Socioninfo - quality poll

[Angel von Himmel]

Vote! Some options were added for personal entertainment purposes!

[Angel von Himmel]

Hmmm, I just noticed I have been a sloppy speller lately ...

[Wavebury]

Did you write your decriptions? Becase I found them to be accurate, your explanation of the functions has helped me gain new insight.

[Gilly]

I like the descriptions of the functions, but the old descriptions were great too. You should bring those back, then put the functional analysis below it. It's not not as interesting now

[Expat]

Something that should be considered (and perhaps discussed here) -- the PoLR, and perhaps hidden agenda, do not show the same symptoms in the two types sharing them. For instance, the PoLR seems to be different for ENTj and ENFj. The functional descriptions in socion.info do not make this distinction. Perhaps they need to be more type-specific (which I know is extra work).

[Gilly]

Also, a list of descriptions as they exist outside of how they pertain specifically to each type would do good, especially for people who are reading about the functions for the first time.

I'd be willing to help, it you don't want to undertake that kind of thing on your own. I bet Rocky might be up for that kind of thing as well (although I won't volunteer him).

[Wavebury]

Something that should be considered (and perhaps discussed here) -- the PoLR, and perhaps hidden agenda, do not show the same symptoms in the two types sharing them. For instance, the PoLR seems to be different for ENTj and ENFj. The functional descriptions in socion.info do not make this distinction. Perhaps they need to be more type-specific (which I know is extra work).

The problem with what your proposing is that for INTp and INFp(for example) is bit different, but not very much so, so focusing on how differs in INFP and INTP would just be focusing on details which are too specific and leaving out the general idea. This is the problem with the descriptions "by function" on socionics.com

I think it would be better just to write another set of descriptions not going by function.

[Wavebury]

for the sake of clarity, that was me as guest.

[Angel von Himmel]

Something that should be considered (and perhaps discussed here) -- the PoLR, and perhaps hidden agenda, do not show the same symptoms in the two types sharing them. For instance, the PoLR seems to be different for ENTj and ENFj. The functional descriptions in socion.info do not make this distinction. Perhaps they need to be more type-specific (which I know is extra work).

Exactly, and I am aware that there are slight diffrences. But, in order to write the descriptions fast I was forced to do generalizations between accepting and producing functions. Eventually I plan on making them more type specific.

[Angel von Himmel]

Btw ... I wrote this to help complement the type descriptions ...

http://socion.info/smpsyche.html

[Angel von Himmel]

I like the descriptions of the functions, but the old descriptions were great too. You should bring those back, then put the functional analysis below it. It's not not as interesting now

I am debating whether to bring the old descriptions back or to find a way to write or generate (the functional descriptions are actually generated by the cgi script for consistency purposes) descriptions that are more in sync with each other.

[Gilly]

Know what would be amazingly cool but take a rediculous amount of time and work? If, for each type, we had another type's perspective on that type. How cool would that be?

[FDG]

Know what would be amazingly cool but take a rediculous amount of time and work? If, for each type, we had another type's perspective on that type. How cool would that be?

This is a good idea

[Gilly]

Thanks

[Expat]

Yes, perhaps each type should write about their conflictor?

[ILENTp]

edit

[Expat]

Ideally we should get every type's perspective on every type .

That alone would be 256 perspectives - -

[ILENTp]

edit

[Joy]

I think there should be tie breaker questions for each type.

[ILENTp]

edit