2015 Type Galen Thread

[Aylen]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-on-Sexuality

Links like these are very constructive to a typing thread. It gives a broader perspective on someone. One of the things I dislike about people typing each other is that they only see random posts/comments then try to use that to construct a personality type around someone without a lot of interaction. When I think I know someone's type, and I care enough to prove it to myself that I am right, I have to almost stalk them by reading their blogs and posts to see if I am getting the full picture. IOW I do my research...

It's nothing really personal about them, even though I may feel a draw to them, so i'm not a creeper, just curious about my own impressions. It is like, first I will get an impression then I set out to prove to myself that my impressions are right. I tend to keep most of them to myself in case I am wrong. New information about someone can equal a different perspective so it is always evolving. It is easier to type people I have known for years based on historical evidence leading to a pretty solid understanding of how I interact with them but even then people surprise me...

I have never had any problem seeing Galen as an aristocratic sx/sp.

[anndelise]

IOW I do my research...

It's nothing really personal about them, even though I may feel a draw to them, so i'm not a creeper, just curious about my own impressions. It is like, first I will get an impression then I set out to prove to myself that my impressions are right. I tend to keep most of them to myself in case I am wrong. New information about someone can equal a different perspective so it is always evolving.

When I go to actually, seriously type someone, I do similar, only not looking to prove my impressions right, but more to see where i am wrong/right and/or need to adjust my perception of them. But yes, similar.

[Minde]

Galen: totally ISTj.



On a serious note, socionics is to people what a map is to terrain. Maps, no matter how thoroughly researched and carefully built, are still just representations of a much more complex and detailed reality. A map is, by nature, a simplification and abstraction. It doesn't mean it's in error, though due to human nature the chances are high there are some mistakes. Also, maps usually have different foci and purposes. My phone's GPS map is all about navigating me through man-made streets and mainly includes just info to that goal; a topographic map has a very different purpose and different features. And, yet, they both can simultaneously accurately describe the same thing. I see socionics and the enneagram (and all sorts of other theories on humans) similarly, @William.

[golden]

Hi, Galen, I did a certification program this summer and a guy there reminded me of you in a general sense. Specific to him ... He was pretty quiet but intense, he had a strong presence, like I was always aware of him and wondering what his take on things might be during classes. When he did speak up, he was authoritative and incisive, and kind of striking in his expression but without histrionics.

At the end of the program he gave this incredible presentation that blew everyone away.

Anyway I figured him for IEE.

Here are descriptors for some of the various IEEs I've been acquainted with:

* warm, grounded
* feisty, sweet
* bouncy
* pensive, romantic
* hardass do-gooder

@William, please see list above. IEE is a type I think expresses a LOT of diversity. A couple of other things to note ... You're taking stuff Galen says waaaay too literally. You're also missing his humor. He isn't as wysiwyg or transparent as you are--I mean no offense there.

He's also decidedly humanistic in his point of view imo. How he could be seen as a Te ego is perplexing.

Hope I didn't misrepresent you, Galen, these are things I observe abt you but could be off.

[darya]

I've never talked to Galen one-on-one, but I believe you @GOLDEN if you know him well personally... these are just not the first adjectives I'd use to describe him from my experience:

* warm, grounded
* sweet
* hardass do-gooder
* humanistic

I don't think Galen is LIE though. Also what I have to admit is that he VI's almost identically to one of my friends who I'm positive is IEE.

Anyway, this thread is retarded in any case.

[darya]

Can't we just blame it all on enneagram and call it a day?

The magic's in the instincts girl, the instincts.... haven't you learned anything?!

[golden]

I've never talked to Galen one-on-one, but I believe you @GOLDEN if you know him well personally... these are just not the first adjectives I'd use to describe him from my experience:

* warm, grounded
* sweet
* hardass do-gooder
* humanistic

I don't think Galen is LIE though. Also what I have to admit is that he VI's almost identically to one of my friends who I'm positive is IEE.

Anyway, this thread is retarded in any case.

I don't claim to know Galen well, I've just observed him over several years.

[Olly From Wally World]

This thread is one big circle jerk. William's reasoning wasn't perfect, sure, but he at least attempted to do what the thread was meant to do, type Gaylen, and he seems to be getting shit for it since he's not defending his oh-so-obvious IEE status in a type me thread. While I don't think he's LIE, I also don't get much of an base vibe from him but I can be easily swayed as I probably know him the least of the peeps here.

Can you provide anything for some VI or even make a video? Now that'll be cool and I'm sure your buddies here will be happy to provide some questions. If you want attention, now that'll spice this thread up, maybe become a top thread a lot easier but it's probably already heading there (I'm sure you have more buddies on their way who haven't made an appearance yet).

[willekeurig]

I'm too lazy to write a longer explanation, but you resemble an Fi-IEE friend of mine a lot, especially when it comes to humour. Funnily enough, she's so/sp. I haven't really thought about it but Fi-IEE sx/sp makes a lot of sense to me. I could see you as E1 as well as E6, but I don't really know shit about enneagram.

[Galen]

Ok. Whatever, man. As we've discovered, this thread wasn't really about hearing alternate perspectives about your socionics type, but more about your basking in the yearly tradition of your type-thread and promoting your attention-seeking narcissism. This was a giant waste of time for your to ask others what they thought your type was, and then reject any honest opinions from anyone else. I still have other non-IEE ideas about your type besides LIE, but obviously at this point you don't want to hear them and quite frankly I don't wish to share them.

It most certainly was not a waste of time. Through this thread I got to figure out who knew what they were talking about and who weren't.

I also think this post of yours shows proof of your cowardice to post any functional definition out of fear others will disagree. Hmm, better to stick to the "experiential level" then where nobody can disagree with you or your personal experiences, that way you can always be right.

Because every time somebody asks for a definition of this shit it's always appended with "YEAH BUT SO IF THIS XYZ THEN ALSO THIS OTHER INCORRECT EXTRAPOLATION DUH." It needlessly obligates me to draw in every single tiny fine-tuned detail all the little nuances about what I'm observing into oblivion, only to have them misinterpreted and taken to literally by folks like you who 1) have shitty critical reading skills and 2) don't know how to take what I say as a grab-bag of general observations and try to work an iron-clad systematized in between everything where it doesn't belong. It's frustrating and anxiety-wracking as fuck. If that ain't Ti-PoLR then I don't know what is.

[darya]

It most certainly was not a waste of time. Through this thread I got to figure out who knew what they were talking about and who weren't.

This thread has got me thinking what is it that I find so irritable with many Delta NF's here that I don't otherwise - I happen to get above average with them??? It's probably that we're all just so much more pussified and diplomatic and no one says what we really think about each other. If we would speak our minds freely or know what others really think of us, we would probably just off ourselves or at least become even more misanthropic.

[Alomoes]

Man. Wow. My faith in humanity, it is shriveling away. I shall try typing you. Do you know what group you are in? Alpha, Beta, Gamma, or Delta? I don't know which would be which, because I'm new here.

I'm a beta.

[suedehead]

This sounds like you. You give off this vibe where everything you say feels like this ironic joke, or like it's too good for me to know about or whatever. It could be social-last solipsism, but I don't get the same sort of vibe from lungs, hitta, etc. You put psuedo-science labels on a rigid pedestal and look at pictures of the most neutral-looking people, call them cretins based on just that criteria and project a bunch of shit about them.

In contrast, Aristocratic types operate with the assumption that certain people are either inherently similar or different. With people to whom they feel they relate or share certain things, they speak easily of experiences that they assume to be mutual, omitting things that the other is assumed to know and making statements or judgments based on what is taken for granted as common knowledge without drawing any attention to it; they assume that people either speak their language, or don't.