SEI. If he was SLI he'd look less faggy, more logical/rational looking. All that talk about love. Feeler type up the butt.
SEI. If he was SLI he'd look less faggy, more logical/rational looking. All that talk about love. Feeler type up the butt.
Now now truck, don't upset yourself
And so the typing circus begins. Youve met the clowns and the tightrope dancers sofar, wait till you see the lions!!!
Hey, I've seen a lot in my life, nothing here will touch me. And to be fair to truck I do like it up the ass as long as it's with a woman
Being fair to truck will do you no good
solely based on that last line: welcome to delta
Cheers
On a slightly more constructive tone; if you care about finding out your type in socionics read up on the cog styles (and the main model m article).
Also talk to @Park. Just a hunch.
finally, don't listen to the betas, they think with their reproductive organs, they do NOT know love!
As a final disclaimer; never take me serious! Seriously!
SLI is pretty good typing
Thanks Reficulris!
I think this has come a little early for me. Do by all means, I'll have to look into this stuff over the weekend.
Your shrink has probably never heard of socionics but was typing you offhandedly according to her conception of Myers-Briggs. You could be a Myers-Briggs INFp. I know, for example, two people who test as INFp in MBTI and in Socionics I'd type one of them ISFp and the other ENFp. So they *are* INFP in the first system, simply according to how MBTI works, and they are not INFP (not even close) in the second.Originally Posted by starhand
If your goal is to directly follow up on what the shrink said, take an MBTI test if you haven't already and read about that approach to Jungian typology. Personally I'm not fond of MBTI because I don't agree with its definitions of Jung's concepts and its structural model of the psyche. It also seems to me a shame that MBTI fumbles the interrelations aspect of typology.
I also don't like the overreliance on the tests, although some MBTI people will type via in-depth interviews iirc, which makes more sense to me.
Btw, I'm not sure what your shrink's motivation was, but I suspect s/he was essentially using the shorthand notion of INFp to normalize for you some of the traits you mentioned or implied ... Socially withdrawn, creative, probably sensitive, "torn off" in a dreamlike state. IOW, s/he may be telling you that to some degree those things are normal in that other people also experience them--as inherent and acceptable aspects of their personalities.
And yeah, you shouldn't feel ashamed of qualities like those. I will say that they're not very valued traits in most Western societies so it's up to you to realize that they have value.
But those things might or might not in any particular person equate with INFp. A person could have those qualities and be another type. These habits or traits can be shared by other types. Or in a given person they could be NTR (not type-related) adaptations to experiences or even disorders. Behavior doesn't equate one-for-one with the inner workings, although obviously there will be overlap.
At any rate, my advice is to know that there are different takes on Jung, that settling on a socionics type can take a while and will best be enabled by understanding socionics more fully, and that there's nothing to be defensive about, although often people get defensive here over being typed. It can feel uncomfortable to be scrutinized and evaluated even while knowing that people don't have a complete understanding of you.
Take people's typings as suggestions and info to consider and give it time. No one here even agrees completely on what the types are like and who is what type. So make of all this what you will and be prepared to accept the ambiguity.
Last edited by golden; 09-26-2014 at 02:53 PM.
It doesn't really matter I mean you could just pick a type which makes you feel better and go with that at least it provides something useful?
Hello and welcome @starhand
Last edited by Aylen; 09-26-2014 at 03:43 PM. Reason: to clarify hahah
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Have you gone mad???
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Thanks for your post, I'm not so stuck on being an infp as you may believe. It's just that I've been told one thing and now another. I'm very pleased to have people type me and I'm more than open to change. I've had a lot of information thrown at me and this is a completely new environment for me, I've reacted negitively to that, but I'm with the program now.
Hey, thanks Aylen. Is that ginger hair or are you cheating with the lighting?
it's amazing what a little bottle of something can do.
I literally took that pic when I rolled out of bed so it's wake up hair that I happened to like the look of in that moment! And yes, a little lighting was involved too because the sun shining on me whited out half my face so I adjusted it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You look great in the mornings, what more could a man ask for
So, SLI does tick a number of boxes but it seems to lack the same emotional emphasis that fit me so well with INFP. Good typing though on the grounds of the information provided
ISTP/INFJ ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
I would take tiger as well. 
