At first I didn't thinkChibikeba could be ISFP but now I change my mind. Could be ISFP. For some reason I think CHibikeba could be INFP.
At first I didn't thinkChibikeba could be ISFP but now I change my mind
ISFP, SEI
she isn't "joy-ish" at all wtf
estp.......i dunno i think i could see it, maybe just in her looks though...and her dirty talk
but she's so damn artistic
Being artistic isn't very type related...
ChibiKeba, I am curious which of you and J-chan:
1. tends more to take up physical space and feel comfortable about imposing on other people's physical space?
2. tends to know the right thing to say to people to win them over or make them relax and loosen up?
3. tends to take action sooner on ideas that come to mind?
4. tends to like to spend more time reflecting to him/herself in their spare time?
5. tends to understand better why people like or don't like him/her?
6. is more physically restrained?
Lol. I have exactly the same kind of "world" right here with me on the sofa. I have no idea where I got it from but obviously it is some internationally distributed product. There are so many ways to do money in this global business world...Originally Posted by ChibiKeba
"I've got the whole world in my hands~"
But in the pictures you're always the one touching him, not the other way around!ChibiKeba, I am curious which of you and J-chan:
1. tends more to take up physical space and feel comfortable about imposing on other people's physical space?
J-chan, he's much more touchy feely and capable of being close to people and getting in their space then I am. I have issues with reaching out and touching people though I don't mind it so much when they touch me if I feel comfortable with them.
It sounds like you are talking about starting and finishing potentially uncomfortable topics -- something that J-chan is more prone to avoid. Is this correct?2. tends to know the right thing to say to people to win them over or make them relax and loosen up?
Me, sometimes J-chan but usually me. I'll notice when someone is upset about something and I'll usually be the one to bring them out of it. I'm the one that puts whatever most people consider uncomfortable topics out on the table and get people to talk about whatever it is that they're upset about. J-chan typically tells me to just let things go when I've done something to make someone feel bad but I always go and clear things up, and both me and the offended person always feel better afterwards.
Okay, combining this to your previous threads I still get the idea that J-chan is more in tune to other people's feelings and can better avoid or smooth over emotional tension, as well as intentionally rile them up. Is this true?5. tends to understand better why people like or don't like him/her?
J-chan, he always explains to me why someone dislikes me because I don't always fully understand the reasons.
On your pictures you appear to have the more confident body concept and bodily expression. Your movements are strong and dynamic and involve the entire body, whereas J-chan seems physically hesitant, and only parts of his body are involved in movements. Or at least while taking pictures, he doesn't know what to do with his body, but is comfortable just making goofy faces.6. is more physically restrained?
Erm...I'd say me I guess but I'm not 100% on what you mean by that. I know J-chan reaches out and touches me alot, I think he's usually the instigator while I don't initiate touchiness as often. I also get pretty mad and feel the urge to do something physical (like hit) but I hold back because I don't want to ever hurt anybody, I know what it's like to be hit like that I don't want anyone else to have to feel that. I do have a punching bag but I refrain from using it too often because I don't want to become psychologically addicted to hitting when I'm angry in case I get angry and there's no punching bag around.
It sounds like you recognize a potentially "dangerous" or physically abusive side in yourself that you don't yet know how to bring out constructively and use for good and useful things in the real world. From the photos it is clear that you are a very physical person, but you have chosen to develop your non-physical sides thus far through your artwork, fantasizing, and make-believe games. My interpretation is that your leading function has not completely "turned on" to the point where it could help you achieve external goals and find your proper place among a wider group of people. That's just my view.
Just for curiosity, I showed your pics to a friend who is very good at describing people's personalities. I wanted her subjective reactions, which are always immediate and very well-articulated. She is EII, so she has a certain type bias -- please don't take it personally! She described you as:
"coarse, unsophisticated, even-tempered, experiences "base" emotions (fear, desire, greed, anger), but also not completely self-assured, despite trying to put on an air of total confidence"
Her overall personal reaction was negative. She knows socionics fairly well (she also lives in Kiev), and the only two types she could see you as were SEI and SLE. As for J-chan, she said:
"in his own world, doesn't see people, blank, hard to figure out"
She could only see him as an ILI or IEI.
