User Tag List

Page 409 of 701 FirstFirst ... 309359399407408409410411419459509 ... LastLast
Results 4,081 to 4,090 of 7008

Thread: Mistyped TypeCentral Members

  1. #4081
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    19,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Yeah man, you hit the nail on the head.

  2. #4082
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,729

    Default

    Lark could be an ENTJ, but, unlike every other prominent ENTJ on here, for whom I feel very comfortable saying "that person is an ENTJ", I've never once felt comfortable saying that is in fact his typing. He is most certainly an EJ, imo, and I used to consider ESTJ, but, frankly, it would not surprise me at all if he were ESFJ. In fact, I would put ESFJ at just as likely as, if not more likely than, one of the ETJs.
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - 6w5 8dw 3w4 sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  3. #4083
    came back haunted Array EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    17,769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Yeah. I'm blaming the Fi "I'm a special butterfly and therefore the rules that affect other people don't apply to me" fairy on this one for me. I don't know what everyone elses excuse is, though.
    Mine is mostly that, but also not knowing him all that well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Lark could be an ENTJ, but, unlike every other prominent ENTJ on here, for whom I feel very comfortable saying "that person is an ENTJ", I've never once felt comfortable saying that is in fact his typing. He is most certainly an EJ, imo, and I used to consider ESTJ, but, frankly, it would not surprise me at all if he were ESFJ. In fact, I would put ESFJ at just as likely as, if not more likely than, one of the ETJs.
    And so it begins...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nørrsken impersonating EJCC
    It's strange. I keep banning morons, but they keep signing up? What is this?
    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
    conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  4. #4084
    not to be trusted Array miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    19,974

    Default

    I really hate to say this because I've said it all too many times lately, but I'm going to agree with @bologna here... there's a lot of variety in people and not everyone fits into the same category the same way in the least... the world would be boring if there were 16 different cookie cutter personalities wandering about and everyone of the same type acted and reacted exactly the same.

    Not to mention that people evolve over time... I've gone back and forth between a couple of general types in behavior over time and am resettling towards how I was when younger again, only a more grown up version... I hesitate to put any type forward because I KNOW that I don't fall into the cookie cutter mold of anybody on this forum and by putting down a type it would only be inviting everyone's type stereotypes and arguments as to how I fit into a stereotype or didn't. I've changed over time as a member here quite a bit as a result of mental thingies and just time itself... for forum purposes I usually answer as you assume me, not as I test or would be evaluated by those who know me outside of here... it makes y'all more comfortable and frees me to explore other interests here instead of continually arguing about type, which is kind of pointless because we only see each other online, not in our daily lives

    Funny how people are looking at N and S as monolithic things with no variation... there's definitely differences within type that would make such broad, sweeping generalizations irrelevant, but then again, I'm not surprised... people are comfortable with the constructs they have

    on another note, I've actually known an SJ who may surprise some members here for my entire life... he's an old guy now but was considered a good looking, military helllraiser when younger... he's incredibly stubborn, but unfailingly patient with listening to the points of views of others and questioning them in an almost socratic method to find out how the person came to that conclusion. He's an avid reader and has shelves full of books. He is also a strict atheist, a recovering alcoholic and smoker who quit both cold turkey after a 30 year pack a day and case a day habit when he decided that they would kill him after he retired and had more spare time. He also LOVES playing pranks on people... he would probably be a bit of a surprise for the forum since they don't know him as well as I do. The point is, people don't always fall into the boxes we expect them to... that's the fun of life
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  5. #4085
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    You're making my point succinctly.


    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    on another note, I've actually known an SJ who may surprise some members here
    [...]
    he would probably be a bit of a surprise for the forum since they don't know him as well as I do.
    We need to allow this to happen. Often.

    It would naturally force us to refine our categories and cut away at the bullshit culture that persuades us to--
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    hesitate to put any type forward because I KNOW that I don't fall into the cookie cutter mold of anybody on this forum and by putting down a type it would only be inviting everyone's type stereotypes and arguments as to how I fit into a stereotype or didn't.
    --

    We do tend to build on one another, @whatever. Kind of odd that way

  6. #4086
    Starcrossed Seafarer Array Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,531

    Default

    Okay, I had to open a Word document to organize my thoughts and respond to all this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Hmm. I feel that's a little bit of an oversimplification of Si as a process. It without question makes reference to tradition and past experience, because it is about anchoring oneself in what is known. But if you have a guy like Lark who's well-read, and has managed to amass a fairly respectable bank of knowledge the known can encompass a great deal. Especially since Si lends the ability to recall one's bank of knowledge with a great deal of care and accuracy.

    So, to me, your anecdote about him doesn't prove very much, because it hasn't disproven the idea that Lark's beliefs and viewpoints aren't Si derived. My own observation of him on the forum is that he seems to use books as a way to "push back the darkness" as it were, and when confronted with new information he'll refer back to information that's he's already mapped out as a way to make an assessment of what's in front of him. Again, when you have a person with a lot of information at their disposal, that can be a fairly rich process, but it's still quintessentially Si.
    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post

    I agree that Aquarelle was oversimplifying quite a bit.
    Yeah, I was definitely oversimplifying, because it wasn’t really my intent to go into a bunch of detail about my understanding of S vs N. I think a lot of people have superior understanding of MBTI, and especially the Jungian functions, to my own. I also don’t especially subscribe to the Jungian interpretation and tend to use the more straight MBTI approach, so I think to a certain extent we’re speaking from different perspectives here. @Wind-Up Rex, I agree with your description of S vs N, and I think essentially that’s what I was saying—that, for whatever reason, Lark does come off as what you describe as S in his posting style. But having had many in-depth conversations with him both online and in person, I don’t think that the way he comes off in his posts is an accurate picture of his actual cognitive processes. All I’m saying. ☺

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post

    I do find it a touch ironic, though, that as you deny that you're Si, you're entire arguement is based on your past experiences with people on this site and in your own life.
    But I thought the idea that Ss rely on past experience was oversimplifying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    OK guys, I suppose I could have expected this when I choose to participate in the thread, I dont presume to be an authority in MBTI and its already been evident that you each have superior knowledge for the terminology at least, so it makes little sense to carry on in the contrary when we cant settle on a common way of communicating.

    One or two of you have already said that you think that my posts have been emotive and this is a vindication of what you've been saying, I'm sorry its been construed that way because its not the case.



    Its been interesting but I think its gone as far as it can go, at least until cooler heads prevail.
    I already told @Lark this and he agreed, and I think he was getting a bit defensive here. Everything did seem very civil to me. (Although I did resent the implication that I had said that Sensors are incapable of critical thought… I am married to a Sensor after all, and I would certainly not have married someone I didn’t think was capable of critical thought!)

    Lark does have a tendency to be defensive, and he knows it, and I can see why other people might see this as an indication that he’s a Feeler rather than a Thinker. However, I would posit that just have many have pointed out that Sensors can think critically and conceptually, Thinkers are also capable of having emotional reactions. And given the history of some people (not saying anyone in this conversation) on this forum have had or frequently still do have to Lark’s posts, I can understand why he might be quick to assume people are attacking him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    And just as a follow up question: @Lark, iirc, you are the one who instigated the conversation about your type. Yet, for whatever reason, you've shot down most of the discussion. What discussion were you actually looking to have, and why start it if you evidently were not looking for and answer besides ENTJ?
    I don’t think this is really fair—Lark said a couple of times that the descriptions and discussion has been interesting and useful, but he just still thinks ENTJ fits him better. I happen to know that Lark has a lot of respect for Feelers, so I don’t think it’s that he doesn’t want to be typed as a Feeler out of any sort of idea of Thinker superiority. You’ve all made good points, and I also see how one could type Lark as ESFJ based on his posting style, but I really think that’s just not him. And in the end, I think really a person is the best judge of their own type. So just because he hasn’t said, “My god you’re right!I am ESFJ after all!” it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s rejecting all of your thoughts and dismissing them out of order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Lol, people still try to reason with Lark. Si fail.
    I’ve actually had quite a bit of success reasoning with Lark. True story, after we hung out for a week plus when I was in Ireland for work, Lark said to me, “I need to think about and reevaluate what I think about your beliefs, even the ones I don’t immediately agree with.” Now, I have never spent any time trying to convince Lark to change his mind about anything; we’ve simply discussed our differing (and similar as well) viewpoints and I’ve presented my reasoning behind my beliefs, and he’s presented his, and overall we’ve agreed to disagree about things we don’t agree on. You have to be willing to accept his beliefs, even if you think they’re wrong, if you want him to do the same for you.

    And as a slight tangent, I don’t think Lark’s beliefs are really that different from what most people on the forum believe. Fiscally, he’s a liberal. So agrees with probably about half of us on that front, Socially, he’s conservative, so he says, but—let’s just say it—it’s really only his views on GLBT issues that sets him apart from most people on the forum, including me. But even there, I don’t think his views differ nearly as much as everyone thinks. He’s not anti-gay, he doesn’t believe homosexuality can be “cured,” and he doesn’t think it’s a lifestyle choice. But because most people don’t take the time to really talk to him to understand his views, people assume him to be much more socially conservative than he really is. And some of that is cultural—Northern Ireland is a very different place than the US, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. (There’s a whole book on the GLBT movement in Northern Ireland and how it’s different from anywhere else, if anyone’s interested—it’s called Queering Conflict: Examining Gay and Lesbian Experiences of Homophobia in Northern Ireland, by Maria Duggan, and it’s very recent—from this year.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I provided a fair bit of reasoning into your type which was not countered. Instead you chose pick into wordier arguments. I wonder if you felt I did not provide enough substance.
    To wit:

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    You are objective, but objective directly against previous experience. Your methods of collecting information are perhaps where your insights come from, hence Ne instead of Ni. Ne is tertiary in your function stacking though, because I see a drive towards some sort of growth. I think auxiliary judgers/inferior perceivers are more 'set in their ways'.
    So pretty much what I said, only you argued that Lark is an S, whereas I argued in favor of N. And yet no one accused you of oversimplifying… But honestly, I thought your analysis was interesting.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  7. #4087
    not to be trusted Array miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    19,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    We do tend to build on one another, @whatever. Kind of odd that way
    half the time I open up a thread to respond and you've already made my point first so all I can do is rephrase... it's always funny how different people come to the same conclusion in a way
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #4088
    Starcrossed Seafarer Array Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,531

    Default

    @bologna and @whatever both made excellent points while I was typing up my long dissertation.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  9. #4089
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    half the time I open up a thread to respond and you've already made my point first so all I can do is rephrase... it's always funny how different people come to the same conclusion in a way
    We must be the same type.


  10. #4090
    not to be trusted Array miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    19,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    We must be the same type.

    according to the logic of some... (which we ALL know is the gospel truth! )

    I mean, it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with age, or life experiences or anything of that sort...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6674
    Last Post: 03-23-2017, 07:19 PM
  2. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 03-22-2016, 08:15 AM
  3. TypeCentral Members- Casting Call as Disney Characters
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: 03-06-2016, 03:10 AM
  4. TypeCentral Members- Cast them as musicians
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 04:35 PM
  5. It's a mystery. (moved from Mistyped MBTIC Members)
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 06:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •