What group do you identify with?

[Athenian200]

I'm curious to see which group people identify with out of these four. They're more commonly known as something else, but I'm renaming them to avoid bias.

Casuals try to create a comfortable and pleasant group atmosphere, in the emotional, sensorial, and intellectual aspects. An ideal Casual group situation is the exchange of light-hearted jokes while discussing novel concepts, all while enjoying pleasant food and drink. Narrating personal experiences usually takes the form of telling a joke; funny and unusual personal experiences are preferred over serious and banal ones. Overly boring or repetitive activities are minimized as much as possible;

Casuals prefer activities that require creativity and have lots of potential for personal development. They avoid generating "heavy" moments; any dramatic expressions are limited in time, most often in service of a joke. Casuals are also perhaps the most likely types to participate in use of mind-altering substances.

Casual discussions tend to go off on tangents, in whatever direction seems most interesting at the moment. Unusual personal observations are common, resulting from the analysis of the idiosyncrasies or inconsistencies of everyday life. If many in the group share the same observations, they are likely to express their agreement emphatically, so as to create a kind of mental harmony which enhances the group dynamic. If a new problem is encountered, it is discussed and developed until some kind of satisfactory conclusion is reached.

Casuals make no distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders", easily drawing people into a conversation once it has begun — though they tend to just as easily withdraw if the person is not receptive. Likewise, they prefer to have the same behavior at work as at play; they find formal speech and dress to be unnecessarily limiting, and it is a common object of ridicule. Casuals dislike the idea that there are alterior motives going on "behind the scenes", preferring to keep things as open and straightforward as possible.


Preference for larger groups where participation is "collective" rather than focused on individuals for any length of time, but with likely "domination" by more assertive individuals. This means that Roughneck groups discuss topics that everyone could contribute to. Frequent unexplained inside jokes are considered impolite because they exclude other people. Jokes are loud and general, often about stereotypes. Roughnecks attempt to draw others into the group activity: for example, in a situation where there are "group rituals" going on (as in drinking, dancing, etc), there is good-natured pressure on "outsiders" to also participate in them, with a sort of puzzled dismay if they prefer not to. They also try to draw attention to people who might otherwise feel left out - usually this is done with general jokes directed at individuals.

In more subdued moments, discussion of ideas involving present trends and political implications, with strong views voiced. Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them. When larger social events are organized by Roughnecks (such as parties, receptions etc), they show an inclination to promote activities that will lead to the guests involved as a single group, such as games and shows; dislike for the "quieter" form of events where guests tend to quietly form smaller groups in more intimate atmospheres, which Roughnecks tend to see as boring.

For Roughnecks atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of Roughnecks spend time together to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.

Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Roughnecks generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Roughnecks believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.

Roughnecks also don't like it when people tell long, slow stories. Roughnecks try to be polite and listen to the story, and they will forgive you if it was boring for them, but if someone does it too often they might not be invited back. Roughnecks restrict long-winded stories to one-on-one conversations.

Groups made up of primarily Elitist types tend to be small in size; perhaps 6 at most. Laughter and very obvious displays of emotion are subdued, instead, there is a lot of smiling, amusement with ironic and witty remarks or, when serious subjects or not very happy personal experiences are discussed, a serious demeanour. Even such small groups tend to split into smaller ones; perhaps 3 is the ideal "group" size for Elitists.

Group discussions are focused on exchange of information and ideas on subjects of mutual interest, discussing and planning activities together, or on personal experiences. The latter are usually discussed not with the purpose of making people laugh or to boast one's position but to get an insight into the lessons to be drawn from such experiences. Elitists usually dislike being "drawn" into larger groups where loud exchanges of jokes and quick shifting of one subject to the other are the norm, as in a large dinner table in an informal environment, especially if the group is also somewhat "artificial" as in work colleagues or business partners where personal relationships weren't really spontaneously formed.

In such situations, Elitists will tend to focus on the persons sitting immediately near them in order to engage them in more individual conversations or will tend to remain mostly silent, not really participating in the group atmosphere, making the impression of being "introverts" in the everyday meaning of the term. Once a group is formed, it tends to be wary for some time of "newcomers", being neither exclusive nor inclusive on purpose.

