[SJ] SJs, where have you gone?!

[Giggly]

I'm going to make a type your professor thread.

 

[Noon]

Noon - ISFJ

/thread



Now UPDATE YOUR TYPES ACCORDINGLY! :footballreferee:

Is this still in character or do you both believe I really am an ISFJ?

 

[swordpath]

I'm actually ISFP.

And Anton Levy is the Pope. hahahahahahahah

 

[Giggly]

And Anton Levy is the Pope. hahahahahahahah

Your tongue is sticking out again.

I test ISFP just like you test ISTP.

 

[EJCC]

I think this is where our communication issues are. Positivity,... "reasonable responses", (whatever that means.) I just don't get you SJ's and your plain clear statements. We want reasons to interpret all the meanings of what you said- we like people to say weird, out there things to make us wonder, "what did she mean?" and so we can have something to debate about. You just don't belong here EJCC, nothing you say is meaningful enough.
but if you just change your type and screen name we may take you more seriously...

I love being accused of being too reasonable and straightforward!

Maybe I should be an Ni dom for a day.
I'd spend it doing stuff like this: answering every question that anyone asks me with a random, arbitrary word, and seeing what people do. How many ways can they analyze that random word? How many uses can it REALLY have?

Is this still in character or do you both believe I really am an ISFJ?

My first action as an honorary Ni dom is to say: Spin.

ooh, can't ya just feel the infinite meaning in that??




(srslythoIwasbeingsarcastic)

Put it this way does it make more sense that most SJs on this forum type themselves as NTs or Njs because they secretly "want to feel special" or is it because the forum simply does not appeal to many SJs because it does not interest them. This is a no brainer. There are many people on this forum who I think are mistyped but how could I ever justify that XXXX is not their type? who am I to say that they are compatible or incompatible with being a certain type, I can't. I think the individual should be only person who really makes the judgement on what their type really is.

This makes sense to me. I understand the thought process. At the same time, I think I would probably agree with you more on this note if it weren't for the fact that I have seen so many situations where a person mistyped themselves by hyperanalyzing a particular detail, or few details, of a type -- or that they just didn't know all that much about function theory etc -- and mistyped themselves as a result. I agree that people know themselves best, but sometimes it's up to others to tell them whether what they know so well in themselves is Ni or Ne, you know what I mean?

It doesn't mean you have to attack them with "YOU ARE NOT THIS TYPE OBVIOUSLY I KNOW YOU BETTER THAN YOU DO" -- which I have seen some members in the "What's My Type?" section do -- but you can still at the very least ask them "What makes you think this over this?" and if their rationale is wrong you could correct them politely.

I agree the assumption is wrong I never said it wasn't I was saying that people who are attracted to a typology forum are typically not Sj's. People who like to argue and use up countless hours of their time online are usually not Sj's, Sj's are task oriented and like to get things done in the real world, even if it's a science project and what not.

I maintain that arguing for hours on end with no purpose in sight is not really what this forum is about -- but I do see where you're coming from. I could agree with you that it's misinterpreting the forum that leads SJs to be less interested in it -- because I can't help but think that if they used it the way I do, they'd like it better! But I don't agree that SJs are less likely to be interested in typology.

I'm going to make a type your professor thread.

Ooh, do it! That sounds fun!

 

[swordpath]

Your tongue is sticking out again.

I test ISFP just like you test ISTP.

 

[Orangey]

I think I would probably agree with you more on this note if it weren't for the fact that I have seen so many situations where a person mistyped themselves by hyperanalyzing a particular detail, or few details, of a type -- or that they just didn't know all that much about function theory etc -- and mistyped themselves as a result. I agree that people know themselves best, but sometimes it's up to others to tell them whether what they know so well in themselves is Ni or Ne, you know what I mean?

Exactly. Add to the bolded a tendency to lean N from the start, and you have a whole forum full of wannabe Ns (because the descriptions make them sound all magical and/or super smart.)

Also, the way jixmixfix says it, you'd think that SJs never take the time to engage in frivolity of any sort (and let's not pretend this forum is anything other than frivolous...it most certainly does not attract intellectuals, if the level of discourse in the politics subforum is any representation.)

 

[jixmixfix]

This makes sense to me. I understand the thought process. At the same time, I think I would probably agree with you more on this note if it weren't for the fact that I have seen so many situations where a person mistyped themselves by hyperanalyzing a particular detail, or few details, of a type -- or that they just didn't know all that much about function theory etc -- and mistyped themselves as a result. I agree that people know themselves best, but sometimes it's up to others to tell them whether what they know so well in themselves is Ni or Ne, you know what I mean?

It doesn't mean you have to attack them with "YOU ARE NOT THIS TYPE OBVIOUSLY I KNOW YOU BETTER THAN YOU DO" -- which I have seen some members in the "What's My Type?" section do -- but you can still at the very least ask them "What makes you think this over this?" and if their rationale is wrong you could correct them politely.

That doesn't necessarily correlate to lack of SJs on the forum according to that logic it just means people can often be mistyped.

I maintain that arguing for hours on end with no purpose in sight is not really what this forum is about --

Who said anything about arguing with no purpose? For some people debating and arguing and speculating is important to them it has a purpose for others it's not.

but I do see where you're coming from. I could agree with you that it's misinterpreting the forum that leads SJs to be less interested in it -- because I can't help but think that if they used it the way I do, they'd like it better! But I don't agree that SJs are less likely to be interested in typology.

I never said anything about them not being interested in typology they would probably find some good interest in it if they saw practical use for it. However I do think they are uninterested in the forum.

 

[EJCC]

That doesn't necessarily correlate to lack of SJs on the forum according to that logic it just means people can often be mistyped.

I wasn't responding to the thing about the lack of SJs on the forum, in that quote. I was responding to this quote: "who am I to say that they are compatible or incompatible with being a certain type, I can't."

Who said anything about arguing with no purpose? For some people debating and arguing and speculating is important to them it has a purpose for others it's not.

Right -- but for SJs, the purpose is what matters, and if SJs debate and argue and speculate it always has a purpose. I was just saying that it doesn't make sense to say that SJs aren't interested in debating and arguing and speculating in general.

I never said anything about them not being interested in typology they would probably find some good interest in it if they saw practical use for it. However I do think they are uninterested in the forum.

Wow, I think there are some Ne vs. Ni communication issues going on here. I felt like addressing that point because I felt like it related too much to be ignored. We have enough common ground that there isn't much point nitpicking little details. We've found some common ground between you and Orangey, and we agree that the reason why there aren't more SJs on the forum isn't because they aren't intellectual, or because most of the forum is mistyped.

 

[KDude]

I find it weird, when I hang out a socionics forum, and the types are more evenly split, and some of the most respected members and "theorists" on the forum are SJ. Like this guy, "smilingeyes" (just take a glance at the link). He's ESTj/LSE, and can write walls of text on socionics and Jungian theories, and even has his own subtheories, that some people adhere to there. And it's not as if Te/Si are defined in some radical way to make this happen. The big difference in socionics circles is that typing a person revolves function definitions, and little more. Behavior is set aside, where it's commonly accepted that most people/types are capable of anything.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Exactly. Add to the bolded a tendency to lean N from the start, and you have a whole forum full of wannabe Ns (because the descriptions make them sound all magical and/or super smart.)

Also, the way jixmixfix says it, you'd think that SJs never take the time to engage in frivolity of any sort (and let's not pretend this forum is anything other than frivolous...it most certainly does not attract intellectuals, if the level of discourse in the politics subforum is any representation.)

I like the fact that many descriptions make INFPs sound like they need help brushing their teeth because they are too busy crying over road kill or concocting fairy castles in the clouds.

 

[King sns]

I like the fact that many descriptions make INFPs sound like they need help brushing their teeth because they are too busy crying over road kill or concocting fairy castles in the clouds.

Seriously, I remember the first time I tested on MBTI I was like 12 and got INFP, (and it was keirsey, I think) , and it was all "good and evil" and "seeing life through rose colored glasses". And I pictured this really strange girl sitting in the corner with pink sunglasses on and laughing (because she thought life was wonderful with those glasses on.)

 

[Anew Leaf]

Seriously, I remember the first time I tested on MBTI I was like 12 and got INFP, (and it was keirsey, I think) , and it was all "good and evil" and "seeing life through rose colored glasses". And I pictured this really strange girl sitting in the corner with pink sunglasses on and laughing (because she thought life was wonderful with those glasses on.)

hahaha, exactly! "INFPs are perhaps the most pure of all the types." "These rare creatures can be easily harmed, so caution must be employed when dealing with them!" "Despite their innocence they can become obsessed with the evil nature of humanity and delve into the dark arts."

Of course, there is some truth in the matter. If I was an INFP mouse, there is NO way I would ever be able to find the cheese in the maze. I'd probably die stuck in a corner because I am too busy thinking about being pure.

 

[EJCC]

I find it weird, when I hang out a socionics forum, and the types are more evenly split, and some of the most respected members and "theorists" on the forum are SJ. Like this guy, "smilingeyes" (just take a glance at the link). He's ESTj/LSE, and can write walls of text on socionics and Jungian theories, and even has his own subtheories, that some people adhere to there. And it's not as if Te/Si are defined in some radical way to make this happen. The big difference in socionics circles is that typing a person revolves function definitions, and little more. Behavior is set aside, where it's commonly accepted that most people/types are capable of anything.

Interesting! (Although I've heard that ESTj in Socionics is more like ESTP? I dunno, I know almost nothing about Socionics.)

Do you think it's something to do with this forum in particular? An overwhelming sense of pretentiousness among certain sections of the forum, perhaps?

Seriously, I remember the first time I tested on MBTI I was like 12 and got INFP, (and it was keirsey, I think) , and it was all "good and evil" and "seeing life through rose colored glasses". And I pictured this really strange girl sitting in the corner with pink sunglasses on and laughing (because she thought life was wonderful with those glasses on.)

