Temperament test - Eysenck

[Eliza Thomason]

I have never known any XLI to score so highly in neuroticism

Interesting. I have not yet seen a pattern (other than this little ILI idea I threw out there) in the scores for the types... Do you know where there is more info? Or are you basically observing, "ILIs aren't neurotic"?

[Galen]

Interesting. I have not yet seen a pattern (other than this little ILI idea I threw out there) in the scores for the types... Do you know where there is more info? Or are you basically observing, "ILIs aren't neurotic"?

I'm saying the XLIs I've known and observed have never presented themselves as particularly neurotic.

[Eliza Thomason]

I didn't score "high in Pessimism"...I scored high in Introversion (one trait), and high in Neuroticism (another trait). You might as well say I score "high in Depression" for all the good it would do: my results demonstrate nothing about my general outlook for the future (which is emphatically positive...unlike Christian doctrine for example).

Oh, sorry - I might have completely misunderstood the "Pessimism" in your results. I will explain where I got that. And I never read you as a particular pessimist before, except, like I said, in the context of your particularly pessimistic opinion about Christianity.

Okay, so the way I got that is this: In your chart (post #26 here), the red dot sits squarely on "Pessimism". Some of the other charts have the red dot sitting sit on or near the words at the edge of their quarter-pie in the chart, too, which implied to me that they were strong in that temperament (since it was placed on the edge), and also particularly strong in the words they were near. While on other charts the dot sits squarely in the center of their pie-quarter, and on still others instead the dot is close to a border between the two types, or even near the center, implying to me they were closer to a balance of different temperaments.

I just happened to particularly notice yours because of our conversations.

But that was just my own idea on reading the charts. It could instead mean nothing at all! It could be just where that computer program randomly placed the dot within the quarter.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Oh, sorry - I might have completely misunderstood the "Pessimism" in your results. I will explain where I got that. And I never read you as a particular pessimist before, except, like I said, in the context of your particularly pessimistic opinion about Christianity.

Okay, so the way I got that is this: In your chart (post #26 here), the red dot sits squarely on "Pessimism". Some of the other charts have the red dot sitting sit on or near the words at the edge of their quarter-pie in the chart, too, which implied to me that they were strong in that temperament (since it was placed on the edge), and also particularly strong in the words they were near. While on other charts the dot sits squarely in the center of their pie-quarter, and on still others instead the dot is close to a border between the two types, or even near the center, implying to me they were closer to a balance of different temperaments.

I just happened to particularly notice yours because of our conversations.

But that was just my own idea on reading the charts. It could instead mean nothing at all! It could be just where that computer program randomly placed the dot within the quarter.

Ah yes, I see that. The Neuroticism description does define itself as "worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious." which could hardly been seen as the qualities of an optimist, but in my case, they are more short-term in focus, and at a personal level (it could be argued that this is thus more accurate of my pessimist vs. optimist outlook...but alternatively, it could also be that those are the traits of a realist and that the personal situation of a person cannot be easily extended to their natural frame of mind).

You have seen me as a pessimist because of my critical attitude towards organised religion, Christianity, or Catholicism, in particular. I could easily say that my attitude is actually that of a optimist, because I am criticising a religion that sees humans as inherently flaws and sinful, and deserving of eternal damnation: views that are totally contrary to my own worldview. I would also point you to this thread that I started: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...r-All-The-Time
it's difficult to comprehend how you could consider me a pessimist by looking at that thread, which is more in line with my natural focus. But again, it could be argued that being of the view that extreme poverty can be eradicated by 2035 worldwide is the view of a realist, not an optimist (or indeed a pessimist).

[Eliza Thomason]

Ah yes, I see that. The Neuroticism description does define itself as "worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious." which could hardly been seen as the qualities of an optimist, but in my case, they are more short-term in focus,

Yes, maybe short-term focus, or maybe: the "shallow outer appearance"? Because, for example, there is a lot more to me than the Sanguine's "sunny" outlook. (Like, that I am a Negativist). Also I do not understand that the way they made this chart and descriptions so that the top half looks more negative, and the bottom positive -- because all of the fours temperaments have their ups and downs.

and at a personal level (it could be argued that this is thus more accurate of my pessimist vs. optimist outlook...but alternatively, it could also be that those are the traits of a realist and that the personal situation of a person cannot be easily extended to their natural frame of mind).

I am with you completely that being a realist is better than being a pessimist OR an optimist!

