• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Mistyped TypeCentral Members

Sacrophagus

Mastermind Fieldmarshal
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,702
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
854
Charlatanism? How am I engaging in charlatanism?

(also, my methods are original, I didn't read them in a book)

Your pitiful attempts to remake typology from scratch are a ridiculous joke. Find yourself a new hobby and stop wasting our time.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
Your pitiful attempts to remake typology from scratch are a ridiculous joke. Find yourself a new hobby and stop wasting our time.

I'm building upon existing foundations. It's called OrIgInAL ResEaRcHHH~~~!!!
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
7, 3, 5, I'm so confused, which is the real type? Can anything be trusted? :cry:

Well, at least it's quite a unique combination. It seems to have some deep flaws though.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
7, 3, 5, I'm so confused, which is the real type? Can anything be trusted? :cry:

Well, at least it's quite a unique combination. It seems to have some deep flaws though.

4!!!!!!

:greatscott:
:explode:

- - - Updated - - -

(I feel that you planned that, but I'll let it slide)
 

Methylene

Now with more salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
2,560
MBTI Type
LVEF
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Oprah-You-Get-A.jpg

You get N-dom
And you get N-dom
EVERYBODY GETS N-DOM.
 

Methylene

Now with more salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
2,560
MBTI Type
LVEF
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Sarcophagus got N-aux.

And it's a very exception to your method.
I'm not questioning your understanding of functions, which I think is pretty good, but your method.

Let me explain this, as we're both people of science and you surely have a better knowledge of statistics than me. Every time we get the very same results from entirely different samples, we in chemistry start supposing a bias. It may be in the strumentation, or in the operator, because we know it's statistically unlikely. What do we do? We switch the operator, and often even strumentation or lab, or even samples because something could've went wrong when we had collected them, because we know that those results are statistically impossible. We place a great deal in that, being sure that the method is completely unbiased. Otherwise, meds wouldn't do their job, as they could be greatly contaminated by impurities, and so on.
That being said, I still think that your method is really biased in favour of intutives, for I don't know what reason. Maybe because you're a Ni dom, or maybe lack of iron logic. But if I were you, to limit the bias, I'd suppose sensor until differently proven. Take that as a friendly suggestion from my Ti.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
And it's a very exception to your method.
I'm not questioning your understanding of functions, which I think is pretty good, but your method.

Let me explain this, as we're both people of science and you surely have a better knowledge of statistics than me. Every time we get the very same results from entirely different samples, we in chemistry start supposing a bias. It may be in the strumentation, or in the operator, because we know it's statistically unlikely. What do we do? We switch the operator, and often even strumentation or lab, because we know it's statistically impossible. We place a great deal in that, being sure that the method is completely unbiased. Otherwise, meds wouldn't do their job, as they could be greatly contaminated by impurities, and so on.
That being said, I still think that your method is really biased in favour of intutives, for I don't know what reason. Maybe because you're a Ni dom, or maybe lack of iron logic. But if I were you, to limit the bias, I'd suppose sensor until differently proven. Take that as a friendly suggestion from my Ti.

Site statistics show that most members self-identify as intuitives, so statistically it would make more sense to suppose intuitive until proven otherwise.

If you can find flaws in the function-sequence approach, in terms of specific examples where I've outlined the reasoning, then tell me so. Ideally I look for multiple posts of at least 4 sentences/paragraphs, and then it's about identifying which line was more S, which was more T, which specific functions they were etc. and I haven't perfected the method so any direct critique is appreciated.

If your reasoning is along the lines of my results being unlikely because 3/4 or whatever of the population are S, then that's invalid, as stated in the opening sentence.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Site statistics show that most members self-identify as intuitives, so statistically it would make more sense to suppose intuitive until proven otherwise.

If you can find flaws in the function-sequence approach, in terms of specific examples where I've outlined the reasoning, then tell me so. Ideally I look for multiple posts of at least 4 sentences/paragraphs, and then it's about identifying which line was more S, which was more T, which specific functions they were etc. and I haven't perfected the method so any direct critique is appreciated.

If your reasoning is along the lines of my results being unlikely because 3/4 or whatever of the population are S, then that's invalid, as stated in the opening sentence.

What did you conclude my type was? I believe you initially typed me as INTJ (or was it INFJ?).

- - - Updated - - -

*leans in*
 
Top