Results 1 to 40 of 100

Thread: chips and underwear's type

Threaded View

  1. #9
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    where did this come from? nobody said that chips should act differently from herself. if someone thinks that chips could be an Ethical type, it doesn't necessarily mean they "want her to conform to the stereotype" are "puffing their brain out" lol. i wonder why you are being so presumptuous about how other people think about typing? :/

    if anything i'm often hesitant to "question" people's self-typings, because i know a lot of people on this forum are dealing with non-socionic psychological issues often related to a crisis of identity, and that's a sensitive matter. i only did it here because chips herself said she's reconsidering her type atm.
    I don't mean to be presumptuous. What I was referring to was not related to chip directly or anyone trying to type her. It was observing that many logical types tend to overdo their logic online. I know many LIIs in person and none talk and behave in person as online; the ones I know are way more fun and easy going and accommodating, irl. Not like an ethical type, but still more than they present online. Online there is a lot of effort into proving your type and this often occurs by people behaving in stereotypical ways. This is easily observed on NT forums. When you do not behave as such you are rejected as NT. It is a social phenomenon. Any talk of ethical concerns, if not done right, will make you suspect. If they really are an ethical type, then so be it. I'm only saying that it is entirely in the realm of possibility that an NT can express ethical sentiments and still be an NT. That's all. It's in the theory.

    I thought "brain puffing out" was funny
    Last edited by Skepsis; 10-07-2015 at 08:26 AM. Reason: grammar
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •