• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Might as well put this here.

MacabreCharade

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
50
Threw this together years ago, but never bothered showing it to anyone due to its inconsistency with the actual.
But then, the whole theory constantly goes through heated debates over and over, many being frustrated with the vagueness that's characteristic through its many layers and to the very core, yet apparently not shoving it aside either.

Notes.png

I should probably also elaborate on the format, as most users here may not have had the need to bother dwelling on the essences that much. (I know that a few have. Eric B. has dug into it quite a bit, for instance.)

Type.
Primary.
Auxiliary.
Various polarity as noted or potential polar deficiency.
(Prominence from top to bottom.)

This one didn't result from any rigorous research, however. This is just kind of the general system I go by for ideas personally as my thought revolves around matters like these. I know it's even more inconsistent than the MBTI mash-up. I know that everyone draws from all the elements in order to exist. It's merely an illustration. (And yes, that isn't yellow. It got awfully friendly with the background.)
 
Last edited:
Top