Her overall personal reaction was "nothing in particular."
I know you can't judge by pictures alone. I was just curious about her reactions.
Assuming you are SEI, which is also the only type other than SLE that I can see you as, that would mean you respond best to-types who give a constant stream of new information about things in the external world.
Introversion would also mean that you like it when other people sift through their contacts and find meaningul contacts for you and help set them up, rather than you having to look for the right people yourself.-types.
But why then the spikes on your neck? Why the menacing look? Why the crassness?I've ALWAYS wanted to meet someone who would do those things for me, but I never have. I always end up having to do everything for myself so I can see why I look like I've become a different type then what I really am.Introversion would also mean that you like it when other people sift through their contacts and find meaningul contacts for you and help set them up, rather than you having to look for the right people yourself.
I have seen some pretty strange things in regards to introversion and extraversion. I had a little get-together at my apartment once with four people -- me (IEE), my friend (SEI), his friend (IEI), and my friend's girlfriend (SEE). It's hard to believe, but the SEE never once opened her mouth the ENTIRE time, while everyone else chatted away, and she was sitting right next to us. It was very strange. Later I got to see her at a different party where she was at the center of attention, and she looked much more normal. At my get-together she was scary and made it clear she was not to be touched. I think she would have responded negatively to any attempts to try to involve her, so no one did.
In other words, I don't know how to interpret what you're calling "introversion." Is this an introvert who is in his ideal environment, or is it an extravert who suffers from being introverted and can't figure out how to break out?
Spikes tell people, "don't touch," sort of like big fangs
I can sorta see a SEI possibility in you, but you'd be a tougher SEI than I've ever seen. The ones I know are all softies who like to entertain people and put on little shows and make everyone happy, but they are also quite sensitive to emotional and physical discomfort. Also, they are more receptive than aggressive, and welcome other people's organizational initiative. Masculine women are very rare among them, but this seems to be quite common for SLE's.
So I don't know what to call you -- an introverted SLE or a battle-hardened SEI. Also, from what you've described of your relationship with J-chan, it would seem you should be duals. Especially the part about always being together, playing games and doing lots of different things and not getting tired of each other is telling. But I don't see too many options for his type. Visually SLE and IEI are a very good fit for the two of you. I can't see ILE in him. He seems soft, goofy, and playful.
At any rate, based on how you talk about yourself, we can say that your self-image is about
: introversion, dreaminess, fantasizing, sensitivity to people's feelings, etc. So the main versions so far all have their logic - IEI based on your self-concept, SEI based on self-descriptions and on photos, and SLE based on photos.
Someone explain to me why I am blindly obsessed with this woman. Perhaps you can use that as an indication of type? :wink:
I think V.I.-wise, J-chan is actually the ISFp.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Is this a "lesson" intuiters often learn?I highlighted that one part in red because I relate to that the most. I never share my deeper beliefs with others and especially not online, I just don't see the point as we all have out own beliefs for whatever reasons. In the end it's best that way so sharing mine really does no good, and most people can't relate to it or understand where I'm coming from anyways so it's a waste of time. But just because I'm not outward with it, just because I appear physical doesn't mean I don't have so much more going on inwardly. What, I can't have layers? ;p
I've just learned that being more physical and down to earth and only talking about mundane things is the best way to communicate with people. I've grown tired of being called "insane" just for sharing my viewpoints so I don't bother anymore. I know I'm not insane and that what is the norm is defined by what's socially asceptable as the times change, but ya know. It still gets old after a certain point
Everyone has layers. Everyone relates to sensing and intuition at some layer. The "always living in the here and now" thing is somehow deceptive. I've come across too many sensers who don't agree with that part.
