Waster - the SLI of all SLI's
Korpsy-ILI
Ashton- not sold on LIE, could be Ti-creative
Waster - the SLI of all SLI's
Korpsy-ILI
Ashton- not sold on LIE, could be Ti-creative
Looking at those who have posted in the last year, these are individuals I feel comfortable with agreeing strongly with their own self-typings. They are in order of post count. I would like to say I am 90%-95%+ certain their types are correct, but I do not trust myself to give such a figure, and I feel that many of these, while I believe their self-typing to be congruous with said type, they could almost as easily be their kindred type (e.g. LII vs. LSI etc.), or some other type (I think kindred or mirror would generally be most probable alternative types based on my overall thoughts here). My view is that in such instances, the person's own self-perception must be of paramount value. (Finally, I may have some people's current self-typings wrong, which is unintentional: I only wish to put self-typings I agree with here).
ILE: @mu4, @xerx, @1981slater, @The Ineffable, @Jack Oliver Aaron, @SlavaPHP
LII: @Logos, @Ms. Kensington, @Pa3s, @jason_m, @ClownsandEntropy, @RSV3, @Avalonia
SEI: @lemontrees
ESE:
SLE: @Ananke
LSI: @Myst, @miss BabyDoll, @Pole Ninja
IEI: @Starfall, @strrrng, @Aylen, @silke, @glam, @SisOfNight, @summerprincess
EIE: @golden
SEE:
ESI: @blackburry, @Olga
ILI: @Capitalist Pig, @Scapegrace, @Contra, @ragnar
LIE: @Narc, @Adam Strange, @May
IEE: @Galen, @Kim, @anndelise, @Animal, @Raver, @Simon Ssmall, @SyrupDeGem, @applejacks, @sapphire
EII: @Minde, @April, @Taknamay, @Birdie
SLI: @Waster
LSE: @UDP
Last edited by Enters Laughing; 05-04-2016 at 05:53 PM.
anndelise- IEE
Simon Small - IEE
Jack O Aaron -ILE
@Emmym based on your preference for accumulation of objects of makeup and variety of colors shades and textures and this post I type you SEE final.
Se is the function involved in mobilization
No. I feel more decisive than judicious (I can mobilize easily to do stuff I have experience with compared to other judicious peeps, esp irrationals), more negativist than positivist (I complain so much) and more asking than declaring. The last is probably solely because an IEI once pointed out how often I will revive the topic we were talking about before being interrupted and how annoying that is (I'm sorry!! lmao) and I think that was mentioned in the article for "asking vs declaring."
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-for-your-type
-
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
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
No, there are some that don't type themselves that way (William, Words, Reficulris, Aleksei, DJ Arendee, Hitta, Amber, Allie, InvisibleJim ) or are not completely sure about their typing (/change types frequently)- Mega, Inumbra, Pink, Chips and Underwear, Wacey, MuddyTextures, Persephone, Jessica, limping bird, Allie.
I left WorkaholicsAnon by mistake from suede's list, because I copy/pasted it and then changed it. I'm not sure if Suz is ESE or IEE anyway, as I wrote above, but imo ESE makes more sense.
Yeah, I am missing, as always.
I do not like this.
I think that the notion that one can accurately type another over sparse interaction on an Internet forum is fundamentally flawed. Most people aren't true to their own natures over the Internet because it's not difficult to control one's image. There are unconsciously displayed physical mannerisms that types have that are impossible to observe over text-based communication.
Given that few here have physically interacted before, most must either accept an individual's self-typing because they don't know the individual, giving the benefit of the doubt to the individual's self-perception, or reject all self-typings and idiosyncratically make up a system that may or may not be oriented with reality.
I have a mental list of types that certain members may not be, but for most members I can't fairly converge on a single type with my own system simply because they have not provided enough information.
Last edited by ghost of forum past; 05-07-2016 at 06:51 PM.
you people need to invest your time in something more tasty...no one's commented on my popcorn thread WTF?
-
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 really don't think you can control your image fully online. Same degree of control as over the physical mannerisms. You really think that text you write does not have unconscious cognitive "mannerisms"?
I do agree that sparse interaction is not enough to type. Again, this is true both online and offline. I do not see the "unconsciously displayed physical mannerisms" any more of a reliable indicator of type than the cognitive cues you inadvertently display in writing.
Sure: if I have reason to think that a person does not have a clue about Socionics and/or if I believe a person is deliberately acting a type, I will find it difficult to take their self-typing seriously. In cases of deliberate deception, it probably isn't even worthwhile attempting to type them. However, if a person has been on the forum for a fair amount of time and everything feels naturally expressed (not forced), and their self-typing feels harmonious with my perception of the types (and perhaps in relation to other individuals), it is fairly straightforward for me to agree with their self-typing.
That's fine for the most part except where you think you can make the assumption that someone's deliberately acting like a type. I see people make that claim about other people way too often for it to be well founded in actuality. Where I talked about taking people's input about themselves seriously, that includes not assuming such things either without much proof beyond a quite possibly biased guess.
There is truth in this, however, I think it is very difficult for someone to act contrary to their personality in their interactions with others for a sustained period of time, especially if there is a lot of data available. It would be easy for someone to appear lethargic or terse by lack of posting for example (but you would not know much about their offline personality). However, it would be close to impossible for someone to appear calm and introverted if they had made a vast number of posts over many years with a sustained regularity, often with explosive displays of behaviour, all the while being a persistent social intriguer offline.
I did not say that introverts cannot have emotional outbursts. I was merely reflecting that when explosive displays of behaviour are common, especially in written form, and in comparison to others who self-type the same way, and in conjunction with being a persistent social intriguer both offline and online, that it would be difficult to see them as an introvert.
I prefer to ignore what someone says about themselves if it frequently runs contrary to what I experience of them, or with other aspects of what they describe/reveal about themselves (whether intentionally or not), as well as impossible idealised images they attempt to portray themselves as. I do not like to contradict a person's self-analysis or self-typing often, but if it seems strikingly obvious that they are not merely extreme for the type etc. they claim to be, but are unlike anything I have previously encountered (for a type, or for an introvert etc.) or perhaps even utterly contrary in many regards, then I will not regard their self-assessment as reliable to any degree.
Sure, if someone says "I do X and not Y" and I observe them doing Y instead, where both X and Y are directly observable things then I would believe my own eyes. However just because someone types a certain type and you have a hard time fitting their behaviour into the narrow stereotype you have in your mind about that type, you can't assume motivations for them for why they type that way.
Case in point: your assumptions of Maritsa's motivations for typing EII without any actual proof for them. I'm not going to enter a debate on Maritsa's type or motivations here but this is a good example of what I'm talking about. And, I've seen many other examples of this from many people, I am not singling you out here in any personal way.
And this is the sort of thing I find toxic about typology forums.
New Member Additions: Contra, Sapphire
IEE-Ne: Sapphire
EII-Fi: contra
@Kill4Me: have you ever typed me? I feel left out...
Me being ESE is just wrong on so many levels, but nice try though.
@Contra EII-Fi?
That is the best you could come up with for him?
Seriously? Are we being punk'd?
He types us identicals Contra but I would expect no less from someone who has no clue what Ni is.
Visualize this:
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
@Kill4Me I want to see what disastrous typing you can cook up for me.
・゚*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:・゚