Conversations often focus on trends regarding material and yet personal issues, such as career prospects and developments, success or failure of financial investments and enterprises, and the future prospects of romantic relationships, as well as the reasons for the failure of past ones. In more light-hearted moments, such talks get a "bawdy" flavor with some slight teasing. Other subjects tend to focus on internal work politics from the point of view of how it jeopardizes general efficiency, the nonsense of bureaucracy, and how to be better than competitors.


Groups made up of primarily Craftsmen types tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other. Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming.

Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Craftsmen groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.

People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing.

Craftsmen types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway. Craftsmen types do not focus on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.

Which one are YOU? ;)

[Quinlan]

I voted before I read the descriptions :doh:

-1 Casual +1 Craftsmen

[entropie]

ya, Type: G4

[heart]

Maybe Casual but where heavy moments are allowed? Otherwise I don't fit with any of the described groups.


I can't say elitist because I'd find most of what is listed for disucssion topics deadly boring except for the relationship talk. But I don't want to talk about nothing but relationships. Would like to talk about psychology stuff and literature stuff. Novel topics from the news. "resulting from the analysis of the idiosyncrasies or inconsistencies of everyday life" yes, this also very interesting to talk about, this mostly what I talk about with my friends.

[Lauren Ashley]

Elitists all the way. It describes my manner of interaction well.

[Athenian200]

Maybe Casual but where heavy moments are allowed? Otherwise I don't fit with any of the described groups.

I think it means more that heavy moments don't tend to happen a lot or don't last long, not that they aren't allowed or can't happen. Just more that the "atmosphere" doesn't lend itself to them.

[entropie]

I think it means more that heavy moments don't tend to happen a lot or don't last long, not that they aren't allowed or can't happen. Just more that the "atmosphere" doesn't lend itself to them.

To put atmosphre in braces I think is a grave faux pas

[AllAboutSoul]

Maybe Casual but where heavy moments are allowed? Otherwise I don't fit with any of the described groups.

Same for me. I'm a combination of the casual and a little bit of the elitist. I like the small and smaller groups of the elitist but why be so serious. :cheese:

[Athenian200]

Elitists all the way. It describes my manner of interaction well.

LOL. I can really see that for you. ;)

I feel more conflicted between Casual and Craftsmen.

[Athenian200]

To put atmosphre in braces I think is a grave faux pas

Why?

[heart]

Same for me. I'm a combination of the casual and a little bit of the elitist. I like the small and smaller groups of the elitist but why be so serious. :cheese:

And goodness I don't want to sit around and talk about office politics, projects from work or the performance of some financial fund. It's bad enought to have to deal with those things, but if I'm on my own time and relaxing I want to forget about them.

[Lauren Ashley]

LOL. I can really see that for you. ;)

Really? Why?

I just can't do small talk very well. Banter and jokes are okay to a point, but after some time it becomes wasteful because there is no "meat." It's like living on candy and sweets.

[Athenian200]

Really? Why?

I just can't do small talk very well. Banter and jokes are okay to a point, but after some time it becomes wasteful because there is no "meat." It's like living on candy and sweets.

Well, because you give off this "strong, self-confident" vibe I'd tend to associate with that group of people. Yes, I can understand wanting more substantial conversation after a certain point.

Anyway... my theory is that the majority of the forum population consists of Casuals (with Craftsmen as a close second), if anyone is curious.

[heart]

I don't like small talk with strangers but I'll talk nonsense, banter and laugh with my closest friends, we engage in a lot of dark humor about life.

[Haphazard]

For me:

Casual
Craftsman
Elitist
Roughtneck

Though, I'm not cliquish as a matter of principle.

[entropie]

Why?

Well I dont like it. I admit there are different people, who share a different understanding of atmosphere. But if you call something to have an atmosphere, it is you who admits that you enjoy the party.

And I dont like people who say about people that they do something, which makes them not to like people, which of course includes myself.

I think, if you have to talk that way, you still havent grown up (what is no bad thing, noone was born grown up. But should be remembered)

[wolfy]

Craftsman. I like to get to know people through shared activity. Not group activity. Individuals with shared interest.

