Well this is a good thing, don't you think? Being ridiculous is funny.Originally Posted by Joy
Well this is a good thing, don't you think? Being ridiculous is funny.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't know.... being around both of them is frustrating though.Originally Posted by FDG
I told you I wasn't going to link you so you wouldn't sit around all day waiting for me to. That's rather polite, if you ask me.
I never said you shouldn't describe yourself. I said you shouldn't post ten pages of ESI brain-diarrhea mixed with your mangled self-image.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
fair enoughOriginally Posted by Gilligan
(and the Stratevskaya are a bit long... I know I wouldn't want to read through 3 of them plus notes in someone's type thread )
Thanks for understanding. And...I reread that, and it did sound a little more harsh than I intended. Sorry...?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
it's all good
heh I just realized that you're like... my counterpart. Sorta like you're to Gamma and Delta as I am to Alpha and Beta.
Before I went through the reinin dichotomies, my opinion was:
But I decided to go ahead and see what I thought about how the reinin dichotomies described what I see in Joy, and then see what results from that.I vote SF>FS>TN>TS (no way is she an NF/FN)
I don't see Joy as fitting into neither delta, nor beta.
My opinion:Originally Posted by Joy
Static>Dynamic: Joy claims dynamic, but I haven't yet seen her describe it in a way that is consistent w/ dynamic only. She does not seem to have the same problems with static thinking that other dynamics express. (ie, none of our arguments have been anything like the arguments I have with isfps, isfjs, infps, estjs, istps, intps which tend to center around the static vs dynamic quite a bit) I believe that her so-called issues with "static" are actually issues with "Ti" specifically.
Resolute>Reasonable: I agree.
Asker>Declarer: The majority of Joy's threads are asking people's questions (even though she too easily dismisses inputs that don't fit in with her own belief...which suggests to me a possible J, however, obstinate types are also known for this.) She doesn't "create stories" nor narrate as easily nor as frequently as most declarers do. And when she does narrate something for us, it's either the same darned thing over and over, and/or it's written stilted as if it's worded with great effort to prove a point of whatever type she claims at the moment. (ie, she did this with ENTp, ESFp, another one, and now ENTj.) "Narrating" by referring to functions is not narrating.
Strategy>Tactics: I think I agree.
Positivism>Negativism: annoyingly so
Serious>Merry: I agree
Democratic>Aristocratic: I can believe this
Emotivism>Constructivism: agreed
Careless vs Farsighted: feels iffy, I can't form an opinion on this one as I've seen examples in her writings/attitude of each
Obstinate>Compliance: I do not believe that Joy is compliant in any way, shape, nor form. Even when she "complies" with a "nevermind" or "whatever" or such, it's done in an obstinate way, and isn't really "compliance".
Extroversion>Introversion: I believe she leans towards extroversion.
Irrational>Rational: I believe that Joy believes that she is rational, but her particular *clears throat* mental flexibility *clears throat again* screams irrational.
Result vs Process: I don't know.
_________
Based on what I agree with her on: Resolute, Strategist, Positivist, Serious, Democratic, Extrovert, we get:
Alpha: (10)
esfj 3; isfp 2; Si+Fe=5
entp 2; intj 3; Ne+Ti=5
Beta: (7)
enfj 0; infp 3; Ni+Fe=3
estp 2; istj 2; Se+Ti=4
Delta: (7)
enfp 2; infj 2; Ne+Fi=4
estj 0; istp 3; Si+Te=3
Gamma: (15)
esfp 5; isfj 4; Se+Fi=9
entj 6; intp 0; Ni+Te=6
________
Based on what I both agree and disagree with:
Alpha: (18)
esfj 4; isfp 3; Si+Fe=7
entp 5; intj 6; Ne+Ti=11
Beta: (15)
enfj 2; infp 5; Ni+Fe=7
estp 4; istj 4; Se+Ti=8
Delta: (15)
enfp 5; infj 3; Ne+Fi=8
estj 1; istp 6; Si+Te=7
Gamma: (23)
esfp 9; isfj 6; Se+Fi=15
entj 6; intp 2; Ni+Te=8
_________
so, based on my opinions of reinin dichotomies
gamma>alpha>the other two
SF 22>NT 19>ST 15>NF 13
gamma SF 15>alpha NT 11>gamma NT 8>alpha SF 7
esfp 9> isfj 6> intj 6> entj 6> entp 5
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
good idea anndelise
there's gotta be something scored wrong somewhere though because according to what we agree on you've got ENTj in the top spot, but according to what I say you've got ESFp in the top spot... (that's looking at each type individually, which I think is important to do when scoring dichotomies since mirrors aren't more similar than other types)
well, if you really want to look at it that wayOriginally Posted by Joy
entj=6, esfp=5, isfj=4 all the others are lower than 4
so it still comes down to gamma sf over gamma nt
however, you don't want to take into account mirrors
I chose to do it this way instead of function-wise
however, if we do it functionwise we get:
Se+Fi= higher than Ni+Te
yes, that above includes the mirrors, but it explains why i included the mirrors....
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Reinin dichotomies are sketchy at best, and not a reliable way to determine type, IMO. First off, the criteria are so poorly defined and understood that your odds of interpreting the majority of them correctly with regards to a certain person are pretty low, and secondly, they aren't accepted by most of the socionics community, and could very easily be nonexistent.
You're just realizing this?Originally Posted by Joy
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
dichotomies don't translate into functions at all though...
if we were going to look at mirror pairs we'd have to only count the dichotomies that both types shared
After reading what Ann said, I'm actually leaning Asker>Declarer.
I dunno, ESFp is beginning to make more sense, to be honest...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I like them... the reason I'm including them though is because I've beaten the functions and descriptions to death, and people would just argue with me about them anyways.Originally Posted by Gilligan
lol yeahYou're just realizing this?Originally Posted by Joy
Nope, because a certain set of dichotomies is never shared by only 2 types. Each type is identified by a precise set of dichotomies. If we restrict the set, and thereby relax our criterias, then we end up with more types than just mirrors.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
What changed your mind about my being introverted?Originally Posted by Gilligan
This keeps coming up. I'm not sure how better to explain it... I'm not "asking" a question with those threads, I'm telling people to tell me what they think. What they say most likely won't influence what I think, and I don't intend for it to. I'm just trying to instigate discussion.Asker>Declarer: The majority of Joy's threads are asking people's questions (even though she too easily dismisses inputs that don't fit in with her own belief...which suggests to me a possible J, however, obstinate types are also known for this.)
It's true that I don't do that here (or online, pretty much), but if you talk to people who have spent any amount of time with me irl, they will all say that I tell a lot of stories.She doesn't "create stories" nor narrate as easily nor as frequently as most declarers do.
Yeah, that's not really narrating... it's something else entirely... not sure what. I was obviously trying to convince myself of something in those situations.And when she does narrate something for us, it's either the same darned thing over and over, and/or it's written stilted as if it's worded with great effort to prove a point of whatever type she claims at the moment. (ie, she did this with ENTp, ESFp, another one, and now ENTj.) "Narrating" by referring to functions is not narrating.
As for the asker vs. declarer dichotomy, I think that askers tend to hide questions in statements... like, even if when they're putting something in the form of a statement, they're still trying to find something out. Declarers do just the opposite. Even when something is worded as a question, they're trying to tell you something. If the sentence here doesn't sound exactly like what I do, you're reading my tone all wrong lol. In fact, when I'm writing I often purposely put it in the form of a question so it's not so abrasive... like, I'll be making an assertion, but it's not something that I know for a fact, so, in an attempt to communicate that what I'm saying is an opinion, I put it in the form of a question.
TimeOriginally Posted by Joy
It's exactly the opposite of this, in fact. Askers put something in the form of a question regardless of their intent; Declarers do the opposite.As for the asker vs. declarer dichotomy, I think that askers tend to hide questions in statements... like, even if when they're putting something in the form of a statement, they're still trying to find something out. Declarers do just the opposite. Even when something is worded as a question, they're trying to tell you something. If the sentence here doesn't sound exactly like what I do, you're reading my tone all wrong lol. In fact, when I'm writing I often purposely put it in the form of a question so it's not so abrasive... like, I'll be making an assertion, but it's not something that I know for a fact, so, in an attempt to communicate that what I'm saying is an opinion, I put it in the form of a question.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
The only difference here would be command vs request, and that's not what Asker/Declarer is about.I'm telling people to tell me what they think.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
This sounds like it's referencing the words used to name the dichotomy, which are very misleading.Obstinate>Compliance: I do not believe that Joy is compliant in any way, shape, nor form. Even when she "complies" with a "nevermind" or "whatever" or such, it's done in an obstinate way, and isn't really "compliance".
That is a dichotomy that I'm more towards the middle in though.
LOL truf.Originally Posted by anndelise
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Originally Posted by Joy
I didn't start out translating dichotomies into functions.
I went through the types, using the chart you had made, and scored each of the types with one point if a dichotomy fit them.
Those types are made up of functions. Quadras are broken down into such things as +Se -Fi so in that sense, mirrors both share +Se and -Fi.
as for the other sentence, FDG explained it perfectly
Joy, I can't but help feeling really strongly that had the scores shown high in +Ni and -Te (entj and intp) then you would have jumped on that as proof that you were gamma nt.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Really, Ann? You think Joy would do that? NEVAR!
