Which type do you think I am from the discussion/fotoes?

[Ezra]

And dee, UDP informs me that you´re looking at things from a shit point of view. My suggestion is to look at the Wikisocion temperaments. Think very carefully about which one(s) you relate more to - EP, EJ, IP and IJ. Enough of your innovative theories mate; crack on with the here and now of socionics, and find your type.

[Expat]

What I don´t understand is how the fuck you can even consider ESTp and INFp. INFp would be the last type I ever considered.

But you see, if you type understanding quadras, your dual should never be the "last type". If you consider ESTp, the last type you should consider is INFj, and you should consider INFp before a number of types. Duals are more similar than you you'd think by only looking at the 4 dichotomies, for instance, in many respects an INFp is much closer to an ESTp than an ENFp.

[Expat]

And dee, UDP informs me that you´re looking at things from a shit point of view. My suggestion is to look at the Wikisocion temperaments. Think very carefully about which one(s) you relate more to - EP, EJ, IP and IJ. Enough of your innovative theories mate; crack on with the here and now of socionics, and find your type.

Beware of Expat, though -- I wrote at least 90% of those temperament descriptions.

[Ezra]

What I don´t understand is how the fuck you can even consider ESTp and INFp. INFp would be the last type I ever considered.

But you see, if you type understanding quadras, your dual should never be the "last type". If you consider ESTp, the last type you should consider is INFj, and you should consider INFp before a number of types. Duals are more similar than you you'd think by only looking at the 4 dichotomies, for instance, in many respects an INFp is much closer to an ESTp than an ENFp.

I see what you mean.

It's interesting, because this Socionics Institute book I've read, it actually explains that your conflictor would be your best match. In fact, their intertype relationship table has pretty much changed completely. Instead of the traditional forms of relationships, they have four kinds: Complementary, Quasi-Complementary, Identical and Quasi-Identical. For some reason, an ESTj would be best fitted for an INFp, an ENTj an ISFp, an ESTp an INFj and so on. I don't precisely see their logic. And after 14 years of studying socionics, surely they have come across such a thing as a conflicting relationship.

[Ezra]

And dee, UDP informs me that you´re looking at things from a shit point of view. My suggestion is to look at the Wikisocion temperaments. Think very carefully about which one(s) you relate more to - EP, EJ, IP and IJ. Enough of your innovative theories mate; crack on with the here and now of socionics, and find your type.

Beware of Expat, though -- I wrote at least 90% of those temperament descriptions.

Hahahaha. *high 5*

[Expat]

It's interesting, because this Socionics Institute book I've read, it actually explains that your conflictor would be your best match. In fact, their intertype relationship table has pretty much changed completely. Instead of the traditional forms of relationships, they have four kinds: Complementary, Quasi-Complementary, Identical and Quasi-Identical. For some reason, an ESTj would be best fitted for an INFp, an ENTj an ISFp, an ESTp an INFj and so on. I don't precisely see their logic. And after 14 years of studying socionics, surely they have come across such a thing as a conflicting relationship.

Do they explicitly say that your conflictor is your best match? Or is it a question of the J/P shift?

[Ezra]

It's interesting, because this Socionics Institute book I've read, it actually explains that your conflictor would be your best match. In fact, their intertype relationship table has pretty much changed completely. Instead of the traditional forms of relationships, they have four kinds: Complementary, Quasi-Complementary, Identical and Quasi-Identical. For some reason, an ESTj would be best fitted for an INFp, an ENTj an ISFp, an ESTp an INFj and so on. I don't precisely see their logic. And after 14 years of studying socionics, surely they have come across such a thing as a conflicting relationship.

Do they explicitly say that your conflictor is your best match? Or is it a question of the J/P shift?

Apologies, I was wrong.

They have a scale. C1 is the best compatibility. C7 is poor compatibility. They consistently believe that your Dual is your best match, C1. But they believe that your Partial Dual is your worst match - C7 (i.e. ESTj's worst match is ISFp), and that your Conflictor is a good match - C2 (i.e. ESTj with INFp is very compatible).

[Exodus]

It's interesting, because this Socionics Institute book I've read, it actually explains that your conflictor would be your best match. In fact, their intertype relationship table has pretty much changed completely. Instead of the traditional forms of relationships, they have four kinds: Complementary, Quasi-Complementary, Identical and Quasi-Identical. For some reason, an ESTj would be best fitted for an INFp, an ENTj an ISFp, an ESTp an INFj and so on. I don't precisely see their logic. And after 14 years of studying socionics, surely they have come across such a thing as a conflicting relationship.

Do they explicitly say that your conflictor is your best match? Or is it a question of the J/P shift?

Apologies, I was wrong.

They have a scale. C1 is the best compatibility. C7 is poor compatibility. They consistently believe that your Dual is your best match, C1. But they believe that your Partial Dual is your worst match - C7 (i.e. ESTj's worst match is ISFp), and that your Conflictor is a good match - C2 (i.e. ESTj with INFp is very compatible).

How do they come to that conclusion? (I'd like to see the text you're talking about.)

[Ezra]

Buy it then. Worth investing in so you can understand exactly what I'm talking about.