DarkAngelFireWolf69's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[Computer Loser]

I define personality basically as your personality type enneagram/socionics. Its clearly inborn as there are already clear differences between children in personality.

Im not Te valuing because I dont fit those descriptions

just follow your heart bro

[Subteigh]

I define personality basically as your personality type enneagram/socionics. Its clearly inborn as there are already clear differences between children in personality.

Im not Te valuing because I dont fit those descriptions

It doesn't have to be 100% inborn.

Also, environmental factors include conditions in the womb.

[Number 9 large]

It doesn't have to be 100% inborn.

says who

[Subteigh]

says who

The fact that environmental factors occur even before birth.

[Number 9 large]

The fact that environmental factors occur even before birth.

If uve got a red car and u scratch it, its not a red car anymore?

[Number 9 large]

The fact that environmental factors occur even before birth.

and how does this change personality or dna?

[flames]

You’re all just ESIs like Olimpia said. Now close this thread.

[khcs]

Identical twins always have different personality type. Always.

In this particular case one of them is ESTP and the other one is ENFJ. This is activity intertype relationship.



The one with the eyeliner is the ESTP. The one with the brush is the ENFJ.

[Number 9 large]

Identical twins always have different personality type. Always.

In this particular case one of them is ESTP and the other one is ENFJ. This is activity intertype relationship.



The one with the eyeliner is the ESTP. The one with the brush is the ENFJ.

LMAO

[khcs]

The other solution is slightly different.

The father may be an INFP which eliminates the possibility of an ESTP daughter.

The one with the eyeliner can be an ENTJ. The one with the brush is the ENFJ. That would be business intertype relationship.

[Number 9 large]

^ id like to add that the ENTJ girl has clearly a bit darker hair than the other. can you see it too @khcs ?

[khcs]

^ id like to add that the ENTJ girl has clearly a bit darker hair than the other.

The one with a slightly darker voice seem to be the ENTJ.

[Number 9 large]

The one with a slightly darker voice seem to be the ENTJ.

Now that I think of it, the other girl is ESFJ.

[Alive]

identical twins seem like an interesting research project that I don't have the time for right now. might really prove the theory that types are inborn and determined by your genetics. I remember watching a documentary some years ago about the topic, quite fascinating. I even found the link (it's in german, though). looking at it now, I think both are EIE, they work as artists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WiD...ature=youtu.be

[Alive]

May I ask why did you think so? While I was reading through DarkAngelFireWolf69's website material, I felt harmonizing or creative subtype would be a better fit for me. However, I'm not familiar very much with DCNH theory yet, so I'm not discarding this possibility..

If you are interested, I could send you link with a part of my video I sent to DarkAngelFireWolf69. Not ready to share it publicly. Not after those mean comments I get here ;-) In fact, I'm considering to remove my video I shared, so if you want to rewatch it, please do so quickly... :-D

I can't really explain why I came to that conclusion. I generally pay attention to how people communicate, their manner of speech. I try to see if they are a contact or distant subtype, because D and C have accentuated extroverted functions, so their way of communication is more direct or fluently.

[Subteigh]

If uve got a red car and u scratch it, its not a red car anymore?

It's not the same object.

[Subteigh]

and how does this change personality or dna?

You still haven't explained what you mean by "personality".

But according to studies with Big Five traits: "Twin studies and other research have shown that about half of the variation between individuals results from their genetic inheritance and half from their environment. Researchers have found conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism to be relatively stable from childhood through adulthood."

[khcs]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "personality".

But according to studies with Big Five traits: "Twin studies and other research have shown that about half of the variation between individuals results from their genetic inheritance and half from their environment. Researchers have found conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism to be relatively stable from childhood through adulthood."

Big Five traits are in fact identical to the Jungian functions. They mixed up these functions in order to deceive you.

[Number 9 large]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "personality".

But according to studies with Big Five traits: "Twin studies and other research have shown that about half of the variation between individuals results from their genetic inheritance and half from their environment. Researchers have found conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism to be relatively stable from childhood through adulthood."

Exactly. So its inborn mate. I said personality is your personality type enneagram/socionics/mbti.

[khcs]

Enneagram deals with personality traits and not personality types. So it is something different. Socionics and MBTI are the same thing.

Well, it is possible to describe a type with Enneagram traits. It is more precise when personality types are described by the Jungian functions.

[Subteigh]

Exactly. So its inborn mate. I said personality is your personality type enneagram/socionics/mbti.

Half of it, maybe bro.

[Subteigh]

Big Five traits are in fact identical to the Jungian functions. They mixed up these functions in order to deceive you.

Do you have any actual evidence either way?

[Alive]

Do you have any actual evidence either way?

extraversion is the only jungian dichotomy that the big five uses, and they use it in a very different way. you could say that openess relates to intuitive functions, agreeableness to ethical functions, conscientiousness to being a normalising subtype, but then again, big five measures these traits very differently. neuroticism isn't even covered in socionics. khcs lives in an imaginative world where facts don't really exist, you won't get any evidence for his ridiculous claims. he showcases Te as vulnerable function very well though. 2+2=5, but the sad thing is he actually thinks he's correct. reminds me of the people who think that the earth is flat.

[Number 9 large]

Do you have any actual evidence either way?

that feel when u have no brain to figure shit out urself

[Nobody]

extraversion is the only jungian dichotomy that the big five uses, and they use it in a very different way. you could say that openess relates to intuitive functions, agreeableness to ethical functions, conscientiousness to being a normalising subtype, but then again, big five measures these traits very differently. neuroticism isn't even covered in socionics. khcs lives in an imaginative world where facts don't really exist, you won't get any evidence for his ridiculous claims. he showcases Te as vulnerable function very well though. 2+2=5, but the sad thing is he actually thinks he's correct. reminds me of the people who think that the earth is flat.

