A List of People Whose Types We Know

[Gilly]

I actually think the people Gilligan lists are his actual, major, reference points from which he types other people.

MS, you are the only reason that I could ever see an INTj as my mirror.

[Gilly]

To all you people are pissing yourselves about not being on Gilligan's list, there's nothing flattering about being reduced to a walking stereotype. In fact, consider it an honor that you've managed to unintentionally project to people (or, in this case, a person) a more variable image of yourself.

You are such a hippy.

As little sense as that made I will hand you props for the irony regarding "being reduced to a stereotype" whether it was intentional or not.

[Gilly]

I actually think the people Gilligan lists are his actual, major, reference points from which he types other people.

Can I be taken off the list then, please? That's too much responsibility for me to handle.

Oh hush

[Expat]

IMHO the people Gilligan originally listed are indeed typed correctly, but we can't be sure (socionics typing is never sure), so it should not be seen as a definitive criterion to type others. But it could be used as indicator if someone wants to, in fact, people are already doing that here "I don't get the same vibe as with fill-in-the-blank".

[Creepy-pokeball]

To all you people are pissing yourselves about not being on Gilligan's list, there's nothing flattering about being reduced to a walking stereotype. In fact, consider it an honor that you've managed to unintentionally project to people (or, in this case, a person) a more variable image of yourself.

But I want to be a 2-D theory like Pokemon! Pleeeeease??? *dies* Some day, some freakshow comic book clerk is going to take my cardboard-cutout-self and have his/her way with me, but I'll be too maladaptively 2-D to even scream cause screaming is too ! or something... the end.

[Raver]

I like this idea Gilligan, I had thought of doing this in the past, but then abandoned it. I'll add in people that weren't added and are solely based on my opinion.

Dynamicism: INTP logical subtype
Zem: INFp ethical subtype
Dreamer: INFj
Hugo: ENTp logical subtype
Jadae: ENFj
Gilligan: ENTp
Anndelise: ENFp
Olga: INFj ethical subtype
Scrummy: INFp

If I didn't add you to the list it means you were already added by others enough times or I couldn't type you. I can attempt to give an opinion if you demand it.

[Joy]

No one knows my type?

I do

[Scrummy]

Sweet, I'm INTp.

That's the spirit!

[anndelise]

IAnndelise: ENFp ethical subtype
Olga: INFj ethical subtype

1. Where do you get "ethical subtype" for me?

2. Olga has, I believe, claimed ISFj.

[Raver]

IAnndelise: ENFp ethical subtype
Olga: INFj ethical subtype

1. Where do you get "ethical subtype" for me?

2. Olga has, I believe, claimed ISFj.

You might be intuitive subtype, I just thought ethical because most of your topics revolve around social matters. Also, you stated that you were conscientious as a child and did well in school, which I could not relate to. However, that might not be related to type. Also, the fact that "Se" tends to bother you as much as it does to me could also point to intuitive subtype, so I'll leave the subtype option open.

I know that Olga believes she is ISFj, but my experience with other ISFjs is that they tend to not be interested when I discuss anything theoretical. However, maybe the ISFjs I know are sensory subtypes.

[felafel]

I know that Olga believes she is ISFj, but my experience with other ISFjs is that they tend to not be interested when I discuss anything theoretical. However, maybe the ISFjs I know are sensory subtypes.

maybe that depends on WHO and HOW is bringing up the theoretical stuff? i've known isfjs very interested in discussing all things theoretical...

[Creepy-aurora_faerie]

No one knows my type?

nope i dont know an dont care

[Raver]

I know that Olga believes she is ISFj, but my experience with other ISFjs is that they tend to not be interested when I discuss anything theoretical. However, maybe the ISFjs I know are sensory subtypes.

maybe that depends on WHO and HOW is bringing up the theoretical stuff? i've known isfjs very interested in discussing all things theoretical...

Well, I only knew two ISFjs and one I think ethical and the other is sensory. The sensory one tends to ignore me due to my behaviour and topics that I attempt to discuss. The ethical ISFj seemed to enjoy those discussions and never repelled them, but didn't bring them up either.

[felafel]

The ethical ISFj seemed to enjoy those discussions and never repelled them, but didn't bring them up either.

perhaps that's because you'd be their supervisor?

[felafel]

Attention! The given forum renders clumsy assistance to distribution of the C.G.Jung personality theory, MBTI and Socionics.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

hey, is this forum being spamed? it's sooo annoying...!

[Olga]

I am not sure about popularity contest. I would like to see more structure to the forum and power of knowldege created here should be collected and directed to produce a mechanism that could work more effectively and could bering more benefit to all while enhancing our knowledge. I would dream about the time when we could have a list of people with certain types and could make our own photo gallery. We could establish what are the gifts of forum memebers: who is better at what and could to a certain degree differentiate the tasks. We could, for example, have the experts in typology who would be able to type people quickly and correctly. We would have those who would take organiasation of updating info; those who can create new tests. We shall need those who will push theory forward through discussions and of course we shall not survive without critics who will check out everything what comes out of this forum and who could extend crticism to the work of other theorists on different website of socionnics. We could have "academic discussions" of the different articles recently produce on ohter socionincs's websites so that we know what is going on and everybody who is interested could be aware of it too.

I am sure we already have got people with differentiated skills, people who is more interested in some aspects of socionics than in others. I do not suggest clear differention because it is quite natural to be intersted in all aspects to a certain degree but I find it a bit hard to keep eye on everything (introversion).

I think Expat would be good for the Chair position too, because he is the one respected by everyone. I wonder, what do you think about it Expat about being a Chair and the idea that we need some sort of a core in order create a structure. Somebody has to take responsibility and to do the job - I mean popularity contest .

[Olga]

@Traveler

I respect the way you perceive me as INFJ ethical subtype. If you consider that I am ISFJ ethical ( what I think I could be) sybtype so it may well be more similarity between ISFJ ethical and INFJ ethical than with ISFJ sensorical and INFJ intuitive.That means that although I see you proposition is not correct - me being INFJ - I can see the point you are coming from.

I think that I have shown enough of to this forum under the ifluence of to be ISFJ and the model B is the example of mixing lots of different things in one (swastika, psychodynamics, colours, celebrities, natural world while considereing personality development, life purpose system, religion). If I woud know astrology I am sure I would find the wy to integrate it too. Model B as you know is in the process of development.

[discourse]

And who am I? Can I be ISFj? I would like to tell storys to people about how it is important to be aunest to yourself,to treat everyone friendly and care about hidden troubles of others, what they put behind the mask.

I'd be glad when some scientists will start talkind over socionics in here. Like Smilingeyes does. Discussions between psychologists, psychiatrists, geneticsists, sociologist and others on this science, would be very interesting.

[Gilly]

I am not sure about popularity contest. I would like to see more structure to the forum and power of knowldege created here should be collected and directed to produce a mechanism that could work more effectively and could bering more benefit to all while enhancing our knowledge. I would dream about the time when we could have a list of people with certain types and could make our own photo gallery. We could establish what are the gifts of forum memebers: who is better at what and could to a certain degree differentiate the tasks. We could, for example, have the experts in typology who would be able to type people quickly and correctly. We would have those who would take organiasation of updating info; those who can create new tests. We shall need those who will push theory forward through discussions and of course we shall not survive without critics who will check out everything what comes out of this forum and who could extend crticism to the work of other theorists on different website of socionnics. We could have "academic discussions" of the different articles recently produce on ohter socionincs's websites so that we know what is going on and everybody who is interested could be aware of it too.

I am sure we already have got people with differentiated skills, people who is more interested in some aspects of socionics than in others. I do not suggest clear differention because it is quite natural to be intersted in all aspects to a certain degree but I find it a bit hard to keep eye on everything (introversion).

I think Expat would be good for the Chair position too, because he is the one respected by everyone. I wonder, what do you think about it Expat about being a Chair and the idea that we need some sort of a core in order create a structure. Somebody has to take responsibility and to do the job - I mean popularity contest .

This all sounds really nice in theory, but what the hell would we actually do?

[Olga]

Somehow I did expect this question. People lack initiative nowdays.
First off all we need to decide do we want to go and do things together or better to stay out of the circle and to do what I want without being involved in something collective. Pink Floyd in the song "Hey you" wrote: together we stand - divided we fall. I am for together. I would suggest first we need to decide who would be interested in creative work together - we can call it: socionics board. Anybody can be involved. WE shall need somebody like you who will organise a list of well established types of forum members (like you did) and then those whodo not know types and those who is not 100% sure. You can call yourself as you wish, for example a Chief Executive . People will contact you direct about the lists. You will suggest to the socioinic board whose type we shall consider.
Somebody else could orginise the photoalbum of the members whose type we know for sure.

For example you can open a next thread: Who wants to be on the board? That means who wants to be involved in decision making process for example about the typing people or introducing the new memebers to the socionic theory (answering questions) or even presenting a new info from recent socionic articles. Anyone could propose themselves for socionic board fot typing if they feel confident enough or wish to master these skills. So we shall make a list of socioinc board.
In general we need a bunch of intusiasts and then we decide what we can do togehter. For example, we could send messages to all forum members when one of us write an article or organise a conference. For example, a few people here may be working on their models. Theories and ideas. WE could once decide to meet up and present the ideas face to face. It will be impossible without organaisation and structure.