This is an oxymoron, thus renders what you wrote after it not worth reading.
How is it an oxymoron? I was me saying that I'm mature enough to not care if people are correct about their MBTI type. You were the one having a shit over it, not me.
This is an oxymoron, thus renders what you wrote after it not worth reading.
I did the 250 big Q's and got RCOEI or whatever, which loosely translated to INTJ if I'm not mistaking. And I can relate to the RCUEN descriptions.
Won't disagree with you on that.% is more important than letters for that one. The letters are virtually meaningless since most people are within trivial range of average on most of the scales.
If you can't see how much you cared about not caring it's not worth explaining it to you. Having a shit over it? Yeah, I did take a big dump on what you wrote.How is it an oxymoron? I was me saying that I'm mature enough to not care if people are correct about their MBTI type. You were the one having a shit over it, not me.
If you can't see how much you cared about not caring it's not worth explaining it to you. Having a shit over it? Yeah, I did take a big dump on what you wrote.
You could might as well be talking to a tree. And I think that makes you a loser. Obvz yo.Ok, you obvz don't remember my earlier posts. By "having a shit" I meant that you were getting mad over something that didn't matter, which you were. Now, you think you're winning when you're just plain wrong.
You could might as well be talking to a tree. And I think that makes you a loser. Obvz yo.
You could might as well be talking to a tree. And I think that makes you a loser. Obvz yo.
If trees are sensors, then yes.
I despise taking sides, but there's probably more truth in the proposition about Ni-dominants being uncommon. I would wager a guess that a large population of INFJs here and elsewhere are Fi-dominant.
INTPs come off very sarcastic to me a lot of the time, when I think "troll" I tend to think INTP >_<
Actually, mine is quite the average thing.boys, boys, your penises are BOTH enormous, now can we stop this?
Actually, mine is quite the average thing.
Would you care for some pie?
I would fucking love some pie. I also believe that [whatever your type is] is fantastic at baking, so I'll be looking forward to some expectancy-effect-induced deliciousness!
Um, this thread is easy: INTPs are lazy. They're slackers. They procrastinate. INTJs are supposedly the opposite in those respects. There are all kinds of theoretical ideas and mumbo jumbo out there that try to formalize or give structure to the differences but, in practice -- when it comes to taking a questionnaire, it all boils down to whether or not you're a lazy ass.
If you're having trouble telling the difference between you and your friend, then chances are that you're both towards the middle of the J/P spectrum and are essentially the same type. After-all, the preferences don't have a bi-modal distribution.
Actually, it is, and yes, you can. MBTI is basically a sorry excuse for a Big 5, and has very little relation to actual Jung.An INTP isn't "someone who scores as INTP on the questionairre", it's an INTP.
You can't understand the types by looking at how the test dichotomies are set up.
Actually, it is, and yes, you can. MBTI is basically a sorry excuse for a Big 5, and has very little relation to actual Jung.
Actually, it is, and yes, you can. MBTI is basically a sorry excuse for a Big 5, and has very little relation to actual Jung.
Oh, hi there.
Well that's a definitions thing. But even still, the "true" MBTI goes into way more detail. I don't know what the details are though.
Basically, I associate an MBTI type as one who represents the respective MBTI function model, as interepreted by MBTI in a way that is consistent. So INTP is an MBTI Ti Ne Si Fe, or roughly socionics Ni Te type, or whatevar.
I don't care what something "techncially" is, if a different interpretation works way better.
Definitions are important! Anything other than how they score on a test means it's open to interpretation (even though the test itself is open to interpretation but w/e) so unless you want to start telling everyone that they are mistyped when they don't exhibit a certain intangible quality that causes you to admire them, it's best to stick with 'my test results say X so I am X'.Oh, hi there.
Well that's a definitions thing.
The details are 'a certified professional talks with you about your results and helps you do a certified interpretation of each question according to their own certified understanding of it.'But even still, the "true" MBTI goes into way more detail. I don't know what the details are though.
Those are never consistent :XBasically, I associate an MBTI type as one who represents the respective MBTI function model, as interepreted by MBTI in a way that is consistent. So INTP is an MBTI Ti Ne Si Fe, or roughly socionics Ni Te type, or whatevar.
I agree with this sentiment, but the trouble is none of it works very well. Thinking it works well is um...what was it... Forer effect? or maybe something else.I don't care what something "techncially" is, if a different interpretation works way better.
Yeah, there's that....Correct. There is a tendency toward correlation between the MBTI dichotmies and Jung's functions, but even if self assessment were prefectly accurate, the two won't always line up. MBTI makes too many assumptions... like social attitude equaes to mental perspective, etc.
I don't like cognitive-function-oriented tests either, because they are always horribly convoluted. Last time I took one I ranked myself as Ni>Ne>Ti>Te>Fe>Si>Fi>Se or something like that. You can kind of see the INFJ in there, but... damn, it's not clear at all. Plus, it's taking the theory one step further while eschewing both Jung and experimental data.That's why I'm more inclined to give preference to tests that attempt to measure specific cognitive functions... like this one. http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm and as a back up correllation proof, this one... http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/