Jack Flak's Lucky, Seven Question, Fail-Safe Personality Test

[Eileen]

This is where I am right now, and it's not final:

I easily pick up on nuance and subtletly, and explore the hypothetical.

Add: Or this:

I am concerned with nuance, the subtle, and the hypothetical.

I like the first one better.

 

[Jack Flak]

I like the first one better.

Done. (For now )

 

[Eileen]

Done. (For now )

Excellent. Now! What about D?

 

[Jack Flak]

Excellent. Now! What about D?

What about it, F? I'm just about toast, to be honest. Thinking is hard.

 

[ajblaise]

What word would you replace academic with?

"Logic" maybe. Or I would replace the question with something like "I am naturally detached and logical".

 

[Eileen]

What about it, F? I'm just about toast, to be honest. Thinking is hard.

Well, what was the problem with "logic"?

 

[Jack Flak]

"Logic" maybe. Or I would replace the question with something like "I am naturally detached and logical".

It's a TJ selector, smartypants. If I did that, hardly any NTPs would choose b.

The principle behind the test design, the difference between NP and TJ, is that TJs tend to seek out facts (by reading countless books, for example), and use them when appropriate. NPs tend to trust their perception of situations as they are presented.

Well, what was the problem with "logic"?

See above.

 

[Haphazard]

2d: "I can easily understand the functions and purposes of things and actions"

Terrible wording, but eh.

 

[Eileen]

It's a TJ selector, smartypants. If I did that, hardly any NPs would choose b.

The principle behind the test design, the difference between NP and TJ, is that TJs tend to seek out facts (by reading countless books, for example), and use them when appropriate. NPs tend to trust their perception of situations as they are presented.


See above.

Hmm, I disagree with your fundamental understanding of TJ vs. TP, then. Both are deeply concerned with logic and consistency, but NTPs are more likely to explore the hypotheticals.

 

[Jack Flak]

Hmm, I disagree with your fundamental understanding of TJ vs. TP, then. Both are deeply concerned with logic and consistency, but NTPs are more likely to explore the hypotheticals.

The above statement doesn't disagree with mine. They're both true.

 

[Athenian200]

The principle behind the test design, the difference between NP and TJ, is that TJs tend to seek out facts (by reading countless books, for example), and use them when appropriate. NPs tend to trust their perception of situations as they are presented.

That would make me a TJ, then...

 

[Eileen]

Well, how about...

I am very concerned with things being logically and factually consistent.

 

[Jack Flak]

Well, how about...

I am very concerned with things being logically and factually consistent.

That's not gonna work either, because you're still draining a hell of a lot of NTPs.

 

[Jack Flak]

That would make me a TJ, then...

That's good, right? But I was just comparing NPs to TJs. I would say all Js, including FJs of course, do more of the former than the latter.

 

[Haphazard]

I don't get this obsession with facts.

I guess you didn't see my suggestion, then.

 

[Eileen]

It's a TJ selector, smartypants. If I did that, hardly any NTPs would choose b.

The principle behind the test design, the difference between NP and TJ, is that TJs tend to seek out facts (by reading countless books, for example), and use them when appropriate. NPs tend to trust their perception of situations as they are presented.


See above.

I'm going to type this out with the disclaimer that it isn't a finished thought.

I think that INTJs and INFJs are very similar, just in different modes. Just as I am most concerned with ethical consistency, INTJs are concerned with logical (and necessarily factual) consistency. I am not likely to make a snap judgment about whether something is ethically/morally right or wrong without pondering, and INTJs may need similar pondering (or exploration) in order to make a judgment about logic.

I don't really know what that contributes to this discussion, just wanted to put that out there. I guess that I hope to see some kind of parallel in the NJ options.

 

[Jack Flak]

I don't get this obsession with facts.

Why does it have to be an obsession? The question only asks if (let's just compare b and d) you're more prone to know facts, or notice nuance.

I believe TJs are more prone to know facts, and NPs are more prone to notice nuance, and my goal is to let the test do its job in differentiating. The wording is the issue, to me.

 

[Jack Flak]

I think that INTJs and INFJs are very similar, just in different modes. Just as I am most concerned with ethical consistency, INTJs are concerned with logical (and necessarily factual) consistency. I am not likely to make a snap judgment about whether something is ethically/morally right or wrong without pondering, and INTJs may need similar pondering (or exploration) in order to make a judgment about logic.

Oh, I agree with you. The only problem, as I said, is that when you make one answer very attractive, like d would be if I used your suggestion, it draws more test takers than it should.

 

[Eileen]

hmm

Maybe then, you should write it to include both pieces.

I go to great lengths to support my logical conclusions with factual evidence.

 

[Haphazard]

Why does it have to be an obsession? The question only asks if (let's just compare b and d) you're more prone to know facts, or notice nuance.

I believe TJs are more prone to know facts, and NPs are more prone to notice nuance, and my goal is to let the test do its job in differentiating. The wording is the issue, to me.

Yes, but you went ahead and added hypotheticals, which is something my sense of nuance has no place for, and would drive me away from that answer.

What's the difference between nuance and specifics (and therefore, facts) pertaining to a certain situation?