[toonia]

I'd have to say the closest one is elitist for me, but w/o the competitive bit. I rather dislike elitism as a whole and don't care for projecting an image, so I don't really fit with any of the groups. That aspect of it wearies my bones. Can't there just be a small group that talks about interesting things for the sake of it and not worried about their careers? Is there a nerd group? I think I'd go for that one first. I like reading the description of the casual group, but I don't join in funny banter with people I don't know. I'm easily struck funny, but am not often the creator of funny (at least not on purpose).

[entropie]

I am just hoping your need for grouping doesnt get you in distress some day. I hope you will find the one, who spares you the world before that :)

[Athenian200]

For me:

Casual
Craftsman
Elitist
Roughtneck

Though, I'm not cliquish as a matter of principle.

I'm surprised that your choices almost mirrored mine. :shock:

I'd agree that I'm not particuarly cliquish on purpose, though I admit to being clique-avoidant when it comes to Roughnecks. I end up keeping myself away from a lot of enjoyable and interesting people/activities, because I'm so ridiculously terrified of running into that particular clique and its values (due to bad experiences with them). The rest of them I can usually deal with or relate to on some level. I don't know why, exactly.

[entropie]

I'm surprised that your choices mirrored mine. :shock:

I'd agree that I'm not particuarly cliquish on purpose, though I admit to being clique-avoidant when it comes to Roughnecks. I end up keeping myself away from a lot of enjoyable and interesting people/activities, because I'm so ridiculously terrified of running into that particular clique and its values (due to bad experiences with them). The rest of them I can usually deal with or relate to on some level. I don't know why, exactly.

Because you like pragmatism

[Cady]

Elitist.

I spent way too much time trying to be more casual-esque in high school. It wasn't worth it.
By the way, you might get more accurate results if some of the categories weren't named with such determinately negative stereotypes.

I know it's a quote from somewhere else, but you could just name them group 1/2/3/4 and voilà, much improved. :cheese:
Unless the names of the group are some secret part of the experiment I don't know about yet. :shock:

[Athenian200]

Elitist.

I spent way too much time trying to be more casual-esque in high school. It wasn't worth it.
By the way, you might get more accurate results if some of the categories weren't named with such determinately negative stereotypes.

Just a thought.

I thought I gave them all sufficiently negative names? :huh:

[Cady]

I thought I gave them all sufficiently negative names? :huh:

>.<

I need to start editing my posts BEFORE I press the enter key.
But yea, now that I look at them they're all pretty negative.

Redneck to me just sounds pretty lowbrow.

[wolfy]

What's negative about craftsman? The name and the description both sound perfect.

[Frank]

A combination of all four with the heaviest leanings towards elitist and roughneck

[Frank]

Well, because you give off this "strong, self-confident" vibe I'd tend to associate with that group of people. Yes, I can understand wanting more substantial conversation after a certain point.

Anyway... my theory is that the majority of the forum population consists of Casuals (with Craftsmen as a close second), if anyone is curious.

I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind this theory?

[The Outsider]

Casual.

[Athenian200]

>.<

I need to start editing my posts BEFORE I press the enter key.
But yea, now that I look at them they're all pretty negative.

Redneck to me just sounds pretty lowbrow.

Roughneck, not Redneck. Redneck is pretty offensive. A roughneck is just a rowdy person.

What's negative about craftsman? The name and the description both sound perfect.

Well, Craftsman could be viewed negatively by some snobbish people... but there are more that would value it. Darn. I guess that reveals that I had the hardest time saying anything negative about that group.

[Cady]

What's negative about craftsman? The name and the description both sound perfect.

All labels tend to unearth some sort of bias, both positive and negative, based of personal observation or life experience.

If MBTI typecasting took into account your like or dislike of the label associated with your group I think results would be less accurate. For example, ENTP's are often called "the inventor" which to me invokes the image of an old man hunched over a machine trying to get it to work. I don't like building physical things, and it's just a preset bias that the first impression I get when I think about inventor's is one of a builder.

[entropie]

All labels tend to unearth some sort of bias, both positive and negative, based of personal observation or life experience.



Life experience... well thats a long way

[Athenian200]

Because you like pragmatism

I do? Huh... I guess that's right. They're unfocused and silly, and place unfair expectations on people. They seem to have the worst combination of traits.

[Cady]

Roughneck, not Redneck. Redneck is pretty offensive. A roughneck is just a rowdy person.


Hehe, my bad. I scanned over the titles to start and for some reason saw "Redneck". Roughneck is much more in line with the negative level of the other titles :D

[entropie]

I do? Huh... I guess that's right.

You cant ask "I do?" and then admit to what I stated in one sentence. Things like that let you appear really stupid.

[Athenian200]

You cant ask "I do?" and then admit to what I stated in one sentence. Things like that let you appear really stupid.

:dry: Stop being mean, ESTJ.

[entropie]

I have to go to bed now, unfortunately. If you like to discuss your not awesomness further and why I think so @Aethian feel free to please never PM me

l8r

[Frank]

Still waiting for the answer to my question Athenian.

[Athenian200]

I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind this theory?

The reasoning? Well, if I told you that, it would ruin the experiment. ;)

I'll give you a hint, though. It's got to do with the atmosphere of the message board in general, combined with the types of the majority of members.

[Cady]

The reasoning? Well, if I told you that, it would ruin the experiment. ;)

I'll give you a hint, though. It's got to do with the atmosphere of the message board in general, combined with the types of the majority of members.

I knew there was a super secret reason. :yes:

[Frank]

The reasoning? Well, if I told you that, it would ruin the experiment. ;)

I'll give you a hint, though. It's got to do with the atmosphere of the message board in general, combined with the types of the majority of members.

So you ask us if we are curious and then tell us you can't further explain. Pretty mean for an nf. :huh:

[wolfy]

Now I'm curious too.

[Orangey]

Casual
Elitist
Craftsman
Roughneck

[Lady X]

casual i guess if i had to pick...but i'm not any one way ALL the time.

[Colors]

I'd have to say casual, followed far away by elitist, then craftsmen. But overall, I don't hang around in large groups so it is very hard to say. (Generally I find myself socially only in one on one situations if at all, or among a very small group of friends.)

[Trinity]

Totally Casual.

I voted before I read the descriptions :doh:

-1 Casual +1 Craftsmen

Fixed ;)

And don't do it again! *fist shake*

[Amargith]

casual, definitely :)

[Quinlan]

My guess:

Casual = FP
Roughneck = FJ
Elites = TJ
Craftsmen = TP

[Athenian200]

My guess:

Casual = FP
Roughneck = FJ
Elites = TJ
Craftsmen = TP

:shock:

But that was my least favorite group...

[FDG]

This is socionics quadras, so I'd have to say elitists, even though the way the groups are named will surely cause a bias in the selection.

[Athenian200]

:doh:

You weren't supposed to TELL them, FDG!

Great, now everyone will know where they came from.

I somehow knew that if someone blurted out my secret, it would be you.

Experiment failed. :(

[Eiddy]

My guess:

Casual = FP
Roughneck = FJ
Elites = TJ
Craftsmen = TP

HUH :huh: I object.:azdaja: I can't identify with roughneck in my personal interactions. I love one on one sharing, caring and casual relaxation. BTW I replied to your post on another thread.. :blush:

Oh I wanted to ask you are you the one that posted roughneck, hairy walking around campsites type of thing?? LOL

[Haphazard]

I'm surprised that your choices almost mirrored mine. :shock:

I'd agree that I'm not particuarly cliquish on purpose, though I admit to being clique-avoidant when it comes to Roughnecks. I end up keeping myself away from a lot of enjoyable and interesting people/activities, because I'm so ridiculously terrified of running into that particular clique and its values (due to bad experiences with them). The rest of them I can usually deal with or relate to on some level. I don't know why, exactly.

What I mean is that I don't like being associated with a group. It doesn't mean that I can't like people within said group, but it pisses me off when people falsely attribute polarizing traits to me just because I'm in said group. Therefore, I purposely avoid identifying with a group because I know it will get me somewhere bad.

I think your experiment is still going on because I have no idea what the fuck Socionics quadra are anyway.

[Sytpg]

Casuals I guess, if I really need to choose.

