# For Brilliant NT's - New Theory: More Accurate Personality Types



## jeffbobs (Jan 27, 2012)

Another perfect example of someone trying to fix something that isn't broken


----------



## Bluelamp (May 18, 2012)

Abraxas, yeah actually I was expecting you to say something simple to convince me I had the wrong impression for a couple reasons. One is I'm very new here and know nothing about anybody from past posts and secondly shortly after first replying to you, I noticed right under this thread, a thread about "authority" where you actually said something about not trusting it (hence it wouldn't make sense for you to be too huge of stick to the authority's status quo type person). Yeah I don't mesh well with your writing style but if your writing style was the worst thing I ever did in my life I'd be happier. It's obviously no big deal. 

For the original post, I'm not going to be using anything from it, I still prefer Keirsey's and Fudjack's views of Jungian types. I'm certainly not horribly against official MBTI researchers; I once co-wrote an article with James Reynierse who at least at the time was on the Editorial board for the Journal of Psychological Type. He's a bit of a maverick within the system though.


----------



## KINGJADEX (Jan 27, 2012)

I actually read the whole thing, I think it's quite a fair reworking of the MBTI. But you should clarify things in more depth.


----------

