Guys I'm SEI again

[Krig the Viking]

Smooth deductions! You can be an honorary LSE after that!

*Dons deerstalker and raises eyebrow.*

It was elementary, my dear Gul!

[Cyrano]

Well, sure. But a fair amount of SLIs like me too. Likewise with the ILEs... and then there's spoon-san... etc. You can't all be my duals! (Unfortunately )

SLIs will dual to keep you.

[Creepy-male]

SLIs will dual to keep you.

Lol! SLIs will be my Dual to the death.

[The Exception]

Basically (as I understand it):

D subtype = Seems bossy/annoying.
C subtype = Seems scattered/adventurous.
N subtype = Seems analytical/anal-retentive.
H subtype = Seems laid back/patient.

I personally prefer the two subtype model, now that I've understood it (it works).

Well based on these four descriptions I identify most with the N one but I think that's because I have an IJ temperament. I think most people are going to identify with the descriptors that match their own temperament. The real question to get at subtype, I think, is, how are you compared to other people who share your type?

A D-LII is more EJ like than an average LII so may appear more bossy/annoying compared to other LII's for example.

Going by this, then, I'm definitely one of the irrational subtypes (C or H).

Also wondering if the two subtype systems and the four subtype systems can be correlated. Here's my speculation, using LII as an example:

For LII's, I would say that the C subtype correlates most strongly with Ne subtype, since C subtype has enhanced .

H-LII's I think are more likely to be Ne subtype but not as strongly as C-LII's. H subtype enhances , rather than but I think the two attitudes of N can work together so sometimes by enhancing , then also gets enhanced.

N-LII's correlate most strongly with Ti subtype due to the enhanced

And D-LII's also correlate with Ti subtype but to a lesser extent than N-LII's. is enhanced rather than .

So on a continuum:

Most Ti-like LII-----------------------------------------Most Ne-like LII

N subtype-------- D subtype----------- H subtype--------- C subtype

[Krig the Viking]

Well based on these four descriptions I identify most with the N one but I think that's because I have an IJ temperament. I think most people are going to identify with the descriptors that match their own temperament. The real question to get at subtype, I think, is, how are you compared to other people who share your type?

Exactly.

Also wondering if the two subtype systems and the four subtype systems can be correlated. Here's my speculation, using LII as an example:

For LII's, I would say that the C subtype correlates most strongly with Ne subtype, since C subtype has enhanced .

H-LII's I think are more likely to be Ne subtype but not as strongly as C-LII's. H subtype enhances , rather than but I think the two attitudes of N can work together so sometimes by enhancing , then also gets enhanced.

N-LII's correlate most strongly with Ti subtype due to the enhanced

And D-LII's also correlate with Ti subtype but to a lesser extent than N-LII's. is enhanced rather than .

So on a continuum:

Most Ti-like LII-----------------------------------------Most Ne-like LII

N subtype-------- D subtype----------- H subtype--------- C subtype

I've wondered about this myself. Theoretically, it should work the way you describe -- the normal subtype system divides people into Rational and Irrational subtypes, which should mean Terminating and Initiating subtypes, or D+N vs. C+H. However, in practice I wonder if it sometimes gets sorted into Contacting vs Distant subtypes, or D+C vs. N+H. The subtype descriptions on Wikisocion, for example, could be read either way in many cases.

Someday I'd like to compile the four DCNH subtype descriptions for each type, like Wikisocion has for the basic 2-subtype system. Or better yet, I'd like to discover that Gulenko has already done that, and I can just be lazy and read it.

[The Exception]

Or perhaps it's more like this for LII's:

----------------------------Harmonizing------------------------------



Ti-LII----------------------------------------------------------Ne-LII
|
Normalizing--------------------------------------------------Creative

----------------------------Dominant--------------------------------

By this hypothesis, harmonizing (H) and dominant (D) subtypes have equal probability of being either Ti or Ne subtype.


Another question: Can there be N subtypes in the DCNH system who are Ne-subtype in the 2 subtype system? What about C subtypes who are Ti subtype? I have a hard time imagining either of these scenarios.


