• 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.

Want to know your type? Video chat with me!

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Do you have any idea how much one can learn and refine what they know in that amount of time? Most people on typology forums simply read the forum posts, they hardly delve into it and they quickly assume labels and they quickly give into stereotypes.
You for example, 8,100 posts. That's insane, I'm also to assume that most of what you've "learned" has been through forum use rather than studying on your own such as articles or what have you like Kamishi.
This is not the issue. The issue is the revolutionary paradigms of typology formulated by those with more ignorance on typological understanding than others. One may have many posts and refined their thoughts on typological understanding though this is far from guaranteeing that one is able to type an individual correctly or even understanding the system in an accurate form. For simple thought, typing accuracy is very ambiguously correlated with how much one has spent time on forums like these and should not be a factor of determining whether an individual is a good at intuitively deriving a proper type for an individual.
 

00c

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
99
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This is not the issue. The issue is the revolutionary paradigms of typology formulated by those with more ignorance on typological understanding than others. One may have many posts and refined their thoughts on typological understanding though this is far from guaranteeing that one is able to type an individual correctly or even understanding the system in an accurate form. For simple thought, typing accuracy is very ambiguously correlated with how much one has spent time on forums like these and should not be a factor of determining whether an individual is a good at intuitively deriving a proper type for an individual.

You just agreed with what I said saying you did not agree.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You just agreed with what I said saying you did not agree.
Not entirely an agreement nor a disagreement. A statement of things more the like. You are right.
Though trust in articles and other multiple sources also falls to the same principles as they are derived by individuals in the same circles as those who dwell on typological website such as these. Of course, with the root of understanding of MBTI and its functions, one would do well to study the jungian terms as intended by jung as most of the data is essentially built upon his empirical pillars of experience. The source of functions of course derived from chapter 10 of the psychological types. To interpret these correctly is another challenge of course as the two main models (mbti and socionics) derived from these have altered and played with intended definitions not always towards a more accurate end.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, I was more active a year or so ago on this forum, but kind of lost interest in it. I understand if you want to take a stance due to it being a form of advertisement though again, this is not done out of primary monetary concerns but just offering feedback to the community in a way I think is overall more constructive than a dozen of type me threads that eventually don't lead anywhere and the person remains confused. Seen it happen a lot and I think listening to people, allow them to give their time and say on the matter, asking questions etc. will make people feel more secure and understanding of what type is being suggested to them.

Some of my questions are based more on a socionics definition as I think the functions are one and the same in both systems. I think socionics comes closer to actually describing more concrete behavior and manifestations of the functions in people, so I may use that as a way to hash out other options and alternatives.

Re bolded - I think it's an awesome thing. We do have to maintain some consistency so will get back to you :).
 

small.wonder

So she did.
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
965
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My credentials are essentially that I have studied typology and been active on typology discussion boards for about 3-4 years. I have read Jung, articles by Viktor Gulenko, books by Sandra Maitri and Claudio Naranjo etc. and I'd say I have vast insight and knowledge about typology as a system. I consider myself possessing high accuracy when it comes to matching people to their corresponding types.

Great! As I said, experience can be just as good as certification. I have personally considered Enneagram teaching certification for some time but find it more than a little like jumping through purposeless hoops. I have studied independently for coming on 3 years, and have gained a very thorough understanding and ability to type as well-- so I do respect and understand the cowboy route if the product is legit.

As for tritype, I don't really consider it that relevant, motivationally speaking, nor do I think they hold much weight. It's a toss up for me with head types. I don't relate much to either of them but I think overall my behavior is probably closer to type 5 than it is 6, so that's the basis on which I type.

;) I wouldn't write off the tritype component entirely. I have an 854 friend who shares more similarity with me as a person, than any 4 I've met-- I should say I've only met two other 4's though. Two people that have all three fixes in common are probably much more alike than two people who just share one (even if it is their core). Even two individuals of the same core type will have differing scores in regards to the other types-- one 6 scores high in 1, another in 9 for instance. Tritype is just a tool to describe those differences.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Great! As I said, experience can be just as good as certification. I have personally considered Enneagram teaching certification for some time but find it more than a little like jumping through purposeless hoops. I have studied independently for coming on 3 years, and have gained a very thorough understanding and ability to type as well-- so I do respect and understand the cowboy route if the product is legit.

I frankly find the question odd to begin with, since I don't think asking for credentials in any way ultimately legitimates someone to be knowledgeable. You can have several certificates, attended workshops etc. and be as ignorant as the other guy. It doesn't say anything about how you assimilated the information; only that you've been exposed to it.

;) I wouldn't write off the tritype component entirely. I have an 854 friend who shares more similarity with me as a person, than any 4 I've met-- I should say I've only met two other 4's though. Two people that have all three fixes in common are probably much more alike than two people who just share one (even if it is their core). Even two individuals of the same core type will have differing scores in regards to the other types-- one 6 scores high in 1, another in 9 for instance. Tritype is just a tool to describe those differences.

But then one could also argue that there are other reasons for that e.g. cognitive type.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Do you have any idea how much one can learn and refine what they know in that amount of time?
I have a pretty good idea, yes.

Most people on typology forums simply read the forum posts, they hardly delve into it and they quickly assume labels and they quickly give into stereotypes. [...] I'm also to assume that most of what you've "learned" has been through forum use rather than studying on your own such as articles or what have you like Kamishi.
Kamishi is hardly the only one on this forum who has read the standard works on typological subjects. In fact, it seems to me that surprisingly many people have. I, on the other hand, never thought typology merited serious study, so, apart from the occasional text here and there, I have wasted no time trying to become 'knowledgeable' in this field. To me, it is akin to astrology.

You for example, 8,100 posts. That's insane, [...]
I write about twice the amount of posts you have written per day: 5.07. There are many days with fewer, and then there are days on which I take part in discussions.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Kamishi is hardly the only one on this forum who has read the standard works on typological subjects. In fact, it seems to me that surprisingly many people have. I, on the other hand, never thought typology merited serious study, so, apart from the occasional text here and there, I have wasted no time trying to become 'knowledgeable' in this field. To me, it is akin to astrology.

Seems like an odd position to take seeing how you are on this forum, then. Also, neither have I, actually, apart from the random article I've stumbled across. The only legitimate chapter I've read from an actual book is Chapter 10 from Psychological Types. I have also read other articles by Jung but just a few. So asking for my credentials is therefore indeed, a rather pointless endeavor, since you don't even yourself put any real merit to the idea and the system. If you don't, why contest my ability to type? If one operates that it is no more than mere astrology, then one would also logically operate on a framework where the predictive nature is poor due to the subjective aspect that relates to good and accurate typing. It thus becomes a matter of who has the best opinion at which point we cannot validate anything. Ergo, type is pointless, as there is no way to verify the accuracy of the claims made. Asking for credentials for something which cannot be verified is therefore dubious, since those credentials then, mean nothing.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Seems like an odd position to take seeing how you are on this forum, then. [...] So asking for my credentials is therefore indeed, a rather pointless endeavor, since you don't even yourself put any real merit to the idea and the system. If you don't, why contest my ability to type? If one operates that it is no more than mere astrology, then one would also logically operate on a framework where the predictive nature is poor due to the subjective aspect that relates to good and accurate typing. It thus becomes a matter of who has the best opinion at which point we cannot validate anything. Ergo, type is pointless, as there is no way to verify the accuracy of the claims made. Asking for credentials for something which cannot be verified is therefore dubious, since those credentials then, mean nothing.
I asked not because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise.

Also, neither have I, actually, apart from the random article I've stumbled across. The only legitimate chapter I've read from an actual book is Chapter 10 from Psychological Types. I have also read other articles by Jung but just a few.
People who would be willing to take your interpretation over their own might find that pertinent information.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I asked not because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise.

Then it is an even more oddly phrased question, since asking for credentials breeds animosity. I eel comfortable because I know that I know the system(s) and the theory well. That's about it.
People who would be willing to take your interpretation over their own might find that pertinent information.
As I previously wrote, this eventually all boils down to interpretation, so I don't really see the validity in the argument.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Then it is an even more oddly phrased question, since asking for credentials breeds animosity.
If you had acquired instructor licences from the respective trademark holders, you probably would have found the question a lot less oddly phrased.

I eel comfortable because I know that I know the system(s) and the theory well. That's about it.
I have gathered as much by now.

As I previously wrote, this eventually all boils down to interpretation, so I don't really see the validity in the argument.
An interpretation is more likely to be accurate the more information about the matter in question the interpreter has been exposed to, which is why people trust professionals more than laymen. So, if the matter in question, as in the case of typology, is a theory or, rather, the content of certain texts, one would expect an expert to have carefully studied these texts. Should he then turn out to have studied them less than expected, one would, I assume, put less weight on his interpretation. Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If you had acquired instructor licences from the respective trademark holders, you probably would have found the question a lot less oddly phrased.

Not really, since regardless of whether I possessed those credentials or not, it is still a question questioning the person's legitimacy. I already mentioned that I am planning to get an MBTI certificate, but I also mentioned it is only for practical purposes so I can shove it in people's faces. The actual knowledge means nothing to me, since I know that there is nothing a certificate can teach me that I already don't know.

I have gathered as much by now.

Ok.

An interpretation is more likely to be accurate the more information about the matter in question the interpreter has been exposed to, which is why people trust professionals more than laymen. So, if the matter in question, as in the case of typology, is a theory or, rather, the content of certain texts, one would expect an expert to have carefully studied these texts. Should he then turn out to have studied them less than expected, one would, I assume, put less weight on his interpretation. Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach.

I don't see much legitimacy in this argument because I think it is projecting power and authority too much on someone simply because of a title they possess, rather than judging their actual content of thought. Titles do not in themselves, as I previously wrote, say anything about how well someone has assimilated certain information or for the matter, what information they were ultimately exposed to. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.

If you want to test my understanding, I again encourage you to ask me questions. Only then will you truly actually know what information I possess and how I've assimilated it.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Not really, since regardless of whether I possessed those credentials or not, it is still a question questioning the person's legitimacy.
Well, of course it is questioning your legitimacy. I fail to see what is odd about that, though. You are just a random guy on the internet.

I don't see much legitimacy in this argument because I think it is projecting power and authority too much on someone simply because of a title they possess, rather than judging their actual content of thought. Titles do not in themselves, as I previously wrote, say anything about how well someone has assimilated certain information or for the matter, what information they were ultimately exposed to. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.
The people most likely to be interested in a video interview with you are the people least likely to be able to judge for themselves how well you know and do what you offer. As I already said: Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach. In other words, appealing to an authority (by definition 'a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject, an expert') makes more sense than appealing to a layman.

If you want to test my understanding, I again encourage you to ask me questions. Only then will you truly actually know what information I possess and how I've assimilated it.
I again assure you that I did not ask because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise. I got my answer.

You have not changed that much since you wrestled with Kalach over typology last year.
 

Opal

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
1,391
MBTI Type
ENTP
I look forward to seeing where we land.
 

00c

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
99
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The session wasn't that helpful and Kashimi proceeded to denounce all tests, all questionnaires and all "general" characteristics of the types, so basically only his form of thought is right it seems, postponement, interruptions and add to that he diagnosed me on 10 simple answers of 7 simple word questions. We chatted through text since we were unable to video chat, however, which should have called for more than what we talked to actually get an accurate typing. He typed me ESFP and I attribute it to my longest statement that he cared to receive being Se related as it's the one function he asked most questions for and the only question I was able to verbally speak after his end of the skype videochat didn't work, the questions were really vague which I felt asked for vague answers without fluff and so he says that I must not be a logical thinker as the questions were open ended, but he hardly asked any questions where you could determine through ones actions if one was logical or not. The questions were incredibly open-ended, for example "What movies do you like?", "Why?" as if expecting to receive reviews for each and every single one of my favorite movies and so he says that my answers are essentially indicative of shallow thinking.
It honestly felt half-assed and I don't care to waste my time again trying to "get it right" because that's really all it was, a waste of time seeing as he couldn't really contrast between ENTJ or ESFP , all he probably based that on was my long Se answer due to questions which were Se related and me telling him I was certain of those functions exactly, but have a go at it and see how knowledgeable you feel he is because he made it seem he's done more intensive research and work than the people who made the tests and type categorizations, hell, maybe even Jung himself. He definitely types better than he speaks, but that hardly means anything. I might be coming off as critical, but this is what happened. Why lie? Remember, we only chatted through text, there would have been much more to type off if we spoke through video chat. Anyway, good luck getting donations! :bye:
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, of course it is questioning your legitimacy. I fail to see what is odd about that, though. You are just a random guy on the internet.

I'm merely pointing out that it showcases a lack of benefit of the doubt and is overall a hostile action, warranted or not.

The people most likely to be interested in a video interview with you are the people least likely to be able to judge for themselves how well you know and do what you offer. As I already said: Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach. In other words, appealing to an authority (by definition 'a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject, an expert') makes more sense than appealing to a layman.

That may be accurate but may also not be accurate. Some people may also find it an interesting challenge to see how good I am. Personally, I would probably fall in that category, but you are probably right in that I constitute a smaller minority who get kicks out of challenging people's knowledge.

I again assure you that I did not ask because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise. I got my answer.

You have not changed that much since you wrestled with Kalach over typology last year.

In some ways I probably haven't, but in a lot of ways I have. Though again, I find it odd for you to ask for my credentials if you are, as you say, not interested in what lore and vocabulary I can wield, since those credentials ultimately infer, especially as you imply, what I'm wielding.

