Hedonist = SP

and while the rest are a mix

I've only met one person I'd call really neurotic

for example: Aggressiveness = ENTJ, Solitary = INTJ (or INTP even, but less characteristically so)

Inventive = ENTP

Idiosyncratic = INTP (Less characteristically INTJ)

and perhaps even ENTP

I'm reading Solitary now

people would say this sounds like me

I'm more of a gnostic than a pure rationalist though

read idiosyncratic as well

I don't think I'm interested in "diagnosing" myself on this stuff though. Sometimes you just kinda read yourself into whatever it is you're reading.

they identify idiosyncratic with INTJ

and solitary with INTP

mmk

in practice there is a significant overlap, as you will appreciate

however, inventive and aggressive are clearly different

an ENTP example, Sam Hyde

lol I am definitely interested in the occult

"Outward view. Though they are inner-directed and follow their own hearts and minds, Idiosyncratic men and women are keen observers of others, particularly sensitive to how other people react to them" this is interesting

its certainly true for me

i like paranormal shit

have you taken the big aspie test @Alien Jesus

what is the Oldham types reference I'm seeing

you know I don't know

i went to a therepist and got diagnosed

the one available online I mean

Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]

fuck therapists

this resonates with me

ik

it was something i was forced to do

can you be mistaken as a normal person

when i want to be

then take the test

I appreciate clicking pages of questions is not an attractive prospect

however its a very comphrehensive test that delivers its results in a number of interesting ways which you may find personally useful regardless of the result

http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

I think some of aggressive resonates with me. At least with work-me. Hierarchy / Tight ship / Expedience

My biggest goddamn peeve is people working for me who don't have a clear conception of what the goal is and the how to meet it. It's a big problem in law because (and this is especially true of appellate work) you must make extremely specific arguments because of standards of review

A reviewing court will not overturn a lower court's decision on its findings of fact unless the district court has committed a clear, non-harmless error. But it reviews findings of law with no deference to the lower court.