I have not met her. But that is not to say that exceptional behaviour such as this, being as it is, grounded in something very weighty can just be passed aside as you would have it. I was clear also, it was not just the post count...it is the manner in which she posts (the high energy churning out of posts, and with great consistency, day after day), and the way she pursues others aggressively. I went to great lengths to explain this.
It seems on your logic, she cannot be an extrovert because extroverted functions cannot be displayed in written form. Totally false. I really do not see EII types as best typifying someone who regularly cajoles and prods others, pushes others out of the comfort zones, disrupts peaceable conversations, attempts appeals to the masses and uses other forms of "visible shows of support" as arguments, and who aggressively cuts off (and/or retypes) those who disagree with her typing in any way.
I was not speculating on her motives. It is what she regularly states; it is what she regularly reverts to. It is clear what her ingrained beliefs are.
Others in "real life" have disagreed, but that's a hot topic.
I do not buy this argument for the reasons I have previously stated. (Reverting to subtypes is a bullshit approach, and it doesn't even work in this case). As we have agreed that she has a prodigious posting frequency, it seems especially peculiar that she never takes time to ensure that her previous posts express consistency in her typology. Rather, she more typically posts more and more hot-headed responses, escalating the aggro and bad feeling, but never going back to first principles. It again shows an incredible lack of self-awareness. This is in combination with her utter inability to pick up on the nuances of what people are saying, or the general vibe of a post, or of a thread, or of forum opinion towards her (she asks for example for instances where she caused turmoil...admittedly, it could be to continue to attempt to assert a position of "rightness"...but it doesn't seem tenable to someone withPoLR, especially an EII.
Not all EIEs are unhealthy or focus on building their own typologies. I would also say that EIIs on this forum present any such systems differently to Maritsa (if they do at all). It is atypical for it to be an affront on the senses, black-and-white "final and confirmed" typology that regularly causes confrontations (if they involve the types of others at all, they would be more inclined to emphasise the attitude on "in my humble opinion..."
We were talking about the basis of Maritsa's "typology". I contend it is poor(probably dual-seeking
), that apes some "guru"'s method, and that when investigated, falls apart completely. It is shown to be based on circular reasoning, and "J-necks" etc....which typically conform to her own ingrained biases. I think a
-dominant would be more insular in approach, and if a self-described "Socionist"...more self-aware and consistent in their methodology (they would have a methodology for a start, and would typically have a very good idea why they think a certain why when asked.
Only by the same token that you have done, only more so. I would say "completely pointless Ne guesses at bullshit constructs from loosely correlated concrete traits." would be rather typist, in a negative way, of-ism. Nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself, it is just irritating when you for example that you resort to dismissing something as "speculation" (if indeed it is), rather than seeing as potentially useful, if only as "subjective" observations or perceptions. Your attitude would have more weight being placed on Maritsa describing herself as "meek" for example, because she said it, or focusing on Maritsa relating being nice to puppies on one occasion, or indeed, even observing her apparently being nice to other members on this forum. That is also subjective, but at least we are attempting to aggregate our combined experiences and perceptions and trying to cross-examine such accounts.



PoLR, especially an EII.
(probably dual-seeking
-dominant would be more insular in approach, and if a self-described "Socionist"...more self-aware and consistent in their methodology (they would have a methodology for a start, and would typically have a very good idea why they think a certain why when asked.
-ism. Nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself, it is just irritating when you for example that you resort to dismissing something as "speculation" (if indeed it is), rather than seeing as potentially useful, if only as "subjective" observations or perceptions. Your attitude would have more weight being placed on Maritsa describing herself as "meek" for example, because she said it, or focusing on Maritsa relating being nice to puppies on one occasion, or indeed, even observing her apparently being nice to other members on this forum. That is also subjective, but at least we are attempting to aggregate our combined experiences and perceptions and trying to cross-examine such accounts.