Here is the generalization across all socionic types:

HYPOTHESIS 1:

For Ij/Ep types:


Extreme Ji subtype----------------------------------Extreme Pi subtype

Normalizing-----------Dominant-----------Harmonizing-------Creative


For Ej/Ip types:

Extreme Je subtype----------------------------------Extreme Pi subtype

Dominant-----------Normalizing----------Creative---------Harmonizing


HYPOTHESIS 2:

For Ij/Ep types:

---------------------------Harmonizing--------------------------------

Extreme Ji subtype----------------------------------Extreme Pe subtype

Normalizing--------------------------------------------------Creative

---------------------------Dominant----------------------------------


For Ej/Ip types:

------------------------------Creative-------------------------------

Extreme Je subtype---------------------------------Extreme Pi subtype
|
Dominant-------------------------------------------------Harmonizing

------------------------------Normalizing-----------------------------

[Krig the Viking]

Heh, with that post you just solidified my opinion of you as C-Sub, just like me. From what I can tell, Harmonizing LIIs would rather just sit and "chill" than work out new complex abstract ideas with diagrams and everything. See: Andrew Largeman in "Garden State".

Another question: Can there be N subtypes in the DCNH system who are Ne-subtype in the 2 subtype system? What about C subtypes who are Ti subtype? I have a hard time imagining either of these scenarios.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the DCNH Initiating subtypes should both be covered under the Irrational subtype in the regular system, and the DCNH Terminating subtypes should both be covered under the Rational subtype in the regular system. The main problem is that the current descriptions of the subtypes are hit-and-miss when it comes to describing this. For example, look at the Wikisocion descriptions of the ESE Ethical subtype:

(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The ethical subtype is kind and affable, but obstinate and pig-headed when significant questions are directed towards them; because of this they appear to show excessive persistence. Are inclined to finish what they start, find it difficult to stop doing something after starting it and subsequently may waste time and regret it later. Try to be serious, restrained and polite in dialogue, but often render strong emotional pressure upon those that challenge their point of view. Like to take the interlocutor by the hand, to touch his/her clothes. Able to receive visitors in their homes but is more keen of interacting with others in public. Like give gifts to friends and relatives and for this purpose find suitable occasions. Dresses tastefully, but is rather modest. Gait is projected in quick actions, as if about to jump up; more often thin and a little angular. Their face can easily replace signs of discontent and indignation with a radiant smile.

(Victor Gulenko) Very expressive, it is difficult to withstand their emotional pressure. Possess high fitness for work; however, their uncontrollable feelings prevent their work from realizing its potential. Very scattered; jumps from one thing to another. Straightforward, not average, Are characterized by their explosive choleric temperament. Outwardly – has a desire to draw the attention of the opposite sex by bright clothing, which presents an element of demonstrativeness.

The Meged-Ovcharov and Gulenko descriptions seem to contradict each other. Meged and Ovcharov seem to be describing a Normalizing ESE, while Gulenko seems to be describing a Dominant ESE. On the other hand, I'm not sure either Sensory ESE description really describes Creative ESE. So it's a bit of a mixed bag.

[ArchonAlarion]

I think harmonizing LII's are like Hitta.

as discordant as he is lol

[The Exception]

Heh, with that post you just solidified my opinion of you as C-Sub, just like me. From what I can tell, Harmonizing LIIs would rather just sit and "chill" than work out new complex abstract ideas with diagrams and everything. See: Andrew Largeman in "Garden State".

Okay, you've convinced me. See my new SIG.

It's been a few years since I've seen Garden State, but Andrew didn't strike me as an LII, but maybe it has to do with subtype like you said. If he is an LII, I doubt we're the same subtype.

[Krig the Viking]

I figure it's probably more appropriate to continue this DCNH discussion in the appropriate thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-model-2.html

My reply and further discussion is there. We can leave this thread for Gultyping.

[Creepy-male]

Lol, nah, please continue. This was a fun thread of silliness and interesting stuff.

[Gilly]

You think my ego hinges on your type? Don't flatter yourself, Gul.

[Creepy-male]

You think my ego hinges on your type? Don't flatter yourself, Gul.

Because Gilly can speak English! And also not jump to conclusions! And also actually wants to make an attempt to communicate!

[Krig the Viking]

Lol, nah, please continue. This was a fun thread of silliness and interesting stuff.

Well, it's just that I would like to keep the DCNH discussion in one thread if possible, so I can refer back to it in the future without having to search all over the board. Entirely selfish reasons, I assure you.

[xerx]

yeah.

and no Jxrtes you wouldn't be "Ti ENTp" (in the way I used to think of it) as this system would replace (more of an upgrade) to the subtype model I previously adhered to.

I still sayeth N for you. You are certainly N/D. C ENTps are like Gulanzon and Jriddy. H ENTps are like Steve (possibly banana pancakes). D ENTps are like Vero and Gilly. N ENTps are like you, me, Hkkmr, and Ephemeros.

So we got socially dominant ENTp's, inventive ADD ENTps, chill fuckin ENTps, and crabby/stubborn structural ENTps

imo, that is.

My code would be Ji ENTp, Je ENTp, Pe ENTp, and Pi ENTp. I see DCNH as a sub-temperament. Like an overtone.

Come to think of it, H certainly could work for Banana Pancakes and Steve. The problem is bp's inter-type relations. He seems to favour interacting with people I typed as Dominants. That wouldn't necessarily preclude H, since these two subtypes can get along. Eph as N is a good suggestion.

But jriddy is D IMO. He and vero are the same subtype. They both easily finish their work. They hold their material interests in high regard. etc.

People tend to associate Ne with being ADD, or being energetic. That's a very very wrong assessment. It's worse and more pernicious than saying that Se egos like to physically hurt others. If anything, high levels of physical energy and social interactivity are hallmarks of the EJ temperament.

Gulenko describes the C subtype as being especially detached from reality. He references Plutarch's account of Archimedes who continued contemplating a mathematical problem at the same time as he was being arrested by a Roman soldier.

That's the type of person a C is. The example also illustrates static (non-connecting) temperament, since said person is more concerned with his own thoughts than directly reacting to his surroundings. An ILE C subtype (double-static, double-irrational) is more likely the type of person that would drop absolutely everything, even something they've worked on for a while when an even more interesting problem or idea floods their thoughts.

[xerx]

To better see where I'm coming from, here is Gulenko's description of static/dynamic or as he calls it ignoring/connecting.

C subtypes are ignorers. Ignorers have a difficult time adjusting to changes in the environment. This includes social situations, which is where they can come off as extremely awkward and too focussed on their own ideas. I think our very own Misters hitta, b&d and Gulanzon are very good example of C subtypes.

The moniker “ignorer” we have selected because this version of the sociotype, as a whole, weakly considers the influence of its environment - it “ignores” it. It does not have a steadfast tendency to tie itself down even to the people pleased with it. This is the weakly adapted person, who does not know how to adequately be adjusted to slight changes in the environment. It manages only the simplest form of feedback of the “Yes” or “No” type.


“Ignorer” easily converges with other people (not necessarily on its own initiative!), but so it is easy to part with them. It is sufficiently autonomous, inclined to carry out its independent existence; without paying specific attention, assumes its degree of closeness to the surrounding people.

A D subtype is much better at gauging whatever social dynamic existed and playing by those rules, since they have stronger dynamic elements. They probably enjoy the sense of order that gives them since they do dualize with N subtypes.

If it's an ethical dominant type, they'll probably try to push their own rules eventually on the social environment though.

[ArchonAlarion]

Come to think of it, H certainly works for Banana Pancakes and Steve. Certainly better than N for Banana Pancakes. The only problem is his inter-type relations. He seems to favour interacting with people I typed as Dominants. That wouldn't necessarily preclude H, since these two subtypes can get along. Eph as N is right on.

But jriddy is D IMO. He and vero are the same subtype. They both easily finish their work. They hold their material interests in high regard. etc.

People tend to associate Ne with being ADD, or being energetic. That's a very very wrong assessment. It's worse and more pernicious than saying that Se egos like to physically hurt others. If anything, high levels of physical energy and social interactivity are hallmarks of the EJ temperament.

Hmm, I wasn't necessarily making that association in any formal sense, just giving a quick bs stereotype. But okay.

Gulenko describes the C subtype as being especially detached from reality. He references Plutarch's account of Archimedes who continued contemplating a mathematical problem during the time he was being arrested by a Roman soldier.

That's the type of person a C is. The example also illustrates static (non-connecting) temperament, since said person is more concerned with his own thoughts than directly reacting to his surroundings. An ILE C subtype (double-static, double-irrational) is more likely the type of person that would drop absolutely everything, even something they've worked on for a while when an even more interesting problem or idea floods their thoughts.

Interesting. I can see that.

hmm hmm hmmmmmm.

Would you say that Ep's in general have this trait and that it is exacerbated by C sub, or is Ep not like this at all and this mainly hinges on the C sub? I feel like this describes me, but not in such an extreme...

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I don't think these subtypes are particularly helpful. They encourage people to justify behaviour that perhaps doesn't fit in with their type rather than allow those people to actually discover what their type is and thus derive something which is actually slightly useful.

[ArchonAlarion]

C ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) They differ in their excellent sense of novelty. They frequently become the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In their suggestions they is very daring. However, they easily drop a project if they are bored with it and they then feel drawn to a new, more captivating project. Capable of working well in business. Dynamic, talks rapidly, with many gestures. Frequently of stocky built, courageous appearance, whiskers (if a man). Great significance is attached to external appearance.

This actually describes JRiddy well. Even the physical appearances. Also I've typed C ENTp's before who match this description and was amused because they look so much like eachother (and like JRiddy!).

[xerx]

Hmm, I wasn't necessarily making that association in any formal sense, just giving a quick bs stereotype. But okay.



Interesting. I can see that.

hmm hmm hmmmmmm.

Would you say that Ep's in general have this trait and that it is exacerbated by C sub, or is Ep not like this at all and this mainly hinges on the C sub? I feel like this describes me, but not in such an extreme...

I don't know how to quantify it, unfortunately. What I do know is that these subtypes often (but not always) are the first thing I notice about people, long before I even know their actual types.

Superficially, at least, a D ENTp will seem to have more in common with another D subtype than with a C ENTp. That's why typing is so hard. Typing people seems to require a method of factoring out all non-type related socionics traits, and most of these traits are DCNH subtype traits.

I hope that might help answer your question.

[xerx]

Here is how Gul[enko] describes the C subtype:

ArhimedGlavnaya characteristic of creative people - a paradoxical way of thinking and non-standard behavior, allowing to solve the problem of special complexity, intractable familiar, previously triggered techniques.

The main secret of creative energy - the internal concentration to such an extent that completely ignores the external environment.

I would like to recall in this connection, an episode from the ancient history of Archimedes, who was tracing geometrical figures in the sand, not paying attention to the Roman soldiers, who had broken at that moment his home town of Syracuse.

This state of internal compression and painful struggles that accompany psychological "birth" of new ideas, quite painful. In this state you do not want anything to eat or drink, the world loses its colors and temptations, I want only one thing - rapidly push this idea, which they moved inside.

However, the formula of creativity necessary to write another function, and E, with which generated the idea served the public in the form of catchy memorable. Archimedes, as you recall, shouting "Eureka!". It is hard to deny the special magnetism and manic inherent creative.

So we obtain IFE. But we must not confuse creative inspiration from the emotional pressure from the dominant personality, which uses this tool much more effective and far superior to the creative power of influence on the psyche of people.

The inevitable extension of the creative qualities are its shortcomings, which are very annoying to those who are close. First, we are talking about the uneven performance and extreme individualism. Alternate periods of inspiration from him with stagnation and even depression. Individualism comes from our unwillingness to be taken in the collective norms. Head of the creative forced to make concessions to him, or else risk losing talented Unique (remember the TV series about Dr. House).

Creative subtype with a specific person, of course, can be combined with additional accentuation (and any). For instance, Leo Tolstoy, though he was creative (a function I had just maintained through F), but at the same time obsessed with the non-resistance to evil, reflecting the accentuation of the function + R. This combination of functions in which one function reduces the other, selects a person a lot of energy.

[xerx]

C ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) They differ in their excellent sense of novelty. They frequently become the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In their suggestions they is very daring. However, they easily drop a project if they are bored with it and they then feel drawn to a new, more captivating project. Capable of working well in business. Dynamic, talks rapidly, with many gestures. Frequently of stocky built, courageous appearance, whiskers (if a man). Great significance is attached to external appearance.

This actually describes JRiddy well. Even the physical appearances. Also I've typed C ENTp's before who match this description and was amused because they look so much like eachother (and like JRiddy!).

That description describes most ILEs. Try to see if the other subtype descriptions match or don't match his behavior as well.

And this seems to be the sticking point in Gulenko's understanding of the C subtype, and Ne in general (if you read his other articles).

The main secret of creative energy - the internal concentration to such an extent that completely ignores the external environment.

[mu4]

I think we need to differentiate the Accepting/Producing subtypes from DCNH.

Hypothetically ENTp-Ti can have accentuated instead of which can also make them a Creative subtype.

I'm a Producing subtype but I'm probably a Normalizing or Creative DCNH subtype. If I am a creative subtype and producing subtype I wouldn't have accentuated but rather .

[Trevor]

IMO you, hkkmr, are thinking subtype ENTp. Of course, I don't know you, therefore I might be wrong. But how you present yourself here, at least those bits of y0urself which have had some succes in attracting my attention point out toward thinking subtype. I might as well mention that I'm going by quadra-succesion-perhapsIfmd95-subtypes. It goes without saying that you show more ESTp traits than ENFp ones, but as you see, I already said it, therefore it does not go without saying. Ah. Also it should be noted that I'm slightly drukn atm, if that counts for anything. It counts. Why? It counts because everything counts. There are no excusses and we don't need no stinking badges, capisci?

EDIT: producing subtype ENTp = thinking subtype ENTp. It is something I generally know but not specifically. That also means that I thought that producing ILE = Ne ILE at the moment of writing the unedited version of my post due to drukneness(no I'm not stikning drukn, I'm drukn to the point of other people not recognizing my druknenes except those with vast life experrience). I'm glad that we agree. It is great when people agree with me.

[mu4]

IMO you, hkkmr, are thinking subtype ENTp. Of course, I don't know you, therefore I might be wrong. But how you present yourself here, at least those bits of y0urself which have had some succes in attracting my attention point out toward thinking subtype. I might as well mention that I'm going by quadra-succesion-perhapsIfmd95-subtypes. It goes without saying that you show more ESTp traits than ENFp ones, but as you see, I already said it, therefore it does not go without saying. Ah. Also it should be noted that I'm slightly drukn atm, if that counts for anything. It counts. Why? It counts because everything counts. There are no excusses and we don't need no stinking badges, capisci?

I think I display more LSI traits then SLE traits. I'm reserved and less energetic, more internalized and somewhat controlling.

As far as subtyping methods, I am trying to integrate DCNH to my current subtyping method which is accepting/producing + process/result.

My type under my system being producing + process = ILE-(closer to LSI) then any other static type in alpha/beta/delta.

As far as what this means in DCNH is that it would be a Creative(Se) or a Normalizing(Ti) subtype.

The interesting thing about DCNH is it allows for dynamic subtypes for static types and static subtypes for dynamic types, which can allow a (D-Te-Result) subtype ENTp to be more like a LIE.

It basically allows for type "closeness" across the static/dynamic dichotomy.

Hypothetically you can have a subtype of that is close to any of the other types. Like ILE-ESE (D-Fe-Result).

I think subtyping is useful when comparing identicals and predicting intertype relations but I think where it fails is when the descriptions start being compared to type descriptions.

I think subtyping is quite realistic since difference within a type is probably systematic and mechanistic as well. I also think subtype is not necessarily as static as type, it may be alterable more easily thru enviromental differences.

[Gilly]

Jesus, someone get the paddles, tcaud needs to hear this

[mu4]

Jesus, someone get the paddles, tcaud needs to hear this

This isn't really related to tcaud, it's relates to Gulenko.

So take 16 or 16000 identical types, you can probably divide these into different groups and categorizations.

The basis of subtype is largely look at as a product of functional strengths and/or utilization. DCNH, accepting-producing subtypes and process/result are all based on observations of presumed identicals.

All subtyping is about differences between identicals and it's effect on intertype-relations, which is important as there are certain to be more then 16 types of people in the world. It's about systematizing and explaining the differences.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Rather than pursue this hashed modification of Model-A, why not simply rewrite our understanding of the Ego?

[mu4]

Rather than pursue this hashed modification of Model-A, why not simply rewrite our understanding of the Ego?

I don't think it has altered model-A, subtype is about differences within identicals.

So all model A rules still apply. It does lead to some confusion as the descriptions are unreliable as are socionic descriptions.

I think there is little point in determining subtype unless the Model A type is well established.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I don't think it has altered model-A, subtype is about differences within identicals.

So all model A rules still apply. It does lead to some confusion as the descriptions are unreliable as are socionic descriptions.

These DCNH subtypes don't seem symmetrical though, and I think each subtype is either describing a piece of a type's personality a second time, and\or is describing a non-Ego aspect part of their personality - the 32 subtypes are not like that, because they are solely Ego function subtypes.

Someone who seems "extremely intuitive" and ENTp may in actual fact be an INFp rather than ENTp ...there is a danger that having these ENTp-Ip temperament designations will take you too far away from more basic matters like getting a person's type right in the first place. I think instead of having things ENTp-C (or...ENTp Times 2! or whatever), it would be better to explain the Ego with completely new type designations.

I think there is little point in determining subtype unless the Model A type is well established.

I agree with that at least.

[mu4]

These DCNH subtypes don't seem symmetrical though, and I think each subtype is either describing a piece of a type's personality a second time, and\or is describing a non-Ego aspect part of their personality - the 32 subtypes are not like that, because they are solely Ego function subtypes.

Someone who seems "extremely intuitive" and ENTp may in actual fact be an INFp rather than ENTp ...there is a danger that having these ENTp-Ip temperament designations will take you too far away from more basic matters like getting a person's type right in the first place. I think instead of having things ENTp-C (or...ENTp Times 2! or whatever), it would be better to explain the Ego with completely new type designations.

I think it's a preference of modern psychologist to concentrate on the Ego rather then the Id/unconscious in the various psychoanalytical approaches to personality and the psyche. The ego has a large effect in personal development and successful direction of behavior. I think the preference is biased and does not reflect the full personality nor the inter-type relations between people.

The TIM denominator itself is biased towards the Ego in that it represented by the two ego functions. But a real person is constituted of all mental and vital blocks in their information metabolism. Weakness is as neccessary as strength, unconscious as neccessary as conscious.

We can imagine a person who is more fixated on any of the mental and vital blocks at least in relation to their identical counterparts. A child is presumed to be more fixated on the Id. Someone may compensate for deficiencies by having more focus on the Super-Ego. Someone sociopathic may work entirely thru the Ego ensuing any moral development within the Super-ego.

I understand the danger of mistyping, people will still seek to rationalize why they want to type themselves a certain way or why they want to type someone a certain way. It doesn't matter whether or not people misuse this information, only whether or not this can or will someway provides a more accurate explanation of the psyche. There are many reasons to reject theories and hypothesis, misuse by idiots is not one of them.

[krieger]

So take 16 or 16000 identical types, you can probably divide these into different groups and categorizations.

That is also a major problem with approaches like these. Just that a division can be made does not mean that it is also warranted.

Most people can't type with 16 catagories accurately yet (I can't either. I can narrow every person down to 2 types after hearing criticism of my typings from others; but the final typing is always a gamble), so it seems to me in every possible way premature to use theories like this one on this forum.

[mu4]

That is also a major problem with approaches like these. Just that a division can be made does not mean that it is also warranted.

Most people can't type with 16 catagories accurately yet (I can't either. I can narrow every person down to 2 types after hearing criticism of my typings from others; but the final typing is always a gamble), so it seems to me in every possible way premature to use theories like this one on this forum.

I understand the danger of mistyping, people will still seek to rationalize why they want to type themselves a certain way or why they want to type someone a certain way. It doesn't matter whether or not people misuse this information, only whether or not this can or will someway provides a more accurate explanation of the psyche. There are many reasons to reject theories and hypothesis, misuse by idiots is not one of them.

[xkj220]

I think he is ILE-Ti, only that he's a friendly/mature ILE-Ti (not that the others aren't).

[ArchonAlarion]

lol...

you can say it...

Steve is mature though. Hkkmr kinda.

oh and Vero

[xerx]

I haven't subtyped myself for the last year, since I've been trying to evaluate various approaches but thanks for the input.

ps. I'm not really very friendly. It's just a skill I learned to use so I can talk more easily to people.

If something happened to a close friend, I wouldn't mind risking my life for him/her, but that's more about passion than friendliness.

[crazedrat]

the hat avatar makes you seem friendly.