Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Peter Deadpan]

I'll mention that in Big 5, emotional instability is linked to neuroticism, and this isn't correlated with type as far as I'm aware.

I had a traumatic childhood. I'll take "it's not my fault" for 500, Alex.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I'm that nerd who likes the Objective Personality System (with some complaints, but nothing major), and I do indeed think that Legion holds a strong preference for organizing the abstract, which in that system is Ni. I posit that Legion is an NiTi INFJ, which is known as "sleep" mode, or a rich inner world of processing what is interesting to or identifiable with the self. To outsiders, he may appear INTx because of this.

There is another member here whom I type the same, but I will respect that member's privacy and tendency toward mystery.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Please don't move this shit to off-topic. This is the most lit the forum has been in over a year.
Otherwise, I will blame you in my suicide note.

 

[Pionart]

I'm not questioning your type. I think you're one of the very few real INFJs I've ever met.
But you skipped some points that are still important for the "it's a typology community" argument.
And I've also explained in the previous post what can go wrong and the biases you can commit if you're only looking for the order.

I didn't mean to imply that you were questioning my type, but thanks.

Yeah I think I skip a lot of posts I reply to, I mainly just reply to what stands out to be as something I have a reply to.

About whether I think it's unlikely that so many people are N-dom... I think I only really type an inordinately high number of people as INFJ, mayyybe ENFP. And I do think it's likely that INFJ is the most common type here. I can think of many people I type from other types. There have been a few INFPs, and there are a few I think are INTPs here who correctly type themselves, though I haven't made any specific reads of ENTJ on this forum that I can recall, and not many ENFJs. There are only a handful of people I've typed as Sensors.

If my reads of INFJ have been mostly incorrect, then I'll have to realise that sooner or later. I might be thinking I can see the Ni then Fe ordering, when maybe I'm projecting.

You're right that I do have a tendency to view people as Ns though, though I'd like to hope that I'm able to fix that when I apply the actual methodology I use. I do use heuristics of "what type(s) are most likely in this context?" and although that is statistically valid thing to do (Bayesian approach I think), it can also cloud clarity.

Part of my bias is that I just don't have a good idea of what the majority of types "look" like. I haven't encountered them enough. My own personal bubble of real life contacts and musicians I listen to is very ExFP heavy, with almost no presence of STs. I do have a long way to go with being able to type most people. I'm very confident that my approach is valid, if it's done correctly, but on any specific case, I have a lot of doubt.

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION], I won't be able to do the typing today, my thinking is too clouded. I'll leave tabs open with your posts to remind me to do it later.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION], I won't be able to do the typing today, my thinking is too clouded. I'll leave tabs open with your posts to remind me to do it later.

You should just eat nachos instead. Better dedication of time.

 

[Pionart]

You should just eat nachos instead. Better dedication of time.

I'll probably do so later.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I'll probably do so later.

GOOD!

 

[Pionart]

GOOD!

I just started drinking a cider and there's a bag of CCs in the cupboard. Nachos are actually a staple in my diet.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I just started drinking a cider and there's a bag of CCs in the cupboard. Nachos are actually a staple in my diet.

I dunno what "CCs" are.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait? Are you losing blood???

 

[Pionart]

I dunno what "CCs" are.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait? Are you losing blood???

Um

They're corn chips.

(maybe it's an Australian brand, I didn't think it was)

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Um

They're corn chips.

(maybe it's an Australian brand, I didn't think it was)

Not familiar.

 

[cascadeco]

If you can find flaws in the function-sequence approach, in terms of specific examples where I've outlined the reasoning, then tell me so. Ideally I look for multiple posts of at least 4 sentences/paragraphs, and then it's about identifying which line was more S, which was more T, which specific functions they were etc. and I haven't perfected the method so any direct critique is appreciated.

Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.

I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.

From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).

I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?

I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.

All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.

There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)

 

[Sacrophagus]

Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.

I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.

From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).

I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?

I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.

All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.

There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)

When someone can't make the difference between a fleeting feeling, a mood, a temperament, and a character, discussing typology with them seems useless.


Take Pita for example. As she put it "I'm a thinking feeling type, gee."
Sometimes she seems in some of her writings for the myopic eye like an ENTP, sometimes like an INTJ, but that would simply be the conclusion of someone who can't see further than their nose. Maybe a blind dyslexic.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

When someone can't make the difference between a fleeting feeling, a mood, a temperament, and a character, discussing typology with them seems useless.


Take Pita for example. As she put it "I'm a thinking feeling type, gee."
Sometimes she seems in some of her writings for the myopic eye like an ENTP, sometimes like an INTJ, but that would simply be the conclusion of someone who can't see further than their nose. Maybe a blind dyslexic.

I'm a T heavy F-er. The most insufferable of INFPs.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I'm a T heavy F-er. The most insufferable of INFPs.

That's cool and everything, but you're not Pita. Never.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

That's cool and everything, but you're not Pita. Never.

I don't know what this means and I also think you don't know what I meant.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I don't know what this means and I also think you don't know what I meant.

Meh. The world is meaningless.

 

[Coriolis]

Fastest way to meet a dyslexic.

I assume you know what the dyslexic agnostic insomniac does at night . . .

lies awake in bed wondering if there really is a dog.

 

[Tater]

wool/Eevee/saudade: ENFJ E4
Forever: INFJ E3
Tomb1: ESTP E8
magnetica: INTJ E5
Peter Deadpan: ENFP E4
Codex: ENFP E8
Jaguar: ENTJ E8
ceecee: INTJ E8
Lib: INTJ cp E6
Salome: INTJ cp E6
InvisibleJim: INTJ cp E6
Typhon: ENFJ E3
phobik: ENTP E7
Obfuscate: INTJ E9