No.
You are affectionate, adorable and playful. Just like an alpha. You are also cute and ambivalent.
A Gamma is inherently more serious and biting. Even the esfps, who I get along on great with.
Not an ILE though cuz you lack the Fi polr sort of assholeness. Though you can be ass-y at times. just not in the fi polr way, bah.
I'm curious what caused this identity crisis of sorts?
They actually do "match up" fine. Depending on what fine means.
a gamma NT would ask like this:Originally Posted by Snaps
The fact you phrase it this way proves you're LII.Or at least Alpha NT, as opposed to Gamma NT.
oh fuck you
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
Socionics and its toll, Pirate and, and, and.
Big 5's Conscientiousness dichotomy + my perception of ESI as High conscientiousness + obsessive compulsive need to combine all the type theories + major confusion over socionics judging/perceiving
Pretty much just discarded socionics descriptions, functions, and inter-type relations in favor of dichotomy match-ups, only because I find them simpler to work with. But the big picture descriptions seem to work better in the long term.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Sadly I don't think this stuff could ever be simple. Our own identities are these unique deep wells of snowflake uniqueness and complexity with many intricate paths woven together with both the viciousness and the grace of a spider.
I see you as intj, because overall you are good hearted in the way intjs are. I'm not saying that other types can't be 'good-hearted' it's just less pure or something. I mean I know it's crude, and I don't want to morally judge intps too harshly or anything but you just come across less as a 'dick' than them. You are ambivalent though but it does seem to genuinely annoy you when people get too hateful.
It's hard to know how you are objectively beaming so maybe you don't know this about yourself. You radiate the aura of a smart but playful alpha dude that wants Fe. And clearly introverted. yeah yeah blah blah I know classical intro/extro doesn't always relate to socionics version but suck my cock. He isn't entp lol.
awwwwwwww, thanks
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I love that movie, I would be sort of inclined to think walter is some not Fi valuing type though.a gamma NT would ask like this:
Easy Day
played by an ISTp. the character probably doesn't value either ethical function.
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me.
Easy Day
i have plenty, thanks. you can hang on to your toes.
Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These fucking amateurs...
Easy Day
You mean doesn't have either ethical function in their ego? Because you have to value either Fi or Fe.
Well it can sometimes be the case that fictional characters are so far removed from reality that they no longer fit into systems designed to interact with reality, like socionics. You could say these characters are poorly written, which might be true in some cases, in other cases they are purposely removed from actual observable behavior to make a point. This often happens in comedy where the point is generally a joke, which could perhaps have it's own point. In this case I think Walter is exaggerated for the sake of humor. That being said I also think that he isn't removed enough from reality to have a complete non-interaction with socionics. Labster might disagree with me on that.
Easy Day
Walter Schobak is the exception to that rule. believe me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ausPKEMVk0
Are you teasing the LIE's again?
Thank you for that educational, insightful 90 seconds of Youtube material. My life is now more fulfilled.
BTW I can see him being Fe-valuing, how expressive he is, and annoyed that others didn't follow objective norms, so he's lashing out.
Come on, honey. You're supposed to "prove him wrong"
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
There's something to it actually. I just realised I'm posting on a socionics forum. Hmm.
the most sensible typing is to say he's the same type has his actor, which is ISTp. so not just not Fe valuing, but Fe PoLR.
Perhaps a better typing for John Goodman would be ILE.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
disastrously wrong. typings don't get more fucked up than this.
disastrously wrong. typings don't get more fucked up than this.
Meh, not really worth it to debate fictional characters from movies/novels, because their personality isn't strict.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
