Taking another crack at implied's type

[ScarlettLux]

I don't think so. She doesn't strike me as a logical type. I'd say Alpha SF was more likely than any NT type.

Really? Perhaps ... but I just sense Beta/Gamma-ness around her, as I do put quite a bit of stock into the spirit of quadras and such.

The way she types seems to be very much against Ne to me oddly enough, and much more into Ni leading ... she reminds me of a mix of reyn_til_runa (less words!) and Starfall in the way they type. It's very fluid, yet always has a clear point that she follows, not bouncing around.

Also, any Alpha SF before any NT? Really? ESE? LOL I can see her being pissed the fuck off at an ESE

[Ezra]

Really? Perhaps ... but I just sense Beta/Gamma-ness around her, as I do put quite a bit of stock into the spirit of quadras and such.

The way she types seems to be very much against Ne to me oddly enough, and much more into Ni leading ... she reminds me of a mix of reyn_til_runa (less words!) and Starfall in the way they type. It's very fluid, yet always has a clear point that she follows, not bouncing around.

Also, any Alpha SF before any NT? Really? ESE? LOL I can see her being pissed the fuck off at an ESE

I just said Alpha SF more than NT. As in; I think she's more likely to be an SF than any NT.

[Gilly]

Ni-IEI is my best guess, I think. She seems Aristocratic to me; couldn't tell you why.

[Blaze]

Ni-IEI is my best guess, I think. She seems Aristocratic to me; couldn't tell you why.

it's kinda what i thought, too, even before reading this.

implied gets along with everybody, classic IEI.

[UDP]

it's kinda what i thought, too, even before reading this.

implied gets along with everybody, classic IEI.

Yeah, after the last 2 conversations I had with Implied, IEI makes tremendous sense.
It is quite humorous that some people think we are activity partners.

[implied]

Yeah, after the last 2 conversations I had with Implied, IEI makes tremendous sense.
It is quite humorous that some people think we are activity partners.

i don't know who has stated that we are "activity partners." this should obviously make me a Fi-IJ, then. i don't think we're activity partners, something less agreeable makes more sense. it seems as though the common perception of you here is INTj or ISTj, and i'm not particularly inclined to disagree.

[UDP]

i don't know who has stated that we are "activity partners." this should obviously make me a Fi-IJ, then. i don't think we're activity partners, something less agreeable makes more sense. it seems as though the common perception of you here is INTj or ISTj, and i'm not particularly inclined to disagree.

An ISTj's activity partner is INFp.

Do you really see yourself as rational and IJ, though?