Yeah, it's ridiculous So exaggerated. Is every INFP supposed to be Luna Lovegood??

 

[Malice]

...A wild ESFJ appears!

I can't speak for everyone, but here's a thought about my type in particular. ESFJs like to be liked, and on a lot of these types of forums - let's face it, there's often a ton of ESFJ bashing going on. After all, ESFJs are bad, controlling, smothering, soul-sucking-emotional-trainwreck type people without a logical thought in their heads! Such manipulation! Such suffocation! Damn the badness of the ESFJ and their inability to lay off and just let you do your own thing your own way!

Course...the truth could be that a lot of you have never met a healthy ESFJ to compare, or (*gasp*) might have even mistyped the batshit-crazies as an ESFJ because they have pictures of kitties in their cubicles. (EPIC PROOF!) So then, what of us healthy emotional types that then read all of this unbridled negativity and go, 'hm...well, I'm not like that at all actually." Clearly we move onto the description that we feel must suit us better. (FAKE)

Oh and hey, we seem to be liked better too. Because even playing an ISFJ is so much 'safer' than that terrible E. (still pretty bad though)
So there you go. I bet if you make the forum more SJ-friendly and by extension *fun* you'll begin to see more of these true-types surfacing.

The End.

 

[KDude]

Interesting! (Although I've heard that ESTj in Socionics is more like ESTP? I dunno, I know almost nothing about Socionics.)

It might depend on the "subtype" (which is another theory questioned by some, but whatever). The type doesn't really change, but each type could be broken down by a strong preference for either primary or auxiliary functions (or in socionics terms, the base and creative functions). So there are ESTj-Te subtypes, and ESTj-Si. The Si subtype would be the one that shoots from the hip a bit more, and is more gregarious, like an ESTP.

 

[EJCC]

...A wild ESFJ appears!

I can't speak for everyone, but here's a thought about my type in particular. ESFJs like to be liked, and on a lot of these types of forums - let's face it, there's often a ton of ESFJ bashing going on. After all, ESFJs are bad, controlling, smothering, soul-sucking-emotional-trainwreck type people without a logical thought in their heads! Such manipulation! Such suffocation! Damn the badness of the ESFJ and their inability to lay off and just let you do your own thing your own way!

Course...the truth could be that a lot of you have never met a healthy ESFJ to compare, or (*gasp*) might have even mistyped the batshit-crazies as an ESFJ because they have pictures of kitties in their cubicles. (EPIC PROOF!) So then, what of us healthy emotional types that then read all of this unbridled negativity and go, 'hm...well, I'm not like that at all actually." Clearly we move onto the description that we feel must suit us better. (FAKE)

Oh and hey, we seem to be liked better too. Because even playing an ISFJ is so much 'safer' than that terrible E. (still pretty bad though)
So there you go. I bet if you make the forum more SJ-friendly and by extension *fun* you'll begin to see more of these true-types surfacing.

The End.

1) I relate to ALL of this. I feel like ESTJs and ESFJs are the most commonly mistyped by others. The example you gave about someone being ESFJ because of the kitten pics in their cubicle made me lol due to how freaking true it is.

2) HI MALICE!! I haven't seen you around in awhile! What's up??

 

[Malice]

2) HI MALICE!! I haven't seen you around in awhile! What's up??

Hey buddy,
I've been afk for ages, had to get myself settled in a new city with a new job. Things aren't perfect yet, and I can't promise I'll be around, but I poked my head in today and saw this thread and KNEW I had to throw in my two cents. rofl. How are you? Your penguin is adorable!

 

[Rasofy]

...A wild ESFJ appears!

You just proved ESFJs can be fun.

 

[Anew Leaf]

...A wild ESFJ appears!

I can't speak for everyone, but here's a thought about my type in particular. ESFJs like to be liked, and on a lot of these types of forums - let's face it, there's often a ton of ESFJ bashing going on. After all, ESFJs are bad, controlling, smothering, soul-sucking-emotional-trainwreck type people without a logical thought in their heads! Such manipulation! Such suffocation! Damn the badness of the ESFJ and their inability to lay off and just let you do your own thing your own way!

Course...the truth could be that a lot of you have never met a healthy ESFJ to compare, or (*gasp*) might have even mistyped the batshit-crazies as an ESFJ because they have pictures of kitties in their cubicles. (EPIC PROOF!) So then, what of us healthy emotional types that then read all of this unbridled negativity and go, 'hm...well, I'm not like that at all actually." Clearly we move onto the description that we feel must suit us better. (FAKE)

Oh and hey, we seem to be liked better too. Because even playing an ISFJ is so much 'safer' than that terrible E. (still pretty bad though)
So there you go. I bet if you make the forum more SJ-friendly and by extension *fun* you'll begin to see more of these true-types surfacing.

The End.

I like the cut of your jibe, Simpson.

Report to the Ne Candy Factory on Monday at 8 am and you got yourself a job!