# Thread: New type calculator with explanations -- Calculate your type!

1. Originally Posted by Evan
Well, yeah, I do admit that I was someone stuck when trying to describe that one.....

I said the only description I could think of for that scale...any other thoughts?
I really don't have any thoughts on it beyond what I already mentioned. Maybe you would it find it helpful to create a topic on the subject and hear what people have to say about their sense of what it means to see the world through the eyes of a T/F- or N/S-dom. Whatever the case, you've done a good job on this calculator--it gave me and a lot of other people accurate results--so it's certainly not fatally flawed.

2. I updated it to list percentages for the scales instead of from -10 to 10. Changed a few descriptions. If you don't see a new site you may have to go here and refresh.

3. Originally Posted by Evan
Um, Fi deals with truth zero by definition. I don't know how to distinguish better.

I'm not talking about Fi types here (INFP and ISFP). I'm not saying they use Thinking zero. I'm just saying the function itself has nothing to do with truth (except if you're using some weird value-based definition of truth).

I must be reading different definitions :rolli:
INFPs in particular are often noted to be questers for truth.

But hey, it's your test. You can leave it poorly written and have a bunch of Fi-doms test Ti or you can find a better, more accurate way to distinguish between F & T functions.

4. Originally Posted by Evan
I updated it to list percentages for the scales instead of from -10 to 10. Changed a few descriptions. If you don't see a new site you may have to go here and refresh.
The newer definitions helped me clear out some of the issues I was having, so that's a good thing. The scale you used this time is much better as well. Though I suppose it might not hurt to try a -100 to 100 scale just so that more varied results can be given.

5. Originally Posted by OrangeAppled
I must be reading different definitions :rolli:
INFPs in particular are often noted to be questers for truth.

But hey, it's your test. You can leave it poorly written and have a bunch of Fi-doms test Ti or you can find a better, more accurate way to distinguish between F & T functions.
Like I said, I wasn't talking about INFPs or ISFPs. I was talking about Feeling. Which is literally conscious value judgments. All conscious value judgments are Feeling. All conscious truth judgments are Thinking.

INFPs that are questers for truth are using T. There's no reason to think they wouldn't use T.

I use F all the time. That doesn't make Ti about value-judgments.

Your wording leads me to believe you are somehow angry at me for having this stance. Why? I literally said "I'm not talking about INFPs or ISFPs".

There's a huge difference between functions and type. The functions themselves are rigidly defined so you can use them as labels without running into tons of grey area. Type, on the other hand, is merely an abbreviation for a certain person's distribution of function usage. Totally different thing.

A person with balanced T and F is obviously described less well by choosing one or the other than a person with a strong preference. That's why I allowed my test to incorporate all possible function distributions and not make guesses unless the information is there. All it does is come up with the types consistent with the distribution.

If you don't understand the difference between functions and type, I'm sorry. But I will not rewrite my calculator with incorrect definitions to make you feel better.

Saying Fi is about truth is like saying Si is about making connections. It's just incorrect.

If you can provide definitions of your own that make more sense to me than the ones I have written, that'd be a different story (I already changed some wording because of constructive replies). But just stating that it's poorly written is not helpful.

I don't expect you to respond to this or even care what I'm saying. I'm just letting you know that this is the culmination of multiple years of obsessive studying, conversing, testing, and refining of my understanding of MBTI. Coding this has taken at least 20 hours. So forgive me if I'm insulted by your 2 minute reply with zero substance.

Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
The newer definitions helped me clear out some of the issues I was having, so that's a good thing. The scale you used this time is much better as well. Though I suppose it might not hurt to try a -100 to 100 scale just so that more varied results can be given.
Are you saying you want smaller intervals on the scale? Like, instead of only having 21 choices between -100 and 100, having 201? I guess I could do that. But it makes me think -- how are you gonna distinguish between 33% and 34% on a scale? I'd rather leave fewer options because it makes me think they mean more.

6. Ni>Fe>Ne>Si>Fi>Ti>Se>Te

Ni, Fe, and Te are correct. The others could be. I'm not that interested in MBTI functions since it isn't that function-based...I prefer socionics for that.

N>F>S>T

Correct.

Cool calculator!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•