How annoying were you as a kid-kid (aged 3 to 11)?
 

So quiet and well-mannered that your parents could actually take you to a pub without you pissing off the punters (instead of them dragging you in because they couldn’t be arsed finding a babysitter) or were you as loud, hyper. and annoying as a kid could get (not that many-an adult isn’t bad enough for that)?

Obviously you can be a deeply antisocial (rightly-so-called) semi-solo cult ringleader who stabs animals for fun but as a broad rule quietness goes hand-in-hand with better manners and more social propriety/conscientiousness, as a child and as a teen./adult, so. It’s loudness that comes across as inherently more likely to annoy people, whatever is or isn’t in your heart or mind.

I was apparently good.
Not annoying at all.

I have been very fortunate in the family I had and have.
My Grandparents, Parents and Brothers.
I came around 2 decades after the next Brother to me.

So I wanted for nothing in life.
I have been very lucky indeed but was always made aware of the life I had and the struggles of others way less fortunate.

I hoped I've lived up to how my Parents were and Grandparents in that equally respecting all others and helping where the need is welcome to be given.
Which was instilled in me from early childhood.
I hope I've lived up to that and always will.

I was full on annoying and a flight risk. I would wander off to talk to strangers because I never shut up apparently. I had a full conversation with a lady on the train that i was convinced was the Queen of sheba (thats who she told me she was and i asked if i could live with her and be a princess). My mum had to keep a very close eye on me :laugh: I was very confident too and a joiner, if something needed a volunteer i was the annoying kid waving their gand in the persons face. It makes me cringe to think about it :laugh:

It's odd because the older I got the shyer I got and then was a fairly awkward pre-teen. I was great in my friend group but dubious of new people.

I was an absolute hellraiser as a small child. Always starting fights, breaking things, running around the place screaming, causing drama, refusing to eat the food my parents made me, etc. And then as I got a little older, say, 7-8, I became a lot more friendly and subdued and basically became a class clown.

In public I was very well mannered/well behaved. At home, I imagine I could be an annoying little **** at times.

My kids are the same to be fair - very well mannered in public, can be a nightmare at home.

My eldest (14) is picking up the fairly heavy anti-authority streak both me and her mum have these days though... not shy about, umm, "questioning" her teachers.

I was one of those annoying little shts who asked "why" to everything.

Not a whole bunch changed tbh :laugh:

I can see that.

Querulous kids make good points though.

I'm not sure that's the best word for it, there was no amount of petulance there. More stubborn and insistently curious.

That said, when it came to PE I'd often ask "why should I waste time with that when I can read this book?" and "what are you going to do about it?" :joker:

Oh, ENTPs and curiosity. I guess it never killed the cat.

Anyway, as far as my own childhood goes different people will remember me in different ways, because I’m that sort of person who’d evolve in certain observable areas every year but for the most part I was consistently on the quieter side and reasonably well-behaved but not as perfectly so as some people might remember. I had a short temper that got me in trouble once or twice in Sunday school but certain aunties who viewed you through a very particular lens and saw you as this perfect child who couldn’t put a foot wrong obviously won’t remember that. And that’s something worth remembering in general. People tend to evolve more than they become completely different people, despite changing personas. Hindsight and only seeing the better elements to a particular person at any one time often makes you remember these things and people as uniformly better than what they were. There’s good and bad to someone in every stage of their life (I’m going off on one here but this is something that comes up a lot, so I’m just saying).

Nobody’s perfect and nobody ever was. But what we are is complex and not known in our entirety to any one person if that person isn’t super-close to us. I don’t look at someone and see someone who’s morphed into someone 101% unrecognisable, for good or bad, compared to how they were as a kid. They might’ve indeed changed a lot and people do change over time but I also chalk half of it down to the fact that I just hadn’t seen one particular side/incipient side to any one person and that particular point. People have different sides to their personality that don’t just come from nowhere. And that’s going to happen whether it’s entirely consistent with the version of them you remember during one particular point in their childhood or not.

As a kid I mapped onto the quiet-humble (to older adults) and quirky radars (to a lot of people closer to my age) in equal measure. More quiet and respectful than your average boy but that was just one side of me. The other side wasn’t taken too well until that quirkiness changed to ‘reserved with a bit of street savviness’. That’s something that naturally changed completely. But when you deep the holistic view you still get an image of one person. Things evolve and change but on a natural path.

That’s enough philosophising for a Sunday morning anyway.

I've never actually taken one of those tests, I don't know if I'm ENTP or whatever.


Actually a faint bell is ringing, I might have done one as part of a thread on here, but I don't remember doing so or what my result was.

ENTP sounds most accurate anyhoo. I’d type you as that.

Having since googled it, I wouldn't disagree. But without looking at all the categories, that only means so much :laugh:

I suppose it's a bit like a more "scientific" star sign, where the descriptors can apply to almost anyone? Or maybe that's unfair, personality tests are based on a collection of questions, rather than ... when you were born?

No, MBTI’s not like astrology. A lot of it’s very watered down and full of stereotypes but there are good sources of information about the whole thing.

Yes ..

As a general rule … less is more ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How annoying were you as a kid-kid (aged 3 to 11)?
 

I did one oddly enough ..

ISFJ

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...edf864b61d.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...dd09ce5a10.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You overstep a lot.

How annoying were you as a kid-kid (aged 3 to 11)?
 

You missed my point as per usual - I had a nap half way through your borefest of a post
(#11) !!

Yawn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Then don’t read it. You’re far from the intended audience. I’m not here to entertain you and it’s my thread so clock out if I’m boring you. That is not my concern.

I miss your vaguely random points, you miss basic cues.

If less is more ... think how much more more is!


If you (or anyone else) starts a thread I might have a crack at it.

I always get INTP, for what it's worth. :shrug:

How annoying were you as a kid-kid (aged 3 to 11)?
 

Mine was simply cut and paste evidence as you know who demanded statistics - quite different to inane ramblings …

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How annoying were you as a kid-kid (aged 3 to 11)?
 

Both these take about 5 minutes each


https://www.truity.com/test/type-fin...ality-test-new

https://www.16personalities.com/profile


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro