# SF or NT?



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

'sup.

In this thread, I'd like you to type the following two people, one is an NT, the other is an SF.
Ignore 'functions' completely and rely _entirely _on the following.

*The criteria is as follows:*
NT - reasons (T) in the abstract world (N).
SF - values (F) in the physical world (S).

*The SF will be:*
Using intuition, abstractions, connections, 'why' or explanations to support S.
Using any reasons or logic to support the 'punchline' that is F values.

*The NT will be: *
Using tangible, physical reality to support N.
Using values, likes and dislikes to support the 'punchline' that is T reasons.

When doing it, make sure you actually scratch the opposing preferences off as a possibility - so if you're seeing one and think SF, have a look at what the NT is according to the information in this thread, and make sure they're _not that_, same deal with the NT.














Who is talking about reasons in the abstract world and how it works (NT) - and who is talking about things in the physical world and whether they like it or not (SF)?

-

_For the sake of completeness_, here's the other two temperaments that are _not _found in either of those video clips:
ST - reasons (T) in the physical world (S).
NF - values (F) in the abstract world (N).

*In addition* - 'here's some stereotypes' for the temperaments - these are _sketchy_, 'cartoon character' versions of them - _don't rely on this_:

SF - _popularity _- values/likes/dislikes in the real world, popular to others, popular to self, whatever - this isn't to say they're all about being 'popular' but it's more the _idea _of them valuing something in the real world.
ST - _reporter _- reasons in the real world, reports facts/data/evidence from real world (not so much the 'why' or what is 'valuable' more of your stereotypical reporting of the facts and the reasons).
NF - _hippy _- values/likes/dislikes in the abstract world and concepts - person living life saying 'I value these abstract values/connections' etc.
NT - _nerdy _- reasons in the abstract world and concepts - reasons for how these things work etc - not related to tangible world, uses reality as analogies etc to communicate and explain reasons re: abstract concepts.

So with those dodgy 'stereotypes' in mind, you can kinda look at someone and think, well, I think they're an NF - they're not an SF as they're talking about abstract concepts too much, they're not an NT because they're focus is on values and not reasons, they're not an ST because they're not really talking about real-world facts and reasons.. so you can kind narrow things down in this fashion.

Again those dodgy stereotypes are stressed as being sketchy and basically just a way to divide everybody into four simple groups - and those stereotypes are basically just _possible _alternatives to keep in mind re: the above mini-descriptors - so the idea is that, if you _want_, you _could _look for say, "values/likes/dislikes in the real world" for SF as the _idea _of 'popularity' talk, i.e what the value of something real is to the person.

*EDIT*: I've since gained permission to post screenshots as well, here's one of the basic checklist - there's a more advanced one, but this one is what we're beginning with:










*The legend is pretty obvious, but I'll type it out anyway:*
*O *- observer function - (P).
*D *- decider function (D).

*Oi *- introverted observer (Pi).
*Oe *- extroverted observer (Pe).
*Di *- introverted decider (Ji).
*De *- extroverted decider (Je).

*DD *- _Double deciders_ (both J functions in aux-tert positions, I believe - hasn't been explicitly stated yet).
*OO *- _Double observer_ (both P functions in aux-tert positions, I believe - hasn't been explicitly stated yet).

I realise some of the screenshot is cut out, I edited out the camera - there is no full-shot of the whole thing, but my _guesstimate _re: what those cut-off sections say are:
OO - chaos. I think only the 's' is cut out.
De - self.
Oe - to do with?


I'd like to note, that the 'test' in this first class pertains to _one single binary choice_ from that basic checklist, and it's a restricted one at that - of the whole thing, it's literally _NT v SF._
_No functions are touched. No needs are touched. No other letters are touched. No temperaments are touched._



*Disclaimer*: This is derived from the first ObjectivePersonality class, to the point I've used literally the same video clips as in the class.

I have permission to share what I learn, as long as I don't just straight up download the classes etc and upload them i.e disrespecting other paid members.


* *




The 'test' is _intentionally _simple and is supposed to demonstrate the difference between somebody who has saviour NT at the top, and somebody who has saviour SF at the top.

I intend to basically relay the message every week, and share this stuff among the community in an effort to fight the cancerous way in which we're currently typing (stereotypes, subjective bias, projections, etc).


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

The first of those two videos isn't showing up.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> The first of those two videos isn't showing up.


How 'bout now?


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> How 'bout now?


Yes, it's showing up.

I suspect Michio Kaku is allegedly the SF appearing to be a stereotypical NT, and the Classroom Diva is allegedly the NT appearing to be the stereotypical SF, but I haven't watched those videos in full as of this post. I'm just getting a sense of the framework you're using here.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

I love this


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Yes, it's showing up.
> 
> I suspect Michio Kaku is allegedly the SF appearing to be a stereotypical NT, and the Classroom Diva is allegedly the NT appearing to be the stereotypical SF, but I haven't watched those videos in full as of this post. I'm just getting a sense of the framework you're using here.



There's no tricks here, I'm _genuinely _not trying to trick anybody.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

The guy in the first video is using Ti and Ne. He seems kinda nuttyto be honest, but maybe that is because I have no idea wtf he is talking about

Did you deliberately choose an obnoxious youtuber for the second video? Why is she showing stickers like anyone cares? It would have been more fitting to choose a video more similar to the first. Anyway it's obviously Sensing + Feeling. 

This feels like a trap


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> The guy in the first video is using Ti and Ne. He seems kinda nuttyto be honest, but maybe that is because I have no idea wtf he is talking about
> 
> Did you deliberately choose an obnoxious youtuber for the second video? Why is she showing stickers like anyone cares? It would have been more fitting to choose a video more similar to the first. Anyway it's obviously Sensing + Feeling.
> 
> This feels like a trap


It seems too obvious to not be a trap. This is also very easily stereotyped (something the OP does touch on): people see brilliant physicist man and think "NT", or they see bubbly woman excited about unboxing stickers and think "SF".


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> It would have been more fitting to choose a video more similar to the first.


No, the idea is simply to demonstrate what a somewhat 'extreme' NT type looks, and same deal with SF.
I believe the videos are deliberately selected due to not being similar as a means of making the difference more obvious.
Not a trap.



PiT said:


> It seems too obvious to not be a trap. This is also very easily stereotyped (something the OP does touch on): people see brilliant physicist man and think "NT", or they see bubbly woman excited about unboxing stickers and think "SF".


It's not a trap - the class starts us on distinguishing just two types from each other, a ground-up approach to learning their typing method - and those two are the first, an SF and an NT.
It's _intended _to be ridiculously easy to clearly demonstrate the difference between the more extreme 'cartoon-character' versions of those two types.

No tricks here!


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Turi said:


> There's no tricks here, I'm _genuinely _not trying to trick anybody.


Is this your first trick?


/Can't help it.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Why not also do a comparison for ST and NF?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Why not also do a comparison for ST and NF?


Like I said in the OP, I'm simply relaying the first ObjectivePersonality class - if I were to do something like this, you could bet your ass it would be a trap.

The class is literally called _SF-Popularity v NT-nerdy_ - it's a _super basic introduction_ to the methodology and is deliberately kept simple and binary.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> Like I said in the OP, I'm simply relaying the first ObjectivePersonality class - if I were to do something like this, you could bet your ass it would be a trap.
> 
> The class is literally called _SF-Popularity v NT-nerdy_ - it's a _super basic introduction_ to the methodology and is deliberately kept simple and binary.


So you were deliberately choosing videos that fit the stereotype?
Idk what ObjectivePersonality is but why did you want peoples opinions for these videos? especially when the answers will be obvious


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> So you were deliberately choosing videos that fit the stereotype?
> Idk what ObjectivePersonality is but why did you want peoples opinions for these videos? especially when the answers will be obvious


I didn't choose the videos and this thread is just to relay the first class and demonstrate the difference between SF and NT when in a more cartoon-character form.

I wanted people to chime in to see what they say and to use the criteria laid out to complete this simple task.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I love how everyone is just so suspicious of this shit by now.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> I love how everyone is just so suspicious of this shit by now.


Well that's because it's coming from Turi and they're reading too far into it. It's great of him to relay the classes to us. We appreciate it, @Turi.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Knave said:


> Well that's because it's coming from Turi and they're reading too far into it. It's great of him to relay the classes to us. We appreciate it, @Turi.


Dunno I feel like I could learn a lot of that from Tumblr too if I wanted to.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Knave said:


> Well that's because it's coming from Turi and they're reading too far into it. It's great of him to relay the classes to us. We appreciate it, @Turi.


Cheers, it's literally as obvious as it looks.
FWIW there honestly is no trick here, Michio is the NT, Classroom Diva is the SF.

*Some things to note:
*If you'll watch the Classroom Diva clip, go to 3:20 - you'll hear her run through _*20+ seconds of reasons*_ to support her F punchline (it was "super duper cute" and "I love these") - T in support of F. She's an SF but she has _plenty _of T.
Is she using the ladybug as an analogy to give reasons to an abstract pattern or concept (NT), or is this a sensory thing and she's expressing how much she likes it, or how much 'the tribe' likes it, and she's adding some value to it (SF)?

If you'll watch the clip with Michio, go to 5:28 - is he talking about specific, physical things and whether he likes them or not (SF) or is he talking about some abstract patterns and understandings and the reasons as to how they work (NT)?

At around 6:40~, Michio uses a tabletop as a sensory analogy to support his N punchline - which is literally him using his intuition to 'see' something that isn't actually there and he follows that up with another sensory analogy - using a pond to communicate his N.


The above is practically verbatim from the class.
This _is _as obvious and stereotypical as it looks - no tricks here.
It's just contrasting two 'extreme' or 'cartoon-character' versions of SF and NT, to show something that is trackable - if it wasn't me who posted this, there wouldn't really be any disputing who is the SF, and who is the NT - we'd all be on the same page, right?

So there is _something _here we can actually, objectively identify, observe and track.
Hasn't gone into functions yet - it's stressed to _not _use functions for that exercise, as they're irrelevant at the moment, it's going from the ground up, so, starting with a simple binary choice - which one is SF according to the criteria laid out, and which one is NT according to criteria laid out.

I included ST and NF as they were in the class - not part of the exercise, but they were there.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> The class is literally called _SF-Popularity v NT-nerdy_ - it's a _super basic introduction_ to the methodology and is deliberately kept simple and binary.


And people say the letters lack substance


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> And people say the letters lack substance


I've got faith, and can see where they're going with it, lol - it's stressed _not _to rely on those stereotypes as they're cartoony, not scientific etc etc.

I was hesitant to even include them in the post, because I was afraid people might be like 'ermagahd I'm not popular/a nerd/a reporter/a hippy!! wrong! not true to Jung!!!' and completely miss the point/idea - but they were there, I get 'em, anyway.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> I get what you're saying but it's like, the results suggest the majority of people type _themselves_ as S types, etc.
> That's where my problem lies here, you can't get away from unconscious bias in personality tests and the MBTI.
> 
> Any system whereby people are typing themselves via self-reporting etc is automatically too subjective for me.
> ...


I accept the limitation involved here, in the sense that people are self-typing as S types. It's just that earlier before, you suggested a lot of forum N types are actually S types in denial, so I suspected a bias from you in favour of S or something like that. That's why I was pointing out the distribution of results favoured an S majority.

So why do you think I'm an honest to god N when other forum members aren't? What makes you so sure you're an N yourself?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi okay go do so, but you're still the one showing weak grasp of the stuff, whatever word you'd like to use to describe that. When DSP is centering all this testing around one model, it shows nothing about how this model fares compared to other plausible alternative models. Period. And no you haven't addressed it and you can't address it, because it's a fundamental limitation with DSP's study. Based on what I've seen planned, all that I see him being able to do show is _how consistent his students are at typing people via his own methods_. Not how his typing methods/model stack up against others, or whatever. Why is his system of demons and wizards better or more useful than Harry Potter houses? You could similarly standardize Harry Potter houses, or Enneagram, or a whole lot of other things.


The fact that you think it's revolved around one model mystifies me.
You keep harping on about this like you've got some special little key that can break this new system down so you can go 'hahaha got you, stick to the old shit'.

It's not revolved around _one _system, or model - it draws from so many different models it would probably take me too long to even type up.

It draws on primitive chimp documentaries, Jungs work, Tony Robbins Human Needs, some of Derren Browns work, observing toddlers, military discipline, Donald Hoffman, Jordan Peterson, Alan Watts, 48 Laws of Power, Growth/Fixed mindset etc etc the list goes on and on.

I don't need to compare it to anything for two reasons:

I don't need to prove a damn thing to you.
It's not comparable to any other typology system.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I accept the limitation involved here, in the sense that people are self-typing as S types. It's just that earlier before, you suggested a lot of forum N types are actually S types in denial, so I suspected a bias from you in favour of S or something like that. That's why I was pointing out the distribution of results favoured an S majority.
> 
> So why do you think I'm an honest to god N when other forum members aren't? What makes you so sure you're an N yourself?


I don't think I'm an N, or an S, or an anything.
INFJ just reflects my 'official' mbti type which is probably wrong because I can't ever take a test, no matter how objectively I try to be, without being influenced by unconscious bias.
iow I can't 'type myself'. None of us can.

I've got a totally open mind re: my type, I don't even care what it is - I just want to help other people find theirs.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> I don't think I'm an N, or an S, or an anything.
> INFJ just reflects my 'official' mbti type which is probably wrong because I can't ever take a test, no matter how objectively I try to be, without being influenced by unconscious bias.
> iow I can't 'type myself'. None of us can.
> 
> I've got a totally open mind re: my type, I don't even care what it is - I just want to help other people find theirs.


I see where you're coming from. Even though we may test as a certain type, a type is something we are, and not something we can just choose to be. No matter how much we change in our outlook and attitude, the core genetic temperaments behind our personalities are not so easily changed.

I like to think I don't "want" to be an INTP, and that it's something I determined through taking the MBTI official test in "shoes off" mode and doing additional research. It's not even my ideal type, either. I'd rather be an ISTJ, because maybe I could get shit done if I was one. But no matter how impartial I try to be, there's still the subjective factor involved in my self-typing.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> The fact that you think *it*'s revolved around *one model* mystifies me.


It is a singular pronoun.

What is it?

* *














> You keep harping on about this like you've got some special little key that can break *this new system* down


"This new system", oh yeah, there you go speaking in singular tense again referring to that thing which is *totally not* one model.


> so you can go 'hahaha got you, stick to the old shit'.


Uh no? What old shit am I suggesting people return to? Jung? I don't even like his model very much but it's just funny how people have an identity crisis where they want to both be Jungian and then disregard his actual ideas.


> *It*'s not revolved around _one _system, or model - *it* draws from so many different models it would probably take me too long to even type up.



* *














> It draws on primitive chimp documentaries, Jungs work, Tony Robbins Human Needs, some of Derren Browns work, observing toddlers, military discipline, Donald Hoffman, Jordan Peterson, Alan Watts, 48 Laws of Power, Growth/Fixed mindset etc etc the list goes on and on.


So being a hodgepodge makes the DSP frankenmodel somehow immune to being tested against baselines? If not, why are we specifically using the frankenmodel as dictated by DSP?


> I don't need to compare *it* to anything for two reasons:
> [*]I don't need to prove a damn thing to you.


Not like you know how to prove a damn thing anyway.


> [*]*It*'s not comparable to any other typology system.


The process that individuals go through is very comparable to run of the mill frankensystems. The "different" thing is forcing everyone into using DSP's frankensystem, and then seeing how consistent they are. But that can be done with many different systems, many of which theoretically can be more consistent and/or useful than DSP's. But as long as he is only focused on his system at the individuals-typing-other-individuals level, we'll just have statistics for his frankensystem and no baseline to compare it to.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I see where you're coming from. Even though we may test as a certain type, a type is something we are, and not something we can just choose to be. No matter how much we change in our outlook and attitude, the core genetic temperaments behind our personalities are not so easily changed.


Yeah, which is why to actually type someone, properly - you have to get to know the person.
This methodology advocates this as well - you need to spend hours and hours getting to know someone, if it's online, then via videos, interviews etc etc you don't just watch 20 seconds of one clip and be like 'INFJ'.

You have to get to know the person preferably throughout various points in their lives, so you can see what functions they're running to in times of trouble etc ups, downs, the whole lot - test results are a snapshot of_ how you think you are in accordance with whatever criteria the test-creator laid down _- I mean, I personally can't put much faith in _that _as my 'true type', lol.
Some people can. Some people just want a 4 letter label.
Others want the truth.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> It is a singular pronoun.
> 
> What is it?
> 
> ...


Does your back hurt from all the gymnastics?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Does your back hurt from all the gymnastics?


Does your back hurt from the workout that DSP put you through?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

:O


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Does your back hurt from the workout that DSP put you through?


Look you've clearly got some weird little vendetta against progress. That's cool.
Keep it out of my threads. 

I'm just sharing information and hoping to start up a discussion around it, as well as hopefully help people to become better typists by sharing this information that is passing double blind tests etc. 

I don't care to prove anything to you and your crap has clogged up this thread long enough. 

Is there a moderator that can delete all irrelevant posts in this thread?
I don't want any of this weird vendetta BS to be a part of it. 

I want these threads to be _*purely productive and purely on-topic*_.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Look you've clearly got some weird little vendetta against progress.


Okay that's it. You caught me. I have a vendetta against "progress". Why didn't I figure that out sooner myself?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Okay that's it. You caught me. I have a vendetta against "progress". Why didn't I figure that out sooner myself?


Just raise the quality of your posts or don't bother, at least not in my threads.

I just want to share what I'm learning and help out other people. 
I don't want to be arguing with people stuck on this or that or even arguing with people full stop, it's not productive. 

I want this stuff on topic, useful, helpful, productive, nor clogged up with complete crap.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

Your S and N seems mixed up.


----------

