# Opinions/Judgement on my MBTI type.



## Siri (Aug 1, 2015)

narcissistic said:


> They say it's easier to type someone based on their:
> Vulnerable, role and leading function.


Vulnerable function is the easiest to spot, if the person typing you has your vulnerable function as their leading function.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Siri said:


> Vulnerable function is the easiest to spot, if the person typing you has your vulnerable function as their leading function.


Bwn is a Se leading,
So what do you say Bwn?


----------



## Siri (Aug 1, 2015)

narcissistic said:


> Bwn is a Se leading,
> So what do you say Bwn?


:sighlol:

BWN, ENFJ was a much better fit :laughing:


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

@Shinsei
Right then, I'm back home.

Here's the sources I used to determine my enneagram:

* *





http://personalitycafe.com/type-1-forum-reformer/65601-type-one-reformer-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-2-forum-helper/65602-type-two-helper-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-3-forum-achiever/65603-type-three-achiever-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-4-f...-four-individualist-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-5-f...e-five-investigator-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-6-f...e-six-loyal-skeptic-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-7-f...pe-seven-enthusiast-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-8-f...pe-eight-challenger-timeless-description.html
http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-f...ype-nine-peacemaker-timeless-description.html

I used other ones, but I can't remember them.
Also I deem these one more insightful anyways.




Determining tritype:
Tritype archetypes and variant descriptions

4>3>2 (4w5>4w3) (3w4>3w2) (2w3>2w1)
5>6>7 (5w6>5w4) (6w5>6w7) (7w8>7w6)
8>1>9 (8w9>8w7) (1w9>1w2) (9w1>9w8)

I am very unhealthy, so most of these relations are due to unhealthiness.

These are all equally worthy being as my "main type".
3w4, 4w3, 4w5
5w4, 5w6, 6w5
1w9, 8w9, 9w1
I simply chose 4w3 as preference, since you don't see many people rocking 4w3 around here.

4 is more present as my image type.
5 is more present as my head type.
1,8,9 are equally low and generally use them in negative ways:
Type 1 for self-righteousness and overly perfectionist.
Type 8 for superiority and authority.
Type 9 for laziness and lack of interest/ detachment in/ from external world.

So really, 458 459 451 are all good options.
So again, 459 is generally preference.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Siri said:


> The only difference I find is that MBTI is all about preferences and Socionics about preferences + strengths.


Sorry to disappoint but they are both mumbo-jumbo, based of the same mumbo-jumbo. Just because you include a description of "strengths", does not make something more scientific or accurate.

Eg Geminis (born May 21 - June 20) are great communicators which make them excellent people-persons. However, Geminis also need some alone time too because even great people-persons need some alone time every now and again. They can improve by getting the right balance.



> I find that hard to believe. Even if such thing happens, I'd go with Socionics result since I believe it's easier to spot one's strengths and weaknesses than the preferences. So, there are greater chances of being mistyped through MBTI.


I present exhibit A:










Mbti and Socionics do not correlate perfectly, as I said they are two distinct theories. It's like how you are more likely to get an Sanguine ESFP but it's not to say every ESFP will automatically be Sanguine, despite this type as being classed as full Sanguine. If you prefer Socionics theory, then fine, go for it, but it doesn't make it closer to Mbti.


----------



## Siri (Aug 1, 2015)

Because_why_not said:


> Sorry to disappoint but they are both mumbo-jumbo, based of the same mumbo-jumbo. Just because you include a description of "strengths", does not make something more scientific or accurate.
> 
> I present exhibit A:


LOL? ISTp in socionics has the functions of an ISTJ in MBTI, which is also true for other introverted types. No wonder according to your source, so many INFPs mistype themselves as INFJ.

I smell BS from that source anyway. So, tell me how MBTI is different from Socionics, theoretically.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Siri said:


> LOL? ISTp in socionics has the functions of an ISTJ in MBTI, which is also true for other introverted types. No wonder according to your source, so many INFPs mistype themselves as INFJ.


The reasons for that could be people looking at I/E, N/S, T/F and J/P. Although it could be the case that people are familiar with both theories and have converted it incorrectly, I think the case is more likely my point.



> I smell BS from that source anyway. So, tell me how MBTI is different from Socionics, theoretically.


What you saying about my Excel skills?! Lol no. I found the chart earlier here: Difference in type between MBTI and Socionics to find what other people had tested as. This means that there is an extra source (for the life of me I can't remember what you call a reference of a reference, but it's that.)

And it's a shame that as much as you claim to be behind socionics being better than mbti, you don't even know the differences yourself and also claim it to be the same thing.

Well for a start Socionimics focuses on interactions of 8 functions, which is different to Jungian and mbti theory. Also, the others must acknowledge that if 8 functions do exist, everyone must use them to some degree, the way they interact and manifest is different between theories.

Between theories the functions are not interchangeable. This could be a mistranslated which has caused that from Russian where terms such as "introverted ethics" were translated as Fi, despite them being different. This has caused confusion in the West especially as Mbti came first. Here is the differences between Si for example:



> Si in socionics has a dimension of sensual connection to objects and environment (in a way more similar to the mbti version of Se), whereas the mbti Si focuses squarely on information about the object without appreciation of sensual contact with the object itself.


There will be more because as I *keep saying* these are *different theories*. But I need to be quick in my reply and I'm not expected to do all the reading for you.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Eg Geminis (born May 21 - June 20) are great communicators which make them excellent people-persons. However, Geminis also need some alone time too because even great people-persons need some alone time every now and again. They can improve by getting the right balance.


Irrelevant.
DOB has no links to personality.


> It's like how you are more likely to get an Sanguine ESFP but it's not to say every ESFP will automatically be Sanguine, despite this type as being classed as full Sanguine. If you prefer Socionics theory, then fine, go for it, but it doesn't make it closer to Mbti.


Irrelevant.
Emotions have no links to personality.

Both of these examples are superficial personality theories when it comes to correlating with MBTI i.e. correlation between the four temperaments and MBTI are stereotypes.

MBTI and socionics use different methods, however they both arrive at the same (if not similar) results.
Note: 
Extroverts = same socionic type, 
Introverts = flipped J/P type (INTP = INTj, INTJ = INTp)
INTj's function stack = INTP's function stack.
INTj's function stack =/= INTJ's function stack.

Also,
when dealing with a lot of mistypes in both socionics and MBTI: then by correlating these two you are going to get a lot of funky results.
E.g. would be INTJs in that list got ESTp and ENTj.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> Irrelevant.
> DOB has no links to personality.


You missed my point completely. It's that just because something adds strengths to a "personality" type doesn't make it any more or less credible.



> Irrelevant.
> Emotions have no links to personality.


Not sure where you get emotions from my quote because there is literally zero mention of them. There is me saying there's no way you can make two theories the same for preferring one though.



> Both of these examples are superficial personality theories when it comes to correlating with MBTI i.e. correlation between the four temperaments and MBTI are stereotypes.


The temperaments have been matched to Social styles (I just chose those names because they're wider recognised) which do correlate to mbti (but again not perfectly, and that is the point.)



> MBTI and socionics use different methods, however they both arrive at the same (if not similar) results.
> Note:
> Extroverts = same socionic type,
> Introverts = flipped J/P type (INTP = INTj, INTJ = INTp)
> ...


I read that this wasn't actually the case. How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type

It's not the same.



> Also,
> when dealing with a lot of mistypes in both socionics and MBTI: then by correlating these two you are going to get a lot of funky results.
> E.g. would be INTJs in that list got ESTp and ENTj.


If both theories were that accurate, then you wouldn't have such wild mistypes. The point is that I mentioned in a later post to Siri, the functions are different and how they interact and manifest are different. I'm not saying don't use it. I'm not even saying one is more accurate than the other. If you want to use it, go for it! But understand that these are independent of each other as much as a human and ape are (common ancestor, developed independantly)


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Source you used suggests auxiliary and tertiary functions are easy to be muddle up in.
If you are a dominant peciever then you are likely to be p>j i.e. INTJ Te/Fi so likely to type as INTp.
If you are a dominant judges then you are likely to be j>p i.e. INTP Ne/Si so likely to type as INTj.
Though it suggests that if you are certain on your aux/ter axis then: INTJ = INTj INTP = INTp.

Socionics functions are based on conscious behaviour, 
MBTI functions are based on sub-conscious behaviour.
That is why there is a difference in their definitions.
That being said, Se dominant in MBTI will still be able to relate to Se leading in socionics.


----------



## Siri (Aug 1, 2015)

Because_why_not said:


> Between theories the functions are not interchangeable. This could be a mistranslated which has caused that from Russian where terms such as "introverted ethics" were translated as Fi, despite them being different. This has caused confusion in the West especially as Mbti came first. Here is the differences between Si for example:
> 
> Si in socionics has a dimension of sensual connection to objects and environment (in a way more similar to the mbti version of Se), whereas the mbti Si focuses squarely on information about the object without appreciation of sensual contact with the object itself.


Those are some vague definitions of Si, but both are true indeed. You must understand that a function is not just one thing. The definitions given by Jung are the most basic, and like you said both the theories have been developed on the same functions as described by Jung. Then the functions in both theories should mean the same. It's like one person is calling mermaid a human because they're looking only at the face and the other person calling it a fish because they just see the tail. Both fail to notice a mermaid as a whole. 



> What you saying about my Excel skills?! Lol no. I found the chart earlier here: Difference in type between MBTI and Socionics to find what other people had tested as. This means that there is an extra source (for the life of me I can't remember what you call a reference of a reference, but it's that.)
> 
> And it's a shame that as much as you claim to be behind socionics being better than mbti, you don't even know the differences yourself and also claim it to be the same thing.


Lol, I know that. I just meant that the expected correlations are wrong. I am very well aware of the difference between the two and I did state it before. I wanted to know your view on the differences. 



> The reasons for that could be people looking at I/E, N/S, T/F and J/P. Although it could be the case that people are familiar with both theories and have converted it incorrectly, I think the case is more likely my point.


It just means that a person has either not gone through the functions or has misunderstood the functions and the theories.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> Source you used suggests auxiliary and tertiary functions are easy to be muddle up in.
> If you are a dominant peciever then you are likely to be p>j i.e. INTJ Te/Fi so likely to type as INTp.
> If you are a dominant judges then you are likely to be j>p i.e. INTP Ne/Si so likely to type as INTj.
> Though it suggests that if you are certain on your aux/ter axis then: INTJ = INTj INTP = INTp.


The reference was just to prove to prove you wrong in saying INTP = INTj as it says it isn't as easy and straightforward as you said it was. (Basically, I was arguing against you rather than necessarily for me here)



> Socionics functions are based on conscious behaviour,
> MBTI functions are based on sub-conscious behaviour.
> That is why there is a difference in their definitions.
> That being said, Se dominant in MBTI will still be able to relate to Se leading in socionics.


You realise what I'm arguing is that they're different theories, right? Like, I wouldn't mind so much *if I hadn't freaking being spelling that out!!!*

There could be a link, and the probability could be more likely than random chance but it's not exact. They aren't two sides to the same coin.

And there are a few reasons why the terminology is different. Point is, it's different. The theory is different. How is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Siri said:


> Those are some vague definitions of Si, but both are true indeed. You must understand that a function is not just one thing. The definitions given by Jung are the most basic, and like you said both the theories have been developed on the same functions as described by Jung. Then the functions in both theories should mean the same. It's like one person is calling mermaid a human because they're looking only at the face and the other person calling it a fish because they just see the tail. Both fail to notice a mermaid as a whole.


But developing from a common source doesn't mean the same result. I keep giving you the example of evolution to show you how two things that are different can develop from the same thing. It's true with everything, including theories. The quote was vague because it's the basics of each theory's version of that function, just to show that the grounding is different.



> Lol, I know that. I just meant that the expected correlations are wrong. I am very well aware of the difference between the two and I did state it before. I wanted to know your view on the differences.


How are you saying here that the correlations between mbti and socionics are not exact, yet you are arguing that they are the same (as in just look at your paragraph above)?



> It just means that a person has either not gone through the functions or has misunderstood the functions and the theories.


That's because they have looked at the I/E variables as their root and decided from there. And that's just one example. If you read this thread from the start, the consensus was that Narc was INTP/INTJ which are actually pretty different in terms of functions. I'm sure people will agree that there is introversion, intuition and thinking there. It doesn't mean that people haven't understood anything of the functions.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

My point is, from now from this new information you have presented.
ISTP = ISTp or ISTj 
Both ISTp and ISTj share the same Id and Ego functions in terms of: Si, Se, Ti, Te.
Both share the same Super-Id functions in terms of: Ne, Fe.
Meaning it can be some easy to muddle them up.

But why them being different matters?
I've successfully typed people through both MBTI and socionics methods to determine their type.
It only gets tricky when the person relates to both e.g. ISTj's vul Ne & sug Fe and ISTp's vul Fe & sug Ne.
Then it's sort of a flip of a coin.


----------



## Siri (Aug 1, 2015)

Because_why_not said:


> How are you saying here that the correlations between mbti and socionics are not exact, yet you are arguing that they are the same (as in just look at your paragraph above)?


All I am saying is that both are different theories that use the same functions (including their definitions).


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

@narcissistic it matters because it's incorrect to treat two different theories as the same. If they were the same, then the same result would occur but this isn't the case. Muddling mbti and socionics is what has caused the confusion between the two in the first place.

Also, you can't say that you have successfully typed people, that's pretty arrogant. Only people can type themselves, or again, you would get a consistent result each time. There's a reason why threads questioning types exist. Ignoring trolls and idiots, of course.

@Siri you said they were the same. Here is one example:



> The definitions given by Jung are the most basic, and like you said both the theories have been developed on the same functions as described by Jung. Then the functions in both theories should mean the same.


If the functions are the same, then the resulting theories are the same (You can make two different looking houses out of bricks, but they will still be made from bricks). However, neither theory takes *only* what Jung theorised because they both develop it. The functions then become different to their "original" and even more so to their "counterpart". A mbti type is not the same as a Socionic type, both in functions and description. (The only thing that's purely the same about the functions is their names, and I've explained why this is confusing people.)


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

i dont think there was much doubt that you were intp, narc (at least not to me)

even from the 1st interaction you had with me (it was long ago, and i doubt you remember, lol) you showed your... laziness, and ability to delegate things >.<
not saying you werent helpful, just saying it would have been nice if at least one person even tried to help me based on the information i gave >.<

interesting how you expect us to read all of the questions you answered when you wouldnt read mine, haha
im joking of course, the purpose of this thread is different, and i realize that


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Lol we've long moved on from Narci's type to arguing crap about two theories. This is what happens when Ne (and my Se) takes over threads.

Hey! Proof you can have Ne, Narci! I found it!


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Yay Are we fucking done now.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Shinsei said:


> Yay Are we fucking done now.


No! You're fucking wrong!! How do you even jump to that conclusion! It's different from mine! You fucking stupid retard!!!


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> No! You're fucking wrong!! How do you even jump to that conclusion! It's different from mine! You fucking stupid retard!!!


I was asking a question fucking dipshit.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Shinsei said:


> I was asking a question fucking dipshit.


Yeah, and I answered you dipshit and then took the piss, dipshit (x2)


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Lol we've long moved on from Narci's type to arguing crap about two theories. This is what happens when Ne (and my Se) takes over threads.
> 
> Hey! Proof you can have Ne, Narci! I found it!


yea, i was subtly trying to move it back to the main topic
too subtle for you? =P

(and it doesnt mean narc has ne... just that *somebody* dominating this thread does...)



Shinsei said:


> Yay Are we fucking done now.


rude



Because_why_not said:


> No! You're fucking wrong!! How do you even jump to that conclusion! It's different from mine! You fucking stupid retard!!!


ruder 



Shinsei said:


> I was asking a question fucking dipshit.


rudest



Because_why_not said:


> Yeah, and I answered you dipshit and then took the piss, dipshit (x2)


thats enough now kids


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

darcstar3 said:


> i dont think there was much doubt that you were intp, narc (at least not to me)
> 
> even from the 1st interaction you had with me (it was long ago, and i doubt you remember, lol) you showed your... laziness, and ability to delegate things >.<
> not saying you werent helpful, just saying it would have been nice if at least one person even tried to help me based on the information i gave >.<
> ...


