Am I accepted in Gamma? :P

[Joy]

eunice:

STFU

I do not like you. You are not Gamma. K?

Do you think she's your conflictor?

[Joy]

I do not dislike eunice. There is only one person here who I've ever actually disliked, and it's not her. Her posts make my head hurt (not because she's not intelligent or anything like that though). That's all.

[Gilly]

I don't fucking know, she's hardly ever spoken a goddamn word to me, and visa versa, so I don't have a goddamn clue. I don't think you do, either.

[Joy]

To be more specific, her posts have a certain feel to them. It's the same feel that fever's had while she was still here and kristiina's posts had before she started posting a lot. I believe it's definitely a Fe thing.

[Gilly]

Ok, well, don't go making categorical statements and absolute judgments when you're only going on a hunch. Yeesh.

[Joy]

Okay, how's this: I'm about as certain that eunice is not ISFj as I am that I'm Fi/Te > Fe/Ti.

[Gilly]

...from a hunch.

[eunice]

Do you see yourself as being similar to fever?

Where did you think our similarities lie? I find myself more similar to UDP and raisonpure based on different reasons.

eunice:

STFU <-Come on, is this expression necessary over a trivial matter like this?

You are not a Se type. You are most likely not a Fi type. You are not Gamma. K?

Not even a ?

I do not dislike eunice. There is only one person here who I've ever actually disliked, and it's not her. Her posts make my head hurt (not because she's not intelligent or anything like that though). That's all.

Due to ?

[UDP]

Do you feel overwhelmed by social obligations, so much that you sometimes do not stand up for what you personally want?

(Se polr)

[Joy]

Do you see yourself as being similar to fever?

Where did you think our similarities lie? I find myself more similar to UDP and raisonpure based on different reasons.

You're far softer than either of them are. The feel of your posts is similar to fever's posts.

We all have some similarities to everyone. How do you feel you're similar to them? Who do you feel you're most similar to, and how?

eunice:

STFU

Come on, is this expression necessary over a trivial matter like this?

Uh... no. I was half kidding and half being drunk and obnoxious and half trying to drive my point. (yes, I know the math doesn't work )

You are not a Se type. You are most likely not a Fi type. You are not Gamma. K?

Not even a ?

I'm not sure. A Fe type seems more likely, but INFj is possible.

I do not dislike eunice. There is only one person here who I've ever actually disliked, and it's not her. Her posts make my head hurt (not because she's not intelligent or anything like that though). That's all.

Due to ?

Yeah, I think... I don't know if there's more to it or not. In any case, it's nothing personal. (sorry I said it so harshly )

If I had to pick quadra values for you, I'd say Si/Ne > Se/Ni and Fe/Ti > Fi/Te.

[Gilly]

...from a hunch.

[eunice]

ISFp wouldn't be crazy. INFp seems likely as well. Perhaps more so.

I think the other INFps here (except raisonpure) would most likely disagree that I'm one of them.

Anyway, i was always under the impression that eunice is from the Si quadras. She seems to value Si IMO.

It depends. I can feel unconfident about it due to my weak . For instance, I don't consider myself a natural-born athlete and I always feel uncomfortable during P.E. (Physical Ed.) classes back then because I'm conscious about showing my inability to others and worry unnecessarily that I will be rejected by my classmates. I also took longer time than others to familiarize myself with activities as well eg. learning musical instruments, drawing (I can't draw!), sports, sewing, cooking, dress well, putting on makeup, learning to drive etc.

Most of those are only superficially related to Si. Many ISFps I know dislike putting on makeup or consider themselves bad at it. Si is more about knowing how to keep yourself in a psychologically healthy, balanced state. If you push yourself to do unhealthy things because you feel like you have to (or more importantly, if you do this without being fully aware why exactly it is unhealthy), then INxj is more likely.

