| public myers-briggs votes | (20/12/20 00:47) LadyX: ESFP | | (20/12/19 12:45) Freaky_sage: ESFP |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: ESFP |
| (18/12/10 16:14) tch: ESFP |
| (21/08/20 14:02) Tman: ESxP |
|
| public function votes | (22/04/08 03:28) Woll Smoth: ESTP | | (21/08/20 14:01) Tman: ESFP |
| (20/12/19 12:45) Freaky_sage: ESFP |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: ESFP |
|
| public enneagram votes | (20/12/20 00:47) LadyX: 8wb | | (20/12/19 12:45) Freaky_sage: 7w8 |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: 7w8 |
| (19/01/08 11:54) Taco110: 7w8 |
| (21/01/28 12:36) Tman: 8wb |
|
| public instinctual variant votes | (20/12/20 00:47) LadyX: so/sx | | (20/12/19 12:45) Freaky_sage: sx/so |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: sx/so |
| (21/08/20 14:00) Tman: sx/sp |
|
| public tritype® votes | (25/07/13 15:19) nicotineseries: 783 | | (20/12/20 00:47) LadyX: 827 |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: 782 |
| (19/01/08 11:55) Taco110: 783 |
| (18/12/09 21:49) tman: 873 |
|
| public sociotype votes | (25/07/13 15:21) nicotineseries: SLI | | (23/06/15 00:38) Woll Smoth: SLI |
| (20/12/19 12:45) Freaky_sage: ESE |
| (20/07/06 17:11) Diobono: SLI |
| (20/07/06 13:56) Thyssen: SEE |
| (19/10/01 19:43) Tman: SLI |
| (18/09/29 11:43) fg: ESE |
|
| public psychosophy votes | (21/01/28 12:34) Tman: FVLE | | (20/07/07 03:52) Diobono: FELV |
|
Whoever voted SLI is a genius btw, SLI is exactly MBTI Se lmao
Ironically, Se tends to be described in a way that goes more N than S by default (it's really just EP) when it's about having an openness to new ideas (new experiences) unless they either specifically mention thinking in a way where "this is what it is without additional processing" overtakes the idea of being comfortable with unknown or new experiences or if they emphasize the idea of being hopelessly present-attuned and having quick reflexes and whatnot, which people actually like to discredit in the first place to avoid "stereotypical" thinking where just because someone has quick reflexes doesn't make them an Se user despite it being such a hilariously futile attempt to add depth to the theory by distinguishing people who exhibit the same traits using analysis that magically defers to "cognition" and the reason why the brain works the way it does while having absolutely zero clue why to begin with, edging into creating archetypes defining the types and acknowledging that there is a "straightforward" way to go about typing people based on ingrained stereotypes that simply cannot be true because of the need to create another layer right over it. It's like thinking of the "stereotype" and working against it rather than coming up with a way of typing that isn't affected by the stereotype in the first place (think anti- vs. non-). And by the way, there is a terrible paradox in the scenario where a person taking in the world "without additional processing" would be chasing after new and exciting experiences (assuming it's exciting because it's a new experience) as a result of them anticipating that something exciting would be something new, which goes against the idea of having no perception bias of an event in the first place i.e. a person who truly took the world in without additional processing wouldn't be actively trying out new experiences because they're only focused on living the present without thinking any further about what they wish to experience.