A lovely ESFp??
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
The other woman is ISFJ.
THe guy is INTP I think, I guess duality can work sometimes, in weird ways
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Well, she tried to kill someone for attention, which means that there is a good chance she is evil, and I think that puts here within the qualifying realm of being ESFp.
Good one, however I have now movedaway from the idea of ESFPs as evil, I think that that trait is more generally distributed.
Do you think she is ESfp though?
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Possibly ...
Evil is a strong word... love can do crazy things to people.Originally Posted by rmcnew
That said, though... stalking someone, pepper spraying them and possibly planning to kill them seems a bit excessive.
At least she wasn't successful.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Borderline + paranoid. Pathological ENFp form which VIs as INFp-IXFp in large part.
stop thinking neurosis is type related
I think she's an XSTj that's gone off the deep end.
You argue with the type descriptions here on the16types.info?
my observations indicate the neurosis is definitely type-related. Indeed the basis of socionics is jung, who himself was working with mentally ill patients when he developed his insights
of course these things shouldn't be overestimated as many mentally ill patients may suffer from multiple "disorders". Still though, Jung himself claimed that neurosis developed when a person was not able to "be themself" in the environment they were in. Socionics articles seem to agree with this. and yes I agree that most of jung's other ideas were total bullshit, like the "collective uncoscious" and he may have been wrong with this, so i'm willing to hear why you think what you do
INFp-Ni
A person who uses personal knowledge as their base, having a reverse function order, will exhibit personality disordered symptoms consistent with the DSM, the manifestations of which prove dependent on type.
Killing people is type related?
(and the neurosis descriptions on this site are not socionics descriptions and I do not believe they correlate accurately with socionics types... if you try to tell me, for example, that all borderline pd people are ESFps I'm going to disembowel you with a spork)
well, for example, people suffering from anti-social psychopathological disorders, i,e, serial killers, are most certainly mostly T types. in movies they're portrayed as SUPER INTENSE and crazy but that's bullshit. they're usually very calm, calculating, brilliant, and fit in amongst the crowd - we only know about the ones that get caught - they're the ones that aren't that good at what they do. probably mostly types that Fe polr. notice also most serial killers had REALLY shitty childhoods. thus their affliction isn't merely type-related, it's developmental
Likewise certain types are more prone to react neurotically by taking it out on themselves i.e. suicide. It's like an internal vs. external reaction.
Very calm, calculating, brilliant and fit in amongst crowd... Wouldn't it rather be Narcisstic personality disorder; while persons with antisocial pd being more out of control and impulsive?
me
I read a book on family medicine some time ago and I read an article about child abandonment. It says it explicitely that a child which for any reason loses contact with a nurturing figure will not have a normal intellectual development.
Areas affected that I remember the article mentions:
* Linguistic.
* Emotional.
* Interpersonal.
* Phisiological.
The article narrates the history of two identical twins. The only difference in both is that one was left on an hostpital for a long time, while the other was taken care by his mother.
The child who grew with his mother was perfectly normal while the other could not speak, didn't control his excretory and urinal systems and was almost devoid of emotional attachments to anybody. It seemed quite like an autist.
This might suggest, I think, that what you keep parroting as "Fe Polr types" might actually be individuals who suffered from abandonment, in one way or annother, and failed to build the emotional, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills that are common in healthy people.
As a broader concept, it would be that types may actually be representatives of people with underdeveloped areas; normal people being more balanced and alike than what socionics itself suggests.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to find many of these "normal" "balanced" people you speak of and thus their minority status immediately makes them abnormal. I've noticed this....... on the surface so many people seem like "normal happy people" but dig a little deeper and the lie squirts you like that geyser at yellowstone national park, lol
Socionics is superior to north american personality psychology for it does away with the "PC" bullshit that so many people fall victim to. It accepts that most people never actually realize their potential to live a happy fulfilling life. having taken a personality psych course at my university i can't help but be disappointed. the "publish or perish" syndrome over here guarantees that nothing so large in scope as socionics will ever develop here - it's all about psychologists, like the one whose theory you mentioned, that make their own little system and advocate its brilliance - but none of these little systems ever reach their potential cuz the psychologists don't seem interested in "working together", only with competing for a type of glory that none ever achieve.
The concept of a "balanced individual" is a relatively new WESTERN ideal that has little actual basis in reality. Humans are designed to be social creatures, that's why society exists, because we need other people to compensate for our innate inferiorities. if you compare the concept of duality with what plato himself thought about "love" this point is realized. as individuals we are incomplete, or else we wouldn't be here talking to each other right now because we'd have no need to
the stereotypically "balanced" personality is the one that makes a good worker and fits into the system. notice the inherent subjectivity... (if we could turn everyone into these "balanced" people then it would come at the cost of creativity - not many creative people are "balanced"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