I don't think I ever do things in moderation. I either totally overindulge or neglect it all together eg. listening to long periods of music while resting, study too much during exam periods (or totally ignore it if I know that I'm fighting a losing battle), become too caught up in a hobby because I'm so interested in it to the extent that eating or bathing was at the back of my mind. Such behaviors have led me to have bad time management skills. For instance, I'm supposed to meet a friend at noon in town, but I'm too preoccupied with what I'm doing at the moment that I have overestimated myself about leaving the house on time. I'm almost never early for my classes and appointments, except for more important ones eg. job interviews. As a result, I have been criticised that I lack self discipline.

[Gilly]

That makes you sound irrational.

[Joy]

...from a hunch.

As opposed to what?

[Gilly]

Do I really have to tell you, Joy? How long have you been at this? And all you use is hunches?

[Joy]

I don't think I ever do things in moderation. I either totally overindulge or neglect it all together eg. listening to long periods of music while resting, study too much during exam periods (or totally ignore it if I know that I'm fighting a losing battle), become too caught up in a hobby because I'm so interested in it to the extent that eating or bathing was at the back of my mind. Such behaviors have led me to have bad time management skills. For instance, I'm supposed to meet a friend at noon in town, but I'm too preoccupied with what I'm doing at the moment that I have overestimated myself about leaving the house on time. I'm almost never early for my classes and appointments, except for more important ones eg. job interviews. As a result, I have been criticised that I lack self discipline.

This could point towards a number of things, but it definitely points away from ISFj.

[Joy]

Do I really have to tell you, Joy? How long have you been at this? And all you use is hunches?

"Hunches" are better than any amount of whacked analysis.

I type first of all by understanding the theory (namely the model and the IM elements), then by observing people. Types don't always jump out to me, but functional values often do. "The general feel" that I get from people or (as you say) the "hunches" that I get about people's types are my noticing patterns or breaks in patterns. The bottom line is that for all of the mistypings I've made and the subsequent learning, I've become pretty good at spotting functional preferences in people. I see no value in trying to explain my typings they way you explain yours. My impressions are just that, and I see no reason for me to argue a case for them. No one has to agree with my typings.

I think your style of analysis can very easily lead to missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

[Gilly]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

[Khamelion]

LOL


HAHAHAHA


JUST


LOL


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHHAHALMFAO

[FDG]

Do I really have to tell you, Joy? How long have you been at this? And all you use is hunches?

"Hunches" are better than any amount of whacked analysis.

They are simply not sufficient. First you have an hunch - but hunches are internal and personal. So you have to use an external objective function in order to prove your hunch, which you're not doing.

[Joy]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

[FDG]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THEM WRONG WITH HUNCHES! CHRIST!!!

[Gilly]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

The same can be said of your hunches; at least I'm using objective standards, and am presenting real data that people can respond to, and learn from/use for themselves. Your "hunches" are completely subjective and BLATANTLY subject to your personal bias (not necessarily in this case). And they don't mean anything to anyone else, independant of your personal credibility (which, I daresay, given your methods, should be virtually nothing).

[Joy]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THEM WRONG WITH HUNCHES! CHRIST!!!

You can't PROVE anything when it comes to typing people.

[Gilly]

Where's the , Joy?

[FDG]

You can't PROVE anything when it comes to typing people.

Then you can prove that gilligans typings are wrong, something you admitted before: ding ding logical incosistency. Now you are going to say this is the proof that I am a Ti type, but then I will quote you the part of the ENTj's strats description that will contradict you, and I will win the debate (I am using my Ni to predict the future, yes).

[Gilly]

pwned

[Kim]

I have never had any doubt that eunice is delta and I always find her posts pleasant, interesting, and easy to read (as opposed to many alpha and beta posts, for example). She has this gentle INFj demeanor and I think being late or having poor time management in INFjs can also be because they are often spaced out and in their own little worlds (as she describes) AND because their Ne takes them into so many different directions. I cannot see her in alpha or beta and she is not ISFj from what I can tell.

DELTA FTW!

Sorry if this is not analytical enough. I have a Ti PoLR and these guys make my brain bleed....

[Joy]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

The same can be said of your hunches; at least I'm using objective standards,

Standards in and of themselves are one thing, the application of them is another. Behavior is entirely subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is this thing we call "typing" people.

and am presenting real data that people can respond to, and learn from/use for themselves.

