What group do you identify with?

[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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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

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

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).

 

[Totenkindly]

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

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.

"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).

"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...

 

[garbage]

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

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

 

[Totenkindly]

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

-1 Casual +1 Craftsmen

I did exactly the same. $hit.

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

 

[Virtual ghost]

Elitist.

 

[Eric B]

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.