User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: uClassify

  1. #1
    null Array Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default uClassify

    This thread is a spinoff of the What is your writing style? thread. There is a site called uClassify which has many fun tools for 'writing analysis'.

    As an example, I have performed some of the available analyses on the following post of mine:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy
    As most of us are aware, communication comes in a variety of different forms, and is motivated by a variety of different desires. Reflecting upon some of the dialogue that has taken place within the forum, it seems as though there is a regular disconnect between sender and recipient, whether it be the fault of the former or the latter. The intention of this thread is to create a discussion about discussion, in the hopes of illuminating the nature of this potential disconnect and to explore the driving forces behind this place we all hold so dear.

    In line with the sprit of this thread, I'd like to mention my motivations in creating it:
    1. To inquire about the beliefs of others, in order to gain insight and refine my own beliefs.
    2. To modify the social environment to produce a better discourse / forum experience.
    3. To fulfill a basic human need to transfer information.
    4. To fulfill a basic human need to relate, socialize.

    I'd like to start by bringing up a topic which is very personal for me: argumentation. In it's purist form, it is meant to be a form of external, multi-person brainstorming aimed at reaching reasonable conclusions from a series of known facts. More commonly, it is thought of in terms of winning or losing, where individuals will pass judgments first, find supporting facts second, and rarely ask questions. I find this approach to be dissatisfying, unpleasant, and downright harmful to proper decision making. In the context of this forum, it isn't uncommon for discussions to deteriorate to the point of personal attacks, changing the intentions of communication - from: the transfer of information > to: the preservation of self worth.

    I am of the opinion that, while there may be differences in preference, there should rarely be a situation where both parties should have to "agree to disagree." With a reduction approach to argument, the source of all disagreement can be found to be either a difference in personal preference, or a disagreement about the validity of a particular fact (premise). In either case, rational men and women should be inclined to accept the utter truth of another's preference (no disagreement), and should look at the potential facts in terms of likelihoods and probability rather than right and wrong.

    Preferences which are themselves based upon other preferences and facts may be discussed (e.g. having a preference for exercise because you have a preference for health and facts would indicate that exercise leads to health), but very basic preferences need no justification other than there own existence. In the case of a difference of basic preferences, there is simply no reason for argument unless there is a belief that a particular basic preference might be in direct opposition to another basic, more important preference. Ex: Convincing a serial killer not to kill is futile unless you believe his preference for freedom, personal safety, etc. outweighs his preference for killing. There is no disagreement here, simply an acknowledgment of different preferences.

    Facts, for the most part, are themselves concrete and absolute (so long as they are framed correctly), and any discrepancy in our understanding of the facts should cause those involved to treat all potential truths with caution, rather than blindly believing in one truth and rejecting the other as fiction. If need be, the argument should be expanded to include an analysis of the facts, treating them more as a link in a chain than as the foundation upon which an argument is based. Often times the motives of the opposition are questioned (e.g. accusations that they wish to persuade through falsification of the facts), but in these instances a proper exploration of the facts should fully illuminate the truth, so long as one carries the primary motive of truth discovery.

    Anecdotal example:
    My girlfriend and former roommate were arguing about whether or not omission of the truth was a form of lying. My girlfriend was of the opinion that it was, as both lying and omitting the truth lead others to false beliefs. My roommate was of the belief that it wasn't, as lying forces misinformation upon another whereas omission of the truth only prevents the correction of false assumptions. They bickered back and forth for about 15 minutes, giving examples meant to support each of their beliefs. Eventually I intervened, suggesting that there argument had less to do with a definition, and more to do with a difference in feelings associated with each.

    I reminded them of the connotations that words carry, and suggested to them that what they really were attempting to do was associate the connotations of lying with omitting the truth (my girlfriend) and distance the connotations of lying from omitting the truth (my roommate). I went on to explain that, rather than convince each other of anything, they were simply informing each other of their preferences: my girlfriend of her displeasure with omission the truth, and my roommate of his relative apathy towards omission of the truth.

    Following this reduction and clarification, we then went on to discuss the potential benefits and costs of omitting the truth, independent of it's relation to outright lying. What would have once most probably ended with them agreeing to disagree, then became a fruitful discussion about the merits and follies of a common human activity. A fruitful discussion, ending in unity rather than disharmony.

    • A few guidelines for good discussion:
    • Give others the benefit of the doubt.
    • Be skeptical, but not to the point of paranoia.
    • Be polite.
    • Be open minded.
    • Don't think in terms of right or wrong, better or worse.
    • Have your primary motivation be to learn, not self preservation.
    • Check your ego at the door.
    • Realize that it is much easier to criticize than come up with original ideas.
    • Ask questions, seek to clarify rather than persuade.
    • Listen, respond.

    What are your thoughts about communication?
    Text Language
    1. English (100.0 %)

    1. positive (54.8 %)
    2. negative (45.2 %)

    1. Society (36.3 %)
    2. Health (26.6 %)
    3. Computers (17.4 %)
    4. Arts (9.3 %)
    5. Games (5.9 %)
    6. Science (2.1 %)
    7. Home (1.5 %)
    8. Business (0.5 %)
    9. Recreation (0.3 %)
    10. Sports (0.0 %)

    1. happy (60.6 %)
    2. upset (39.4 %)

    1. male (60.5 %)
    2. female (39.5 %)

    1. 65-100 (62.6 %)
    2. 51-65 (17.3 %)
    3. 36-50 (8.3 %)
    4. 18-25 (6.6 %)
    5. 26-35 (4.1 %)
    6. 13-17 (1.1 %)

    Classic Writer Similarity
    1. Plato (32.6 %)
    2. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (19.0 %)
    3. Edgar Allen Poe (12.0 %)
    4. Oscar Wilde (11.8 %)
    5. Lewis Carroll (7.7 %)
    6. HG Wells (3.1 %)
    7. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (2.5 %)
    8. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (2.3 %)
    9. Edgar Rice Burroughs (2.1 %)
    10. William Shakespeare (1.8 %)
    11. Jane Austen (1.3 %)
    11. Leo Tolstoy (1.3 %)
    12. Frank Baum (0.9 %)
    13. Jules Verne (0.7 %)
    14. Mark Twain (0.5 %)
    15. Charles Dickens (0.2 %)
    16. Charles Darwin (0.1 %)
    16. Charlotte Bronte (0.1 %)
    16. Leonardo da Vinci (0.1 %)
    17. Homer (0.0 %)
    17. Dante Alighieri (0.0 %)

    Society Topics
    1. Politics (54.6 %)
    2. Sexuality (33.9 %)
    3. Transgendered (4.4 %)
    4. Philosophy (3.8 %)
    5. Future (2.0 %)
    6. History (0.4 %)
    7. Paranormal (0.3 %)
    8. Relationships (0.2 %)
    8. Work (0.2 %)
    9. Law (0.1 %)
    9. Lifestyle_Choices (0.1 %)
    10. Folklore (0.0 %)
    10. Ethnicity (0.0 %)
    10. Support_Groups (0.0 %)
    10. Religion_and_Spirituality (0.0 %)
    10. Subcultures (0.0 %)
    10. Crime (0.0 %)
    10. Holidays (0.0 %)
    10. Death (0.0 %)
    10. Disabled (0.0 %)
    10. Government (0.0 %)
    10. Military (0.0 %)
    10. Philanthropy (0.0 %)
    10. Organizations (0.0 %)
    10. Genealogy (0.0 %)

    News Classifier
    1. Health (38.6 %)
    2. Parents (21.8 %)
    3. Technology (9.6 %)
    4. Finance (6.6 %)
    5. Men (5.8 %)
    6. US (5.5 %)
    7. Women (5.3 %)
    8. Food (1.7 %)
    9. Global (1.3 %)
    10. Home (1.2 %)
    10. Entertainment (1.2 %)
    11. Business (0.9 %)
    12. Sports (0.4 %)
    13. Fashion (0.1 %)

    1. Corporate (93.8 %)
    2. Personal (6.2 %)

    1. Introversion (98.9 %)
    2. Extraversion (1.1 %)
    1. iNtuition (98.3 %)
    2. Sensing (1.7 %)
    1. Thinking (99.8 %)
    2. Feeling (0.2 %)
    1. Perceiving (81.8 %)
    2. Judging (18.2 %)

  2. #2
    The Eighth Colour Array Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    10w so


    LOL. It classifies most intellectual texts as having an INTP writing style.

  3. #3
    mod love baby... Array Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    9w1 sx/so


    that is awesome! i wish i had one long enough.
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  4. #4
    null Array Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    LOL. It classifies most intellectual texts as having an INTP writing style.
    Yes, it does, with some being INTJ or close to INTJ. It isn't supposed to be used to type a person, but to type the writing style of a particular work.

    Here is an article by Andy Rooney which comes out IXFJ:

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Rooney
    On the day I write a column each week, my mind flits around looking for an idea that interests me and one I hope will interest you. I like football, the study of philosophy and anything about food. The subject of religion is of great interest to me, although I'm not religious.

    I could spend my life writing about these topics, but even though football is one of my favorite subjects, I'd probably run out of things to say about it first. Football is limited intellectually, and to be good to write about, I think a topic has to have some intellectual dimension. The study of religion exceeds football in that department. For all the nonsense there is about it, religion has that.

    There's no end to theories about religion. The study of religion provokes more long and heated discussion than any other subject -- certainly more than football.

    When I was a freshman in college, I got my first exposure to philosophy, and I was hooked for life. When I was going to school, they didn't teach philosophy before college. Philosophy isn't for kids.

    I don't think many people who get deep into the study of philosophy are that religious. I don't think the two subjects fit together well. Religion is believing. Philosophy is skeptical. It's skeptical of religion. It's even skeptical of philosophy. I don't think there are many priests or ministers who'd admit to being skeptical of religion. Those who are should find other work.

    I've never heard whether priests and ministers get along. They're in the same line of work but sometimes on opposite sides of the fence. If they didn't get along, though, they probably wouldn't say anything about it. I'd like to hear a priest and a minister talk about the differences in their beliefs.

    The good thing about writing about religion is that you never run out of material. And no matter what, someone who will be offended by what you write.

    Atheists suspect there's no God. My grandfather was a militant atheist. My father and mother didn't go to church but said they were Presbyterians and sent me to Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. I was indifferent to the religion but I liked going because there were girls who attended the services.

    I had an aunt and uncle who were serious Baptists. They didn't approve of my not going to church very often, and they didn't like it that my mother took me to a Presbyterian church. I knew many Catholics, but I never learned the difference between the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists. I was Presbyterian but don't ask me why. Some of my best friends were Catholic. I was in love with Lucy Buckley, and she was not only Catholic but three years older than I was.

    The closest I came to being religious was attending "Home Time" on Sunday afternoons at a church near a friend's house. I liked the name and I liked the girls who came, even though I was never sure about the religious aspect of the meetings.

  5. #5
    No Array Thalassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    I took one of my typical, run of the mill, "my ex grandpa...this function...that function.." posts and it typed me as a happy, female ENFJ who writes 72% like Oscar Wilde.

    I wonder what would happen if I actually put a piece of formal writing.

    My ISTJ is artistic too, in the sense of having a very good ear for music and having a very particular visual aesthetic taste for things like form and color. But like with my ESFJ ex, the form of being artistic seems more inclined to collection and selection and taste rather than raw manipulation of materials. My ESFJ ex collects films from all over the world, is totally a film snob, keeps them perfectly organized, and has a similarly heightened sense of form and color, though it's different in the specifics from the ISTJs. (Si is personal.)

    My ISTJ grandfather was not "artistic" at all, though, unless you count the fact that he was a well-groomed snazzy dresser and he liked picking out pretty dresses for his wife and daughters and granddaughters...I would call him the more traditional image of a very practical ISTJ rather than a real aesthete or artist, though he liked people to dress nicely. He also used to buy me these collector's item porcelain dolls. Selecting and collecting and taste , again, rather than raw manipulation of artistic materials.

    Not to say that there aren't SJ painters and writers, because there are of course. William Wordsworth was an ISFJ poet.

    I still think Melancholic makes more sense for Si types in general, including INFPs with their tert Si.

    EDIT: Maybe that's it! Maybe it's Si/Fi or Fi/Si...hmmm...
    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey

    SEE-Fi /Gamma

  6. #6
    No Array Thalassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    It also said I'm between 65-100 years old.

