Hey so I just learned actionscript and decided to write a program that shows how to convert functions to MBTI code. The cool thing about it is that you can drag around sliders and see how close different types are to each other.
Anyways, here's a link (I have no idea if this is kosher, but whatever).
No offense, but if you think that, your functional understanding is not nearly as thorough as you think it is.
I understand the functions perfectly; I just bend the rules to suit my purposes. That's a privilege that comes with any theoretical construct, since [cliche]the map is never the territory[/cliche], and other maps are just as valid in their own right (although not all of them are as useful).
But yes, I'm really looking forward to the updates on this. I'm pretty fond of it, even if it is "just a test."
[ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]
Ummm....why exactly is this necessary in the first place? Here's all the conversion you'll ever need:
xNxP = Ne
xNxJ = Ni
xSxP = Se
xSxJ = Si
xxTP = Ti
xxTJ = Te
xxFP = Fi
xxFJ = Fe
There ya go, just saved you hours of coding/test-taking.
We get it; you're smart.
Anyways, am I wrong, or were you arguing against functions mapping directly to types just a few months ago?
I honestly don't understand why it's necessary for you to even post stuff like this, especially since I've proven in this thread that I entirely understand functions. Plus, if you broadened your perspective a bit, you'd see that maybe my point is to have a visual aid for people that don't actually understand function theory in the way that I do.
It's not that you're wrong, it's just that you're somehow blind to the fact that your posting tone/style just makes people annoyed and less likely to listen to the meaning you're trying to convey. Or maybe you're not blind and you get some sort of validation from proving yourself. Either way, you aren't really accomplishing anything. Everyone you've argued against in this thread clearly has all of the knowledge you're talking about.
Also, it's nice to be able to see how close certain types are to each other, which may be harder for people to conceptualize without a visual aid like this.
I usually don't even care about your argumentativeness; it's just insulting to me in this context. Now please, try to be nicer. Thank you.
@Rep comment I got about not understanding how to use this thing -- quick explanation:
Ti vs. Te and those other three should be self explanatory.
T vs. F = (Ti + Te) vs. (Fi +Fe) (S vs. N is analogous)
T + F vs. S + N = (Te + Ti + Fe + Fi) vs. (Se + Si + Ne + Ni)
That is so odd. It was obvious INTP until I compared S+N vs T+F. I'm one point over the barrier to ENTP. I love the program by the way, but since I know I'm introverted, I would base it on my abnormally high Ni (which is even more developed than my abnormally Te). You could call me a "false ENTP." Seems like solid programming though.
Also, what happens if one of your functions is more than ten points higher than the one you're comparing it to? Because this happened to me a couple times and I realize now that if it hadn't I would have actually gotten INTP.
Last edited by FlamingMask; 08-21-2009 at 06:29 PM.