I'm sure they'll be backYeah, I'd like ta know what everyone else thinks but I think they quit coming hereThat always happens towards the end which sucks because that's when I really get goin'
That is exactly what I thought, also from the description.
What are your ideas on her type?
I haven't followed the most recent discussion on her typeWhen she originally joined the forum, everyone agreed that she was either INFp or ISFp. I thought she was INFp.
And although she says that she and J-chan are duals, I think that what she describes may well be two look-alikes who are very comfortable with each other - especially as they seemed to be lonely otherwise - not duality.
But I haven't really checked the latest discussions on her -- regarding J-chan, what she said reminded me of my father, who was clearly ISFp.
Bringing up ChibiKeba's initial response:
I don't believe these are lessons that IEI's tend to learn in life. If they do learn them, they forget them rapidly. I believe ChibiKeba holds on to them as important turning points.This is all really interesting, you sure do come up with some good evidence Rick and it all sounds mega credible
As far as standing up to the physical treatment I was very meek as a child and a big time pushover (I could never say no to anyone). Growing up my family abused me and I got abused at school on top of that so everything about it seemed natural to me and I just took it and thought nothing of it. Hell I even justified what they were doing to me in some cases. I didn't feel any emotions growing up, at least I didn't think I did (I suppose I was just repressing everything). I put up with that sort of abuse all the way up till I was 18 and went into the military. By then I started cracking, I had my first break down in bootcamp and I hated myself for it, I couldn't understand what was wrong with me and I felt really weak.
It wasn't until some point in my short lived military career that I really got sick of it and started actually standing up for myself. I wonder if it's something that would've come naturally for me at a younger age had I been raised under normal conditions or if I just conciously decided to become that way because I was sick of being a victim.
I have actually thought about the possibility of being SLE, the one thing I figured was that I possibly started developing the traits of my dual in order to compensate for the lack of someone strong like that in my own life. Until I met J-chan I spent my whole life alone, I didn't date anyone and refused physical contact from everyone I met. I certainly didn't have a loving family, and I really never had any friends until I was nearly an adult (so I had heinously, and probably still do, underdeveloped social skills). I wanted so badly to have something deeper then what the majority of people can offer but most people are just too physical and lack depth.
Here I think ChibiKeba is proud of the fact that she tested her will against her leaders' will and came out on top (from her perspective). The emphasis is on her being too difficult to deal with and standing up for herself, and not on "leaving because it totally sucked."Oh, I got outta the military in 2002 when I was 20 =P It was an honorable discharge, I couldn't take their bullcrap anymore and they couldn't deal with me since I didn't make a very good mindless automoton
This is anti-SEI and IEI, who are expert at easing into groups in just the right way. ChibiKeba doesn't understand why this happens; J-chan has to explain it to her (note: in a way that shows his high opinion of her!). If ChibiKeba were, say, IEI, and J-chan SEI, he would tell her something like "you don't fit into groups because you do everything wrong -- you're inconsiderate, put people down, etc." J-chan actually values this quality in her, however.Rick wrote:
This...is so very very true. Everyone always assumes the worse of me and makes all these messed up judgements. I've never been able to understand it. J-chan says it's because I'm not easily pigeonholed into a group and people hate what isn't black and white.In informal settings, everybody seems to like J-chan! You, on the other hand, tend to attract dislike unless he's around or there are others like him who can tell that you're really not that bad at all
An IEI or SEI would have found this a jarring experience. Can you imagine a soft thing like IEI or SEI "inadvertently" scaring someone out of their wits this way?I guess I do kinda do that. This reminds me of something that happened to me awhile back when I went to go workout. There was this little gym inside the managers building in the apartment complex where me and J-chan used ta live before we moved on base. Anyways on the day I went there it was deserted, no managers working or any other people there which was fine with me because I'd rather be alone while working out. The workout room is in the back and is pretty secluded, no one can get in there unless they have an apartment key so I really didn't expect to see anyone. The next thing I know some guy shows up, I guess he was stalking me and I didn't notice. He came into the tiny workout room I was in and closed the door behind him, he was starting to pretend to ask me directions to some place. All I did was look at him closing the door then look up into his face when all of a sudden he stopped talking and got really scared looking. He then turned around opened the door and left. I don't know what I did but the fugger got scared. Later I found out from the managers that he was some perv guy and he'd been stalking alot of the ladies in the apartment complex. I got a serious hatred of perverts so I guess the look I musta given him was pretty bad. I don't know if that has anything to do with type but figured I'd put it here anyways just in case =P
Very good points.