I will type your thread (again) when I get back home.
I think I've improved since then, so perhaps I can give a better reading for you.


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

awww, thanks, im honoured








and as you probably dont know, thats the :fangirl: gif 
(there is one higher level, but i shall save that for now)


----------



## bremen (Apr 25, 2016)

Sorry for late response,here we go.Made a long ass response since you always help out newbies
For this,I will only use the information presented in the post,just for lols

Tl;dr:I believe you're an Intp



> needing for structure and order, asocial, someone that takes time to gradually feel comfortable with other people, likes to observe their surrounds and then slowly piecing this information into a solid foundation to navigate through life


That sounds very Si



> lacks the ability to understands people's expressions/emotions correctly, indifferent and apathetic, stoic.


Obviously a very bad Fe you have.



> Absolution, clarification, removing ignorance, removing deception


I found this ''INTPs often find it easier to identify inconsistencies or logical shortcomings—to assert what is not true—than to identify and confidently assert what is true. They can quickly locate inconsistencies or logical shortcomings in a given theory or argument.'' 
so with this we know that you probably have a high Ti.



> I make sure my situations are scheduled and have routine so that I do not have to worry about endless possibilities on what could go wrong (need for absolution/clarification).
> In situations where I am not planned as stated above (i.e. surprises) I am paranoid and expect everything to go wrong, I act hesitant and nervous which usually ends in causing mistakes so I self-assure myself that I am "ok" even if I do get lost


You look like you have a strong Si,don't know if you're familiar with it,but at least in Istj sub-forum,we call that catastrophe mode.



> I socialize when I want something, otherwise I do not have a purpose in socializing.
> This is why I dislike and feel uncomfortable in small talk as it has no direction.


Very introverted,I tend to associate this behaviour with Introverted thinkers



> Nothing about society I see important in, I do not care about: social norms, values, customs,
> Imperfection.It goes against beauty, structure, absolution, routine.
> When imperfection manifests in me I become overly: structured, routined


You do have a good Si,but this of one thing Istjs have a tendency to never do.,the social norms thing,etc.



> Nothing particularly energizes me, perhaps when:
> I feel noticed,


You're basically this:Notice me senpai!!



> Ti-Te-Ni-Si-Ne-Se-Fi-Fe


I seen lots of Ti and Si in your descriptions,but not much of other functions perhaps some Te here and there.

Taking this information at face value,I would type you either Intp or Istj leaning for Intp because you really don't have that much Te from what I just read and Intps do have Si in Tertiary so maybe you just use it more than aux.

Also as an Istj,I don't relate that much with what you said,and you give off a similar vibe to a irl Intp I know.


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

You're definitely INTP

Why?

Bc you have an anime profile pic/avatar, and all INTPs are hikkikomoris or weebs.

W E E B


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

meaningless said:


> You're definitely INTP
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


so how do you plan to explain all the people of others types on this forum alone who also like anime, and use anime avatars

are they mistyped?


im not gonna even mention the number of intps who dont even like anime because theyre probably mistyped too


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

darcstar3 said:


> so how do you plan to explain all the people of others types on this forum alone who also like anime, and use anime avatars
> 
> are they mistyped?
> 
> ...


Lol who's starting a meaningless argument _now_? Pfft pahahaha


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

darcstar3 said:


> so how do you plan to explain all the people of others types on this forum alone who also like anime, and use anime avatars
> 
> are they mistyped?
> 
> ...


Its a joke.........


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Lol who's starting a meaningless argument _now_? Pfft pahahaha


lol, still gonna go with you =P



meaningless said:


> Its a joke.........


but it was mean a mean joke (T.T)


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

darcstar3 said:


> lol, still gonna go with you =P
> 
> 
> 
> but it was mean a mean joke (T.T)


Sorry, I can come across as mean sometimes lol.