How is it fundamentally all that different though? Sure, I know some people might say that it's statistical and that the dichotomies could be defined a little different. But for example, I think it's probably something like this

openness = irrationality (S or N, depending). I think S types can be more open to the depth of experiencing things, while N is more open to breadth.
agreeable = Probably high correlation to F as a whole, since F types are going to be more sensitive and nuanced on F type stuff. It just doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise for someone good at F to conflict with everybody. Unless perhaps they are neurotic.
conscientious = rationality just makes sense because it requires premeditation. Irrationality perceives.
neuroticism = affectively Jungian neuroticism, which still applies to sociotypes because they are Jungian based. So a neurotic F type might not be very agreeable when showing neurotic elements. Someone like Jordan Peterson, for example, strikes me as agreeable when he's comfortable that becomes a lot more argumentative and disagreeable when things don't make sense to him and he thinks people are being illogical. I think T types have the opposite problem where they are fine conflicting with people, as long as it works for them, but when it doesn't, they want badly to find a way to make amends. It's like they are children that push the limits too far and get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

which is pretty damn close.

[Alive]

Gukenko made a comment on the big five in an interview that I translated a couple of years ago.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Victor_DarkAngelFireWolf69

3. How does The Big 5 relate to neuroticism index?


The basic scale of The Big 5 can relate to socionics, as there are a lot of similiarities. The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling. The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but DarkAngelFireWolf69 discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally.


this question covers the other topic that we are talking about:

1. Is type innate? If so, at what age does type become set and can be observed? If not, what affects one's typing?


The type is innate, but its energy and information are filled gradually. You can observe the type from the day the child is born. Somehow, this type you can already observe within the first years of child development, and one child will be loud and whiny, another will be calm, third will be careful and fearful, the fourth will be brave and climbs everything and so on, so that means that there's already a type in somebody's person, so you can observe it from very early age. I spend a lot of time and energy to counsel children and their parents, and can confirm that you can distinguish a child's type at the age of 3 or 4, but of course you will also need to ask a questions of the child and parents, and not just by observing the behavior. How to observe the type: type is the stable psychological structure of the person, and it manifests itself via various reactions in our brain. Unfortunately, we don't have such a device to research how our brain works. We don't have some kind of constant attached X-ray to our brains to monitor such spontaneous reactions, so you can instead observe the behavior of the person to detect the type. This is also how you can detect a type: you divide a group into two groups. For example extroverts and introverts and you give them the same task. Distantly you observe the differences of task implementation. Only with this contrast you can see the difference clearly.

[Subteigh]

extraversion is the only jungian dichotomy that the big five uses, and they use it in a very different way. you could say that openess relates to intuitive functions, agreeableness to ethical functions, conscientiousness to being a normalising subtype, but then again, big five measures these traits very differently. neuroticism isn't even covered in socionics. khcs lives in an imaginative world where facts don't really exist, you won't get any evidence for his ridiculous claims. he showcases Te as vulnerable function very well though. 2+2=5, but the sad thing is he actually thinks he's correct. reminds me of the people who think that the earth is flat.

I think there is some correlation as you mention, but @khcs seems to be acting as though there is absolutely none, while @Number 9 large places no value on evidence.

[Subteigh]

that feel when u have no brain to figure shit out urself

How would you know you aren't capable of figuring shit out if you don't value evidence?

[Number 9 large]

How would you know you aren't capable of figuring shit out if you don't value evidence?

Because if things are true they will be logically sound from every angle to one another.

[Subteigh]

Because if things are true they will be logically sound from every angle to one another.

Things can be internally consistent and still be absolutely wrong.

[Number 9 large]

Things can be internally consistent and still be absolutely wrong.

You only need a few anchors

[Number 9 large]

Things can be internally consistent and still be absolutely wrong.

There can also be contrary evidence

[Subteigh]

You only need a few anchors

I don't think it's wise to rely on assumptions.

[Subteigh]

There can also be contrary evidence

I'm not sure I understand you. There can be an incomplete understanding, certainly.

[Number 9 large]

I don't think it's wise to rely on assumptions.

I said anchors not assumptions

[Number 9 large]

I'm not sure I understand you. There can be an incomplete understanding, certainly.

Evidence that contradict eachother

[Alive]

seems like a discussion between a Ti valuing type and Te valuing type, and as a Ti-dom, I understand Number 9's perspective.
@Subteigh: have you read this EII desciption?

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p..._EII_composite

I thought about the comment on role Ti a couple of times when I read some of your comments on this site.

[Number 9 large]

Im pretty sure Subteigh is a Te user. Nowhere has he said his personal values or tried to give his subjective opinion. Its always facts facts facts.

[Alive]

Im pretty sure Subteigh is a Te user. Nowhere has he said his personal values or tried to give his subjective opinion. Its always facts facts facts.

I've had many discussions with him in chat and I'm quite convinced he is an EII. we are quite similar in many ways. the major difference between us is him focusing more on data and statistics.

[Alive]

Ti just looks for a general direction that it can work with, while Te strives for objective knowledge. for example, Ti might observe the pattern that ethical men and logical women are more likely to be homosexual. just patterns and the generalalisations. Te on the other hand might disregard this claim unless there have been studies done and data has been collected. same with socionics, which is a field that is dominated by Ti valuing types, while the scientific community is mostly dominated by Te valuing types. they disregard speculative theories, and Ti doesn't care to objectively prove it.