^You two do look alike.
Is that an ILE on your arm?
^You two do look alike.
Is that an ILE on your arm?
@Olimpia SEE final type. Added to list
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I type as an introvert... and pretty much everyone who knows me in my life, would think I am one.
So it's hilarious I am being typed as ESFx here... It must be the fact I am making "good" YT vids? Haha.
I think it's my So/Sx-ness mostly, which seems to give some people here the impression I am more "extroverted" than I really am...
Ironically I also made videos about that. Aka Introversion vs Extroversion and Social instinct vids.
Hmm here we go again:
Maritsa Dominant
Olimpia Dominant
Ooo Creative?
MissTortilla looks Dominant
Troll Creative
Subteigh Normalizing (all those charts...)
Adam Dominant
Aster Dominant (ESI)
FDG Normalizing??
Chae Creative
Sol Normalizing? (LSE)
Hotelambush Normalizing
Para Creative
Number9 Dominant
Freya Creative (maybe IEE)
Babooshka Creative
Abbie Dominant???
Vesstheastralsilky Creative
Singu Normalizing
TotheMoon Harmonizing
Last edited by Tallmo; 04-19-2019 at 08:14 AM.
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)
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)
@Olimpia, you are the same type as that girl from the grey shadow movies.
Tallmo's DCNH has significant departure from Gulenko's DCNH. In Gulenko's system D is rare finding.
(This one is quite likely IEI D.. Been around her long enough...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxTSSwXblX4
)
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Do you have a link or something so I can see for myself what he says about Ds being rare? I don't think D is rare in absolute terms. Maybe relatively in contrast to N for example.
I agree she seems D.(This one is quite likely IEI D.. Been around her long enough...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxTSSwXblX4
)
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)
D is not rare, the only thing is that true D's that seem dominant in everyday matters are not very common; most D's are just people who have got their shit together. N's are also common. There are many H's too. The one that is the rarest is C. This is what I've observed anyway...
People from the same Quadra have similar look/ resemblance. What stood out for me was the S- well put together and the E speaking fluidly despite editing. Also introvert is social situation is not type related. An introverted SEE may stay away from people but love makeup because of where their senses are oriented to. Inversely you may have an SEe who is Not at all directed to makeup as a sensory experience but may direct their sense perception to collecting trinkets, or pets, or dresses or plants and flowers. Really the orientation to what each sense perception is drawn to as far as objects is as limitless as objects @Olimpia
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-19-2019 at 11:12 AM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
In Gulenko's system there seems to be no clear bonding elements. There are mostly normalizing subtypes in which one party is bit more dominant (maybe just emotive) than the another party but fails to drive towards actual recognition hence normalizing holds while being fearful of their own well being and status while discarding impulsive dominant drive. Also Gulenko seems to think that that one has to do it for example via neuropsychological tests or Nardi's methods to define subtype not by seeing person without clear indicators of personal history etc.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The difference between subtypes are so clear imo that subtyping people is fairly easy (I am not talking about the forum, but in real life). What strikes me in the D subtype is the dynamic and connecting impression they give compared to other subtypes. That's very far from a Normalizer.
But I need a link or something to Gulenko's claims because I don't believe that the D subtype is rare because it simply isn't. These D+N couples are very common in real life.
So just to clarify my view on this: Dominant subtype does not mean "dominant personality". It simply means that there are certain functional strengths that promote dominance. That may or may not create the impression of a "dominant person". DCNH is a limited typology focusing on something very specific.
We should meet irl and type people on the streets so we can compare our impressions. I live in Helsinki so if you are around and want to meet just send me a message.
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 saw wording true D here very Beta stereotype like people (across all quadras). That is probably Gulenko's D. Most everyday D's re just well functioning N's who have secondary D sub characteristic.
And there are other videos that have indirect implications and also Gulenko's website.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
These are several hours of video. I can't listen through everything to find were he says that. Even though I'm sure it would be interesting.
The D and the N are simply too far apart in real life. I don't see how most "D"s could be just well functioning Ns. I've been in lots of relationships with Ds and the difference to other subtypes is enormous. Maybe not from a distance, but in close contact subtype means a lot..
But I totally agree that some Ds have more expressed dominance and that goes for all subtypes, that in certain people the subtype seems more strongly realized. So I think that might be the reason why we have different opinions on this.
So this video is what I would call a Normalizing+ Dominant couple. Antti Rinne seems like a textbook Normalizer, but Heta Rinne is harder to type in this short video. But I look at her presence and how she seems "dynamic" when she listens and comments to her husband. She gives imo a fairly outgoing and connecting impression, and it seems natural, so my guess is that she is a D subtype.
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’m still trying to get a proper handle on DCNH.
The way I was as a younger person I would’ve said Creative type but since I’ve had a husband/kids I’ve turned sort of into a Normalizing type (or so I thought). Maybe I’m wrong and just don’t get it. If I AM a Dominant type that’s probably lucky because my husband is DEFINITELY a Creative type (no other type can be as messy and not notice it!!)...
I did read a Dominant ILI description once that helped me understand an ILI ex so well. He just was much more out there and confident than some ILI’s I’ve known and could be maybe mistyped as ILE in some respects, but just totally not an ILE. Reading the description of Dominant ILI hit the nail on the head for me. Now when I see an ILI like that it’s just extremely obvious.
How does Dominant type manifest in an ESI?
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
that's my dream, I love you
@Olimpia
I encourage you to read this description and reflect on the video of extrovert and introvert that you posted and how you come off especially in the first paragraph of the description of SEE here
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...SFp-by-Beskova
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html