But just so you know, I love INTPs. I look up to them a lot and admire them, so don't worry.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Well than you would be wrong, wouldn't you? :dry:

Btw, no one has commented on the awesome pun I made.


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Well than you would be wrong, wouldn't you? :dry:
> 
> Btw, no one has commented on the awesome pun I made.


I think I know what pun you made

_meaningless _argument?


----------



## darcstar3 (Jun 22, 2016)

meaningless said:


> Sorry, I can come across as mean sometimes lol.
> 
> But just so you know, I love INTPs. I look up to them a lot and admire them, so don't worry.


well then thats good ^.^



Because_why_not said:


> Well than you would be wrong, wouldn't you? :dry:
> 
> Btw, no one has commented on the awesome pun I made.


i saw it... just decided to ignore it though =P



meaningless said:


> I think I know what pun you made
> 
> _meaningless _argument?


shhh, theres no need to give him credit >.<


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

ColdNobility said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


btw, cool avatar.

Regards to looking like an ISTJ.
That would be due to Ti-Si loop.

INTP in Ti-Si loop look like ISxJs. (ISFJ if they are using Fe to get out of loop)


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

meaningless said:


> You're definitely INTP
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


WEEB is best life <3
Though, I personally prefer OTAK-U.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> btw, cool avatar.
> 
> Regards to looking like an ISTJ.
> That would be due to Ti-Si loop.
> ...


Maybe Ursi had some reason to her then :laughing: (Shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but I'm still finding it funny)


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Maybe Ursi had some reason to her then :laughing: (Shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but I'm still finding it funny)


ISFJ would of been possible if I have good use of Fe as of now (most likely to unhealthy version),
But that would only reinforce me being INTP.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Yeah I wasn't actually suggesting you were an ISFJ


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Good job boys, so who wants lunch, its on me.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

I do! Take me somewhere fancy <3


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

I forgot I don't like you so you are not invited. Fucking Scum. <3


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Reported for personal insults <3


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Says the guy that is an insult himself. <3


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

That makes no sense. Reported for poor quality posting.


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Pfft who cares Mods don't take people like you seriously.:dry:


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

They listened in regards to Ursi. Why would they not take me seriously all of a sudden?


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Ursi has been getting Infraction for that for some time though.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Yeah and I had them put the final nail in the coffin.

You also didn't answer my question.


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

K


Um have you met yourself?
XD


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

It's impossible to meet yourself in that sense.


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Hahah it was rhetorical and sarcasm, I said that because you said that when I say you take things to seriously and you replied with umm have you met me? LOL


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

I also reported ursi, 
Whose to say you were the one who did all the hard work?


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> I also reported ursi,
> Whose to say you were the one who did all the hard work?


:happy:


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Shinsei said:


> Hahah it was rhetorical and sarcasm, I said that because you said that when I say you take things to seriously and you replied with umm have you met me? LOL


Yes, but asking if you have met me makes sense. Asking if I've met myself doesn't. You failed there. Admit it.



narcissistic said:


> I also reported ursi,
> Whose to say you were the one who did all the hard work?


You just jumped on the bandwagon.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> You just jumped on the bandwagon.


I reported first, you're just stealing my credit >:|


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

No *I* reported first!


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

XD I am wrong BWN


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Yah we know...


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Lol, the barnum effect is what _all_ personality theories use to "justify" themselves.

Silly ESFJ trying to test out that inferior Ti of theirs and missing everything.


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Type me someone? XDXDXDXXDXDXDDXDXDXDDXDXDXDXDX


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Lol, the barnum effect is what all personality theories use to "justify" themselves.












I truly am amazed at how good you are at bullshitting, please teach me senpai.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Such enthusiasm!! Must be an Ne-dom.

Never gives proof - must be Ti user.

Conclusion: ENTP


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

@narcissistic Could be sarcasm, but I will take the compliment. I'm surprised it's taken you


> this


 long to realise my bullshitting and twisting skills.
@Shinsei Such enthusiasm!! Must be an Ne-dom.

Never gives proof - must be Ti user.

Conclusion: ENTP[/QUOTE]

(Was gonna clean up in the edit, but proves my point about attention to detail.)