I have difficulty seeing her as SLE, although if all I knew of her were the photos that would have probably been my guess as well.
I don't have any strong opinions *shrugs* as I said her description of J-chan reminded me of my ISFp father, but perhaps what I picked up was mainly the description of an irrational.
See, I think being "proud" of something is mostly related to being able to use our weakest functions. I am proud of being kind and fit, but I don't give much thoughts to being able to use my
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
=)
I will make this a little test for myself, ChibiKeba. I haven't read your online journal or what others have said about your type. Maybe the problem is already solved.
Anyway, from V. I. only you look clearly STp to me. Either ISTp or ESTp. I'll make a preliminary quess and say that ISTp is more likely than ESTp.
Now I'm gonna take a look at your journal and at what others have said about your type. After reading it I will tell you if I have changed my mind. See you later.
Okay, ChibiKeba, I have now read everything twice. Here are the results of the Swedish jury:
After my first reading I was a little confused with so many seemingly conflicting impressions and arguments pointing in different directions. After my second reading I think that I can see the pieces fit together.
My V. I. skills are not infallible yet, and I think they need some calibration. But here are my further thoughts on the V. I. part:
In one of the pictures you show some similarities to a male friend of mine whom I know for sure is an ISFp. In other pictures I can now see that you also show similarities to female whom I'm pretty sure is an INFp. When I look at you and your husband together it is obvious that he is much more clearly an ST type than you are. I haven't studied j-chan in detail, but from V. I. he could very well be an ESTp, and it is almost impossible that he is an N type, so if you hesitate between ESTp and ENTp in his case, I would say that he must be an ESTp out of those two possibilities.
At the pictures of the two of you together you start to look more and more N, because there is a clear contrast in how the two of you look pointing in that direction. And, for the record, I have once V. I typed both a female and a male friend ESTps, but one of them is an INFp for sure and the other is probably also an INFp. So I think I have to modify my V. I. understanding of INFp type.
Your comic art is actually rather similar to many things that the first female INFp I mentioned above uses to make. I know her very well and she is also very artistic. I get the same kind of "feeling" from your art works, if that is worth something.
Many things that you say about yourself and your life fit the type descriptions of INFps/INFPs. And that you not only have got the result INFP in Keirsey's Temperament Sorter II and the result NF Idealist in his FourTypes Sorter, but also can relate well to his descriptions of the INFP and the Idealist temperament in general, is actually a very strong argument in favour of you being an INFp.
I have tested several of my friends with Keirsey's FourTypes Sorter as a complement to other typing methods, and the test have indicated the correct temperament group every time, so there must be some worth in it. But you should only use it as an indication and a useful complement. In some cases it can help you to decide which of two possible types, for example the ISFp and the INFp, a certain person are, if the two types belong to different temperament groups. Then you can go on and look at the possible types from another angle, and after that from yet another angle, until you finally become almost 100 % sure that you have typed the person correctly. Using the Socionics groups you can compare the different quadras, for example.
I'm not 100 % sure of your type, of course. That would take more time and effort, and it is much easier in real life situations where you meet face to face. But I now think that most of the evidence point in the same direction and that you probably are an INFp.
My best wishes to you and your husband, ChibiKeba. I hope that both of you have met your Dual.
