Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
From whence sprang the assumption that Alphas and Gammas have higher IQs?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I have a pretty extreme view on this topic, but I believe there is no relationship whatsoever between physiognomy and personality, including socionics.
With a topic like evolution you need to use evidence, not blind speculation. Even the most rudimentary claims in this thread are baseless, and this whole thing's a big skip. Another good example of an ILE seeing a possibility and running with it, except he keeps running and runs off into the middle of the desert, and doesn't realize where he's gotten. Maritsa, you are the 2nd worst impersonation of a scientist I have ever known.
My prediction for the evolution of Socionics:
Alpha:
Future ILEs:
Future SEIs:
Future ESEs:
Future LIIs:
---
Beta:
Future SLEs:
Future IEIs:
Future EIEs:
Future LSIs
---
Gamma:
Future SEEs:
Future ILIs:
Future LIEs:
Future ESIs:
---
Delta:
Future SLIs:
Future IEEs:
Future EIIs:
Future LSEs:
timeless, that was hilarious! i had to go back and see who posted that. I thought it was slater, lol
lol gamma has a monopoly on hot chicks
lol @ the IEE pic!
I see that delta has the cutest creatures!
Well, with the exception of the SEI
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I'd like to dispute the article in the OP. History has shown interbreeding within an elite upper class creates weak, genetically homogeneous individuals, not a class that has all of the genetic strengths of humanity. I also find the notion of predicting anything about human society in the next 100,000 years completely laughable. With the current rate of information expansion, assuming that the same variable present in today's society will be the only variables present in society 100,000 years from now (if it even exists then) is preposterous. Minus genetic differences, will genes even matter then? Who's to say humans won't as as much artificial machine as flesh by then?
Last edited by MatthewZ; 08-05-2010 at 07:51 AM. Reason: I need to sleep more when posting