## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
I think I get it! Your last post if I'm not mistaken pans out because you describe Impulsivity as an aspect of extraversion as a whole, which would mean that as you use the scale to describe your Impulsivity (high or low) it corresponds with the 'graph' above the said scale, which then dictates whether you are above or below the median (6), yes?

As well, am I correct in my interpretation (I think I understand my problem with the first question I asked):

The two graphs that I questioned equalling the last graph which describes Extraversion as a whole were merely setting up the direction of the scale meaning that since the scales were moving left to right and down and up in intensity the scales general direction is lowest to the left of six and the highest right of six.

Does this sound right? Or am I confusing something?
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
00 01 02 03 04 05 06

This is the general graph of E. So yes, you could say, E, as defined E (Extraversion) is in the right of 6. Below 6 the numbers also depict E, but below the medial point (6), so it is not defined as E as such. It is defined as I (Introversion) as such: Introverts also have E. (If you do not count the single zero point.)

So here we do not yet have the dichotomy. I try to define the dichotomy in view of your post when I come back.

2. Why dont you do something more simple like a plan to go to another galaxy while wearing underwears & only bringing one bottle of pina colada o.o

3. Originally Posted by skylights
holy crap, i've been writing and rewriting for an hour and i'm finally starting to get this

must go to bed before my brain explodes !!!!!!!!!!

numbers aside...
impulsivity would seem to correlate with Se/Ne, no? ExxP, IxxP? does that match up numberwise?
Good. I am happy for you.
Yes. Impulsivity does correlate with EP and even IP. It is a dichotomy of E: but quantification is about straight lines in the vertical or horizontal, so the horizontal process stretches out of the boundary of E to reach I.

4. ReflecttcelfeR,

Thank you. An intelligent question. You are almost there.
There is a point I want to clarify though.
The scales move left to right and down up for the reason you say. Granted.
You have removed the major obstacle already.

On the other hand.
The two graphs you mention are not only because I want to make a point. The dichotomy is per se. The thing is itself. But it is a minor issue.

Impulsivity is a dichotomy of Extraversion. E brings about a differentiation of P and J.
The dichotomy of P however is E and I. The dichotomy in the dichotomy.

25 per cent is on the other side? 50 per cent, if you look at the entirety.
The entirety does not function.
Why?
It is not there.

5. "I am not a number, I am a free man".

6 was well-chosen.

6. Originally Posted by wildcat
ReflecttcelfeR,

Thank you. An intelligent question. You are almost there.
There is a point I want to clarify though.
The scales move left to right and down up for the reason you say. Granted.
You have removed the major obstacle already.

On the other hand.
The two graphs you mention are not only because I want to make a point. The dichotomy is per se. The thing is itself. But it is a minor issue.

Impulsivity is a dichotomy of Extraversion. E brings about a differentiation of P and J.
The dichotomy of P however is E and I. The dichotomy in the dichotomy.

25 per cent is on the other side? 50 per cent, if you look at the entirety.
The entirety does not function.
Why?
It is not there.
So, the graphs in question are only half the equation. This means that the exact opposite of this final graph 01 02 etc... is the rest of the description of E and I, but describes J instead of P. Yes?

Another way I'm thinking about it is the first graph is only a 100% graph, while the other graph, the opposite of said graph, completes it and makes it the 100%-0%-100% graph which tests base their scales on. One direction leading towards J and the other to P. I'll make a picture reference!

06 07 08 09 10 11 12
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
00 01 02 03 04 05 06

+

06 05 04 03 02 01 00
07 06 05 04 03 02 01
08 07 06 05 04 03 02
09 08 07 06 05 04 03
10 09 08 07 06 05 04
11 10 09 08 07 06 05
12 11 10 09 08 07 06

=

This would complete the single dichotomy of the aspect of E and I, but this second scale would measure J instead of P. The dichotomy within a dichotomy. Would this be correct?

7. Originally Posted by wildcat
Good. I am happy for you.
Yes. Impulsivity does correlate with EP and even IP. It is a dichotomy of E: but quantification is about straight lines in the vertical or horizontal, so the horizontal process stretches out of the boundary of E to reach I.
of course, that makes sense. haha i DO get it

i understand this better in patterns than in pure numbers. that is what i should have looked at from the get-go. i love your number reasoning. it's neat to see these systems in mathematical language.

8. Originally Posted by skylights
of course, that makes sense. haha i DO get it

i understand this better in patterns than in pure numbers. that is what i should have looked at from the get-go. i love your number reasoning. it's neat to see these systems in mathematical language.
Good! You are on the right path; the numbers displays the pattern, and the pattern displays the numbers.

I zero the irrelevant loci in the thing

0XX0XX0
X0X0X0X
XX000XX
000O000
000O000
000O000
000O000

X depicts the MBTI loci

I loci: 3
E loci: 9

In a quantification process 25 per cent of the loci inevitably falls on the other side:
check: 9 + 3 = 12
9 + 3 = 12 equals 3 + 1 = 4 in the order

reduction check

4(5 X 5) model:

0X0X0
X000X
00O00
00O00
00O00

I loci: 1
E loci: 3

9. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
So, the graphs in question are only half the equation. This means that the exact opposite of this final graph 01 02 etc... is the rest of the description of E and I, but describes J instead of P. Yes?

Another way I'm thinking about it is the first graph is only a 100% graph, while the other graph, the opposite of said graph, completes it and makes it the 100%-0%-100% graph which tests base their scales on. One direction leading towards J and the other to P. I'll make a picture reference!

06 07 08 09 10 11 12
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
00 01 02 03 04 05 06

+

06 05 04 03 02 01 00
07 06 05 04 03 02 01
08 07 06 05 04 03 02
09 08 07 06 05 04 03
10 09 08 07 06 05 04
11 10 09 08 07 06 05
12 11 10 09 08 07 06

=

This would complete the single dichotomy of the aspect of E and I, but this second scale would measure J instead of P. The dichotomy within a dichotomy. Would this be correct?
I shall try to illustrate the dichotomy in several posts! Your number pattern is correct as such: E = - I and vice versa. But there is confusion in your verbal statements. Never mind, we work it out.

10. Originally Posted by wildcat
I shall try to illustrate the dichotomy in several posts! Your number pattern is correct as such: E = - I and vice versa. But there is confusion in your verbal statements. Never mind, we work it out.