You have seen me as a pessimist because of my critical attitude towards organised religion, Christianity, or Catholicism, in particular.

I just want to make it clear I never saw you as a pessimist. When it appeared to me that your chart, here in this thread, was saying that "pessimist" stands out strongly in you (and I may well be reading that chart all wrong!), I did not think , "Of course!" but instead, "Oh, really?" Then trying see how that could be, I thought of our debates on religion, and how I could see those you could be seen possibly as pessimist. But I am with you, I would see you as more a person endeavouring to be realist, than pessimist. Also, I consider myself very much to be a person endeavoring to be a realist.

I could easily say that my attitude is actually that of a optimist, because I am criticising a religion that sees humans as inherently flaws and sinful, and deserving of eternal damnation: views that are totally contrary to my own worldview.

I see your point here, and I know you are sincere. Its just that I disagree with how you see that my religion views humanity. I do see how, from the outside looking in, it may appear so. But not from here - inside. Its a wide wide world in here!

I would also point you to this thread that I started: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...r-All-The-Time
it's difficult to comprehend how you could consider me a pessimist by looking at that thread, which is more in line with my natural focus. But again, it could be argued that being of the view that extreme poverty can be eradicated by 2035 worldwide is the view of a realist, not an optimist (or indeed a pessimist).

I did see that thread and I thought it was a very admirable aim, to embrace a plan to eradicate extreme poverty. And it should work. But this is where I become a "pessimist" and say its a great plan but unfortunately you need people to implement it, and we are a mixed bunch, and because SOME people will always choose the dark side, and be selfish, ruthless, and lust for money and power, it is unlikely to happen. Some say we just need one strong person in charge of the world to MAKE it happen, to force the good thing on people, but, unfortunately, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So one seemingly "great" world leader is not the answer.

My brand of realism says that the work of change of the world begins in hearts, and that is where religion comes in...

Actually, I might see more of a Negativist in you (like me) than a pessimist, which is another thing that puts you as a possible ILI in my eyes (but I could have that all wrong - you could be EII). An ILI can appear to be a pessimist because he drily points out how things don't work. But I think its the Negativist in him, that very factually points out the flip side of everything, because he wants to be a realist, and see a thing on the whole.

Another ILI thought for you - your plan to eradicate world poverty is well thought out. It reminds me of a brilliant architecture project done by an ILI friend. It was one of his two Bachelor degrees - I gather ILIs like learning! - and it was a project/idea that had something in common with your idea. It was a model home for the homeless that took in mind all the things a homeless person needs to learn to be self-sufficient. I remember that it was very well thought out, and he had a lot to say that made a lot of sense for why all the parts were the way they were. If I recall, it was designed to be a model for all cities, to sort of eradicate/cure/solve the homeless problem. In a humane way.

So, while I haven't re-typed you for myself - yet - I do begin to notice that I am seeing more and more parallels for you with ILI (like, for example, the traits of a Negativist, like me) and ILI's I know. And I cannot think of times when I saw clear parallels with you and EII, or EII's I know. Just sayin'. Also it would explain the rather cold, calculating review of Maritsa your wrote in a recent thread. You probably would not call it cold, but just "the plain honest facts", as you value facing reality (as I do). I am sure you were not trying to be hurtful or cold. But T-types can come across as cold and calculating to us F-types sometimes, and for me, that was one of those times.

Also, just looking at that one post: If you were EII, what that post would display between you and Maritsa is the "complete understanding" of Identicals. You would also see sympathy and understanding - particularly as you would between two F-type Identicals. That was certainly not there! Instead, you wrote it like an ILI would, who, as her Benefactor, sees his Benefactee as someone lacking, or sort of less than himself...


________
editing to add: In the above I am referring to your post #28 in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-ever-and-last

[Skepsis]

Hey, TJ, as a Melancholic, you are opposite the Sanguine, where you would expect to fall if you were IEE - which you were once thinking was your type. I saw once where which of the 4 temperaments are which if the 16 types but i am not sure where they are. I do know think that SLI is Melancholic, and so might also be LII, though I am not sure on LII... Interesting!

I sometimes test as Melancholic, but I think I fit the Phlegmatic descriptions more. Phlegmatic with Melancholic tendencies

MBTI INTP,INFP,ISFJ, and ISFPs tend to fall within the Phlegmatics.

[Eliza Thomason]

I sometimes test as Melancholic, but I think I fit the Phlegmatic descriptions more. Phlegmatic with Melancholic tendencies

MBTI INTP,INFP,ISFJ, and ISFPs tend to fall within the Phlegmatics.

