Rocky

[olduser]

Remember when user Rocky use to campaign for people to read Jung's foundations of the psychological type, and basically said, "you'll never understand anything if you don't understand this." This is what type descriptions would label ISTj behaviour. He chose the best of the available systems(to him) to implement and improve his thoughts on socionics. Oh, and he definitely strikes me as a narrator.

[flower]

Remember when user Rocky use to campaign for people to read Jung's foundations of the psychological type, and basically said, "you'll never understand anything if you don't understand this." This is what type descriptions would label ISTj behaviour.

That is very typical ISTj behaviour. My dad is ISTj and rocky you do come across as ISTj quite often. The way you write is often directed towards closure, eg is this or that, and you do seem a different type from me, your quite forceful in some of your posts sometimes (Se 2nd), also the number of posts you make I dont think would be typical of an ISTp. Having said that though, I would find it strange for someone to know so much about socionics, find his type and then disbelieve it a long time after. For me, the more I found out about socionics, the more it confirms im ISTp, unless of course you have always not been sure of your type. If you quickly found your type early on and never entertained the idea it might be wrong and subconsiously 'chose' to ignore evidence against your being that type, then you have another reason to suspect ISTj.

Your descriptions of Introverted Sensing and of an ISTp are far too accurate for you to be another type IMO and demonstrates your abilities to understand your self. I am open to your personality type being another type such as ISTj, but I am confused since you have stated that you did not get along well with your ENFj mom

I have always thought of you as ISTp, this is a very good reason why. Maybe you have learnt this intellectually and subjectivly made yourself find evidence to support you believing you are ISTp, and relationships are highly situational, even though I agree with the validity of the intertype relationship themes. Hmm, I do think your understanding of Si is way to good though for you not to be ISTp, as you have often come up with some origonal stuff that hits the spot. But then again, you often give people advice on there types, though VI and through their posts, which points to ISTj, decisions off of clearly limited information, something I feel I cant do,
And for that reason, I haven't helped you one bit lol

[Rocky]

Im not going to make out with you Rocky :/

Oh? Are you an autistic ISFP now?

Supposed duals.

wtf, autistic?

My post was in reference to Topaz's post.

I know but I mean "wtf, autistic?" as in "do tell..."

Oh, I don't know... that was Topaz's word, not mine...

[Rocky]

I think he is ISTp, because so far none of his posts have annoyed me at ALL. So that'd make sense, with me being an ENFp...

Of course... unless it's wrong to say that TiSe and NeFi are always in conflict... but that's another story...

[Rocky]

ho said ISTPs are boring anyway?

Rick (http://socionics.us/).

OK Rocky, you got a wild streak and dont want to be seen as a fuddydud. Thats good. Kierseys ISTPs are wild daredevils and gun slingers, egaliterian, insubordinate, fearless, action craving, flamboyant, restless, glory seeking heros.

Yes, I know... but that's supposively what he calls "SP temperment". According to some definitions, SP Thinkers actually sound more like Beta, and SJ Thinkers sound more like Delta. Of course, this would mean that the J and P would switch for the most part, which I've denied in the past. But as I've said several times already, this depends on who you ask. The reason I changed my sig was to make fun of the different view points of the types, and point out that not every type means the same to every person.

[Rocky]

Remember when user Rocky use to campaign for people to read Jung's foundations of the psychological type, and basically said, "you'll never understand anything if you don't understand this." This is what type descriptions would label ISTj behaviour.

That is very typical ISTj behaviour. My dad is ISTj and rocky you do come across as ISTj quite often. The way you write is often directed towards closure, eg is this or that, and you do seem a different type from me, your quite forceful in some of your posts sometimes (Se 2nd), also the number of posts you make I dont think would be typical of an ISTp.

Is that Se/Si differences, or male/female differences?

Having said that though, I would find it strange for someone to know so much about socionics, find his type and then disbelieve it a long time after.

Yes, but I've also criticized certain parts of it from time to time... mostly because everything socionics says could not possibally line up with me, no matter what type I picked.

