I don't appreciate the decision to not include some legendary and controversial members I had added (Gilly, discojoe, ashton, UDP, rick, expat, galen). They may be inactive, but it's easy to run into their posts browsing the forum.
I don't appreciate the decision to not include some legendary and controversial members I had added (Gilly, discojoe, ashton, UDP, rick, expat, galen). They may be inactive, but it's easy to run into their posts browsing the forum.
What do others think of including these people?Originally Posted by lavos
Absolutely no problem for me.
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
Why not have a secondary page?
It might be better to have this thread in the General Socionics Discussion subforum, and stickied for the time being.
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
I dislike the worship of these old forum gods.
But its interesting how even internet forums give birth to mythological beings. Even if its just very early stages of mythology.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I got a few alternative typings, which I like. Those are some types that I have seriously considered in the past. They're not too different from my self typing as well.
Sure, why not? The legendary inactives are worth typing at least. Someone who got ten posts 10 years ago though, probably not worth typing.
Btw, may I suggest moving this thread to what's my type and stickying it there? It might possibly fit better there than anything goes.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
They're controversial with good reason. We have to make sense of the spreadsheet's purpose first though. If it is for people finding out about their own types then they can be excluded. If it is for everyone finding out about everyone, then they also have to be excluded as they don't participate themselves. It's aiming for democratic synergy and mutuality after all. If it is mere documentation for its own sake, then: green light! What I secretly suspect though: What was indicated was a question of deserving and relevance/popularity. Then it has to be subjective which is more difficult. I'd have some aversion to mindless worship and legacy cult but they'd be equal in the list and even at a disadvantage since they can't vote? My feeling - as a second generation member that is not too familiar with them - says we can try it, no harm's done, and see what happens. It would be interesting to have consensus there.
I think they should be included. They've been an integral part of our community!
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