    I'm not sure how I feel about that.
    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey

    SEE-Fi /Gamma

  7. #7
    null Array Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    It also said I'm between 65-100 years old.

    I'm not sure how I feel about that.
    it means u dont right like this, duh

  8. #8
    Starcrossed Seafarer Array Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    This puts me at ESFJ... interesting, but no. Heheh!

    1. Extraversion (84.8 %)
    2. Introversion (15.2 %)

    1. Sensing (86.0 %)
    2. iNtuition (14.0 %)

    1. Feeling (95.8 %)
    2. Thinking (4.2 %)

    1. Judging (70.8 %)
    2. Perceiving (29.2 %)

    I tried it with a more introspective type blog, and I got 70% introversion, which is more believable, but I was still like 60% Sensor. Fun website, though!
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert

  9. #9
    No Array Thalassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    I posted an entire analytical essay from an English class and got INTP, thereby confirming my deep suspicion that academia is trying to turn us all into pedantic twits.
    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey

    SEE-Fi /Gamma

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array You's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    Unfinished (Creative) Writing - Star Wars Novel Sample:
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A
    The planet was cold and mountainous, overcome by craters, with snow falling, and one moon to occupy the nightfall. In the sky soared two Imperial shuttles, missing their large secure doors. Two dozen young students – evenly separated by shuttles - with parachute packs fit to their back awaited the countdown. They stood in formation at the missing doors. Most were stoic, but one smirked.

    Dai Von Junn was eager to explore Khar Delba.

    A growl echoed through the tundra below. The scouts clutched their blaster rifles. They exchanged looks, glanced down and fidgeted. A student next to Dai was more unquiet than the others. Victoria Remos' stomach grumbled: indigestion. The mix of hotcakes and galma didn’t agree with her digestive tract. The meal agreed with Dai – he burped and grinned. Before takeoff the two ate. They debated bands, personal space, cybernetics, and then alien cuisine; Rodian fruit was the subject – specifically galma – smelling of sweaty bantha and red skinned. Not appetizing, but Dai goaded. And she devoured. Then, she vomited. And he laughed. They’d laugh about it later.


    Another roar alerted the scouts. The scouts shuffled once more. Flyboy Uri Gil turned his head about to the troops. He smiled. The team was familiar with this smile; mustached and rotten teethed – they were seconds from deployment and possible disaster. Uri piloted the campaigns on Ziost, Bosthirda and Korriban. He knew danger. Before employment with the Commission for the Preservation of the New Order (COMPNOR) he tested the original TIE defenders, interceptors and scouts until reassignment in the Outer Rim Territories. Gray haired, Uncle Uri – a nickname bestowed on him by his common passengers - kidded he was only kept on staff because a bribe to quiet his stories of starfighters glitches. Dai appreciated his affability. All the students did. But none were keen on the countdowns.

    “Get ready boys ‘n girls,” Uri keyed the control panel. An automated voice buzzed. The squad focused.

    “1…“ The squad clenched
    “2…“ The squad crouched.
    “3…“ The squad jumped.

    One-by-one they leapt. Will first. Son of the famed scout Law Husse, an esteemed Outer Rim Oreworks employee, he was bred to be lead skydiver. Once upon a time he even wanted to join the family business with an interest in Galactic Outdoor Survival School. However, an untimely death diverted his attention to the Empire. And the Empire put him 3,000 meters above a world to free-fall. The New Order was always tender with their blue-eyed prospects. Will had the scars to show it. Particularly a seven-inch scar which ran down his forearm. The cause? A preventive measure against a Tuk'ata on Korriban; Dai was targeted – Will defended. Both lived. The Tuk’ata didn’t. This triumph allowed them a smile as they look to their icy grave.

    Will flipped out the aircraft with a gust. His heart-rate doubled. His body did too – mid-air gymnastics. Positioning was key; he was planking. The adrenaline rushed blood to his skull. His face went red, and grinned. His body was at ease. Each muscle relaxed. Each breath unpolluted. The air filled his lungs. But at 140 kilometers per hour, he felt nothing. He just fell. Calm, composed, the clouds veiled him. The distant dots were coming closer. And closer. They were ancient craters, better known to the troops as secure drop-zones. Will yanked and deployed. The canopy blasted from his pack. Harsh winds rushed through. He jolted aback. Blasters holstered, he began to toggle steering lines for landing. Dai watched.

