Okay, so how bad is it?
I can't meet a person without trying to type him/her, and I see most behaviors as functions.
I'm a bit beyond that healthy balance... not too bad though.
I think I'm at a healthy balance.
Eh, I don't think about Socionics much outside of the forum.
Okay, so how bad is it?
I do outside theoretical work and I try to type everyone I can. But mostly I can't.
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)
Between choice 3 and 4.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I'm good at typing some types. ENTj, INTj, ESTp, ISTp, ISFp, ENTp <3, uhhhh.... ESTj
Edited for gayness.
I think about Socionics outside the forum but it's really no worse than any other interest one might have. I don't plan my life by it or anything...
Besides, as Socionics deals with people, isn't it the most logical place to think about it - out in the "real world" where people have faces?
I'm at a point where I'm trying to push socionics to be one with my subconscience so that I don't have to think about it anymore. I just intuitively know everything about everyone at the very first sight of their cheekbones. Isn't this what socionics is about?
But really...I'm coming crazy with my mandatory language studies and I need all kinds of mental entertainment to get me through it I can often see myself figuring out and trying to apply different functions in real life. Is that bad? I thought it is gOoD I also try to figure out whether people belong to same quadra and try to see how well we get along. I'm especially trying to spot activity partners and duals and see if they can make me run in circles. And of course I'm trying to identify my weakest functions and force myself to use them just to see how hard/easy it really is.
I don't try to type people at all.
I don't call it an "obsession", I see it as an useful tool to understand other people, how they interact with me and among themselves, to explain a few things that have happened in my life.
I don't automatically try to type everyone I meet, especially if I don't expect to see them again. On occasion it happens that someone strikes me as very obviously one particular type the moment I meet them.
At work, especially during boring meetings, sometimes I try to type someone. But there are a few people with whom I simply don't have enough contact in order to type them. It doesn't bother me; I don't feel like I have to discover more about them so I can type them.
I think I'm good at spotting ISTjs, ISFjs, ENTjs, ESFps, ESTps, ISFps, ESFjs (especially females). Sometimes I have problems differentiating among the four NF types, except very "loud" ENFps and very "gentle" INFjs. I have found INFps and ethical subtype ENFps difficult to differentiate.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
i try to see correlations and type people so as to have a good working tool to use in difficult situations. applied socionics, in a way. i have also found the added benefit of emotional distance through analysis; certain behaviors that pissed me off before do not anymore when i look at it through socionics. and say what you will, i definitely look for ESE's.
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
I hardly ever try to type anyone.
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei