Talk:The16types.info

Do we really need a "significant events" section? The only things I would call "significant events" are the organizations of the meetings; I wouldn't mention stuff like the forum attacks etc. "Issues" sounds ok to me. Expat 06:11, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Sure, go ahead. --Admin 06:19, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

It seems to me like the attacks are a relevant part of the forum's history, wouldn't you say? Thehotelambush 21:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure if the attacks themselves are relevent to socionics though. The 16types/socionix split may be as that seemed to happen along quadra lines and reflected a socionics conflict. I don't know, the whole idea of tracing the history of the forum seems a bit self-serving/ of interrest only to forum members. Personally I don't have a problem with it but is that really what we're trying to do here? Bionicgoat 23:38, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I totally agree with Bionicgoat -- we can mention it in a sentence or two, but should not really go into detail or analyzing it, even socionically. Expat 04:45, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, that's fine. Thehotelambush 15:38, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Oldham mistyping

"That can easily lead to an SLE identifying best with the SLI section, for example."

What exactly is the reasoning behind this example? Is this a reference to poster ISTP/ESTP? Thehotelambush 00:49, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Not necessarily. I had noticed that way before she changed type.Expat 07:49, 21 July 2007 (BST)

No, I mean do you think that was due to the Oldham references? I think new posters have mentioned them before, but I can't think of any specific examples. Thehotelambush 20:06, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I think it's likely that it was the reason in her case, but I can't know for sure. I do think that it's easy for a SLE to identify best with the Oldham bit associated with SLI. Nowadays it's rare because almost nobody refers to those profiles anymore, but in the early days of the forum it was quite common to use the Oldham bits -- I did it myself, early on. It's a pity because I do think that Jimmy was on to something; the problem is that I think that Oldham's styles do not cover all socionics 16 types, which would be another argument for some of them being less commo.Expat 20:19, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Hmm, ok. Thehotelambush 22:17, 21 July 2007 (BST)