• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.
Reaction score

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • Its just that I know myself well enough to understand that eventually I always start sounding like a douche, better just admit it I figured, that way people will be less bothered. Of course I try to be nice most of the time nevertheless!
    I don't understand the question. Not one bit.


    Oh I understand now. Communication barrier. English is complex and I am vague.

    I didn't mean personality type.

    I mean I dislike when others call me to the forefront. The type of attention I like is the type I call to myself, in other words, if I want it, I'll seek it.
    I know what my type is.

    I dislike that sort of attention. The attention I want is the type I call to myself.

    It only took 3 months I'd say that is pretty fast comparatively.
    Visual reading is very aloof indeed. Specifically the methodology Auburn uses. Humans are like tastes, it takes experience to identify a taste; but once you do taste it, you are certain. To type people with the methodology standard, is to guess the taste. But that isn't valid... You have to actually taste it you know :D
    "also are you really the one to tell me not to make unnecessary threads after your ones recently?"

    one*. Although that thread turned out to not be entirely unnecessary after all.

    But fair enough.
    haha no, I type as INFJ 4 and the mien of the guy in my avatar happens to be very representative of this combination imo
    I have studied it for many years now even though I have only been on this forum for a few days. How long have you studied it? And I don't mean to come off as arrogantly confident but I do have strong opinions about typology. My opinions of typology are a combination of what I have learned about it and from my own interpretations of typing other people and then seeing patterns in their behavior. So you may have a more traditional definition of types than I do, but on that thread we were speculating about people's types so I think it's open to interpretation.
    Not necessarily. I'm very unconventional in my thinking and my reasoning, even for unconventional people, and I can be very obstinate.

    However, I have found that when people are open about the emotional reasons as to why they choose their views, then it's easy for me to resolve differences with them. Emotions get in the way so much, but only if you don't know where they are. If you know where they are, you can go around them.
    if so, mayhaps you can delete your latest comment and just post it on my wall, to avoid cluttering the thread? :3
    lol, we can take it to PM or profile comments. I can see now why you wanted to interact via a forum. ;p
    Yeah, the forum thing is a good idea in general & perhaps as more videos roll-out it'll get opened. We'll see what happens! O:
    What about your criticisms? What do you think? It's faults are not so hidden...really they are not. Hint: Keirsey does not even pay attention to the roots of MBTI which is JCF.
    I would agree that the three-letter code approach is an improvement. Where Myers-Briggs were troubled over J/P, the three-letter code never even encounters such an issue. Judging and perceiving properties are implied from which type of function is dominant(e.g. logic vs intuition).

    However, beyond that it deviates just as well from Jung's work, so overall I'd definitely say it is the more complex theory, but it may not be an improvement over MBTI. There are all sorts of concepts and theories within Socionics, that also are in need of strong backing. In my personal opinion, though, since Socionics's fundamental basis is closer to Jung, I'd prefer to work from that over MBTI, if not branch off into a new personal typology altogether.
    Hi Ink, I saw your posts but they were kind of distracting while I was trying to reply to Words.

    "Their system seems to be more reasonably structured."
    How so?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom