Hence, the lesser quantity of men is enough (for Ne types, at least). This is good.Originally Posted by Aramas
> I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality.
Yep, there was the recommendation to use the romantically interesting sex. As romantically interesting sex/gender is more associated with the soul friendship, while other sex shifts to co-operation (and hence to similar types). Also the impressions from that sex should be stronger.
I'm glad that my hypothesis seems was correct and the recommendation have worked on you. I also saw a girl (EIE) which reported homosexual behavior and showed such interests, - she have chosen quasi-identity type to top and some of her club as the best, while types of duals club placed to bottom, where own duals placed to the lowest 16th position.
> I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about.
The problem is the test is not perfect. You are lucky to have Ne type what made the sorting easier. The full sorting is intended to find tendencies, as excellent fiting to IR theory is not expected.
> I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes.
It's empathy - common for NF types, especially having Fi in ego.
> This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.
Are you able to assume Enneagram type by impressions from nonverbal on video-interview with unknown language? Like you do with Socionics types. I'd pm you a clip to think.
> I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set.
What types you've chosen on 1st step?
> Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK.
Which LII there?
> I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see.
Your type seems to be NF, at least. Some suspicion is for EII, as high empathy is more common for them, than IEE. So if you have doubts in own type you may check it by creating a second account (afte some time) and a typing thread - then you remove the video (after 2 weeks, for example) - and so keep high anonymity. On the video you may tell any general things you like, as the main text is placed in questionnaires anyway.
There are no subtypes in classical Socionics so I don't even try to use that bs.
> just from that I know his typing performance is low
So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently.
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type.If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.
Your behavior closer to F type.
Reply With Quote