If I'm Alpha NT, am I most likely to be

[ashlesha]

if i'm supposed to be supervising poli then i am doing something very wrong.

Finally a 16typesmember with brains...

if you're going to arrogantly imply that you're one of only a couple people here with brains, then at least back it up by actually saying something more than "he's creative and brainstorms but not like an ILI." lol wtf.

This has very little to do with type, by the way.

i don't understand why not. don't temperaments show in energy levels? (this sounds snippy after what i've written already, but i'm really trying to understand your thoughts lol.)

If the universe were a giant pair of underpants, the milky way galaxy would be...

a dingleberry?

[Timeless]

a dingleberry?

And the stars would be a pubic lice.

polikujm: Next time I see you on tinychat, I'm going to talk to you.

[Creepy-male]

And the stars would be a pubic lice.

polikujm: Next time I see you on tinychat, I'm going to talk you.

Lol poli, better watch out eh!

[Timeless]

Lol poli, better watch out eh!

LOL. That sounded kinda threatening huh?

[Creepy-male]

LOL. That sounded kinda threatening huh?

It did a bit

[Words]

I don't know what type you are, I don't see you contribute much other than your own particular style of humour, which seems more 'within' than out.

Just to throw it out there, maybe a low activity SEI

Whatever your type, it's irrational over rational imo.

[Exodus]

i don't understand why not. don't temperaments show in energy levels? (this sounds snippy after what i've written already, but i'm really trying to understand your thoughts lol.)

Kind of. Maybe I was a little dismissive, but energy level is something (in fact probably the most noticeable thing) that varies *a lot* within every type. Hence you can't really use it to type people confidently. I know super-energetic ESIs and super-low-key ILEs, for example. Generally initiative-taking is much more indicative than energy level per se.

[EyeSeeCold]

Typology must have tons of bias to it. When you know a person is a certain type you can identify all the characteristic mannerisms, but when when freshly typing a person, proposed types extend across quadras. It's mostly because of text-based communication.

Alpha NT = Social Intellectual
Gamma NT = Personal Intellectual
?

[KeroZen]

Kind of. Maybe I was a little dismissive, but energy level is something (in fact probably the most noticeable thing) that varies *a lot* within every type. Hence you can't really use it to type people confidently. I know super-energetic ESIs and super-low-key ILEs, for example. Generally initiative-taking is much more indicative than energy level per se.

I'm sorry but this remark bothers me a bit... Poli was talking about temperaments and I fail to see how it's not more than "kind of" related to energy levels. If you look at the history of the 4 temperaments, you'll see there was always a notion of global energy-level/tension and attitude/posture.

At some time they thought it was related to the 4 kind of "biles" but the names they chose were very representative: choleric (energetic/angry) phlegmatic (lazy/calm) and so on... and in this sense, I pretty much liked Timeless's thread with temperament postures pix, as there is definitively something to it.

Also, and this is an open question, how can we explain/define E vs I if we can't use: shy / social / outgoing / talkative / aloof / reserved / low energy / high energy?

It seems the only consensus we got is: "E" is focused on Object, "I" on subjective experience of Object (yes this could be rephrased more properly but it's only to make a point) and while I do agree with that, it's nonetheless very "meager" and most balanced persons will say it's very hard for them to tell if they are one more than the other (for instance I feel quite introverted but there are times where I'm completely outwards oriented/absorbed, to the point of being completely self less)

Sometimes I find it almost easier to think that E vs I determines the polarity of the dominant function only, and then think exclusively in functional terms from that point, but again this makes it a very poor dichotomy for typing purposes...

[Exodus]

I'm sorry but this remark bothers me a bit... Poli was talking about temperaments and I fail to see how it's not more than "kind of" related to energy levels. If you look at the history of the 4 temperaments, you'll see there was always a notion of global energy-level/tension and attitude/posture.

At some time they thought it was related to the 4 kind of "biles" but the names they chose were very representative: choleric (energetic/angry) phlegmatic (lazy/calm) and so on... and in this sense, I pretty much liked Timeless's thread with temperament postures pix, as there is definitively something to it.

This is one of those things like correlating socionics with the Zodiac or something...not really core to the theory. Old-school socionists used to think the MBTI types were basically the same, but that idea fell out of favor.

Also, and this is an open question, how can we explain/define E vs I if we can't use: shy / social / outgoing / talkative / aloof / reserved / low energy / high energy?

See, most of that stuff is related to ethics too. On the whole yes, extroverts are more energetic. But it's very case-dependent.

It seems the only consensus we got is: "E" is focused on Object, "I" on subjective experience of Object (yes this could be rephrased more properly but it's only to make a point) and while I do agree with that, it's nonetheless very "meager" and most balanced persons will say it's very hard for them to tell if they are one more than the other (for instance I feel quite introverted but there are times where I'm completely outwards oriented/absorbed, to the point of being completely self less)

Well, like I said initiative is a big indicator. Extroverts generally seem more involved with projects and activities than introverts, who take more time for self-reflection. Introverts talk a lot about what they are feeling/thinking about things, whereas extroverts talk about what's happening (current events e.g.) or things-in-themselves. Extroverts are more opportunistic (and take advantage of opportunities more easily).

Sometimes I find it almost easier to think that E vs I determines the polarity of the dominant function only, and then think exclusively in functional terms from that point, but again this makes it a very poor dichotomy for typing purposes...

It is pretty poor, actually. All the other Jungian dichotomies are about 5x more obvious IMO.

[717495]

Yeah, dichotomies have evolved with Reinin, but simultaneously aren't really all that significant anymore. This isn't MBTI, it's a theory of personal relationships based on values. If people think of the 16 types without dichotomies, it will be harder on the mind at first, but then you'll start to learn more significant things about the types, and that types have all variance within dichotomies. Just read the definition of dominance, for example. How can you say that is used by someone social or reserved, high energy or low energy? I can't even make a clear case for it seeming externally or internally aware, it seems to operate under both conditions. It's dichotomal characteristics really are that of N and P, and show no tendency toward the others. Similarly in MBTI, I type INTP, but I identify a lot more with Ne than I do Ti or Fi (use Fi because I relate to it just as much as Ti, but its not the same in Socionics.)

[717495]

Not sure why you would think that. It's a new idea, and would require some tricky explanation.

"you'd know more about yourself" : well, more like I said, I fit the descriptions of quite nicely and ILE descriptions are the only ones that fit from obvious classical sources, so I'm still wondering more so why I'd be LII rather than something off the mark like SEI. Not really feeling the idea of or PoLR, and seems simply like "dichotomies" don't always help. I do think a type can take on a certain dualistic form of some caliber, simply due to the fact that they value the same functions, but I don't think I'm a full out SEI, that would be rather hard to wrap my mind around. I also think ILE fits because I find myself similar in humor/personality to others here who type ILE, granted there are some who are more gregarious or active than myself. I don't really even seem that upbeat right now, I guess because I am a serious person...but then I think half of the time I am fairly upbeat.

Thanks,
T. Hanks