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
What you're seeing is Dynamicism (lol I can tell I'm going to need to go into explaining this dichotomy as it relates to me) and Te > Ti (because Ti types are a lot less likely to change their opinions about stuff in their "bookshelf"), as well as regular old miscommunications at times.Originally Posted by Gilligan
If you look at the descriptions of rationality and irrationality on Rick's site, rationality makes more sense for me. The INTj I was with said he doesn't understand why I ever thought I was an irrational type. I think this is because I'm quite inflexible, have to have things a certain way, get really upset/unnerved when plans get changed (even if for the better). Whatever "mental flexibility" you think you're seeing is definitely self-directed in a "j-ish" sort of way.
Yeah, you better get started on the "dynamicism" bit. You've got quite the case to make, because I've done precisely the same "mentally flexible" things
Oh, and this:
is bullshit at its finest. Come on, Joy, be real for once.Whatever "mental flexibility" you think you're seeing is definitely self-directed in a "j-ish" sort of way.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
No, it is NOT dynamicism, because enfps, esfps, entps, and estps are well known for the same thing, and they are each static.Originally Posted by Joy
I covered this inflexibility already, with this:If you look at the descriptions of rationality and irrationality on Rick's site, rationality makes more sense for me. The INTj I was with said he doesn't understand why I ever thought I was an irrational type. I think this is because I'm quite inflexible, have to have things a certain way, get really upset/unnerved when plans get changed (even if for the better). Whatever "mental flexibility" you think you're seeing is definitely self-directed in a "j-ish" sort of way.
what you are describing, Joy, is obstinancy, not "J-ish behavior"Originally Posted by anndelise
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Yar.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by anndelise
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Wait, since when are Ti types less likely to change their minds? If ONE objective fact comes into play that doesn't coincide with the theory, the WHOLE thing gets thrown out.
My Ti is a regular customer at Borders
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
i believe she is referring more to accepting Ti'sOriginally Posted by Gilligan
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Hehe wait, not thrown out. For me, it gets thrown in a "limbo" where it still gets used, but I'm searching for something better in the meanwhile.Originally Posted by Gilligan
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
1.) http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5877
2.) It does not make more sense to say, for example, that I'm more likely an SF type because I scored 4 in ISFj + 4 in ESFp, and only 6 in ENTj + 1 in INTp.
3.) It seems you've misjudged me.
Originally Posted by anndelise
This feels like it's become an argument, and that's not what I wanted. I guess I just got carried away answering your posts.
I do think that I'm ENTj, but I would be equally content being an ESFp or INTp, cause they're both friggin awesome.
See, I have one bookcase in the front room, which I keep nice and tidy, but the libraries upstairs and in the basement are basically piles of books, with maybe a few well-organized boxes of old volumes that used to be in the front room.Originally Posted by FDG
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Joy, that's the chart YOU made. Not everybody agrees with what YOU think. Ann happens to see dichotomies that make ESFp more likely than ENTj, and we ALL know that, had she chosen dichotomies that support ENTj, you would have readily said "Yay, thanks for the petting, ann! You're a good pal to agree with me all the time!"Originally Posted by Joy
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
did you guys type your relation yet?Originally Posted by Joy
i don't have anything to contribute to the discussion of the last three pages about joy's dichotomies, but i would like to say that she looks almost exactly like an ESFp i know. i didn't happen to notice this resemblance in previous photographs.
as i think joy knows, i have believed her to be ESFp since forever ago.
Quasi sounds perfectly correct to me. In the past he identified with the semi-dual description.Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
It's deinitely a mix of SG's descriptions of Quasi-Identity (although less "misunderstanding" than me being pissed at her for not listening and being stubborn), semi-duality, and super-ego.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
here's the chart with the dichotomies that anndelise didn't disagree with me about
1) you have your scoring wrongOriginally Posted by Joy
it's entj 6, esfp 5, isfj 4
then there were 4 3's; 6 2's; and 2 0's (INTP being a 0 not a 1)
had esfp been 4, then there would be a slightly stronger case for entj
since there were so many 3's, 2's, and 0's then it seemed unproductive to attempt to place those in some kind of order, hence stopping at the 4 mark. Had it been reversed, say...esfp 6, entj 5, intp 4, then you would be arguing that that showed a more likelihood of entj>esfp because of the +ni and -te being so prominant. (i believe we all would)
2) as for your link, i'm not sure any of us can read minds, it's an awful long post, and i have no idea what support your hoping it will provide.
You're the supposed logical narrator, please do so.
(joy, i'm not irritated nor anything like that. i'm just providing my reasons for my opinion.)
As for the benefits of all this, i realized something about one of the reasons why I have issues with esfps. ENFp and ESFp are both obstinate irrationals. However, while the ESFp is Resolute, at least the ENFp is Reasonable.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I can't accept this chart... none of the insides of the letters are colored in