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Such enthusiasm!! Must be an Ne-dom.
> 
> Never gives proof - must be Ti user.
> 
> Conclusion: ENTP














> I'm surprised it's taken you this long to realise my bullshitting and twisting skills.


I just like to see how far you can go with bullshitting, also like to see how far you can go until you crack with your inconsistencies and hypocrisy.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

narcissistic said:


>


I'm talking about Shin, not you.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> I'm talking about Shin, not you.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

> I just like to see how far you can go with bullshitting, also like to see how far you can go until you crack with your inconsistencies and hypocrisy.


Nah, there's none of that, mate. However, I can't be specific if you're not.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

narcissistic said:


> MBTI and socionics use different methods, however they both arrive at the same (if not similar) results.
> Note:
> Extroverts = same socionic type,
> Introverts = flipped J/P type (INTP = INTj, INTJ = INTp)
> ...


So you believe you're LII and INTP?

Why do you think you're Se-PoLR in Socionics? You're not even close to being afraid of confrontation, conflict or standing up for yourself. Nor does exerting will power seem to be the slightest problem for you.

People with Suggestive/PoLR Se struggle to even be slightly direct with people.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> So you believe you're LII and INTP?
> 
> Why do you think you're Se-PoLR in Socionics? You're not even close to being afraid of confrontation, conflict or standing up for yourself. Nor does exerting will power seem to be the slightest problem for you.
> 
> People with Suggestive/PoLR Se struggle to even be slightly direct with people.


Online is different to irl.
Irl I can relate strongly to Se-PoLR.
Online I can be more "present", I feel more comfortable basically.

My personality is different from online to irl.
Online is more like role-playing to me.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Found a new type for you:



> TMLT mess about on a Mafia thread and ignore so many warnings not to talk about something but they just can't help themselves and talk about it and end up getting modkilled in day 1.





> ENFP


ENFP be you, Narci.


----------



## Shinsei (May 9, 2016)

Because_why_not said:


> Found a new type for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um ok ******


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

It wasn't me that answered that.

You just don't want to share the same type as him. 

That's so mean of you, ENFP!!!


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Show me your sources.
I.e. direct quote it.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> Show me your sources.
> I.e. direct quote it.


http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/510738-type-most-likely-406.html#post31007154

Ask Dora


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

I've asked.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

And the hive has spoken.

ENFP (though you seem to prefer ESFJ)


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm going home, I'm just getting bullied at this point lmao.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Personally I'd rather ENFP than ESFJ. My ENFP friend is a lot more laid back than my ESFJ friend.

Also, way to cry like Ursi pahahahaha


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Also, way to cry like Ursi pahahahaha


lmao, I was being sarcastic.
But I suppose that comment was too.



> Personally I'd rather ENFP than ESFJ.


Personally, no.


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Okay, now I'm curious. If you could be any type, what is it and why? Also, the one you'd least like to be and why?


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Type I'd like to be the most:
ENTJ, then ESTJ closely behind it.
Why?
Because characters of these types seem like they're sort of invincible in terms of "living" i.e. they know how to operate in the external world, they know what they want in life, they know how to achieve it.
It's like they have a street smart version of "life smart".
I don't really mind having a lack of Fi as I don't really prefer to use it anyways.
ENTJ's lack of Si may put me off, as well as ESTJ's lack of Ni. (I think those are the only reasons I would not want to be that type).

Type I'd dislike to be the most:
A lot of types.
I have a strong dislike in xSFP & xSFJ for some reason.
Many characters of these types tend to frustrate and annoy me a lot.
Usually it's just a vibe they bring that puts me off and doesn't really have any particular reason to it (like a bad fragrance).

Though that being said, I would not mind being any type as long as it is accurate/true to me.
My liking to TJs and disliking to SFs does not really matter in terms of my own type.
Generally speaking the type I want to be is "me" (not in terms of my current type, INTP), and the type I don't want to be is not "me".


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Replies: 202
Views: 1,868

Must be using Tor. Just sayin'.


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

*re-opening this thread. Please leave your personal attacks and derails at the door. If you don't think you can do that; move along. *


----------

