Function to Type calculator I wrote

[Ghost of the dead horse]

That's a wicked good work. Thank you for making this available.

 

[redacted]

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.

All the program does is look for your strongest function and then compare the two possible auxiliaries to each other. The differences don't matter. So you could be an INTP with higher S than N even, as long as Ne is rated higher than Se. If Ne and Se are tied, it will say IXTP. Then I programmed in a bunch of if statements to calculate Xs in other positions, etc.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Impressive stuff. Hm... A practical addition to this.
It's mostly a small addition that isn't necessary but since we're dealing with a visual element. You could try making those percentages into those bars that people create such as:

Ti > Ne > Ni > Te > Si = Se > Fi > Fe

Just for people to copy and paste into their profiles. I like this device... the only trouble I have with it is that I'm not exactly sure why I'm sliding certain bars such as the T+F vs S+N. Otherwise I'm trying to match it with my own understanding of my functions and it seems to work fairly OKish.

 

[redacted]

Impressive stuff. Hm... A practical addition to this.
It's mostly a small addition that isn't necessary but since we're dealing with a visual element. You could try making those percentages into those bars that people create such as:

Ti > Ne > Ni > Te > Si = Se > Fi > Fe

Just for people to copy and paste into their profiles. I like this device... the only trouble I have with it is that I'm not exactly sure why I'm sliding certain bars such as the T+F vs S+N. Otherwise I'm trying to match it with my own understanding of my functions and it seems to work fairly OKish.

Yeah I've been thinking of adding that, I'll take care of it in the next day or two.

Also, if the T+F vs. S+N slider wasn't there, T+F would always add up to 50% (S+N too), which would miss out on the actual flexibility of function order. I wanted to completely capture the model I picture when I think of functions. If this helps, T+F vs. S+N could also be labeled "Ti+Te+Fi+Fe vs. Si+Se+Ni+Ne" and be equivalent.

 

[Lexan]

I get INFJ from this.

 

[alcea rosea]

That's a nice one.

 

[Llewellyn]

Changed it up a tiny bit; made it easier to talk about where you fit on spectrums.

I'm probably -6, 6, -3, 2, -2, 6, -1

Certainly a cool application, Evan. Compared to you I have [-3, -3, -3, 2], [-2, 3], [-3] Fairly balanced, still at some points close to ENTP -> it's with the TF vs SN test where INTP is secured.

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).
[Ni > Fi > Ti > Ne > Fe > Si > Te > Se ]

Do you happen to interchange the positions of your Fi and Fe?
What are your percentages?

 

[Sunless]

The link is broken help?

 

[redacted]

The link is broken help?

Crap. My friend's website died. I have the program on my computer but don't have a host site.

Also, I made it way better.


EDIT: my friend is putting up the new version in the next few days.

 

[Cronkle]

Postin' to use it when it works.

 

[redacted]

Here's my new rewritten version. I put about 0 thought into aesthetics, so i'll come out with a 2.0 in a bit. Heh, 2.0.

Type Calculator

 

[redacted]

I'm not positive if my last version made it onto this site, but now it lists all types consistent with the distribution of functions instead of using Xs. If that made no sense, just check it out.