[Athenian200]

What I mean is that I don't like being associated with a group. It doesn't mean that I can't like people within said group, but it pisses me off when people falsely attribute polarizing traits to me just because I'm in said group. Therefore, I purposely avoid identifying with a group because I know it will get me somewhere bad.

I think your experiment is still going on because I have no idea what the fuck Socionics quadra are anyway.

Identifying myself and others with groups has definitely gotten me into trouble, causing me to reject or accept too many people at once without clear reasons. If I didn't have to do it because of how my mind works, I probably wouldn't.

You're probably right, most will vote before seeing that anyway, and some may not even care enough to look it up.

[Haphazard]

Identifying myself and others with groups has definitely gotten me into trouble, causing me to reject or accept too many people at once without clear reasons. If I didn't have to do it, I probably wouldn't.

You're probably right, most will vote before seeing that anyway, and some may not even care enough to look it up.

Ah, but your problems come from association. I never see myself as a part of a group and yet it's others who group me anyway, causing the problem.

[Athenian200]

Ah, but your problems come from association. I never see myself as a part of a group and yet it's others who group me anyway, causing the problem.

Sometimes we find it easier to generalize about people and accept, reject, and react to those generalizations rather than focus very much on each individual person. It's actually rather efficient, and takes a lot less attention and time. The problem is that it's arbitrary, unfair and often throws the baby out with the bath water.

[Kai]

Craftman - Elitist
Casual
Roughtneck

Having said that... I did sort of identify with the Roughtneck's desire for group atmosphere, but the casual definition of atmosphere also covers it. Engage in small group discussions but overall an introvert within the group. Depending on the number of people at hand, it'll switch between talking about serious stuff to just enjoying the mood. Overall maximum group sizes are around 6-8 people. Group activities have to be focused around some form of activity or the idea of being together, otherwise it'll break apart into the smaller ones which is similar to the idea of the craftman. Don't identify with the desire for decentralization so much.

You pretty much made roughtnecks to be the jocks of highschool, but maybe that wasn't intentional. >_>'

Edit: Oh... socionics. Goes to show that I don't remember much about the system. But hey it's nice to have an extract about each one. I still haven't figured which one I am within that system.

[ColonelGadaafi]

somewhere inbetween craftsmen and casuals.

[Mister Eyebrows]

Casual. Without a doubt.

[Halla74]

I'm a Casual-Roughneck with Elitist-Craftsmen tendencies. :shock:

[Athenian200]

My theory is proving accurate.

They're primarily Casuals, as expected. :)

One quirk is the unusual number of Elitists and the lower than expected presence of Craftsmen, but I can account for that with a minor alteration.

[Jennifer]

I'm generally elitist... but I don't like the term, because I'm also a floater -- willing to bounce from group to group and appreciate what i can while there in order to knock down boundaries and learn from people different than me. The terminology sucks, it has too much baggage associated with it in this culture.

This is socionics quadras, so I'd have to say elitists, even though the way the groups are named will surely cause a bias in the selection.

:doh:
You weren't supposed to TELL them, FDG!
Great, now everyone will know where they came from.
I somehow knew that if someone blurted out my secret, it would be you.
Experiment failed. :(

Oh, it's Socionics?
Well, don't worry then -- now we know it's a big joke. :smile:

[proteanmix]

Out of the four options, roughneck fit the best although it's not perfect of course.

These make the most sense to me:


Roughneck groups discuss topics that everyone could contribute to.
They also try to draw attention to people who might otherwise feel left out - usually this is done with general jokes directed at individuals.
Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them.
For Roughnecks atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic.
Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Roughnecks generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Roughnecks believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.


If I'm out with friends and we're all dancing or playing pool or whatever and someone's not involved I do try to get them involved. What I do next depends on if they look like they're enjoying themselves but not necessarily participating or if they're sitting looking like they want to leave.

What mitigates against this for me is I try to see if they really want to join us in the first place and if they insist they want to come but still sit there looking unhappy I do feel like they're ruining my good time. If it's an activity I organized then I do feel it's my responsibility to make sure everyone is enjoying themselves. I know I can't make anyone have a good time, but on a certain level if you know you're going to be a sourpuss about being in a casual group ≈10 then don't go. Some people begin the time salty, but liven up so that's OK.

If this is something they do consistently and I still want to hang out with them, then I stop inviting them to group activities and do more one on one activities and that seems to solve it.

[Lurker]

None of the above. Maybe a tablespoon of elitist and a teaspoon of casual per cup of me? Tortured metaphors aside, nah.

[NewEra]

Very close between Elitists and Craftsmen for me. The first two don't fit me at all. I eventually chose Craftsmen for the more casual yet interesting environment with fewer people.

[Athenian200]

I'm generally elitist... but I don't like the term, because I'm also a floater -- willing to bounce from group to group and appreciate what i can while there in order to knock down boundaries and learn from people different than me. The terminology sucks, it has too much baggage associated with it in this culture.

The way the results panned out seems to disagree with you. Elitists were the second highest group. :yes:

I deliberately tried to make all the terms somewhat negative, but I somehow screwed up on Craftsman. :doh:

Oh, it's Socionics?
Well, don't worry then -- now we know it's a big joke. :smile:

Yeah. I suppose it is. But I was very close to correct... the message board lends itself primarily to those who prefer Alpha environments. If I were to guess, I'd say INTPc seems more Gamma, and INTJf seems more Delta (but I don't know those places as closely, so that's just a guess).

[Jennifer]

The way the results panned out seems to disagree with you. Elitists were the second highest group. :yes:

Um... note that I voted Elitist... and then complained about it.
Just because people voted for it as "closest fit" has no bearing on whether or not they agree or disagree with your terminology, just as my situation was -- and in fact the potential exists for ALL of those voters to have the same perspective I did.

Sorry, I'm in "logical nitpick" mode today, cranky Jen ... live with it.

I deliberately tried to make all the terms somewhat negative, but I somehow screwed up on Craftsman. :doh:

"mom and Dad always treated us kids fair and square... They made us all out to be equally crappy." :)

[Lauren Ashley]

Just because people voted for it as "closest fit" has no bearing on whether or not they agree or disagree with your terminology, just as my situation was -- and in fact the potential exists for ALL of those voters to have the same perspective I did.
I didn't like the term "Elitists" either, but the description still fit for the most part (except for the emphasis on job/career).

[Athenian200]

Um... note that I voted Elitist... and then complained about it.
Just because people voted for it as "closest fit" has no bearing on whether or not they agree or disagree with your terminology, just as my situation was -- and in fact the potential exists for ALL of those voters to have the same perspective I did.

Sorry, I'm in "logical nitpick" mode today, cranky Jen ... live with it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought your point was that people might not choose it because they didn't like the emotional connotations of the word "Elitist," despite identifying with the description.

I guess I just chose the first neutral or negative descriptive word relating to the listed behavior I could think of to replace the Socionics quadra names. But I think I ended up giving away my bias towards Alpha and Delta (Craftsman and Casual are less negative than Roughneck and Elitist). :blush:



"mom and Dad always treated us kids fair and square... They made us all out to be equally crappy." :)

LOL.

I didn't like the term "Elitists" either, but the description still fit for the most part (except for the emphasis on job/career).

What term would have been better?

[Take Five]

None of these really fit.

[stigmatica]

I voted Roughneck, although a multiple choice poll would have gotten more than one check.

Don't know why, perhaps they whine less than most?

[Costrin]

Looks like someone beat me to pointing out this was Socionics...

[Mister Eyebrows]

I deliberately tried to make all the terms somewhat negative, but I somehow screwed up on Craftsman. :doh:

Don't worry.. you screwed up on Casual, too. Casual has a very, very positive connotation with me. :)

[Jennifer]

Don't worry.. you screwed up on Casual, too. Casual has a very, very positive connotation with me. :)

yeah, Casual is positive as well.

[saslou]

I voted before I read the descriptions :doh:

-1 Casual +1 Craftsmen


I did exactly the same. $hit.

I suppose i would go with craftsmen.
(hopefully there will be rebel there :))

[Antisocial one]

Elitist.

[Eric B]

:doh:

You weren't supposed to TELL them, FDG!

Great, now everyone will know where they came from.

I somehow knew that if someone blurted out my secret, it would be you.

