# Are you interested in helping to create new type descriptions?



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> You are right, I do ultimately choose who I'd allow, but that "choosing" does also hinge upon sending an interest request. Even if I do not deem it possible for you to contribute directly to a particular type description using yourself as the basis of it, I may still relegate you to do other tasks such as being able to contribute to discussion as a whole.
> 
> Seriously man, if you want to be involved you need to ask. I'm not a mind reader like that, though I am sufficiently good at figuring out people's underlying motives, especially psychologically speaking. I do however need people to be clear and direct with me and tell me wtf they want because if people don't make any noise, I won't hear them. Suggesting and doing otherwise is just passive aggressive as fuck. I'll happily listen if you speak up, but I can't hear you unless you do.
> 
> I have to say I think I'm kind of flattered that you'd compare me to Emperor Palpatine though, but I look much better than that guy.


Sorry, I've been angry due to a moaning guy at my work. Moaning guy who will have an inheritance of 500 000 Euro, lol. He completely drains me. I will never understand people like him. Of course, his blood is kinda white-blue if you get my meaning, so it's perfectly natural.

I am always after the truth. I can't stop chasing it. But I kinda don't think it's Te DS, Ti otoh...either that or ITR is broken. And I don't consider myself enough of anything(I also dislike puffed up people who act all "I'm important!") to break the ITR rules. I am just a bloke discussing ideas. I'd be more than interested in this. How will this work?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I was thinking of a compare and contrast between the functions. Like, what do Si and Se have in common? And what makes them different? And then what does Si and Ni have in common? What makes them different?

And then compare and contrast Si Te with Si Fe and Ni Te. 

So the layout would be: 8 individual functions, each with two compare/contrast functions (If Si then it's Se and Ni, If Ti then it's Te and Fi). Then after that would be 16 sets of two functions (which forcibly produce the other two functions in a type) with two compare/contrast types (Si Fe would be Ni Fe and Si Te). Then the third section would talk about the "inevitable pairings" of Si with Ne, Se with Ni, Ti with Fe, and Te with Fi. And in that section would also address the inferior function's impact on the pairings. Like with ISFJ, the Fe/Ti split is function # 2 and 3 so tends to form judgments easily combining the F and T into both an ethical and logical opinion. But since the Si/Ne split is dominant and inferior, they don't often work together to form a broad database, instead relying on the Si style to provide most of the data. 

I mean that's just how I would construct the whole thing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> I was thinking of a compare and contrast between the functions. Like, what do Si and Se have in common? And what makes them different? And then what does Si and Ni have in common? What makes them different?
> 
> And then compare and contrast Si Te with Si Fe and Ni Te.
> 
> ...


How does this exactly contribute to type descriptions, though? The descriptions will in a sense be function-centric, but more so based on how people actually experience it to use that function, rather than attempting to define it, necessarily. There may be some nuances here e.g. auxiliary Fe vs Te for an IxxJ will tint the dominant Pi a little differently, but outside of that, I am not entirely sure what you are getting at?

Also, if you want me to invite to Slack, I need your email so you can send it to me.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Entropic said:


> How does this exactly contribute to type descriptions, though? The descriptions will in a sense be function-centric, but more so based on how people actually experience it to use that function, rather than attempting to define it, necessarily. There may be some nuances here e.g. auxiliary Fe vs Te for an IxxJ will tint the dominant Pi a little differently, but outside of that, I am not entirely sure what you are getting at?
> 
> Also, if you want me to invite to Slack, I need your email so you can send it to me.


Well it doesn't solely have to be about describing the functions in an abstract sense. I just think most descriptions of types focus too much on contrast and uniqueness instead of also detailing the similarities to other types. When people look at INTJ and INFJ for example, no one will tell you their similarities but instead try to distinguish them. Every time. 

I dont even even know what Slack is. 

If you're not interesting in this concept, I could make a thread actually detailing what I mean and since it's 100% concept it would need more personalization to be optimally effective so it's possible to structure a more detailed analysis around the system I'll create.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

I think you should go about it similarly as Michael Pierce does. Lay out a foundation of details and then give the type descriptipons so the reader already ahs an understanding of the why's. Like describing the judging/perceiving dichotomies in pairs, how they then work together with the other functions in the stack. 
Otherwise there seems to be no point in making a new type description as there are shitloads of them already. What is gonna make yours better exactly?
I bet you can figure out a neat system.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Well it doesn't solely have to be about describing the functions in an abstract sense. I just think most descriptions of types focus too much on contrast and uniqueness instead of also detailing the similarities to other types. When people look at INTJ and INFJ for example, no one will tell you their similarities but instead try to distinguish them. Every time.
> 
> I dont even even know what Slack is.
> 
> If you're not interesting in this concept, I could make a thread actually detailing what I mean and since it's 100% concept it would need more personalization to be optimally effective so it's possible to structure a more detailed analysis around the system I'll create.


I understand that, but the purpose was to create type descriptions people _can_ identify with, as opposed to being confused because this is what Se vs Si, but I do both? kind of thing.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I understand that, but the purpose was to create type descriptions people _can_ identify with, as opposed to being confused because this is what Se vs Si, but I do both? kind of thing.


Well that's what the focus on contrast is for. -.-


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Well that's what the focus on contrast is for. -.-


But doesn't it lead to necessary confusion to discuss the differences in a description meant to describe a particular type? If it was X vs Y type, then yes, but that is not something which is currently planned, anyway. I think it is more important to create the basics first, which is the basal type description. Then those can be compared for more complexity, obviously.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Entropic said:


> But doesn't it lead to necessary confusion to discuss the differences in a description meant to describe a particular type? If it was X vs Y type, then yes, but that is not something which is currently planned, anyway. I think it is more important to create the basics first, which is the basal type description. Then those can be compared for more complexity, obviously.


Comparing and contrasting helps readers see where the edges of the types are formed so they can determine where one type ends and another begins. By not giving this information, you would be leaving the reader to determine the boundaries of the types by themselves, ultimately causing more confusion. 

I mean you can do it your way but don't think it will cause less confusion than a version that combines multiple methods of description. :/


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Comparing and contrasting helps readers see where the edges of the types are formed so they can determine where one type ends and another begins. By not giving this information, you would be leaving the reader to determine the boundaries of the types by themselves, ultimately causing more confusion.
> 
> I mean you can do it your way but don't think it will cause less confusion than a version that combines multiple methods of description. :/


I completely understand your argument, but if you want someone to understand the basics of a type, then comparing to an entirely new concept they are not yet familiar with isn't the best way to go about it, necessarily? A person may for example not at all be interested in what Se is, if they came to read what an Si type is. Furthermore, comparing and contrasting leads to a lot more text because you don't just have to explain one concept, but multiple and then there's the issue of readability and whether people have the patience to sit through reading about that.

As I wrote, I am not against comparing types and functions, but I think that's better done once you've created the basic descriptions. Then you have some basis on which you can compare them.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Not sure how you understand when you never actually saw what I was talking about but whatever go ahead and do your stuff. But I don't want part in a system I ultimately see flawed. So -1 ISFJ.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Comparing and contrasting helps readers see where the edges of the types are formed so they can determine where one type ends and another begins. By not giving this information, you would be leaving the reader to determine the boundaries of the types by themselves, ultimately causing more confusion.
> 
> I mean you can do it your way but don't think it will cause less confusion than a version that combines multiple methods of description. :/


The problem with comparison and contrast is that "this is NOT" is far more limiting than "this is". There are many factors that can lead to perceived similarities between types, because of upbringing, environment, personal values, etc. An ESFP could look very similar to an ESTP or some other T type if they grew up in an environment which forced them to gain logical skill, for example: an ESFP who grew up exposed to difficult math and physics. So where does one draw the line while contrasting? How many traits can one say a type DOES NOT and CANNOT possess before one starts creating new stereotypes and excludes atypical people?

The point is to focus on what is, so that people can see if they fulfill all the necessary conditions to be a specific type. After that has been made clear, footnotes can be made on possible dissimilarities. All in all though, one cannot define an apple by comparing it to other fruits. "It is less juicy than an orange, not as tiny as a cherry, harder than a banana..." But what is an APPLE? What makes an apple an apple? It's an independent quantity and should be defined as such. After its identity has been made clear, one can explore possible differences between other fruits, but these naturally come into fruition (I am the pun god) when everything has its own identity defined.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shameless Nation said:


> I think you should go about it similarly as Michael Pierce does. Lay out a foundation of details and then give the type descriptipons so the reader already ahs an understanding of the why's. Like describing the judging/perceiving dichotomies in pairs, how they then work together with the other functions in the stack.
> Otherwise there seems to be no point in making a new type description as there are shitloads of them already. What is gonna make yours better exactly?
> I bet you can figure out a neat system.


I already wrote why mine would be "better", or in the very least different:



> lived, internal experience


Similarly, how does copying Michael Pierce's style make me different? It makes me into another Michael Pierce, and I have no interest in being one, nor do I have an interest in discussing what the functions are or defining the functions in relation to this project. I have other projects where I do that.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Why does it seem like so few people are grasping the goal of this thread? The goal is to create type descriptions.

Not to create type comparisons or to create function descriptions. That's another project entirely.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Why does it seem like so few people are grasping the goal of this thread? The goal is to create type descriptions.
> 
> Not to create type comparisons or to create function descriptions. That's another project entirely.