IMO, that you test alternatively as Melancholic and Phlegmatic shows up on your temperament chart here (Post #5), as your red dot lands Melancholic yet very close to the border near Phlegmatic.

After I shared my thoughts about your chart, I got curious about how the temperaments matched up with types, and found the MBTI correlation, which I put in Post #37 here. It says that if you are IJ you are Melancholic, which fits with the INTj typing you are identifying with now. Only if you are IP would you be Phlegmatic, according to this theory (which sounds right to me).

Now, supposing you are not INTj, but perhaps ISTp. I wonder that because I was in agreement with you before, when you thought you were ENFp, and found a lot in common with you. That makes me wonder if you are not instead ISTp, as, one can appear to be liek one's Dual often times. And you seem to me to be a good fit in Delta. I am not saying that I have that figured out a type for you, though. Alpha is a next-best fit to Delta, IMO.

One thing that makes me wonder if you are ISTp is your explanation of the nice long walks you like to take, with the nice views. I enjoy that, as does my ISTp husband. Its almost like something we need to do, to feel at home with the world.

Okay, continuing. Supposing that you are instead ISTp, yet, you find yourself rating here as a Melancholic rather than a Phlegmatic you should be testing as. Plus, as you say, Phlegmatic just seems more like you. I think one way you would test Melancholic instead is that when taking the test (and the test for this is a very brief one, after all) you had some issues you are dealing with that made you a bit anxious and nervous. Not saying you do! I don't know what you are experiencing! But, say, you just discovered just how sky-high your new Obamacare insurance rates are, and how deep down in your pocket you have to go for the deductible, while at the same time your Property tax rate was re-accessed - much higher, of course, and your kids need new stuff now, and your income remains the same! Or, you are in the midst of some crossroads of indecision in your life, or, your mother-in-law is on her way for a long visit... you can be experiencing stress, or anxiety, and you might be more "touchy" when answering Q's, slipping you over to the Melancholic side of this test, even though you are Phlegmatic. I know my ISTp husband can be subject to anxiety, like his father could be also, before him. I am often saying, "Relax! Its not important!" (and he relaxes!). Just a thought...

___

P.S. You will notice that I found a different correlation with the temperaments and types than you did. You said:
" INTP, INFP, ISFJ, and ISFP's tend to fall within the Phlegmatics " and I found its
...INTP, INFP, ISTP and ISFP - (but maybe your "ISFJ" is a typo?)

[End]

Eysenck Test Results

Extroversion (sociability)	||||||||||	38%
Neuroticism (emotionality)	||||||||||	36%
Psychoticism (rebelliousness)	||||||||||||	43%

This test reflects the ideas of Hans Eysenck a pioneer in the field of personality research. Through research and statistical analysis he determined that personality is composed of three main elements: Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Most current researchers agree on the significance of the first two traits, but there is less consensus on the third (so he may be wrong about it's central importance but it clearly plays some role in personality). Most people will score lower on Psychoticism. While Psychoticism implies more negative qualities than the other two traits (typically), a link has been found is several studies between higher creativity and higher scores on Psychoticism.
Here are your results on each dimension:


Extroversion results were moderately low which suggests you are reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.
Neuroticism results were moderately low which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.
Psychoticism results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense of your own individual development (martyr complex).
Prior to Eysenck's discovery of Psychoticism, he correlated his original two traits (introversion and neuroticism) with an ancient greek personality system known as the Galen types (Melancholic, Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic). Below is a plotting of your introversion and extraversion scores on that map.

[Skepsis]

IMO, that you test alternatively as Melancholic and Phlegmatic shows up on your temperament chart here (Post #5), as your red dot lands Melancholic yet very close to the border near Phlegmatic.

After I shared my thoughts about your chart, I got curious about how the temperaments matched up with types, and found the MBTI correlation, which I put in Post #37 here. It says that if you are IJ you are Melancholic, which fits with the INTj typing you are identifying with now. Only if you are IP would you be Phlegmatic, according to this theory (which sounds right to me).

Now, supposing you are not INTj, but perhaps ISTp. I wonder that because I was in agreement with you before, when you thought you were ENFp, and found a lot in common with you. That makes me wonder if you are not instead ISTp, as, one can appear to be liek one's Dual often times. And you seem to me to be a good fit in Delta. I am not saying that I have that figured out a type for you, though. Alpha is a next-best fit to Delta, IMO.

One thing that makes me wonder if you are ISTp is your explanation of the nice long walks you like to take, with the nice views. I enjoy that, as does my ISTp husband. Its almost like something we need to do, to feel at home with the world.

Okay, continuing. Supposing that you are instead ISTp, yet, you find yourself rating here as a Melancholic rather than a Phlegmatic you should be testing as. Plus, as you say, Phlegmatic just seems more like you. I think one way you would test Melancholic instead is that when taking the test (and the test for this is a very brief one, after all) you had some issues you are dealing with that made you a bit anxious and nervous. Not saying you do! I don't know what you are experiencing! But, say, you just discovered just how sky-high your new Obamacare insurance rates are, and how deep down in your pocket you have to go for the deductible, while at the same time your Property tax rate was re-accessed - much higher, of course, and your kids need new stuff now, and your income remains the same! Or, you are in the midst of some crossroads of indecision in your life, or, your mother-in-law is on her way for a long visit... you can be experiencing stress, or anxiety, and you might be more "touchy" when answering Q's, slipping you over to the Melancholic side of this test, even though you are Phlegmatic. I know my ISTp husband can be subject to anxiety, like his father could be also, before him. I am often saying, "Relax! Its not important!" (and he relaxes!). Just a thought...

___

P.S. You will notice that I found a different correlation with the temperaments and types than you did. You said:
" INTP, INFP, ISFJ, and ISFP's tend to fall within the Phlegmatics " and I found its
...INTP, INFP, ISTP and ISFP - (but maybe your "ISFJ" is a typo?)

Nope, not a typo, but based on this website: http://www.bestfittype.com/Models/InteractionStyles.cfm

INTP, INFP, ISFJ, and ISFP fall within the "Behind the Scenes", which roughly correlates to the Phlegmatic temperament. This is debatable though and depends on the definition of the types, which can be quite different from Keirsey to MBTI to Socionics. Keirsey places all of the NTs into the Phlegmatic temperament and the NFs into the Choleric. Overall, there is much that is contradictory when trying to translate this ancient temperament system into one of three modern typologies. I really don't think that these four temperaments are specific enough to really tell us much about the person.

I agree, I have traits that can be classified as within Delta, but I also have traits that can be Alpha and Gamma. This is the reality of the traits I possess. I think I communicate well with people that identify with all quadrants, as I try to always have emotion self control and be friendly and polite to everyone. I don't think one can categorize interests and hobbies into these quadrants. I'm actually quite skeptical of socionics' claims to knowledge with regards to the nature of our minds. I'm in the process of working through this, but I've rejected cognitive functions as defined by socionics to be the basis of minds.

I really enjoy walks and nature, but I do not think this is due to cognitive functions, and hence not Quadrant related. I think that in general, mature adults get along well with one another

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes, maybe short-term focus, or maybe: the "shallow outer appearance"? Because, for example, there is a lot more to me than the Sanguine's "sunny" outlook. (Like, that I am a Negativist). Also I do not understand that the way they made this chart and descriptions so that the top half looks more negative, and the bottom positive -- because all of the fours temperaments have their ups and downs.


I am with you completely that being a realist is better than being a pessimist OR an optimist!

I just want to make it clear I never saw you as a pessimist. When it appeared to me that your chart, here in this thread, was saying that "pessimist" stands out strongly in you (and I may well be reading that chart all wrong!), I did not think , "Of course!" but instead, "Oh, really?" Then trying see how that could be, I thought of our debates on religion, and how I could see those you could be seen possibly as pessimist. But I am with you, I would see you as more a person endeavouring to be realist, than pessimist. Also, I consider myself very much to be a person endeavoring to be a realist.


I see your point here, and I know you are sincere. Its just that I disagree with how you see that my religion views humanity. I do see how, from the outside looking in, it may appear so. But not from here - inside. Its a wide wide world in here!

I did see that thread and I thought it was a very admirable aim, to embrace a plan to eradicate extreme poverty. And it should work. But this is where I become a "pessimist" and say its a great plan but unfortunately you need people to implement it, and we are a mixed bunch, and because SOME people will always choose the dark side, and be selfish, ruthless, and lust for money and power, it is unlikely to happen. Some say we just need one strong person in charge of the world to MAKE it happen, to force the good thing on people, but, unfortunately, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So one seemingly "great" world leader is not the answer.

My brand of realism says that the work of change of the world begins in hearts, and that is where religion comes in...

Actually, I might see more of a Negativist in you (like me) than a pessimist, which is another thing that puts you as a possible ILI in my eyes (but I could have that all wrong - you could be EII). An ILI can appear to be a pessimist because he drily points out how things don't work. But I think its the Negativist in him, that very factually points out the flip side of everything, because he wants to be a realist, and see a thing on the whole.

Another ILI thought for you - your plan to eradicate world poverty is well thought out. It reminds me of a brilliant architecture project done by an ILI friend. It was one of his two Bachelor degrees - I gather ILIs like learning! - and it was a project/idea that had something in common with your idea. It was a model home for the homeless that took in mind all the things a homeless person needs to learn to be self-sufficient. I remember that it was very well thought out, and he had a lot to say that made a lot of sense for why all the parts were the way they were. If I recall, it was designed to be a model for all cities, to sort of eradicate/cure/solve the homeless problem. In a humane way.

So, while I haven't re-typed you for myself - yet - I do begin to notice that I am seeing more and more parallels for you with ILI (like, for example, the traits of a Negativist, like me) and ILI's I know. And I cannot think of times when I saw clear parallels with you and EII, or EII's I know. Just sayin'. Also it would explain the rather cold, calculating review of Maritsa your wrote in a recent thread. You probably would not call it cold, but just "the plain honest facts", as you value facing reality (as I do). I am sure you were not trying to be hurtful or cold. But T-types can come across as cold and calculating to us F-types sometimes, and for me, that was one of those times.

Also, just looking at that one post: If you were EII, what that post would display between you and Maritsa is the "complete understanding" of Identicals. You would also see sympathy and understanding - particularly as you would between two F-type Identicals. That was certainly not there! Instead, you wrote it like an ILI would, who, as her Benefactor, sees his Benefactee as someone lacking, or sort of less than himself...


________
editing to add: In the above I am referring to your post #28 in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-ever-and-last

it wasn't my plan of course.

I don't know how much importance can be placed into one thread...or indeed many such threads. I know people of various types and quadras who have a wide range of interests in various topics relating to human improvement, and the various humanities. I would say that my observation of Maritsa is that she has a rather narrow, insular view...focused very much on the local level, and the cult of socionics as a showy "pop psychology". She is very hyperactive in interfering in the affairs of others, in a way I find rather superfluous. She is very much focused on individuals being a type first, rather than being individuals first: I think this is why she takes great offence when people find her too pushy and when they doubt her typing: it is as though she herself is being insulted. Her perception of "self-improvement" is very much like fanatical gurus who pick up new fads and try to push them on their "clients", with little thought about whether it is helpful. I think the "humanitarian" role that she apparently in all seriousness has adopted for herself very much fits in with that: she seems utterly unable to see the wood for the trees or recognise when she is making people feel uncomfortable. My understanding of the word "humanitarian", if we must resort to archetypes, is someone with a diverse interest in human affairs, perhaps in various fields...as opposed to someone who is invariably chatty about more mundane affairs at a local level, and who is apparently utterly incapable of seeing each individual being capable of a vast arrange of thoughts and emotions (as is frequently shown by her typing people based on one sentence out of context (either in a single post, or a single conversation, or as one post out of thousands).

[jaein]

Eysenck Test Results

Extroversion (sociability) |||||||||| 32%
Neuroticism (emotionality) |||||||||||||| 60%
Psychoticism (rebelliousness) |||||| 30%
This test reflects the ideas of Hans Eysenck a pioneer in the field of personality research. Through research and statistical analysis he determined that personality is composed of three main elements: Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Most current researchers agree on the significance of the first two traits, but there is less consensus on the third (so he may be wrong about it's central importance but it clearly plays some role in personality). Most people will score lower on Psychoticism. While Psychoticism implies more negative qualities than the other two traits (typically), a link has been found is several studies between higher creativity and higher scores on Psychoticism.

Here are your results on each dimension:

Extroversion results were moderately low which suggests you are reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.

Neuroticism results were moderately high which suggests you are worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.

Psychoticism results were low which suggests you are overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense too often of your own individual development (martyr complex).

Prior to Eysenck's discovery of Psychoticism, he correlated his original two traits (introversion and neuroticism) with an ancient greek personality system known as the Galen types (Melancholic, Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic). Below is a plotting of your introversion and extraversion scores on that map.

Attachment 6692

[Eliza Thomason]

I don't know how much importance can be placed into one thread...or indeed many such threads. .

Are you referring to my typing of you based on things you said in a thread? For me, there can be a lot of importance in one thread if things I have noticed suddenly come together in my head ...I kind of get on a roll figuring out all these things. Other times I will read a thread and see nothing in particular as to type, but I think I store it away and it comes out later. This seems to be the case here.

I know people of various types and quadras who have a wide range of interests in various topics relating to human improvement, and the various humanities..

As far as my ILI friend's final thesis project for his architecture degree, compared to your thread on your plan on how to end poverty in the world, I see an uncanny correlation. I think its an ILI-type project focus. (perhaps its a same-subtype thing). Its NOT something I would see myself taking on, and its also NOT something I woudl see an EII taking on.

I would say that my observation of Maritsa is that she has a rather narrow, insular view...focused very much on the local level, and the cult of Socionics as a showy "pop psychology"..

Oh dear. Well, certainly I do not see "showy". That is your subjective, personal response/judgment. The whole thing is a harsh judgement, but, we all see some types as being too narrow, too shallow - but NOT our Identicals. Which is incentive for you to pin some other type on her. The sort of discounting and devaluing of the basic person in this statement here is not unusual for a Benefactor to say of his Benefactee. In fact its so devaluing that it makes me look quick at my chart to see who I might unknowingly treat that way, so I can take care not to!

She is very hyperactive in interfering in the affairs of others, in a way I find rather superfluous. She is very much focused on individuals being a type first, rather than being individuals first: .

Ah! This is NOT the statement of an Aristocrat. Its the statement of a Democrat, Subteigh.

(I have been accused of this by Democrats here before, which at first really, really puzzled me because, why would you NOT type people on a forum about typing people?? This seemed like such a crazy accusation to me until I understood it from the Democrat/Aristocrat Reinin Dichotomy, and now I see where a Democrat is coming from with this complaint.

I think this is why she takes great offence when people find her too pushy and when they doubt her typing: it is as though she herself is being insulted..

I don't find her pushy at all. I find her firm and settled on her opinions. I think "pushy" is your subjective response and judgment. And I think my opinion is more objective, more truly reflective of her actual posts here. Also, I disagree she is pushy when her typing is doubted. She is FIRM that what she has concluded is right. But she DOES get insulted unfairly here, and she gives back what she gets when that happens.

Her perception of "self-improvement" is very much like fanatical gurus who pick up new fads and try to push them on their "clients", with little thought about whether it is helpful..

Naw, this is just our Delta Quadral Complex. We want to be your teacher - for your own good, mind you, so, we just assume that role, you student you. From @silke's recently posted article:

"If a Delta Quadra type tell others: "You still have something to work on," - he sincerely believes that he's doing good work by raising the bar of requirements (and thereby places himself in the position of a strict critic, a teacher, a creative mentor) and making others perfect and improve in their skill and abilities, and unravel his potential. On the other side, falling under the criticism and finding themselves in a forced position of a "student", Delta Quadra types take an offense at such a self-appointed teacher and try to escape from his "care", retorting with: "I'm satisfied with everything about my work. I'm content with what I'm doing and not in need of outside advice."

I think the "humanitarian" role that she apparently in all seriousness has adopted for herself very much fits in with that: she seems utterly unable to see the wood for the trees or recognise when she is making people feel uncomfortable..

Well, most of us fall on one side of that fence or the other - not seeing the wood for the trees or the trees for the wood. I think she does perceive when she is making others uncomfortable, but if they express that discomfort in terms of a personal insult, she will react to that. Also I think she has in common with me and my type is a desire to say the truth if its the truth and no matter what anyone thinks.... I definitely do this at times.

My understanding of the word "humanitarian", if we must resort to archetypes, is someone with a diverse interest in human affairs, perhaps in various fields...as opposed to someone who is invariably chatty about more mundane affairs at a local level, and who is apparently utterly incapable of seeing each individual being capable of a vast arrange of thoughts and emotions (as is frequently shown by her typing people based on one sentence out of context (either in a single post, or a single conversation, or as one post out of thousands).

I think she likely sees the word humanitarian in a different sense than you do. I think you, in a very similar way to my ILI friend, are a humanitarian in the more classic sense of the word, with a broader, more societal focus. I think an EII is very humanitarian to the people in her little world. She is a true kind, loyal and caring friend to her family, close friends, colleagues, and also to the wider world, but usually that comes in priority of care after her loved ones, then, she puts herself out there to service humanity in sincere but narrower, more selective ways. An example given here on 16T of a EII humanitarian act is to walk weekly to the local library to read a book to the pre-schoolers. That's a very EII humanitarian act. A bit too narrow of focus for an ILI's humanitarian scope.

EII - yes, they can be chatty about mundane things in their life, at their local level. As to typing people, IMO she has made a mistake typing SO MANY people in her typing threads, as she is bound to get a bunch wrong, and annoy those people. But I am in agreement with her over some of those. I also can type a person on very little info, but that's only rarely. I think its a bit of an NF thing.... and I think you are not NF. You are just too logical, and too taken aback at people who do not use it. If you are Tj, I can see how you would could have a bout of such little patience with the ways of an Fj...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Are you referring to my typing of you based on things you said in a thread? For me, there can be a lot of importance in one thread if things I have noticed suddenly come together in my head ...I kind of get on a roll figuring out all these things. Other times I will read a thread and see nothing in particular as to type, but I think I store it away and it comes out later. This seems to be the case here.

I am referring to my general point about how many individuals of various types have a wide interest in psychology, and various humanities such as art, history, psychology, politics, literature, music and so on. Maritsa likes to consider herself the archetypal EII, the archetypal "Humanitarian", and I have attempted to challenge that. I would say that the definition of a "Humanitarian" could mean a wide range of things, from a person who cares about human interest issues, to a person who believes in the inherent worth of humans, to someone who has a wide range of interests in humanity at a global level. In contrast, there is still a lot of scope to be interested in people generally in your local environment (regardless of your type), and not be someone who sees the whole forest: this would be another kind of "humanitarian", but not what is usually meant by the term.

I do not consider myself as being "harsh" given the context, and considering I've been completely fair and balanced. Maritsa, as I've said, seems to have a narrow focus in human affairs, and a rather superficial one. She frequently misinterprets what others tell her, takes things completely out of context to fit her own ends, and seems to be the only person to be allowed to act differently from day-to-day without being typed SEE. She has an agenda, and seems to have a superficial understanding of human behaviour.

I recently criticised her for apparently boiling down the entirety of EIEs to "EIEs = Actors and Gurus, not Humanitarians or Teachers". She really seems to think that EIIs are the Humanitarians and the Teachers (or specifically, a subtype), and that these designations cannot apply to EIEs, and that "Actor" is really a label that is not loaded or in any way inadequate. (As it is, the NF club in general has been described as "the Humanitarians", but even that would be a superficial label).

Further, her reasoning tends to be not "Maritsa is an EII because she has Humanitarian tendencies, and EIIs are Humanitarians" (which would be bad enough), but more along the lines of "EIIs are Humanitarians, and only EIIs are Humanitarians, therefore Maritsa is a Humanitarian because Maritsa is EII" (or seemingly, THE EII, when she is frequently seen phrasing things that way). She for example says she "cannot" be hurtful, because Maritsa is EII, and EIIs aren't hurtful...even after she has caused hurt to someone.

Thus I really don't consider myself being "harsh". In addition, she has harangued people in typing wars and caused great strife on these forums through her antics: I do not consider it "harsh" to point this out, and I would consider it hypocrisy of the highest order for you to consider my post as "harsh" but Maritsa's prolonged antics as anything other.

In my experience of EIIs, even with the especially quiet ones who tend to be private can be seen to have a sample of hobbies with a..."humanitarian" focus, and/or some form of self-improvement. Whether it is writing, art, reading, photography, or being part of some local interest group...they get on quietly by, and typically, they are at the very least a passive observer of human affairs at all levels (it intrigues them, they see patterns and so on). There have been EIIs on this forum who have been here for 5 years or more...perhaps 10 years even, quietly getting by, causing no offence to anyone and occasionally contributing with their insights and revealing one or two things about themselves. They have gotten by on this forum in such a manner for a lengthy period of time...before...WHAM!!! Maritsa attempts to provoke them into an argument. The difference in energy, the difference in the focus of emphasis, and the difference in tone has been completely obvious. As I've stated before, Maritsa is perennially restless, has a superficial understanding of human behaviour (the languid and/or unresponsive nature of such individuals seems to be a puzzle to her, at least until she provokes a reaction and types them SEE), and is immediately antagonistic. Why can't she leave such people alone?

Ah! This is NOT the statement of an Aristocrat. Its the statement of a Democrat, Subteigh.

(I have been accused of this by Democrats here before, which at first really, really puzzled me because, why would you NOT type people on a forum about typing people?? This seemed like such a crazy accusation to me until I understood it from the Democrat/Aristocrat Reinin Dichotomy, and now I see where a Democrat is coming from with this complaint.

You need a reality check. People self-typed from all quadras have made these observations.

I don't find her pushy at all. I find her firm and settled on her opinions. I think "pushy" is your subjective response and judgment. And I think my opinion is more objective, more truly reflective of her actual posts here. Also, I disagree she is pushy when her typing is doubted. She is FIRM that what she has concluded is right. But she DOES get insulted unfairly here, and she gives back what she gets when that happens.

Perhaps you don't find her pushy because she agrees with your self-typing. I'm certain that Maritsa is the most "ignored" person on this forum for these reasons.

I find it perplexing that when Maritsa responds in the fashion she does, it is perfectly legitimate, but when I describe how she is in treating others, I'm being "harsh". Maritsa treated others in the way describe since the time she joined the forum...yes, it is wrong that she is insulted, but to say that it is a response to how she has been treated is false. She has been the initiator of confrontation more often than not, which strikes me as not at all EII-like (I'm not even talking of specific type attributes...I'm referring for example to prolonged high energy levels and her constant state of restlessness.

Naw, this is just our Delta Quadral Complex. We want to be your teacher - for your own good, mind you, so, we just assume that role, you student you. From @silke's recently posted article:

"If a Delta Quadra type tell others: "You still have something to work on," - he sincerely believes that he's doing good work by raising the bar of requirements (and thereby places himself in the position of a strict critic, a teacher, a creative mentor) and making others perfect and improve in their skill and abilities, and unravel his potential. On the other side, falling under the criticism and finding themselves in a forced position of a "student", Delta Quadra types take an offense at such a self-appointed teacher and try to escape from his "care", retorting with: "I'm satisfied with everything about my work. I'm content with what I'm doing and not in need of outside advice."

I disagree with your understanding. My description was very specific: I would consider the approach of an EII to be less like a "fanatical guru" who peddles the latest fads to their "clients" without much of a second thought, and more as someone who is more reserved, less energetic...someone more prone to extensive reflection about "new" things, which they would possibly recognise as not really "new" at all, from being naturally more reflective and less reactionary. They would not be "gurus" in that sense, and they wouldn't have "clients" in that sense, which suggests a certain degree of superficiality: they would be people who, from time-to-time, refer to something they had been thinking about...and typically to close confidantes in an opportune moment...if indeed at all! ...They would not pick up the latest pop psychology and then pass on a superficial understanding of it, day-after-day, for years, and generally have little comprehension of the nuances of human expression. From my own experiences, when I learnt of Jungian types and Socionics, I did not then go and preach it like it was some kind of gospel to everybody...I have spoken very little of it even in 10 years, and I've never depicted it as the greatest thing since slice bread. I am more prone to revealing things when strictly relevant or interesting to the issue at hand.

I think she likely sees the word humanitarian in a different sense than you do. I think you, in a very similar way to my ILI friend, are a humanitarian in the more classic sense of the word, with a broader, more societal focus. I think an EII is very humanitarian to the people in her little world. She is a true kind, loyal and caring friend to her family, close friends, colleagues, and also to the wider world, but usually that comes in priority of care after her loved ones, then, she puts herself out there to service humanity in sincere but narrower, more selective ways. An example given here on 16T of a EII humanitarian act is to walk weekly to the local library to read a book to the pre-schoolers. That's a very EII humanitarian act. A bit too narrow of focus for an ILI's humanitarian scope.

EII - yes, they can be chatty about mundane things in their life, at their local level. As to typing people, IMO she has made a mistake typing SO MANY people in her typing threads, as she is bound to get a bunch wrong, and annoy those people. But I am in agreement with her over some of those. I also can type a person on very little info, but that's only rarely. I think its a bit of an NF thing.... and I think you are not NF. You are just too logical, and too taken aback at people who do not use it. If you are Tj, I can see how you would could have a bout of such little patience with the ways of an Fj...

Again, I don't see why this image that Maritsa paints of herself would be alien to an EIE, or an ESE, or indeed, a SEE.

You say I'm "too logical"...but who is the one who frequently misses out the nuances of what people are saying? I would say she has all the hallmarks of an extreme extrovert who either has no time to read what others write, or who has a limited understanding of human motivations and is unable to pick up on subtext (or even context). I think people who know me, or encountered me on these forums, by contrast, would typically say I'm the opposite, even if I'm been too prone to being too politically correct in my judgements (I'm referring to my time as admin).