Do your functions unclearly represent your type?

[527468]

_.-~*`Kora`*~-._.-~*`ENTP`*~-._

 

[Totenkindly]

Each result sort of looks like the top of a pair of eyes, each beginning to roll into the back of their head.

I'm impressed, usually guys think everything looks like boobs.

 

[Walking Tourist]

cognitive processes:
Fi (38.4)
Se (37.5)
Fe (33.2)
Ni (32.3)
Ne (29.1)
Te (25.1)
Si (23)
Ti (21.2)
Based on this, what's my type???

 

[Randomnity]

So you would rather be a called sensor when your N is obviously your highest perceiving function? And your Si is the lowest lol.

I'm far, far closer to ISTP than INTP, that much I know. Honestly, I would have expected INTJ sooner than INTP...at least there I have some similarities.

but nobody knows how accurate any of the "function strengths" are. With something that complex and ambiguous, you can't really measure relative strengths with any sort of accuracy. I guess it's interesting to wonder about though.

 

[Amargith]

So where do I find the test to test my functions?

 

[Gauche]

Ne Fi Ti Ni Se Te Fe Si

Analyze me

 

[redacted]

_.-~*`Evan`*~-._.-~*`INTJ`*~-._

It seems you're not using the traditional formula. Mind sharing?

(Also, did you use my first order or second? I'm guessing you used the one with Ni first.)

Edit: I think I figured out your formula. It wouldn't matter if you used my first or 2nd order. Here's what I think:

1)you rate N vs S and T vs. F, with differences at the beginning of the order weighed more heavily than differences at the end, narrowing down the middle two letters.
2)you rate the winner of N vs S against the winner of T vs F, narrowing it down to 2 types (for me, ENTP and INTJ)
3)out of the 4 functions for the middle two letters, you find the highest one, which chooses between the two leftover.

edit again: wait, no, that can't be it...kora's result wouldn't make sense. instead of step 2 above, you probably weigh the extroverted functions against the introverted ones to narrow down I/E, and then pick P/J from the first function direction you see.

 

[527468]

Well I used both orders. And to say you were an INTJ would be to say you were an odd one, which is not too unnatural.

 

[527468]

I'm just going to guess

_.-~*`WalkingTourist`*~-._.-~*`ISFP`*~-._

_.-~*`Gauche`*~-._.-~*`ENFP`*~-._

 

[Jack Flak]

Haha. You are making assumptions over the internet about a person you know so little about. You're basing my character on a fantasy. Aren't you familiar with that called a lie? They do also exist on the internet... and they are plentiful in psychology if you haven't noticed. My doorstep is just down the street. In any case you're stalking a guy.

Once again, when you become defensive, you throw any attempt at sense out the window. Does anyone understand the above statement?

Secondly, you are misconstrued again without realizing it. Socionics isn't the same as MBTI.

You're not using Socionics, and I don't even think you're using MBTI. My best estimate is that you're not using ANYTHING, but are simply trolling, pretending to use a system when you're alternating between approximating MBTI function orders and giving types which make no sense, for fun.

If my deductions are mediocre, then your one so-called original theory is putz poo on my shoe. I've never seen anything so stupid taken wholeheartedly. The funny thing is that you believe your self-satisfying correctitude to be novel, yet your incapability of invention is so evident. Basically you suck at criticizing because you have no worth. That is why no one takes you seriously when you say these things.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

Allow me once again to point to the time not long ago when you claimed you came up with Socionics funtion theory on your own: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/11293-intp-functions-any-personality-welcome.html

And here's where you state you're INTP: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...mbti-type-your-socionics-type.html#post434840

Here's just about the funniest thread I've ever seen which wasn't supposed to be funny: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/bonfire/12693-what-if-we-organized-type-way.html#post489464

Here you claim results of INFJ, which would in fact explain a lot: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...lity-matrices/11264-socionics.html#post430424

You just don't have a talent for psychology, lemons. Find something you aren't absolutely horrible at, and practice that instead. Your continuing selfish spreading of simultaneously poor and incomplete ideas all over this forum is the worst thing that could happen to it. It's a joke.

