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

[Jack Flak]

hmm

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

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

You're a J, naturally.

What do you mean "include both pieces?" You have me confused.

 

[Eileen]

You're a J, naturally.

What do you mean "include both pieces?" You have me confused.

I mean the "logic" piece (which, without it, I think a lot of INTJs will avoid because it doesn't speak to their base concern) and the "great lengths to find fact" piece (which may discourage INTPs from answering first).

 

[Jack Flak]

I mean the "logic" piece (which, without it, I think a lot of INTJs will avoid because it doesn't speak to their base concern) and the "great lengths to find fact" piece (which may discourage INTPs from answering first).

I still shy away from using the word logic in 2d, because I'm only trying to sift half the Ts.

You might have something though, in relation to the effort of finding fact.

 

[Haphazard]

You haven't answered my question.

What's the difference between nuance and facts?

 

[Eileen]

I still shy away from using the word logic in 2d, because I'm only trying to sift half the Ts.

You might have something though, in relation to the effort of finding fact.

Well, how about

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

 

[Haphazard]

Well, how about

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

But that's what I'm constantly yelled at for not doing, along with most INJs.

 

[Jack Flak]

Well, how about

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

"great" is perhaps too strong, but I'm thinking about this.


Hap: I don't even know what you're on about. I thought the difference between nuance and fact was clear. Nuance is by nature not apparent like facts are.

But that's what I'm constantly yelled at for not doing, along with most INJs.

Most TJs do. Are you aware that "There are always exceptions?" That's why tests don't work all the time, no matter how good they are.

 

[Eileen]

But that's what I'm constantly yelled at for not doing, along with most INJs.

yeah, actually...

 

[Haphazard]

Hap: I don't even know what you're on about. I thought the difference between nuance and fact was clear. Nuance is by nature not apparent like facts are.

But by noticing a nuance, then that means they are apparent. You know, because you noticed them.

 

[Jack Flak]

Meh. I'm thinking of countless SPs and FJs who will answer 2d if I use your suggestion, Eileen. It has too much of the "I am intelligent, and this test will show you that I am" draw to it.

 

[Haphazard]

So what's more important, repelling SPs and FJs or attracting TJs?

 

[Jack Flak]

So what's more important, repelling SPs and FJs or attracting TJs?

They are of precisely equal importance. It's a tightrope, which is why suggestions have to be weighed carefully.

 

[Jack Flak]

2d. I can tell you whether something is true or false, based on my acquired knowledge.

?

 

[Haphazard]

2d. I can tell you whether something is true or false, based on my acquired knowledge.

?

NTJs are still going to fall through that crack, and SPs may pick it.

Also, are you implying a vast, encyclopedia-like knowledge? Because I know plenty of INTPs who are like that, too, but I've never seen a single NTJ like that.

Also, going on prior knowledge, it'd be pretty easy to tell whether something is 'true or false.' This is like asking whether you know the first president of the United States. Anyone can do that, however being 'concerned' with nuance or ethics are particular. This is like a non-answer.

 

[Orangey]

I wish there were a better way to characterize "using logic and evidence" without falling into the trap of making it sound like if you don't choose it, then you must not be intelligent. Maybe something that more fundamentally describes the process, without actually mentioning the words "logic", "rational", "reason", "knowledge" or "evidence". I will think about it...

 

[redacted]

2d. I can tell you whether something is true or false, based on my acquired knowledge.

?

That's probably the best wording you can find. The deeper problem is that you've set answers against each other that are totally independent.

IMO, all tests are going to be severely lacking unless they test independent functions independently.

 

[Jack Flak]

NTJs are still going to fall through that crack, and SPs may pick it.

Also, are you implying a vast, encyclopedia-like knowledge? Because I know plenty of INTPs who are like that, too, but I've never seen a single NTJ like that.

You're considering each answer as if it were in isolation. There are three other options which have to sound worse.

That's probably the best wording you can find. The deeper problem is that you've set answers against each other that are totally independent.

IMO, all tests are going to be severely lacking unless they test independent functions independently.

I know what you're getting at, and some people will obviously have a hard time deciding. But I took this into account, because I think more often than not, the people who come up with X results are the same people who will receive an improper type result from existing tests.

I could have made this a lot easier to make decisions in, but that wasn't the intention.

 

[Haphazard]

You're considering each question as if it were in isolation. There are three other options which have to sound worse.

A. I can tell you my precise position on abortion and complex reasons why
B. I can give eighty different hypothetical situations based on the prompt of a soda can
C. I can catch bullets in my teeth
D. I can count to five

???

 

[Jack Flak]

A. I can tell you my precise position on abortion
B. I can give eighty different hypothetical situations based on the prompt of a soda can
C. I can catch bullets in my teeth
D. I can count to five

???

D is truest for me. Easy.

 

[Haphazard]

D is truest for me. Easy.

Then you're a TJ type, obviously.