Good question. It even says so in the title.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Night Huntress said:


> The problem with comparison and contrast is that "this is NOT" is far more limiting than "this is". There are many factors that can lead to perceived similarities between types, because of upbringing, environment, personal values, etc. An ESFP could look very similar to an ESTP or some other T type if they grew up in an environment which forced them to gain logical skill, for example: an ESFP who grew up exposed to difficult math and physics. So where does one draw the line while contrasting? How many traits can one say a type DOES NOT and CANNOT possess before one starts creating new stereotypes and excludes atypical people?
> 
> The point is to focus on what is, so that people can see if they fulfill all the necessary conditions to be a specific type. After that has been made clear, footnotes can be made on possible dissimilarities. All in all though, one cannot define an apple by comparing it to other fruits. "It is less juicy than an orange, not as tiny as a cherry, harder than a banana..." But what is an APPLE? What makes an apple an apple? It's an independent quantity and should be defined as such. After its identity has been made clear, one can explore possible differences between other fruits, but these naturally come into fruition (I am the pun god) when everything has its own identity defined.


1) no one asked me to expand on my point, even when I offered (complete lack of open-mindedness). 2) conclusions were formed of my idea without even understanding it, tgough it is claimed to be understood. 3) it's not comparing and contrasting apples and oranges, it's comparing and contrasting functions (which types are made of) which fundamentally share characteristics with other functions. Ni isn't an apple an Si isn't an orange. Ni is a rhombus and Si is a rectangle - those angles they are built on contain the differences but the number of sides remain 4 on each. The differences between functions are not actually completely unique individual shapes, but rather shapes very similar but different in a certain characteristic as certain other shapes. Si and Ni share characteristics because they are both introverted perceiving functions but have characteristics that separate then as well because one is focused on tangible data and the other is focused on intangible data. That's not apple and orange. Describing the differences and similarities between these functions allows one to differentiate between S and N, instead of just "feeling" what N is like and "believing" a person is a certain type because no boundaries were established.

But you guys CLEARLY know everything already and this thread is completely meaningless because no help is actually needed.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> 1) no one asked me to expand on my point, even when I offered (complete lack of open-mindedness). 2) conclusions were formed of my idea without even understanding it, tgough it is claimed to be understood.


Your point was clear enough without any expansion. Your point was also not the goal of this thread. Understanding != agreeing. Don't expect a "you COULD be right" if the fact is I don't agree.



> 3) it's not comparing and contrasting apples and oranges, it's comparing and contrasting functions (which types are made of) which fundamentally share characteristics with other functions.


a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
_noun_



a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an *analogy between* the workings of nature and those of human societies"

a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its *analogy to* deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"





> Ni isn't an apple an Si isn't an orange. Ni is a rhombus and Si is a rectangle - those angles they are built on contain the differences but the number of sides remain 4 on each. The differences between functions are not actually completely unique individual shapes, but rather shapes very similar but different in a certain characteristic as certain other shapes. Si and Ni share characteristics because they are both introverted perceiving functions but have characteristics that separate then as well because one is focused on tangible data and the other is focused on intangible data. That's not apple and orange. Describing the differences and similarities between these functions allows one to differentiate between S and N, instead of just "feeling" what N is like and "believing" a person is a certain type because no boundaries were established.





Fair enough! However, boundaries become apparent all on their own when one possesses a certain degree of abstract intelligence and critical thinking. Moreover, something cannot be defined in terms of what it is not when what it IS hasn't been established. THAT is this thread's goal, for now. Also, you have selectively responded to me. Reread my above post on why defining traits on the basis of differences can be unhelpful and actually create more unnecessary boundaries than there should be.



> But you guys CLEARLY know everything already and this thread is completely meaningless because no help is actually needed.


No help is required from people who possess an entitled and sulky attitude. You may leave with no consequence.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Night Huntress said:


> Your point was clear enough without any expansion. Your point was also not the goal of this thread. Understanding != agreeing. Don't expect a "you COULD be right" if the fact is I don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again you don't understand and you think you do. Obviously I'm the entitled one when you guys fail to listen. I'm not at all talking about what a type is not!!!!! You guys are frustrating me to the core and I will leave because you guys fail over and over at seeking to understand something you do not understand and instead over and over claim you understand and give points that don't even argue against what I'm saying but rather against what you think I'm saying. So whatever I'm done.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Stelliferous you were actually asked to explain what you meant in my very first response to you, so please don't pull the card that you are entirely ignored, overlooked and misunderstood. If anything, I feel that you didn't understand or even try to understand my perspective, rather opting for pushing for your idea because you think it bears potential; potential i actually acknowledged several times but I thought this isn't quite the place or main goal for now. Yes you are right, ni and si share properties, but don't you yourself see how this can confuse someone else who just want to know if they are an ISFJ or not? Why would they want to read about ni when they want to understand si? You can't define what si is by claiming it's not ni. Similarly, how are people going to identify their thought processes in a description if it's constantly mentioning other things than the thing people are supposed to see if they can identify within themselves? If people want to know what si is compared to ni, they could equally just be written as independent descriptions of each other. This isn't an issue of potential but it's an issue about what is truly pedagogical. Have you ever learned a new subject by first being introduced what the subject is not and talking about great length how you should not understand it over how you should understand or know about it? Don't you understand why this leads to great confusion to someone who is new to all this? Introducing too many concepts at the same time can easily overwhelm someone else and if they feel overwhelmed you haven't done a great job in helping them to learn because they may well ditch it because you just over complicated things and they feel like they don't understand.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I don't understand the need to see the similarities in two types. What does it accomplish?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Entropic said:


> @_Stelliferous_ you were actually asked to explain what you meant in my very first response to you, so please don't pull the card that you are entirely ignored, overlooked and misunderstood. If anything, I feel that you didn't understand or even try to understand my perspective, rather opting for pushing for your idea because you think it bears potential; potential i actually acknowledged several times but I thought this isn't quite the place or main goal for now. Yes you are right, ni and si share properties, but don't you yourself see how this can confuse someone else who just want to know if they are an ISFJ or not? Why would they want to read about ni when they want to understand si? You can't define what si is by claiming it's not ni. Similarly, how are people going to identify their thought processes in a description if it's constantly mentioning other things than the thing people are supposed to see if they can identify within themselves? If people want to know what si is compared to ni, they could equally just be written as independent descriptions of each other. This isn't an issue of potential but it's an issue about what is truly pedagogical. Have you ever learned a new subject by first being introduced what the subject is not and talking about great length how you should not understand it over how you should understand or know about it? Don't you understand why this leads to great confusion to someone who is new to all this? Introducing too many concepts at the same time can easily overwhelm someone else and if they feel overwhelmed you haven't done a great job in helping them to learn because they may well ditch it because you just over complicated things and they feel like they don't understand.


It's not overcomplicating things. It's called appealing to multiple audiences who process information differently and not just you and your Ni Se friends who get distracted by the details. You're not appealing to all audiences, plain and simple. And if you don't want to, go ahead and don't combine our heads and instead make this a conflict between "your way" and "my way" that it was never about. I sought to incorporate ideas into a broader spectrum but all you did was reject everything. I'm saying that if you reject what I'm saying you will lose a huge audience and only appeal to those who process information like you do. But whatever, you can do it yourself and appeal to whoever the hell you want to appeal to but don't think it's going to be any better than type descriptions that already exist. :/


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

ildiavolo said:


> I don't understand the need to see the similarities in two types. What does it accomplish?


It would help to understand why I sometomes can identify with say ENTJs, and I don't have to doubt my type for that reason.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I'm on the fence as of my type lately, but think I can contribute something to the project.


* *







> World Socionics Society: ILI Description | MentalBox


How come Kristen Stewart is an ILI  ?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> But whatever, you can do it yourself and appeal to whoever the hell you want to appeal to but don't think it's going to be any better than type descriptions that already exist. :/


Can you not see that having ISFJs write the ISFJ type descriptions would be vastly superior to having a semi-ignorant person do it?

If you want to do a similarities/contrasting comparison for the sake of Si users, then surely do. This project, once completed, could be a useful source to help you create one. But please don't denounce a project just because it's not doing what you want. You're trying to push it in a completely different direction than it's purpose.



To_august said:


> How come Kristen Stewart is an ILI  ?


Possible stereotype? She has the charm of a grizzly bear.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> It's not overcomplicating things. It's called appealing to multiple audiences who process information differently and not just you and your Ni Se friends who get distracted by the details. You're not appealing to all audiences, plain and simple. And if you don't want to, go ahead and don't combine our heads and instead make this a conflict between "your way" and "my way" that it was never about. I sought to incorporate ideas into a broader spectrum but all you did was reject everything. I'm saying that if you reject what I'm saying you will lose a huge audience and only appeal to those who process information like you do. But whatever, you can do it yourself and appeal to whoever the hell you want to appeal to but don't think it's going to be any better than type descriptions that already exist. :/


Suggesting that my attitude is problematic because I'm an Ni type is honestly really typist. I dare you to find any description written by anyone that does what you suggest here , and there are plenty written by a wide range of types. Most of the socionics descriptions are written by ne egos for example. Type descriptions follow a standard format and I dare say they do because it's ultimately what helps people to disseminate information in the most meaningful way. There is a lot of room do what you suggest but you want to skip over the steps. You think we should run before we even know how to crawl. Do one thing at a time and you will see it will actually get where you want it to be.

Also the fact that I want people to write the descriptions themselves does kind of appeal to the largest audience possible since it will be not just one style of how it's explained anyway. 

In this case the problem is that your suggestion isn't necessarily very practical. The reason why I want to keep it simple isn't because of Ni, it's purely for pedagogical reasons. People new to a subject need it simple. Every subject taught does this exactly the same way. Deeply discussing nuances between ni vs si right off the bat is not going to simplify understanding unless that was the purpose of the description which in this case it isn't. Contrast and comparison can be added at the end like you see on the enneagram Institute website.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pinina said:


> It would help to understand why I sometomes can identify with say ENTJs, and I don't have to doubt my type for that reason.


Adding slight nuance isn't a problem as long it's not the primary focus. I also honestly don't think you'd need this kind of comparison because it will be written from the inside so you will have that natural coloring and bias of Si ne anyway and the rundown would be function centric so first Te then si etc.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Suggesting that my attitude is problematic because I'm an Ni type is honestly really typist. I dare you to find any description written by anyone that does what you suggest here , and there are plenty written by a wide range of types. Most of the socionics descriptions are written by ne egos for example. Type descriptions follow a standard format and I dare say they do because it's ultimately what helps people to disseminate information in the most meaningful way. There is a lot of room do what you suggest but you want to skip over the steps. You think we should run before we even know how to crawl. Do one thing at a time and you will see it will actually get where you want it to be.


I never said anything about attitude. In was talking about processing data so don't accuse me of typism.

If the other descriptions are so "good" then why do so many people mistype? I thought you were trying to make a BETTER system. You're just copying what is already done and I see no point in that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> I never said anything about attitude. In was talking about processing data so don't accuse me of typism.
> 
> If the other descriptions are so "good" then why do so many people mistype? I thought you were trying to make a BETTER system. You're just copying what is already done and I see no point in that.


Did you read the op? It outlines exactly how I want them to be different. I'm not saying that the information about the types is good, but that the format is good for people who new to the subject because it's very pedagogical. Then what information is being conveyed can of course be bad. A good pedagogical format doesn't mean that they are teaching the right thing, but that how it's taught is done in a way that makes it easy for people to understand.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

@Stelliferous

Do you believe that you can write an INTJ or an ISTP description that is accurate enough for an INTJ/ISTP to equate with? Because I'm really not understanding why you can't see this as a vast improvement over the existing descriptions.

@Entropic considering it may be difficult to gather sensers, what about posting one of these threads in their individual type forums?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> @Stelliferous
> 
> Do you believe that you can write an INTJ or an ISTP description that is accurate enough for an INTJ/ISTP to equate with? Because I'm really not understanding why you can't see this as a vast improvement over the existing descriptions.
> 
> @Entropic considering it may be difficult to gather sensers, what about posting one of these threads in their individual type forums?


Yes, I've considered it. Do you think people are mostly properly typed in there, though? ESFP forum is pretty dead for example, with plenty of mistypes in it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Lol, oh boy. Just what we need, another forum-grown internet variation on types to mislead people even more.

Whatever, I'm sure you're more qualified to research this stuff than certified MBTI psychologists that have been researching this stuff for over 50 years. Surely your research will turn out better results than theirs, and you'll be able to implement it better than theirs.

No, seriously. Good luck with that. :^)

_P.S._ By the way bro, remember when you helped me figure out that I wasn't Ti? Remember when you pointed out that I don't seem to be off trying to invent my own systems?

Lol, good call on that. Totally nailed it.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Yes, I've considered it. Do you think people are mostly properly typed in there, though? ESFP forum is pretty dead for example, with plenty of mistypes in it.


It's been a while since I went in there. Last I checked, there were a few active real ISTPs in the ISTP section. ISFP seemed to contain ISFJs. Despite the mistypings, I think it could be a decent source. Worst case scenario, you get volunteers who are mistyped and you tell them.



Abraxas said:


> Whatever, I'm sure you're more qualified to research this stuff than certified MBTI psychologists that have been researching this stuff for over 50 years. Surely your research will turn out better results than theirs, and you'll be able to implement it better than theirs.


You are far too trusting of authority. Humans are incompetent.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Lol, oh boy. Just what we need, another forum-grown internet variation on types to mislead people even more.
> 
> Whatever, I'm sure you're more qualified to research this stuff than certified MBTI psychologists that have been researching this stuff for over 50 years. Surely your research will turn out better results than theirs, and you'll be able to implement it better than theirs.
> 
> ...


So what's bugging you, exactly? This isn't the first time you've made snarky posts now.



Fried Eggz said:


> It's been a while since I went in there. Last I checked, there were a few active real ISTPs in the ISTP section. ISFP seemed to contain ISFJs. Despite the mistypings, I think it could be a decent source. Worst case scenario, you get volunteers who are mistyped and you tell them.
> 
> 
> You are far too trusting of authority. Humans are incompetent.


Yeah, that's fair. I guess it's easy to hash that out I suppose.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

A person wants to do something good for the community, I guess for free, and you guys start bashing on him for... not thinking like you and having his own idea on how to introduce functions to people?

I think it would be nice to get different types, that have a good idea on how functions work, to try and explain their views on how they personally experience their functions. The hard part in this type description would be to ask the right questions for different types to answer.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a technical possibility for any verified user to add a self-description snippet and upvote any other snippet, that'd be neat. Or maybe you can do it manually, if somebody is prepared to do all the work.
At the very least, if you want to do something like this, make it as easy as possible for the participants. I remember participating in a project like this about a decade ago. It lost steam pretty quickly because of the lack of participants. Few people are actually passionate enough about MBTI.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking to participate. I won't . I'm just voicing my opinion.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> It's been a while since I went in there. Last I checked, there were a few active real ISTPs in the ISTP section. ISFP seemed to contain ISFJs. Despite the mistypings, I think it could be a decent source. Worst case scenario, you get volunteers who are mistyped and you tell them.
> 
> 
> You are far too trusting of authority. Humans are incompetent.



I think he is trying to say that obsession with system is a Ti trait. To continue to make definitions. Redefine them. Structure them. Control them. Supervise them. 

Order. Structure. Labels. Definitions. I believe he is saying that Entropic is a Ti dom and if he would apply the standards to himself that he did to Abraxas, he would see that. Abraxas, as a Ni dom and Te user, has no interest in incessant systemization. 

I will let him speak for himself though.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

I would like to make a contribution. I don't completely understand type dynamics, but I believe I can recognize my behaviours and see how they relate to my functional stack.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> You are far too trusting of authority. Humans are incompetent.


Lol, if "humans" are incompetent, then I suppose that includes everyone on the planet, thus, the principal of your sentiment, "who we shouldn't trust," as it does not exclude anybody, applies no nobody in particular. Therefore, it does not apply to "authority" anymore than it does to anyone else.

I simply stated I trust a majority of educated experts that have been collecting data for a very long period of time _more_ than I do the singular subjective intelligence of one person, or a handful of random people, trying to collaborate over the internet. This is because my thinking is extraverted by nature, and I tend to "think within the box" because doing so means my ideas are more easy to communicate with a larger number of people and will get the ball rolling quicker, as they have the convincing power of general consensus.

Where I create is by applying information that already exists as part of generally appreciated and agreed upon standards by the community, to my own personal goals and projects, without manipulating that information in any way - without adding, subtracting, or distorting what already exists. Those who try to analyze a system of information using the power of their own individual intellect (Ti) tend to create either immediate activity (Se) or new information based on existing information (Ne).

You and Entropic, for example, I predict will get along like two peas in a pod, because you're both clearly Ti-Ne and get an ego boost out of being able to break down something with your own reasoning skills, pull it apart, figure out how it works, and then proclaim how false and weak it is, then expect everyone to agree, and if they don't, well then they're just wrong and illogical unless they can provide a counter-argument.

For the record, that's all well and good. I actually don't mind this - critical analysis and nit-picking doesn't bother me in-and-of-itself, and I appreciate how good INTPs are at doing it. My gripe comes from the ones who don't exercise their Ne auxiliary and start spitting out better solutions after they're done disassembling the subject. They are quick to declare that a system is faulty and imperfect, but they don't _create_ a better one. They're not being productive in that sense, only destructive. In more mature, mellow INTPs, you see more Ne happening, and they are more proactive about trying to offer _alternatives_ and create new potential ideas, but alas, those are the rare few that I don't encounter very often.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Lol, if "humans" are incompetent, then I suppose that includes everyone on the planet, thus, the principal of your sentiment, "who we shouldn't trust," as it does not exclude anybody, applies no nobody in particular. Therefore, it does not apply to "authority" anymore than it does to anyone else.
> 
> I simply stated I trust a majority of educated experts that have been collecting data for a very long period of time _more_ than I do the singular subjective intelligence of one person, or a handful of random people, trying to collaborate over the internet. This is because my thinking is extraverted by nature, and I tend to "think within the box" because doing so means my ideas are more easy to communicate with a larger number of people and will get the ball rolling quicker, as they have the convincing power of general consensus.
> 
> ...


In what way does Entropic or Fried Eggz use Si?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

angelcat said:


> You should see my writing process at home.
> 
> I can't be creative until I have my drink, until I'm comfortable, until I have the right music to inspire me, until I have a pretty picture to look at whenever I pause in thought. Basically... nesting at my desk. I might even get distracted and derailed for an hour looking for a BETTER picture, or BETTER music, or fussing with my environment.
> 
> I went through dozens of layouts for my website in a matter of weeks when it had my full attention. I was doing it mostly for me, to make it beautiful and spark my own creativity. The only Fe that turned up was, "Oh, gosh... people are going to think I'm nuts, changing the layout AGAIN... but this is one is SO AWESOME I MUST HAVE IT."


Well I have said before I see no Fe in you. I was just going with what they gave me.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Well I have said before I see no Fe in you. I was just going with what they gave me.


I don't see much Fe in you either, bud. But I do see an awful lot of looping Ni/Ti, so I know it's there.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> He honestly doesn't work well with others and has no business anointing himself as an authority. There is a history here. "Helpful" is the last word I would use to describe him. Caveat emptor.


Evidently it doesn't deter people, shrug. Some may just think I'm being forthright and frank.

Also, I do feel the need to point out that people often came to me to lead back in the day I used to play WoW. Usually more than I often felt like it so no, you're incorrect about that. As a leader I'm just and fair. I however suspect you have a very different idea of what good leadership constitutes.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Evidently it doesn't deter people, shrug. Some may just think I'm being forthright and frank.
> 
> Also, I do feel the need to point out that people often came to me to lead back in the day I used to play WoW. Usually more than I often felt like it so no, you're incorrect about that. As a leader I'm just and fair. I however suspect you have a very different idea of what good leadership constitutes.


I can see how people would get that impression at first, but you are one of like the only people who has not budged on anything since I have gotten here. I have been able to make progress with people I have had drag out fights with. Not you. I have reached out to you even. You almost ensnared Abraxas and others. You had a much larger backing when I got here, it has been dwindling since. You are bleeding followers. I have seen your work on other sites, it is a pattern of behavior. I am fine with people doing whatever they want, I am sick of you exerting authority. I reiterate you are the last person who should oversee such a thing. For the same reason you are the least person who should be made a moderator. Objectively, you don't play well with others. All your bannings are an objective measure of that.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Havn't read through even a quarter of this thread but agree. MBTI descriptions are looking dated and impractical and there's just something about them which makes them easy to manipulate from any type(probably because of the sheer amount of amateur descriptions makes it worse), easy to draw crass conclusions, it's like they are interpreting the 'right' thing in an incorrect way. We can do much better than this.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I can see how people would get that impression at first, but you are one of like the only people who has not budged on anything since I have gotten here. I have been able to make progress with people I have had drag out fights with. Not you. I have reached out to you even. You almost ensnared Abraxas and others. You had a much larger backing when I got here, it has been dwindling since. You are bleeding followers. I have seen your work on other sites, it is a pattern of behavior. I am fine with people doing whatever they want, I am sick of you exerting authority. I reiterate you are the last person who should oversee such a thing. For the same reason you are the least person who should be made a moderator. Objectively, you don't play well with others. All your bannings are an objective measure of that.


You judge me solely based on my behavior on this site which is by far hardly exemplary of who I am as a person. This is merely one facet. I have been a moderator in the past and I am a moderator of my own subreddit. I just simply didn't give quite a fuck for the rules here because they weren't that enforced. Your judgement of me is flawed and I think your judgement of Abraxas is as well. I don't budge with you because I don't see a point with budging with you. I don't like you and I doubt I ever will. Perhaps you should evaluate whether that's actually more related to you than me in this case, seeing how I've also come around with other people who didn't like me in the past and we are on a friendly footing now. I didn't pull Abraxas into anything. He reached out first, and now he's the one acting salty without telling me why. His imperative.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

How about it stays simple...I have been thinking about this for some time. I posted a rough copy last night in the NT forum. I took all of these tests while I was wide awake and in a good mood, unlike last night. 

I took the similar minds test, the keys to cognition test, and the PerC test (scored it both introverted and extraverted because I am on the xNTP border), gave them point values, and found the mean. From there I placed them into the archetypes of Berens and Beebe with a brief description and a general analysis of the results. I have to say it is the most accurate thing to this point. On a side note, I placed Ni ahead of Fi because it is a perceiving function. 

Points= Function (Similar minds, Perc Extroverted, Perc Introverted, Keys 2 Cognition)
8=Ne, Ti, Ni, Ni
7=Ti, Fi, Ti, Fi 
6=Fi, Ne, Fi, Se
5=Ni, Ni, Te, Ti
4= Te, Te, Fe, Ne
3=Se, Fe, Se, Te
2=Si, Se, Si, Si
1=Fe, Si, Ne, Fe

Ti= 6.75
Ni= 6.5
Fi= 6.5
Ne= 4.75
Te= 4
Se=3.5
Fe= 3
Si= 1.75

-Leading (most reliable and effective, but can be dominating)… Introverted Thinking
Berens=Energized by analyzing different angles and clearly understanding key principles using logical consistency. http://bit.ly/1Cct7pS
Beebe= Life must make technical sense to me. 

-Auxiliary (supports the 1st function, but can be over protective)… Introverted Intuition 
Berens= When in touch with intuition, use insights to achieve goals; see complete solutions and automatically know what to do. http://bit.ly/1IC60GK
Beebe= Showing others underlying significance of things. 

-Relief (playful and energizing, but can get us off course)… Introverted Feeling
Berens=Enjoy examining inner values and acting on own goals or causes they deem worthy. http://bit.ly/1eulctn 
Beebe= Find relief through internal harmony; personally relating to situations represents innocence. 

-Aspirational (may make us look immature, but provides a bridge to the subconscious mind)… Extroverted intuition 
Berens= May want to see hidden meaning, but not want to take the time to spend the time it takes to formulate them. http://bit.ly/1RcG6it 
Beebe= Feel inferior in new possibilities.

-Opposing (shows up as stubbornness, but can provide depth)… Extraverted Thinking
Berens= Stubborn about how things should be organized. http://bit.ly/1HEnSQq 
Beebe= Think that agreed upon logical rules are stupid and a waste of time. 

-Critical Parent (critical inner voice, discouraging, but can inspire us with wisdom)… Extraverted Sensing
Berens=Get caught up in facts immediate present and act impulsively. http://bit.ly/1JGkfMi 
Beebe= Become disgruntled about current sensory experience (what things look like, etc). 

-Deceiving (rebellious, producing double binds, but may provide comic relief)… Extraverted Feeling
Berens=Ignore other people’s opinions and be disappointed by them when stressed. http://bit.ly/1KG7G1W 
Beebe= Might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves.

-Devilish (most disruptive, but can lead to most growth)… Introverted Sensing
Berens= extremes of ignoring the past or getting stuck in it. http://bit.ly/1KG6pbe 
Beebe= The past is highly irrelevant, and likely haunting. 

How I analyze it…
When I am healthy I am analyzing my insights and things that I believe are valuable. As I begin to get stressed, my intuition cancels out, and I go into my shadow. I begin to criticize people’s behavior and organization. My brain turns off, with the exception of getting stuck in analyzing the past, and I become impulsive.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

The Dude said:


> How about it stays simple...I have been thinking about this for some time. I posted a rough copy last night in the NT forum. I took all of these tests while I was wide awake and in a good mood, unlike last night.


Your entire post is completely irrelevant to the topic. This discussion isn't about placing blind faith in tests. The tests failed to work in practise, hence why projects like this are necessary.


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> I guess you're right about Si being tricky to spot, though. However, if you've ever looked at @angelcat's (an Si-dom) old mbti website (not the one she uses now), a great amount of energy is invested into making it look aesthetically pleasing; arguably a great deal more energy than that used to actually argue on the character in question being a particular type. As a low-order Si myself, I usually alter between obsessiveness about aesthetic focus, because pretty colours; and complete disdain for it; because what does it really matter?
> 
> Entropic's blog, in contrast, has no aesthetic focus whatsoever. It's really quite an ugly thing, just brick walls of text; much like a newly-built town with no character, but extremely functional. Oh, and y'know that Si stuff that's tricky to spot? This final paragraph is Si to the core.


Am I Si then? lol. I would even say I am good friends with Si PoLR. Very good friends.

I worked on my website, and on maps of the game(long time ago) in a great detail. lol. I did that, because I wanted a *quality *product, that would attract others, that would remain for a long time. On that online game, active members mostly use my maps(last time, checked 1 year ago), as no one was or is as good as me. 
I think of others. lol. What would they think about that? What do they like? That's a part of how to sell a product.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

Mantas said:


> Am I Si then? lol. I would even say I am good friends with Si PoLR. Very good friends.
> 
> I worked on my website, and on maps of the game(long time ago) in a great detail. lol. I did that, because I wanted a *quality *product, that would attract others, that would remain for a long time. On that online game, active members mostly use my maps(last time, checked 1 year ago), as no one was or is as good as me.
> I think of others. lol. What would they think about that? What do they like? That's a part of how to sell a product.


Well, I see no reason why strong Si and Si POLR couldn't be good friends. 

No, of course that doesn't involve Si, necessarily. And I agree that you've highlighted one of the situations that's almost impossible to avoid: misinterpretations of descriptions.

The big difference is, what you're creating is a terrain with no inherently subjective sense data. Just recognition of opportunities, based on the objects that are positioned on the map. That's not an introverted function at work: what I'm discussing here is very much an Se attribute. Of course, the map must have accurate aesthetics, because if details seem off they detract from the overall experience.


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> Well, I see no reason why strong Si and Si POLR couldn't be good friends.
> 
> No, of course that doesn't involve Si, necessarily. And I agree that you've highlighted one of the situations that's almost impossible to avoid: misinterpretations of descriptions.
> 
> The big difference is, what you're creating is a terrain with no inherently subjective sense data. Just recognition of opportunities, based on the objects that are positioned on the map. That's not an introverted function at work: what I'm discussing here is very much an Se attribute. Of course, the map must have accurate aesthetics, because if details seem off they detract from the overall experience.


I don't see either. 

Yes, jumped in, so perhaps you can try to explain why Si users do that. We need more developing discussions, not original. different interpretations of functions in every post. lol. 

Yup. 

Well. Si is probably the hardest function to spot on the forums. lol. And that's why many INFPs are actually ISFJs.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

@Entropic

Have you abandoned your quest?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

jkp said:


> @Entropic
> 
> Have you abandoned your quest?


There wasn't sufficient interest to keep it going, so yes.


----------