Again, the value of this is dependent on your accuracy.

Your "hunches" are completely subjective and BLATANTLY subject to your personal bias (not necessarily in this case).

It's funny how people seem to think that it's possible to type others objectively. We all have quadra values, and we all see the world through the lenses of those values. There's no way around this. I see NOTHING wrong with understanding that you value certain things and noticing when others do or do not. I'm not saying that we should compare others to ourselves (or anyone else) in typing them, just that the only way to truly understand quadra values is through personal experience. (And when I say quadra values I'm talking about Ne, Si, Fe, etc.)

And they don't mean anything to anyone else, independant of your personal credibility (which, I daresay, given your methods, should be virtually nothing).

My what? Like I said, my impressions should be taken as just that and nothing more. People should form their own impressions and opinions, not just take the word of someone else regardless of that person's "credibility". In reading other people's opinions (and that's all any of this is), they should ask themselves why that person thinks what they do and then think it through for themselves.

[FDG]

Joy, you use hunches and feelings. I use strict typing criteria, detailed functional analysis, and time-tested VI methods. You can't possibly think you have anything on my methods.

It doesn't matter how much technical analysis or detailed explanation one can provide for one's typings if those typings are wrong.

The same can be said of your hunches; at least I'm using objective standards,

Standards in and of themselves are one thing, the application of them is another. Behavior is entirely subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is this thing we call "typing" people.

and am presenting real data that people can respond to, and learn from/use for themselves.

Again, the value of this is dependent on your accuracy.

Your "hunches" are completely subjective and BLATANTLY subject to your personal bias (not necessarily in this case).

It's funny how people seem to think that it's possible to type others objectively. We all have quadra values, and we all see the world through the lenses of those values. There's no way around this. I see NOTHING wrong with understanding that you value certain things and noticing when others do or do not. I'm not saying that we should compare others to ourselves (or anyone else) in typing them, just that the only way to truly understand quadra values is through personal experience. (And when I say quadra values I'm talking about Ne, Si, Fe, etc.)

And they don't mean anything to anyone else, independant of your personal credibility (which, I daresay, given your methods, should be virtually nothing).

My what? Like I said, my impressions should be taken as just that and nothing more. People should form their own impressions and opinions, not just take the word of someone else regardless of that person's "credibility". In reading other people's opinions (and that's all any of this is), they should ask themselves why that person thinks what they do and then think it through for themselves.

So many logical fallacies...my eyes are bleeding...

[Joy]

You can't PROVE anything when it comes to typing people.

Then you can prove that gilligans typings are wrong

Did you misread or mistype?

Now you are going to say this is the proof that I am a Ti type, but then I will quote you the part of the ENTj's strats description that will contradict you, and I will win the debate (I am using my Ni to predict the future, yes).

Uh. No. Not sure where you got that idea.

[Gilly]

Joy, I wouldn't have any problem with your hunches if you didn't go around touting them like they were holy writ. If you presented yourself reasonably, like Kim, then nobody would have anything bad to say to you.

[Gilly]

So many logical fallacies...my eyes are bleeding...

qft

[Joy]

if you didn't go around touting them like they were holy writ.

Then you are misunderstanding me.

[Gilly]

Well, if you want this to stop, you need to check yourself, because unless you do, it's going to keep going.

[Joy]

Have fun with that.

[Kim]

Joy, I wouldn't have any problem with your hunches if you didn't go around touting them like they were holy writ. If you presented yourself reasonably, like Kim, then nobody would have anything bad to say to you.

That is very nice of you, but I was kinda sorta poking fun at you guys and all that dreadful .

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Kim]

So many logical fallacies...my eyes are bleeding...

qft

Make a list and label them. Now. If you fail, you are ESFp.

[Gilly]

Diana to the rescue! Too bad you're too late.

No, I haven't. Got a problem?


Kim, your teasing me doesn't make you any less of an exemplar of good and decent self-representation.