The session wasn't that helpful and Kashimi proceeded to denounce all tests, all questionnaires and all "general" characteristics of the types, so basically only his form of thought is right it seems, postponement, interruptions and add to that he diagnosed me on 10 simple answers of 7 simple word questions. We chatted through text since we were unable to video chat, however, which should have called for more than what we talked to actually get an accurate typing. He typed me ESFP and I attribute it to my longest statement that he cared to receive being Se related as it's the one function he asked most questions for and the only question I was able to verbally speak after his end of the skype videochat didn't work, the questions were really vague which I felt asked for vague answers without fluff and so he says that I must not be a logical thinker as the questions were open ended, but he hardly asked any questions where you could determine through ones actions if one was logical or not. The questions were incredibly open-ended, for example "What movies do you like?", "Why?" as if expecting to receive reviews for each and every single one of my favorite movies and so he says that my answers are essentially indicative of shallow thinking.
It honestly felt half-assed and I don't care to waste my time again trying to "get it right" because that's really all it was, a waste of time seeing as he couldn't really contrast between ENTJ or ESFP , all he probably based that on was my long Se answer due to questions which were Se related and me telling him I was certain of those functions exactly, but have a go at it and see how knowledgeable you feel he is because he made it seem he's done more intensive research and work than the people who made the tests and type categorizations, hell, maybe even Jung himself. He definitely types better than he speaks, but that hardly means anything. I might be coming off as critical, but this is what happened. Why lie? Remember, we only chatted through text, there would have been much more to type off if we spoke through video chat. Anyway, good luck getting donations! :bye:

I'm sorry if you felt it was not meaningful to you and I felt that you were perhaps needlessly shortworded over text and maybe it had helped to have a video conversation but since Skype kept breaking up and/or ending the call, I figured there was no point to it.

As for more "effort", I think effort could have been put forth both ways. You did however seem unresponsive to what I asked you, so with that there isn't much I can do about it if you yourself do not feel there is anything you want to talk about that you felt was relevant outside of answering questionnaires. Some of my questions weren't that much different from that of the questionnaire questions though. The most important thing when being typed, which I can advice anyone about, is to try to not be tongue-tied but when asked questions, try to really respond to those questions and if you think the questions are not meaningful, suggest what else to talk about. Subjects are not something I'm picky over, since I think the easiest and best way one can figure out someone's cognition is to see what people are most naturally drawn to do on their own.

With that said, yes, I do denounce all tests since I think the tests are ultimately not really dealing with the cognitive functions as much as they end up being about stereotype behavior and sometimes that fits, sometimes it doesn't fit. Since I, as it says in the OP, primarily offer Jungian typing, MBTI and such tests therefore mean very little to me.

As for ENTJ vs ESFP, I don't think I really got time to actually explain the differences between the two either, though. I could have offered you a much more in-depth difference between the two, if you had asked for it. I did begin to explain how Te is like and what rationality is, however, and if you feel that explanation isn't meaningful, then perhaps Jungian type isn't your cup of tea in the first place so I wish you luck in whatever kind of information you are looking for, then.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I'm merely pointing out that it showcases a lack of benefit of the doubt and is overall a hostile action, warranted or not.
The question arose from scepticism and, as you put it, doubt, not from hostility. It is a general attitude of mine. No need to get the 8 rolling.

In some ways I probably haven't, but in a lot of ways I have. Though again, I find it odd for you to ask for my credentials if you are, as you say, not interested in what lore and vocabulary I can wield, since those credentials ultimately infer, especially as you imply, what I'm wielding.
Perhaps I am odd that way, being more interested in what makes people tick than in which ready-made category to put them in.
 

00c

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
99
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm sorry if you felt it was not meaningful to you and I felt that you were perhaps needlessly shortworded over text and maybe it had helped to have a video conversation but since Skype kept breaking up and/or ending the call, I figured there was no point to it.

As for more "effort", I think effort could have been put forth both ways. You did however seem unresponsive to what I asked you, so with that there isn't much I can do about it if you yourself do not feel there is anything you want to talk about that you felt was relevant outside of answering questionnaires. Some of my questions weren't that much different from that of the questionnaire questions though. The most important thing when being typed, which I can advice anyone about, is to try to not be tongue-tied but when asked questions, try to really respond to those questions and if you think the questions are not meaningful, suggest what else to talk about. Subjects are not something I'm picky over, since I think the easiest and best way one can figure out someone's cognition is to see what people are most naturally drawn to do on their own.

With that said, yes, I do denounce all tests since I think the tests are ultimately not really dealing with the cognitive functions as much as they end up being about stereotype behavior and sometimes that fits, sometimes it doesn't fit. Since I, as it says in the OP, primarily offer Jungian typing, MBTI and such tests therefore mean very little to me.

As for ENTJ vs ESFP, I don't think I really got time to actually explain the differences between the two either, though. I could have offered you a much more in-depth difference between the two, if you had asked for it. I did begin to explain how Te is like and what rationality is, however, and if you feel that explanation isn't meaningful, then perhaps Jungian type isn't your cup of tea in the first place so I wish you luck in whatever kind of information you are looking for, then.

You had time and the questions were yours, yet you demean all questionnaires and tests and made it seem as if only your view of all of typology is right, as if your form of typing is more accurate than the tests which people certainly took time to make. You said there wasn't an algorithm to properly type people, yet you made it seem as if there's some sort of algorithm going on in your head that can accurately type people or as if people who weren't at all knowledgeable in the fields made the tests on the fly. Your statements mainly included "not necessarily" rather than "it can include that" which is more obtrusive in one's way of thinking of the functions than helpful. Shallow questions don't call for extensive answers and the questions in questionnaires are hardly as shallow as the ones you chose to ask so please don't compare them to keep up a front of the session being as thorough as one because it most certainly was not. Your explanation on Te was around 1 sentence, in fact, every single one of your confident statements were around one sentence and add to that your debunking of other established forms of type recognition. Jungian is a thing for me, maybe typing isn't the thing for you. It's ignorant to even say that, that something isn't for them simply because they don't see it like you do. Anyway, I wish you luck in becoming better at your typing endeavors and efforts to make easy money. I was certainly not "tongue-tied". I spoke, but your questions were leagues more shallow than any of my answers, none of your questions were thought-provoking at all. A teacher shouldn't discourage students and if you really were so great at typing maybe you'd try explaining it now, but of course you probably won't since you may feel a bit offended judging from your last statement, hell, I even offered you to read my other questionnaires which had tons of information to go from yet you simply said that you wouldn't have been able to garner anything from it. Oh, but you certainly were able to garner enough from your 10 shallow questions which only asked for 10 shallow answers.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You had time and the questions were yours, yet you demean all questionnaires and tests and made it seem as if only your view of all of typology is right, as if your form of typing is more accurate than the tests which people certainly took time to make. You said there wasn't an algorithm to properly type people, yet you made it seem as if there's some sort of algorithm going on in your head that can accurately type people or as if people who weren't at all knowledgeable in the fields made the tests on the fly. Your statements mainly included "not necessarily" rather than "it can include that" which is more obtrusive in one's way of thinking of the functions than helpful. Shallow questions don't call for extensive answers and the questions in questionnaires are hardly as shallow as the ones you chose to ask so please don't compare them to keep up a front of the session being as thorough as one because it most certainly was not. Your explanation on Te was around 1 sentence, in fact, every single one of your confident statements were around one sentence and add to that your debunking of other established forms of type recognition. Jungian is a thing for me, maybe typing isn't the thing for you. It's ignorant to even say that, that something isn't for them simply because they don't see it like you do. Anyway, I wish you luck in becoming better at your typing endeavors and efforts to make easy money. I was certainly not "tongue-tied". I spoke, but your questions were leagues more shallow than any of my answers, none of your questions were thought-provoking at all. A teacher shouldn't discourage students and if you really were so great at typing maybe you'd try explaining it now, but of course you probably won't since you may feel a bit offended judging from your last statement, hell, I even offered you to read my other questionnaires which had tons of information to go from yet you simply said that you wouldn't have been able to garner anything from it. Oh, but you certainly were able to garner enough from your 10 shallow questions which only asked for 10 shallow answers.

The main reason why I do not do that is because I find that I often get a very different picture once I speak to the person in question, and that the information I get from text is woefully incomplete. If you found the questions shallow, there isn't much to be done about it. Again, you can check the videos uploaded and you will see there is no one straight question I do ask since a lot of them occur on the fly. The point though, isn't that I am necessarily looking for people to speak about "deep things", as much as I want them to talk about things in a way that comes naturally for them. The nature of the question itself is actually quite irrelevant in this regard.

I couldn't make you talk but again, if you found the questions "shallow", you could also have proposed something that you found more suiting your tastes that you felt you wanted to talk about. I can only work with the information I am provided with, after all. I mean, I could for example deduce I think this post of yours I'm responding to now is exemplary of Fi but Fi where in the cognition, not quite sure. And chances are I may have felt the same reading your questionnaires.
 
Top