# Thread: How NOT to do typology

1. Originally Posted by Mane
actually it does - if two people are pushing heavy levers, and lever A is easier to push then lever B, then for them to have an equal chance of pushing the lever, the person pushing lever B has to be stronger.

likewise, if the task is mentally easier for an Si dom then it is for an Se dom, then for them to have an equal chance at performing the task, one would have to assume that the later has a higher capacity for conscious effort or willpower. in this case, i see no reason for that to be true.
[edited insult] post states that ISTPs are by nature more likely to cheat. Your contention was that people of a certain type may be more likely to uphold certain values that they already have. To support the ignoramus's conclusion, it needs to be shown that people of a certain type are not only more likely to uphold a certain value but to actually develop it solely by virtue of being the type in question.

2. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
The ignoramus's post states that ISTPs are by nature more likely to cheat. Your contention was that people of a certain type may be more likely to uphold certain values that they already have. To support the ignoramus's conclusion, it needs to be shown that people of a certain type are not only more likely to uphold a certain value but to actually develop it solely by virtue of being the type in question.
not quite, follows the same error as above:

the comparison assumed two factors:
1. two people sharing the same value (of not cheating).
2. two people sharing the same capacity for conscious effort.
3. two people having a different set of cognitive functions.

since #3 resulted in a different likelihood of acting against that value, in order to assume an equal result, either #1 or #2 have to be uneven to compensate. if we're agreeing that #2 is equal and neither type has more "willpower" then the other, then for the results to be equal, 1# would have to somehow compensate for the results of the equation to be equal - in other words ISTPs would have to be more likely of developing the value.

3. Originally Posted by Mane
not quite, follows the same error as above:

the comparison assumed two factors:
1. two people sharing the same value (of not cheating).
2. two people sharing the same capacity for conscious effort.
3. two people having a different set of cognitive functions.

since #3 resulted in a different likelihood of acting against that value, in order to assume an equal result, either #1 or #2 have to be uneven to compensate. if we're agreeing that #2 is equal and neither type has more "willpower" then the other, then for the results to be equal, 1# would have to somehow compensate for the results of the equation to be equal - in other words ISTPs would have to be more likely of developing the value.
Your example only shows that a certain type renders a person more likely to cheat when premises 1 and 2 hold true. In most situations, they don't hold true and therefore, a person's type generally has little predictive value with respect to the individual's likelihood of engaging in promiscuity when it is deplorable to do so.

4. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
Your example only shows that a certain type renders a person more likely to cheat when premises 1 and 2 hold true. In most situations, they don't hold true and therefore, a person's type generally has little predictive value with respect to the individual's likelihood of engaging in promiscuity when it is deplorable to do so.
on an individual basis - that would seem to be true. except that given that non of the factors measured by MBTI influence 1 or 2, if you take a large enough sample of Se doms and Si doms, averaging the factors of 1 & 2, you would have a higher percentage of the first conducting it then the later. then placed back to the individual - if 1 and 2 are unknown and all you know is that it's Se dom - then based on your knowledge at that given time, the likelihood becomes higher, since the Se dom in question can be any member of that given statistical sample. thus the word likely - the lack of sufficient information for conclusive predictions is inherit for the application of the word.

5. Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla
Men are biologically programmed to spread our seed as wide as possible.

It's cultural influences that would make us not cheat on partner, not the other way round.

And also looks. The better looking a man is, more opportunities he will have open to him for quick sex.

(Maybe money as well, but the girl will usually in that case want more than just quick sex, thereby reducing the opportunity somewhat, though still it will be superior than in the case of a poor non-handsome man).

No man because of his type has any more or less biological sex drive to screw maximum number of women, than any other MBTI type.

Man's Nature > Type
To expand, I think what you're describing can basically be described as an extension of general desire. To "cast bait as far and wide as possible" so to speak. Not to actually spread seed with as many as possible (men doing that would likely be dead), rather that it's a thinking or method to which would say exposure to many might narrow the choices to an ideal husband/wife. Maybe that's the instinctual drive.

6. What do we make of this? Looks like folk typology is starting to interlace with telepathy, parapsychology and occult phenomena.

Originally Posted by Face-typist
To cut a long story short, I have a theory that:

a) Mbti types have a characteristic vibe that can be detected through pictures.
b) Not every person will display that in a way that is so easily distinguishable.

I've been mostly testing the theory with INFPs (my current favorite type ), and I've designed a tentative model on how to detect an INFP through pictures:

Things to look for:

1. very expressive face, specially eyes
2. socially awkward vibe
3. not able to fake smiles (INFJs are much better on that)
4. seem to be very ''genuine''
5. scrutinizing look, like they are trying to derive conclusions about people (in contrast, INTPs will have a scrutinizing look that will look fairly emotionless)

Examples:

Thoughts?

I've been trying to create a model for INFJs, but they are more challenging to differentiate. Let's see how it goes.

7. Originally Posted by Craic
To "cast bait as far and wide as possible" so to speak. Not to actually spread seed with as many as possible (men doing that would likely be dead)
Dead but with a smile on his face.

Or maybe on second thoughts, butchered by exes/cuckolded husbands

8. Haha I look in some random spoiler in SW's "Face-typist" post, and see that this person is typing random pop-diva-movie-superstars, and I was fairly turned on by the below so-called INFP picture (and I hope this particular ignoramous "moves spotlight away from RaptorWizard" did not mean INTP, and if this person did, I would as I have said in a past post before this one start farting lightning bolts and burping rainbows - because no way in Hell is the girl in the below picture an INTP; INFP could work though)!

9. Originally Posted by RaptorWizard
Haha I look in some random spoiler in SW's "Face-typist" post, and see that this person is typing random pop-diva-movie-superstars, and I was fairly turned on by the below so-called INFP picture (and I hope this particular ignoramous "moves spotlight away from RaptorWizard" did not mean INTP, and if this person did, I would as I have said in a past post before this one start farting lightning bolts and burping rainbows - because no way in Hell is the girl in the below picture an INTP; INFP could work though)!

lol somehow I think this post will have the opposite effect. Though at least you posted it in this thread to save the need for SW to quote it.

10. Originally Posted by Nonsense
she also says that she has no problem putting things over on people, which is the proof that she is a Thinker.
Lol. "Proof."

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO