Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Pionart]

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

Sarcophagus got N-aux.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Sarcophagus got N-aux.

Sometimes I wonder if you can read.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Sometimes I wonder if you can read.

I've been meaning to ask why you spell it that way...

 

[Pionart]

Sometimes I wonder if you can read.

Words or people?

 

[Sacrophagus]

I've been meaning to ask why you spell it that way...

Fastest way to meet a dyslexic.

 

[Tater]

Luminous: 974
cascadeco: 954
SearchingforPeace: 962
Mole: INFP 469

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Fastest way to meet a dyslexic.

Kinky.

I thought you had some sort of obsession with bacteriophages in the sacroiliac joints.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Luminous: 974
cascadeco: 954
SearchingforPeace: 962

He's on a roll.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Luminous: 974
cascadeco: 954
SearchingforPeace: 962

Do phobik.

Then do his mom.

 

[Pionart]

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]

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*

 

[Pionart]

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

- - - Updated - - -

*leans in*

Oh, I haven't taken a closer look, but I'll do so rn.

 

[Sacrophagus]

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.

*laughs*

Are you actually trying?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

*laughs*

Are you actually trying?

Don't be mean, sacroiliac bacteriophage.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I haven't taken a closer look, but I'll do so rn.

I am hurt!

 

[Peter Deadpan]

This thread is single-handedly postponing my imminent eventual suicide right now.

- - - Updated - - -

preyz jeebus

- - - Updated - - -

thots and preyers

 

[Pionart]

I am hurt!

I think there are 5-10 people I said I was going to get around to having a closer look at once search function came back online, and now I'm going to have to try and figure out who those people are. I'm often saying how my memory is bad, but I still manage to frequently overestimate it and expect to remember what it was I was supposed to do.

So far I can see why I thought INTJ, but I'm going to try and build a strong case for it (or for another type if I find that guess to be mistaken) rather than stopping once I think I've got the answer.

 

[Pionart]

And general statistics show that the population is for the 75% a sensor. Why am I saying that, in spite of your affirmation? The argument that people into typology are more likely to be intuitive can partly be invalidated by the fact that the same stats can be found also on other sites, such as dating sites. It is still possible that there could be a majority of intuitives, but often it's just mistyping. Myself, before taking up the NTP type, I had to verify I wasn't either ISTP or ISxJ. Guess what, dichotomies tests still strongly type me as ISTx.
Don't you think that it's statistically unlikely that everyone is either ENxP or INxJ? (INxPs and ENxJs appear much more rarely, according to you). Don't you think that the method per se has to be analyzed and verified its correctness?
I still think that your typing method is improving, at least. I remember that a few years ago everyone here had to be INFJ.

I'd like to give a more detailed analysis, but you never actually gave one, unless "I looked at functions sequences", without saying specifically which part was what. Of course, not with myself, because I could be biased, but, with other people, I can have a more objective approach.

Other than that, I think that directly looking at sequences has a minor bias. That the tertiary and fourth functions have actually different roles, and things can get confusing. Just two examples, from the top of my head: with introverts, the extraverted functions tend to show up more to an external observator, with extraverts it's not uncommon that the two extraverted functions appear as equally strong, thus, completely switching the last three letters.
Also, the tert is used as relaxing function, so it's not that uncommon to fixate with the inferior.

"Discourse on the Method" Descartes feat Methylene.
I feel I'm performing a dishonourable act by comparing this, but hey.

It's to be expected that a community built around a specific interest would draw in certain types much more frequently than others. This shows up over and over.

For example... a youtube vlogger could be any type, there isn't necessarily certain types who are more likely to be vloggers. But if you look at people who vlog about a specific topic, there are going to be certain types who dominate the area.

A few years ago I didn't even have a typing method. I wasn't even certain of my own type back then. I may have been trolling somewhat, idk, but I do think that INFJ is the most common type on typology forums, at least for males.

The point about the tertiary and inferior doesn't apply, because I look primarily at the order that things go in, not the roles. So if someone is repeatedly mentioning themes of, e.g. Si then Fe then Ti then Ne, then even if they have better use of Ne than Ti, that's irrelevant because it's about the order of use.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think there are 5-10 people I said I was going to get around to having a closer look at once search function came back online, and now I'm going to have to try and figure out who those people are. I'm often saying how my memory is bad, but I still manage to frequently overestimate it and expect to remember what it was I was supposed to do.

So far I can see why I thought INTJ, but I'm going to try and build a strong case for it (or for another type if I find that guess to be mistaken) rather than stopping once I think I've got the answer.

I'm far too emotionally unstable to be INTp in Socionics (I realize the correlation is loose, but so is your mom... and no one is hyperfocusing on that), so if you stick to this, you may need a good explanation, or my mind will inevitably wander off to nachos and sex, not necessarily intermingled, but let's not be too rigid, shall we?

 

[Sacrophagus]

Don't be mean, sacroiliac bacteriophage.

Alright.

*burns down every house she could dream of*

Being nice is nice.

 

[Pionart]

I'm far too emotionally unstable to be INTp in Socionics (I realize the correlation is loose, but so is your mom... and no one is hyperfocusing on that), so if you stick to this, you may need a good explanation, or my mind will inevitably wander off to nachos and sex, not necessarily intermingled, but let's not be too rigid, shall we?

I'll mention that in Big 5, emotional instability is linked to neuroticism, and this isn't correlated with type as far as I'm aware.