Another Angle
@ChibiKeba
Those MBTi type descriptions are clearly very different from socionics types. The correlation is mediocre at best. Maybe you too could try to figure out where you fit in terms of the ever-so-stimulating Gulenko's Erotic Attitudes. At the time I thought I was an INFP, the Victim type did not quite seem appealing to me. The impression I get is that you are more likely a socionics ISFP, but it is just a guess.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Hello, CuriousSoul. I like many of the things you have written, and I especially like you open-minded attitude. I'm not suggesting that you should blindly accept what I say, but hopefully your open-mindedness will eventually lead you to investigate the matter yourself, so that you some day will see that I'm right about this.
I know that many on this forum and elsewhere believe that, but, as I have said more than once, it is wrong. The types are different if you define them functionally from within the model(s), but the group of INFPs that Keirsey is describing is exactly the same type group of real life people as the Socionics group of INFps. You can probably find many examples of mistyped people, but that is another thing. Keirsey's description of INFPs is a description of INFps. By the way, Keirsey's descriptions are not MBTI descriptions, but that is, of course, unimportant for the same reasons.Those MBTi type descriptions are clearly very different from socionics types. The correlation is mediocre at best.
A possible reason why so many of you think the way you do is that you are so focused on the Socionics model and its functional analysis, that you miss what is in plain view to see if you take a look at reality. I hope you won't fall into that trap, CuriousSoul, even though the risk is not negligible if you really are an INFj (which I don't know for sure).
What are Kiersey's type distribution statistics?
Where are Kiersey's duals?
Are you aware that he has a low (below 50%) correlation with socionists' typings of famous people?
It's not as simple as you may think. Kiersey's descriptions clearly focus on a different layer of functioning than socionics. All attempts to unite the theories or "find a common language" between any of these disciplines so far have been thwarted. They pursue different goals and thus have developed different definitions and typing criteria.
What is your Kiersey typology experience besides online forums?
What is your socionics experience besides online forums?
I found these in my own notes, but I don't remember where I got it from:What are Kiersey's type distribution statistics?
Estimated Percentage Distribution of the Types:
Keirsey Gesher
ESTP 10 % 13 %
ISTP 10 % 6 %
ESFP 11 % 13 %
ISFP 9 % 6 %
ESTJ 12 % 13 %
ISTJ 10 % 6 %
ESFJ 13 % 13 %
ISFJ 10 % 6 %
ENFJ 3 % 5 %
INFJ 2 % 1 %
ENFP 3 % 5 %
INFP 1 % 1 %
ENTJ 2 % 5 %
INTJ 1 % 1 %
ENTP 2 % 5 %
INTP 1 % 1 %
I also found this, probably from www.keirsey.com:
Question 5: What is the distribution of temperaments in the US population? Doesn't the distribution of the web statistics contradict that distribution?
The estimated distribution of temperaments of US general population are 40–45% Guardian, 35–40% Artisan, 5–10% Idealist, 5–10% Rational. The web statistics, are global statistics not restricted to the US, and are not surprising because Idealists and Guardians generally are more interested seeking out and taking the questionnaires. The Artisans are typically not as interested in temperament theory, as the rest of the temperaments are. The Idealists are the most enthusiastic of the temperaments about temperament theory.Keirsey's "duals" are INTP-ENFJ, ENTP-INFJ, ESTP-ISFJ, ISFP-ESTJ, and so on. He believes that the most important dichotomy is the one between N-types and S-types, and that you will find your best match if two N-types switch the other letters, and the same for S-types. He doesn't give any good reasons in his book why those exact pairing should be the best ones, and I believe that he is just guessing. Of course he is probably wrong about a lot of things related to relations between types, but that is another matter.Where are Kiersey's duals?
Yes, I can imagine that. He is not very convincing in that part, I agree. But he seems unaware of V. I., and even the socionists disagree, so what does it prove other than that he is not that good at typing famous people?Are you aware that he has a low (below 50%) correlation with socionists' typings of famous people?
Exactly what one would expect when you focus on the model instead of reality.All attempts to unite the theories or "find a common language" between any of these disciplines so far have been thwarted. They pursue different goals and thus have developed different definitions and typing criteria.