Experiment failed. :(

I too recognized them, as I had just been reading up on the quadras and other socionics concepts, and linked the Quadras to the "tandem" groups I was suggesting.

Where did these names come from? On Wikisocion, it's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta.

[Athenian200]

Where did these names come from? On Wikisocion, it's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta.

I made them up myself to replace the original Quadra names so no one would figure out where I got them from at first. Why?

[Eric B]

Why? I thought maybe there was some other system using them.

[Orangey]

Well that makes sense. I identify as an LII in socionics, which is in the Alpha Quadra.

[Athenian200]

Well that makes sense. I identify as an LII in socionics, which is in the Alpha Quadra.

Yep.

I've been identified as LII and EII, but no one can agree which I am. I'm definitely not the equivalent functional order in Socionics (IEI), because Beta is the quadra whose values I disagree with the most. I like both Alpha and Delta, so I don't know which one I am from that.

I know that I dislike Beta the most, which probably means I'm Delta (EII), since Delta has all of Beta's elements subdued.

[Haphazard]

Well, I did get an invite to the Alpha Quadra group here. So I guess it's not so surprising.

[bluebell]

Switching between elitist and casual. Like toonia mentioned, it's missing a nerd option. *grin*

[Mister Eyebrows]

how in god's name would an IEE ever fit with that description of the craftsmen group

[AllAboutSoul]

I'd have to say the closest one is elitist for me, but w/o the competitive bit. I rather dislike elitism as a whole and don't care for projecting an image, so I don't really fit with any of the groups. That aspect of it wearies my bones. Can't there just be a small group that talks about interesting things for the sake of it and not worried about their careers? Is there a nerd group? I think I'd go for that one first. I like reading the description of the casual group, but I don't join in funny banter with people I don't know. I'm easily struck funny, but am not often the creator of funny (at least not on purpose).

I couldn't create funny on purpose if my life depended on it. I find I'm usually the good natured butt of jokes. I identified with some aspects of the casual and the elitist, but didn't like a lot of the elements of either.

[wolfy]

I'm a combination of casual and craftsman. I'm simply a casual craftsman.

[FDG]

I somehow knew that if someone blurted out my secret, it would be you.


But that was easy to tell, since I'm the only one really into socionics in this forum (not that I take pride in it, just how it is). Anyway, don't you think that your choice of words were biased, giving Beta and Gamma degrading names? I can understand you're a peak-Ne type and thus tend to perceive them as threatening, but since it's an experiment, it'd be more useful to be neutral.

You basically set up the experiment so that your theory would be confirmed, by giving the best name to the quadra you thought was most represented. That's unsound methodology.

[Athenian200]

But that was easy to tell, since I'm the only one really into socionics in this forum (not that I take pride in it, just how it is). Anyway, don't you think that your choice of words were biased, giving Beta and Gamma degrading names? I can understand you're a peak-Ne type and thus tend to perceive them as threatening, but since it's an experiment, it'd be more useful to be neutral.

You basically set up the experiment so that your theory would be confirmed, by giving the best name to the quadra you thought was most represented. That's unsound methodology.

Yeah, I realize they were biased now. At first I thought "Casual" would be perceived as "Slacker" by a lot of people, but apparently it wasn't. Come to think of it... I probably should have called them "Slackers" to be sufficiently negative (my original intent was to make all the names negative, but I only succeeded with Beta and Gamma). :doh:

Don't know what I was thinking with Craftsmen, though. That one was neutral and totally missed the mark.

I admit the methodology was unsound. But on the other hand, I didn't just want everyone to vote for the quadra they thought their type was in without considering the descriptions.

That's interesting, though. It's that apparent that I value Ne in Socionics, huh? Weird since I'm Ni here, but I guess the functions are quite different there.

[FDG]

Yeah, I realize they were biased now. At first I thought "Casual" would be perceived as "Slacker" by a lot of people, but apparently it wasn't. Come to think of it... I probably should have called them "Slackers" to be sufficiently negative. :doh:

Don't know what I was thinking with Craftsmen, though. That one was neutral and totally missed the mark.

I admit the methodology was unsound. But on the other hand, I didn't just want everyone to vote for the quadra they thought their type was in without considering the descriptions.

