I am definitively LSE. (Here's my original type thread.)
But I don't know what subtype I am. And some people have opinions on that. So here's a poll.
I am also accepting input on my enneagram stacking at this time.
I am definitively LSE. (Here's my original type thread.)
But I don't know what subtype I am. And some people have opinions on that. So here's a poll.
I am also accepting input on my enneagram stacking at this time.
It's actually remarkable how few (read: none) supportive arguments there were for the typing in the original thread. It seems like it would be useful to refer back to and build upon those to help determine a subtype, but...yeah. Are there any other instances where your self-typing was discussed in detail?
Few people have typed me something other than LSE, and they were not in agreement. So I don't know whether that would be found. I don't ask people what my base type is because I never questioned it.
I briefly considered DCNH after making the poll, but figured there was no need to complicate matters with one of the more questionable (to my mind) theories.
Oh sorry, I just deleted my post when I realised you weren't actually asking about DCNH subtype (I think I had DCNH on the brain because I was discussing it in the chatbox recently with someone else). It would be good if you could restore my post if you can!
Reading the LSE subtypes on the wiki, I would undoubtedly say you were the -subtype if you were an LSE, because you come across as dry, not prone to being energetic etc.. I do not know you personally however. Such traits could just as readily be indicative of other types altogether.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
typing needs video
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450
anyway, there are no subtypes in socionics
I won't choose a poll option as that might suggest I am strongly confident of your self-typing.
I think even if the DCNH system was useful, it would be difficult to assign definitively, especially as an entity distinct from your Socionics type.
Nonetheless, I would say you are not C or H, and that you are probably N. I may have said this before. It is possible that this perspective reflects aspects of your personality however.
Gonna go with Te subtype for you. You remind me a lot of an LSE-Te that I know in real life. Based on your posts on this forum, your demeanour comes across as very rational and calm, which is commonly seen in Te subtypes. The Si subtype would be more laidback. The Te subtype has a more reserved and serious demeanor to them.
That's the thing: She's focused on values. Also, in my culture thread, she posted that she had what I consider alpha values rather than delta, since those descriptions of American/Canadian and German-speaking cultures were just the intersection of observed quadra behaviors and cultural stereotypes (that are not necessarily always accurate). The reason that most people agree with her self-typing on that other thread is that she is influencing everyone to through a mix of charisma and intimidation, which is an Fe thing from my experience.
I said few people agree because I was talking to a bunch of non-agreers in chat once. I think I had a biased sample then.
Last edited by Pallas; 09-26-2016 at 02:13 AM.
Idk if its because youre female but you seem very LSE-Si. In fact, I would even say your second most likely typing imo is ESE-Si!
Here's a small box of Randomly Assorted Adjectives~ ( i ate a package of starburst recently)
Motherly
Self-controlled
Micro-managing
Good-natured
Hoping-for-the-best-for-every-situation-and-person
Helpful
Reasonable
knows what to do
good at things that im not
Purity
Devoutly faithful
charming
lightweight (not literally but that too) and fairylike (idk just accept this)
delicious(just your everyday generic word from the language of english : ) )
Last edited by chrys; 09-26-2016 at 02:39 AM.
@Director Abbie
Definitely Si subtype. You are more like homemaker-ish and make art for people and design stuff and less mansplaining Te asshole about stuff. Well when you do bluntly state your opinion, it's not really in a direct pure Te way. That all points to Si, not Te. Although we clash- you do not hit my polr as directly as a Te-subtype would.
Sure, sounds cool, but I'm not sure how that makes you LSE...
Jeff Goldblum.png
The page posts the same picture every day.
The reactions are divided by 10 so the chart won't be too enormous. So there are actually ten times as many as shown.
That big jump happened in June/July of this year. The first slump was August/September of 2014.
October 29, 2015 was out of order. So was March 2016.
February 23, 2016 had a double post.
There's no correlation between post popularity and day of the week.
There were 469 pictures. Given the start date, there should have been 715.
This is my hobby.
Are you just typing me ESE because you're beta and you like me and you can't like a Delta?
(Why do I like ILIs so much?)
Would you like to see me dualize with my some EIIs?
Back to the topic: there's still no consensus on subtype. B&D had the best explanation so far though.
I like Deltas generally, actually, I just don't understand them. LSEs just generally don't do work as a hobby, nor do any Deltas as far as I know.
I had a second thought on whether it counts as work.
I know in physics, work is force multiplied by distance, meaning if you're just sitting at a computer moving the mouse occasionally, that's less work than breathing.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/work
According to definitions 3 and 4, graphing is not work. But according to definition 1, it is. (And according to definition 2, it's not in this case.)
*whispers @BulletsAndDoves* That's because she's not actually LSE at all...