I have studied the subject intensively for about 4-5 years now. During that time I have read a lot of books and articles on the internet and elsewhere, used a lot of tests on myself and other people, made empirical observations and tried to be train my V. I. skills. Even though I have tried to read every book or article I have been able to find on the subject, I have probably missed some.What is your Kiersey typology experience besides online forums?
What is your socionics experience besides online forums?
I have not studied Keirsey that much beside reading everything he has published on his site on the Internet and his book Please Understand Me II. Socionics I have only studied on the Internet. Besides those two theories I have studied the Enneagram, but only a lot of Internet articles and about three or four published books, the MBTI model (countless of articles on the Internet, some books and some licensed material in different versions in Swedish, Human Dynamics and Kretschmers now forgotten books, other books such as Tracking the Elusive Human (available to read on the internet I think) and some other articles on Sheldon's theories on body types. That was about all I can recall for the moment, except that I have also compared all that stuff with neuropsychiatric findings, especially how the different personality disorders might correlate with the types.
I agree with you here. The problem is that different systems tend always to interact with each other at the abstract level -- at a distance. To overcome this and "focus on reality," a good socionist would have to meet up with a good Kierseyan and look at specific people, discuss them, share observations and functional interpretations, etc. over a matter of months, perhaps years. This type of merging of views only takes place in very small groups. You can see it happen when compatible people of different religions marry, or when people of competing schools of thought form close personal friendships. But alas, at the organizational level merging never happens. It's survival of the fittest.Exactly what one would expect when you focus on the model instead of reality.All attempts to unite the theories or "find a common language" between any of these disciplines so far have been thwarted. They pursue different goals and thus have developed different definitions and typing criteria.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
If that is true, there is something seriously wrong with Socionics. But there seems to be something right about Socionics, doesn't it? So, how do we explain that curious anomaly? Maybe there is something wrong with the socionists and/or there typing methods, if they can come up with that absurd result? That's one possible explanation that makes some sense. Or maybe there is something wrong with your understanding of the types? That's another possible explanation.Once you learn how to type people socionically, you will see that pretty much everywhere you go types are distributed somewhat equally.
It's one or the other, but why should I bother?
I Politely Disagree
Thank you for paying the compliments, but I have no need to prove my type to you. I have studied socionics quite intensely for several years and now the pieces seem to have fallen to their places. Of course if you have any serious arguments as to what my type might be - I am all ears.
Then to the larger point. In essence the difference between MBTI and socionics is that in socionics the primary determining criteria of the correctness of typing is the fit of the intertype relations. In reality though, even this is far from easy, so in practise there is currently no foolproof method of determing the socionics types. In the MBTI/Keirsey system, on the other hand, it seems that the test result is your type, unless some experienced analyst decides otherwise. How this decision is then made remains unknown to me, but I suppose it must be based on some conception of what people with this MBTI/Keirsey type usually are like.
Socionics is not (yet at least) "a proper" science, so there is no fully objective method of solving disagreements, which - as you must have noticed - take place frequently. Most of us have come to discuss socionics on this forum because it seems to fit our own observations reasonably well. I tried to apply the Model A in the past, but as it proved largely useless for practical purposes, I have since given up on that approach. Many other theoretical approaches, on the other hand, seem to hold promise, at least in terms of understanding the types theoretically, and perhaps for the more practical aim of correct typing as well - only time will tell.
Or maybe there just is something seriously wrong with your understanding of socionics types? I have written about this type distribution issue earlier and I largely agree with Transigent. If you insist on holding on to your opinion on the type distribution and keep on quoting Keirsey/MBTI statistics and other information maybe you would find more like-minded people on an MBTI forum? There are plenty of those out there in the cyperspace. :wink: In my opinion those schools of thought just appear to be currently incompatible with socionics.If that is true, there is something seriously wrong with Socionics. But there seems to be something right about Socionics, doesn't it? So, how do we explain that curious anomaly? Maybe there is something wrong with the socionists and/or there typing methods, if they can come up with that absurd result? That's one possible explanation that makes some sense. Or maybe there is something wrong with your understanding of the types? That's another possible explanation.
It's one or the other, but why should I bother?
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
I have never questioned your type, CuriousSoul. Sorry if it sounded like I did. I just wanted to make sure that my "accusation" of INFjs was not based on the premise that I knew you to be an INFj, since you might get offended.Thank you for paying the compliments, but I have no need to prove my type to you. I have studied socionics quite intensely for several years and now the pieces seem to have fallen to their places. Of course if you have any serious arguments as to what my type might be - I am all ears.
Exactly.In essence the difference between MBTI and socionics is that in socionics the primary determining criteria of the correctness of typing is the fit of the intertype relations.
Exactly.In the MBTI/Keirsey system, on the other hand, it seems that the test result is your type, unless some experienced analyst decides otherwise.
I guess that I have to repeat this over and over again, every time the question comes up for discussion. I am not defining the types in that way. The real types should not be defined according to either Socionics or MBTI criteria. Like so many others you insist on talking about types from the perspective of the model(s), when I want to talk about what can be observed empirically in the world in way that is similar to the way Jung and others before him have done it. When you go from the premises, axioms and assumptions of the model, the system, I go from outside the system, collect information, see the patterns, and then I compare those patterns with the models, the systems, the theories to see whether their theoretical explanations of those patterns, that are in plain view to see for everyone if who is not blinded by their theoretical glasses, are true or not, if they make sense.
That's the principal difference between our approaches. On a practical level we both probably switch back and forth between the model and our empirical observations.
That is not impossible. But, as I have tried to explain, such a remark is beside the point. And I never said that there was something wrong with Transigent's understanding of the Socionics types. I said that there might be something wrong with his understanding of the types.Or maybe there just is something seriously wrong with your understanding of socionics types?
It is irrelevant if I know how exactly how the Socionics types are defined or not (our language). What is relevant is if I can determine whether the Socionics "types" refer to the same group of people (the same objects) as other theories/theorists are referring to (= the external world).
I have never found anything interesting to discuss with them, but maybe I gave up to early in my search for it. What I have seen though, gives me the impression that the level of the discussions are much lower on an MBTI forum. And every MBTI practitioner that I have met in real life has been totally uninterested in the kind of really interesting questions that are discussed on this forum.If you insist on holding on to your opinion on the type distribution and keep on quoting Keirsey/MBTI statistics and other information maybe you would find more like-minded people on an MBTI forum? There are plenty of those out there in the cyperspace.
Because the real types are not distributed equally in the world. Some types are more common than others (= the number of people with those types are greater). Or have I misunderstood you here, and you were talking about something else?Why would that disprove Socionics?
My own personal opinion is that Socionics types are not distributed equally, but since there is no way of typing someone with statistical accuracy, this matter will remain unresolved.
But it's not part of Socionics theory to state that the types must be equally distributed, so I don't see why type distribution would disprove socionics.
I suggest that the reason for that is that MBTI is a dead-end, and its only real "use" is to stereotype people for HR companies to recommend on someone being hired or promoted "no don't hire him, he's an ISTJ and they are not good salespeople" etc.
Types
I have no definitive opinion on the type distribution. It certainly varies a great deal from place to place and perhaps even from country to country. My observations seem to indicate a more even distribution than yours, but as there is no objective way of finding out, there is no point in dwelling on the issue. I am personally primarily interested in the socionics types, and what other types there may be is of secondary importance to me, but as you seem to have noticed there are many interesting discussions going on here, and I wish you welcome.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I can't say for sure that it could not be seen in other types too, but it is definitely possible in types with dominantBut what about that stuff I posted about my experience with J-chan in the car and whatnot? Is that just from extreme Introversion or what?
Out of choice between whether I'm more like Mulder or Skully I'm more Mulder =P (That should be the determiner for N or S it's perfect!)http://www.socionics.com/advan/infpcelebs.html :wink:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote