correlation as you mention, but @khcs seems to be acting as though there is absolutely none, while @Number 9 large places no value on evidence.
seems like a discussion between a Ti valuing type and Te valuing type, and as a Ti-dom, I understand Number 9's perspective.
@Subteigh: have you read this EII desciption?
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p..._EII_composite
I thought about the comment on role Ti a couple of times when I read some of your comments on this site.
Im pretty sure Subteigh is a Te user. Nowhere has he said his personal values or tried to give his subjective opinion. Its always facts facts facts.
Ti just looks for a general direction that it can work with, while Te strives for objective knowledge. for example, Ti might observe the pattern that ethical men and logical women are more likely to be homosexual. just patterns and the generalalisations. Te on the other hand might disregard this claim unless there have been studies done and data has been collected. same with socionics, which is a field that is dominated by Ti valuing types, while the scientific community is mostly dominated by Te valuing types. they disregard speculative theories, and Ti doesn't care to objectively prove it.