Alright, what type am I?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

of Tcaud? because I have some lovely pics of sunsets you can have

I like the colours (colors?)

[Dioklecian]

of Tcaud? because I have some lovely pics of sunsets you can have

maybe you have some other ahem kind too

[Creepy-bg]

maybe you have some other ahem kind too

Oh THOSE kind :wink: I've got a couple of Kristiina saved from awhile back, you'll have to get permission first though

[Dioklecian]

Oh THOSE kind :wink: I've got a couple of Kristiina saved from awhile back, you'll have to get permission first though

YOU MEAN KRISTINA AND TC? WOW i HAD NO IDEA

[Creepy-bg]

YOU MEAN KRISTINA AND TC? WOW i HAD NO IDEA

[Creepy-Cyclops]

YOU MEAN KRISTINA AND TC? WOW i HAD NO IDEA

He must be ISTj

[marooned]

It's alright, my sweet. They didn't mean to offend you ...

lol

[tcaudilllg]

I've thought about it, and I'm taking the position that I'm INTj. The relations fit if nothing else. I've got an ISTp uncle and I swear he's not my conflictor at all. In fact, the last time I went to his house I solved a bunch of computer problems for him that he had been having for months, and I felt a strong obligation to do so. Conversely I've had a love/hate relationship with an ESFp cousin.

But I'm learning to take type a lot less seriously. It's definitely a part of who I am, but I've been too wrapped up in being an INTj and not enough in being Tony Caudill. Still I intend to be a part of making socionics mainstream psychology and to do that I must have a position as to what the theory means and what it says about me.

Despite my position as an INTj, I am wondering if we aren't giving ENFjs enough intellectual credit. Or for that matter, other types as well. I'm beginning to think we are vastly over-stereotyping around here.

[hellothere]

But I'm learning to take type a lot less seriously. It's definitely a part of who I am, but I've been too wrapped up in being an INTj and not enough in being Tony Caudill. Still I intend to be a part of making socionics mainstream psychology and to do that I must have a position as to what the theory means and what it says about me.

Despite my position as an INTj, I am wondering if we aren't giving ENFjs enough intellectual credit. Or for that matter, other types as well. I'm beginning to think we are vastly over-stereotyping around here.

sounds good

[Creepy-Cyclops]

But I'm learning to take type a lot less seriously. It's definitely a part of who I am, but I've been too wrapped up in being an INTj and not enough in being Tony Caudill. Still I intend to be a part of making socionics mainstream psychology and to do that I must have a position as to what the theory means and what it says about me.

Good idea. This is the first sensible thing i've saw you say since I joined.

Despite my position as an INTj, I am wondering if we aren't giving ENFjs enough intellectual credit. Or for that matter, other types as well. I'm beginning to think we are vastly over-stereotyping around here.

I don't think everyone does this. You probably do. I don't. Most of the stereo-typing is nonesense.

[Expat]

Despite my position as an INTj, I am wondering if we aren't giving ENFjs enough intellectual credit. Or for that matter, other types as well. I'm beginning to think we are vastly over-stereotyping around here.

I couldn't agree more.

For instance, I don't know whether or not, say, Freud or Nietzsche were ENFjs, as has been suggested. But to simply dismiss ENFjs as their types, for no other reason than that they became most famous due to their intellectual output, would, indeed, be overstereotyping.