Your descriptions of Introverted Sensing and of an ISTp are far too accurate for you to be another type IMO and demonstrates your abilities to understand your self. I am open to your personality type being another type such as ISTj, but I am confused since you have stated that you did not get along well with your ENFj mom

I have always thought of you as ISTp, this is a very good reason why. Maybe you have learnt this intellectually and subjectivly made yourself find evidence to support you believing you are ISTp, and relationships are highly situational, even though I agree with the validity of the intertype relationship themes.

Do you remember that PM I sent you awhile ago?

Hmm, I do think your understanding of Si is way to good though for you not to be ISTp, as you have often come up with some origonal stuff that hits the spot.

Can you explain?

But then again, you often give people advice on there types, though VI and through their posts, which points to ISTj, decisions off of clearly limited information, something I feel I cant do,
And for that reason, I haven't helped you one bit lol

Hmm... decisions off of limited information... what is that related to?

[Rocky]

in the very least, he doesn't seem Ti

I agree.

OK, can you people explain?

[Joy]

not without pissing off alpha and beta

[Slacker]

in the very least, he doesn't seem Ti

I agree.

OK, can you people explain?

Rocky, I made a post about how I react differently to Te and Ti in General Discussion.

[implied]

i think it's because you have a very, very theoretical, academic vibe that you might not seem quite ISTp. ISTp works, though.

[Rocky]

not without pissing off alpha and beta

Just go ahead, I don't care if some people get "pissed off" (and actually, you would be potentially pissing me off in that case). I don't think that it works to keep on talking about who's Ti/Te/etc... if we don't all understand what everyone else is talking about when we say it.

I'll give my views of what I think the general view of these functions are soon.

[Rocky]

This is what I see...



Dull and boring, formal, trying to get everyone to adhere to the same set of rules, controlling (or in the more elaborate words of Jung, "In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence"), blinded by the purely statistical, critical of other people without the ability to come up with their own ideas, business-like relationships, at ease with laying out and expressing clear logic, judges other people, believes in social "rankings" and "credentials"...



Sometimes can make things up in the absence of facts (manipulative), loves to break things down to it's components to understand it, categorizes things, difficult time expressing itself, hides from emotions, resistant to common "rules", can sometimes deal with ideas for the sake of seeing how they'll work out, skeptical of people with "credentials"...

Correct me if these aren't common views of thw functions on this forum.

According to the above, I don't know how I'd justify being Te.

[Slacker]

If that's true, my husband isn't Te either. That is so not him.

Dull and boring, formal

That's subjective, so whatever.

trying to get everyone to adhere to the same set of rules, controlling

Absolutely not. He doesn't try to control anyone and doesn't like to be controlled. Isn't not wanting to be controlled or control others kind of a Delta thing?

(or in the more elaborate words of Jung, "In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence")

My eyes glazed over at that. No comment.

blinded by the purely statistical, critical of other people without the ability to come up with their own ideas

I think my husband probably is a bit critical of people who don't have the ability to come up with their own ideas. I can see that.

business-like relationships

My husband is quite friendly with people if he is comfortable with them - including people he works with. But I can see how people who don't know Te people that well could see them that way. Still, in that case it's subjective.

at ease with laying out and expressing clear logic

I think he is good at this.

judges other people, believes in social "rankings"and "credentials"

Again, not my husband at ALL. If that's Te, then he isn't.

But I'm inclined to think that the description isn't right.

[Rocky]

But I'm inclined to think that the description isn't right.

Yeah that's always possible... I was just saying what I see the general views of the functions of this forum (and some sites) seem to be.

[Rocky]

(or in the more elaborate words of Jung, "In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence")

My eyes glazed over at that. No comment.

It basically means that they feel most comfortable when then can exercize control over people... almost to the point of suffocating them with supervision.

blinded by the purely statistical, critical of other people without the ability to come up with their own ideas

I think my husband probably is a bit critical of people who don't have the ability to come up with their own ideas. I can see that.