 

[Moiety]

How about your obsession with Lemons? Give it a rest already. Every one if his threads features at least a handful of your ad-hominem replies. Borderline trolling.

Whether his ideas have any merit or not, he's not going to stop simply because you want him to.

 

[Jack Flak]

How about your obsession with Lemons? Give it a rest already. Every one if his threads features at least a handful of your ad-hominem replies. Borderline trolling.

Whether his ideas have any merit or not, he's not going to stop simply because you want him to.

Aww, poor me. Well, lemons' second post on the entire forum ignorantly discounted one of my creations (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/422108-post386.html), so forgive me for not giving a damn. You might notice he also switches between MBTI and Socionics function orders (which are, in fact, mutually exclusive) regularly, without notice. Not the mark of confidence.

 

[Anja]

Jack you're sharp as a tack when it comes to type.

When you know (and you do seem to know) and you know, you know (which I sometimes wonder) is it necessary to keep telling everybody that you know. You make good statements on type and then you get all caught up in your personal issues.

It always make me want to

Smart folks probably hear you the first time. Then all this whining and trying to attack someone's ego sorta blows your image of wisdom for me.

 

[Moiety]

Aww, poor me. Well, lemons' second post on the entire forum ignorantly discounted one of my creations (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/422108-post386.html), so forgive me for not giving a damn.

I'm assuming you don't actually expect to receive zero criticism when you share one of your ideas. Am I right? He didn't personally attack you in that post.

You might notice he also switches between MBTI and Socionics function orders (which are, in fact, mutually exclusive) regularly, without notice. Not the mark of confidence.

Maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about. But if you hold grudges based on people disagreeing with your views...you're not really showing much confidence yourself.

 

[redacted]

Stop whining Jack. If you have constructive criticism, go for it.

Mods, move the bullshit please... (including this post)

 

[NewEra]

Lemons is the man.

 

[cascadeco]

Lemons is the man.

Meh. Lemons hasn't demonstrated to me that he's the man. But then, I'm an ENTJ turned ESFJ mutated into an INFP (from all 3 of his tests), so...there's that.

But whatever. I happen to agree with Jack much of the time, but yes, obviously there's a point where things become pointless. Both pointless to continuously discredit lemons (although again, I'm not terribly impressed with what I've seen so far either, as assumptions in his formulas/calculations/questions are made that I don't think are accurate - but that's a different topic), as well as pointless to keep telling Jack to stop 'whining'. I think both have gotten the message. Not that that'll necessarily change anything though.

I will say though that I like lemons' zeal in making little tests and formulas. His long test, although grossly inaccurate for me , was a very cool format and I think it had promise.

 

[Jack Flak]

Everybody who's anybody knows that I give approximately 0/1 Fuck if anyone has a problem with what I say, because it's always either completely sincere, or blatant comedy.

Lemons spams the forums with complete nonsense, most of which contradicts the last thing he came up with, and I'm the only one who notices it (or at least mentions it). It's definitively worse than someone going on a profane-filled insult spree, because it gives amateur psychology a bad name. Being an amateur psychologist myself, I despise this.

 

[Moiety]

Everybody who's anybody knows that I give approximately 0/1 Fuck if anyone has a problem with what I say, because it's always either completely sincere, or blatant comedy.

Lemons spams the forums with complete nonsense, most of which contradicts the last thing he came up with, and I'm the only one who notices it (or at least mentions it). It's definitively worse than someone going on a profane-filled insult spree, because it gives amateur psychology a bad name. Being an amateur psychologist myself, I despise this.

For someone who doesn't care how his posts come across you pay too much importance to reputation.

Saying dumb/naive/logically-wrong things is not a sin. Disrespect is.


I say we need to get the Holy Inquisition here and purge every single ridiculous idea-thread in these forums! How dare people use their account privileges to say illogical stuff??

 

[Jack Flak]

For someone who doesn't care how his posts come across you pay too much importance to reputation.

Saying dumb/naive/logically-wrong things is not a sin. Disrespect is.

That's where we differ completely. Because I think it's a sin to politely allow idiots to spout their nonsense at will.