Yeah that's also true...I guess one of the reason why they choose greek letters to represent the quadras is that they are sufficiently neutral. Even A-B-C-D could somehow remind of grades, even uncosciously :doh:


That's interesting, though. It's that apparent that I value Ne in Socionics, huh? Weird since I'm Ni here, but I guess the functions are quite different there.

MMm yes, because Ni works in tandem with Se in socionics, and you seem to really dislike Se, right? So it fits more that you're a very Ne INFj, which works in tandem with Si

[Athenian200]

Yeah that's also true...I guess one of the reason why they choose greek letters to represent the quadras is that they are sufficiently neutral. Even A-B-C-D could somehow remind of grades, even uncosciously :doh:

Yeah. Choosing descriptive names always shows bias. That's why they didn't do it, I suppose.

I probably should have gone with "Laidback, Social, Driven, and Craftsman." That would have been somewhat more neutral, though it still would have had bias.


MMm yes, because Ni works in tandem with Se in socionics, and you seem to really dislike Se, right? So it fits more that you're a very Ne INFj, which works in tandem with Si

Yeah. One thing people have pointed out about me on Socionics is that their positive I'm not Beta (without me even telling my type), and seem really opposed to those values. They can't tell me what type I am, but they say that I'm anti-Beta. It's weird, but it does seem true.

Incidentally, I don't dislike Gamma as much as Beta. They seem harsh but tolerable in most circumstances.

Ironically, Beta is IEI with the same functional order (Ni-Fe) in Socionics, so some misguided person might plug a J/P switch in and assume I'm Beta when converting my type. That would be so annoying.

[Beat]

casual

[abra]

roughneck.

wow only two others.

(Roughneck, Inspector Deck's on the set
The rebel, I make more noise than heavy metal)

[Falcarius]

Casual.

[Lauren Ashley]

Anyway, don't you think that your choice of words were biased, giving Beta and Gamma degrading names? I can understand you're a peak-Ne type and thus tend to perceive them as threatening, but since it's an experiment, it'd be more useful to be neutral.

I'm Ne subtype and I chose Gamma...I agree with other elements of Delta, but not the group behavior. Maybe because I don't like groups in general.

[Eric B]

One of these groups keep making me think of this:

[hommefatal]

so many elitists? OMG

[pure_mercury]

Casual Elitist

[OrangeAppled]

Casual + elitist, although none of them really fit me.

[Randomnity]

You basically set up the experiment so that your theory would be confirmed, by giving the best name to the quadra you thought was most represented. That's unsound methodology.
Yeah, that was weird. You really, really don't see that your favourites, craftsman/casual have positive connotations while elitist and roughneck have negative one? Really? I don't believe it.

Anyway I don't fit well into any of them, but elitist is closest.

[Jeremy]

Casual all the way! Ties are a dead metaphor anyway.

[Sky is BLUE!]

Casual.

[polikujm]

These are weird categories, but I say I'm Elitist.

[FC3S]

I identify with the last one quite heavily when in other groups. When putting myself up on a pedestal before others I'm the third.

[Silent Stars]

casual

[iseekserendipity]

I can rationalize nearly anything (so I'm told - nearby circle). But I tend to circle towards:

Elitist (except that my subjects aren't so material but much more spontaneous AND real, universal... and more idealistic *sigh or so I wish*... but then again... I may be biased... *sigh*)

[Nunki]

I see a lot of Elitism in me, but as I get more comfortable with a group of people, I lean more and more in the Casual direction. Ideally, I'm Casual, but with a tiny group or one-on-one (which, along with my spells of seriousness, gives me a flavor of Elitism).

[marmalade.sunrise]

Casual
Elitist
Craftsman
Roughneck

[MonkeyGrass]

Elitist/Casual -depending on the day
Craftsman -sometimes
Roughneck-never

I experience extreme discomfort when thrown into the last group...it nearly always puts me on edge. If I ever behave that way, it's an artificial effort not to completely drown in a group of this type. :blush: Then I go home and don't take calls for a couple days in order to recover. :shock:

[TaylorS]

Causal
Craftsman
Elitist
Roughneck