Oops, I think you misread it. It says that they are critcal of other's ideas *without* their own ability to come up with something better. I don't know if it's true, but that's often said about Te in socionics.

[Slacker]

(or in the more elaborate words of Jung, "In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence")

My eyes glazed over at that. No comment.

It basically means that they feel most comfortable when then can exercize control over people... almost to the point of suffocating them with supervision.

Hmmm. I think he kind of likes things to be done his way, but I don't think "almost to the point of suffocating them with supervision." Although, again, that is subjective.

blinded by the purely statistical, critical of other people without the ability to come up with their own ideas

I think my husband probably is a bit critical of people who don't have the ability to come up with their own ideas. I can see that.

Oops, I think you misread it. It says that they are critcal of other's ideas *without* their own ability to come up with something better. I don't know if it's true, but that's often said about Te in socionics.

Aaah yeah that might be. I don't know. And maybe I'm the one who is critical of people who can't come up with ideas.

[Rocky]

This is what Rick said + is;

extraverted logic blocked with introverted sensing:
Types from the Delta Quadra value pragmatism, hard work, beautifully functional items, and earthy humor and enjoy "productive" relationships where people do projects together. They are usually emotionally subdued and like to discuss topics seriously with the intention of implementing their conclusions.

This sounds %100 boring.

This is + ;

extraverted sensing blocked with introverted logic:
Types from the Beta Quadra are drawn to hierarchical structures that increase their personal power. They like to see convictions and beliefs materialized physically in the real world. They are often starkly blunt in their views and like "strong" humor.

...and then Beta in general...

Subdued elements:
The Beta Quadra is especially sensitive to and critical of earthiness, pronounced pragmatism, emotional indifference, and people who analyze their psychology and motives behind their backs.

Typical Beta quadra group behavior:
Lengthy, theatrical monologues. Loud, hearty laughter. Importance given to group rituals such as those related to food and drink. Displays of great generosity and inclusion, but with the demand of emotional involvement in group. Rowdiness. Generally theatrical atmosphere, but with periodic moments of "dead seriousness."

Beta just sounds more fun, lol.

[Slacker]

Well, that description doesn't sound boring to me. It does sound like it might be more about ISTps over the age of 30 or so.

[flower]

Is that Se/Si differences, or male/female differences?

Are male/female types are born the same or not? tough one, but even if there not, social programming may certainly cause a shift for males becoming more judemental, goal orientated and forceful. However, type is the dominant factor I believe, eg an ESTp female will always be more socially agressive than a INFp male, although a group of ESTp males and females will on average show the stereotypical gender behaviour differences relative to each other. So no, I think those traits most probably reflect type and not gender. Of course, 100 ISTp's will all be different people and this may just be statistical difference.

Yes, but I've also criticized certain parts of it from time to time... mostly because everything socionics says could not possibally line up with me, no matter what type I picked.

I see, this is personally where socionics is a little annoying, it's often too general and lacks specifics, hence why its generally hard to find your type for certain, and indeed type others. However, given the nature of psychology maybe its just not possible to be as specific as I would like, as all people engage in nearly all behaviours from time to time.

Do you remember that PM I sent you awhile ago?

Yeah I do, maybe if MBTI was extended by more of the family to include intertype relations, it would reveal a lot!

Can you explain?

Hmm, I remember things like you saying a baseball player knew instantly as soon as he picked up a new bat that it was a fraction smaller than his old bat. This is exactly Si working, storing of sense impressions and recalling and comparing later on in time, in this case touch/feel. It's like this for sight, sound, taste also. You have come up with other examples of Si which demonstrate a good understanding aswell although I cant remember specifically without going back through tons of posts.

Hmm... decisions off of limited information... what is that related to?

I just mean as a j/p difference, j naturally wanting to form decisions, opinions and judgements and feeling comfortable doing so, regardless of the information one holds, rather than the typical p mentality of wanting to hold off decisions, opinions and judgements as there is more that could be know that may effect these.

One other thing, your description above sounds like it applies to people with a Te base function, but not so much for a Te creative function. As an example, ESTj's are very tuned into and love social rankings and hierarchies, ISTp's usually actively dislike them.

Hope you find your type soon, I dunno what I would do if I lost mine :wink:

[Gilly]

ESTj's are very tuned into and love social rankings and hierarchies

Tuned in? Perhaps. Love, or, for that matter, favor in any way? I would disagree, both conceptually and from my own experience.

[Rocky]

Can you explain?

Hmm, I remember things like you saying a baseball player knew instantly as soon as he picked up a new bat that it was a fraction smaller than his old bat. This is exactly Si working, storing of sense impressions and recalling and comparing later on in time, in this case touch/feel. It's like this for sight, sound, taste also. You have come up with other examples of Si which demonstrate a good understanding aswell although I cant remember specifically without going back through tons of posts.

Yes, that was Ted Williams actually.

Hmm... decisions off of limited information... what is that related to?

I just mean as a j/p difference, j naturally wanting to form decisions, opinions and judgements and feeling comfortable doing so, regardless of the information one holds, rather than the typical p mentality of wanting to hold off decisions, opinions and judgements as there is more that could be know that may effect these.

ehh...

One other thing, your description above sounds like it applies to people with a Te base function, but not so much for a Te creative function. As an example, ESTj's are very tuned into and love social rankings and hierarchies, ISTp's usually actively dislike them.

Well yes, that's the question... why don't IxTPs identify with those descriptions if they are supposed to be similar to ExTJs?

Hope you find your type soon, I dunno what I would do if I lost mine :wink:

Oh, I haven't lost my type.

I have said many times since I've changed my sig that it was in reaction to the inconsistancy in the views of what each type actually is, more then me changing my mind. I do have a very clear understanding of myself and that has never changed. I also think I have a strong view of how others around me fall into "type categories", but I have no reason whatsoever to share my views on how I see the 16 types since anything not devotedly socionics is instantly rejected. Oh well. I will continue to see things my way and you guys can categorize me any way you want to.

I'm done.

[Rocky]

ESTj's are very tuned into and love social rankings and hierarchies

Tuned in? Perhaps. Love, or, for that matter, favor in any way? I would disagree, both conceptually and from my own experience.

Well, conceptually, it is said to be .

[Gilly]

Social hierarchies are said to be ? I would most definitely disagree.

[Joy]

Me too. They're more Fe than Te.

[niveK]

Me too. They're more Fe than Te.

... How?

[Gilly]

Hierarchy:
Social: F

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[niveK]

Hierarchy:
Social: F

I can't really see social heirarchies as F. And I'd hardly say every heirarchy is , though I could see a case for 's involvement in social heirarchies, though it wouldn't be the lone function. Heirarchies are a kind of categorization, something I would put in the T domain.

[Rocky]

. I also think I have a strong view of how others around me fall into "type categories", but I have no reason whatsoever to share my views on how I see the 16 types since anything not devotedly socionics is instantly rejected. Oh well. I will continue to see things my way and you guys can categorize me any way you want to.

I'm done.

arrrgh. That's SO frustrating. Rocky: I have ideas but I'm not going to share them. Ack! That just makes me more curious as to know what they are.

OK.

I'll admit that I adhere strongest to what functions can be categorized to be inborn... in other words, connected to the brain. I just think that's the closest to reality. And I think over time, I have learned enough facts about the brain's working to believe that it's plausable... even though so much of the brain is still hidden. And yes, there are many people who think that this way of thinking is still insane or whatever.

[FDG]

Hierarchy:
Social: F

I agree, particularly, and ( ISTjs are the most "attuned" to hierarchies IME )

OK.

I'll admit that I adhere strongest to what functions can be categorized to be inborn... in other words, connected to the brain. I just think that's the closest to reality. And I think over time, I have learned enough facts about the brain's working to believe that it's plausable... even though so much of the brain is still hidden. And yes, there are many people who think that this way of thinking is still insane or whatever

I agree with you