    He was next. “The things bored people do.”

    Dai shook his head and crouched. Then, pounced into the sky. The winds resisted and flapped his clothes like a flag. Dai tore through the high altitudes; the air pressure of barotrauma crackled in his ears.
    Text Language
    1. English (100.0 %)

    1. positive (59.2 %)
    2. negative (40.8 %)

    1. Arts (69.3 %)
    2. Society (17.8 %)
    3. Recreation (8.5 %)
    4. Games (2.8 %)
    5. Science (0.6 %)
    6. Sports (0.5 %)
    7. Home (0.2 %)
    7. Health (0.2 %)
    8. Computers (0.1 %)
    9. Business (0.0 %)

    1. happy (54.6 %)
    2. upset (45.4 %)

    1. male (64.3 %)
    2. female (35.7 %)

    1. 65-100 (62.8 %)
    2. 26-35 (13.5 %)
    3. 51-65 (11.0 %)
    4. 18-25 (5.4 %)
    5. 36-50 (3.8 %)
    6. 13-17 (3.5 %)

    Classic Writer Similarity
    1. Edgar Rice Burroughs (22.4 %)
    2. Frank Baum (18.4 %)
    3. Edgar Allen Poe (18.2 %)
    4. Oscar Wilde (12.7 %)
    5. HG Wells (7.7 %)
    6. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (6.4 %)
    7. Mark Twain (4.9 %)
    8. Lewis Carroll (2.0 %)
    9. Jules Verne (1.7 %)
    10. Charles Dickens (1.5 %)
    11. Leo Tolstoy (1.1 %)
    12. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (0.9 %)
    12. William Shakespeare (0.9 %)
    13. Homer (0.4 %)
    13. Charlotte Bronte (0.4 %)
    14. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (0.1 %)
    15. Jane Austen (0.0 %)
    15. Plato (0.0 %)
    15. Leonardo da Vinci (0.0 %)
    15. Dante Alighieri (0.0 %)
    15. Charles Darwin (0.0 %)

    Society Topics
    1. Paranormal (31.4 %)
    2. History (31.0 %)
    3. Politics (13.4 %)
    4. Sexuality (6.5 %)
    5. Transgendered (4.8 %)
    6. Folklore (3.3 %)
    7. Crime (2.9 %)
    8. Lifestyle_Choices (1.7 %)
    9. Relationships (1.1 %)
    10. Ethnicity (1.0 %)
    11. Future (0.8 %)
    12. Holidays (0.5 %)
    12. Subcultures (0.5 %)
    13. Work (0.3 %)
    13. Philosophy (0.3 %)
    13. Military (0.3 %)
    14. Disabled (0.2 %)
    15. Law (0.0 %)
    15. Religion_and_Spirituality (0.0 %)
    15. Death (0.0 %)
    15. Philanthropy (0.0 %)
    15. Support_Groups (0.0 %)
    15. Genealogy (0.0 %)
    15. Organizations (0.0 %)
    15. Government (0.0 %)

    News Classifier
    1. US (35.2 %)
    2. Sports (12.2 %)
    3. Global (10.8 %)
    4. Men (10.5 %)
    5. Women (9.7 %)
    6. Entertainment (7.1 %)
    7. Parents (4.9 %)
    8. Health (4.1 %)
    9. Technology (3.2 %)
    10. Business (0.9 %)
    11. Home (0.4 %)
    11. Finance (0.4 %)
    12. Food (0.3 %)
    12. Fashion (0.3 %)

    1. Personal (99.3 %)
    2. Corporate (0.7 %)

    1. Extraversion (55.1 %)
    2. Introversion (44.9 %)
    1. Sensing (54.5 %)
    2. iNtuition (45.5 %)
    1. Thinking (80.9 %)
    2. Feeling (19.1 %)
    1. Perceiving (88.1 %)
    2. Judging (11.9 %)
    Oh, its

Posting Permissions

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