# Cutting the board - typing basics.



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

This week is pretty much the basic checklist to type people with, some notes on how to type, and then an example of how to type somebody in accordance with the checklist.

So, right off the bat - here's the checklist - I have shared it before, but that was a sketchy screenshot I took, this should be clearer.










The methodology is pretty simple, basically you use logical deductions in the form of binary questions to decide what types somebody _isn't_, and _that's _how you narrow down on what type they _are_.


This video is used to support the above idea, from the starting point is accurate:





It's not actually about trying to get some guys to tell you where they've hid your car - the point is that the mentalist guy narrows down on where exactly the car _is_ by asking, or inferring binary coin questions:

When he asks at 34:45~ 'so Neil, did you go north, or south when you left here?' - he's asking a simple binary coin question, this or that, north or south - and in following it up and getting the response, he's able to cut half of the region he's searching in in half.

At 35:50~, he asks 'did you go west, or did you go east, when you went north?' - again, another binary coin question, another slicing in half of the remaining possibilities.

Okay so this should be pretty easy to relate to typology - but the idea is simply don't go head-first into 'I think I see Fi' or 'I think I see Fe' etc - what you need to do, is determine what types somebody isn't by going through the checklist and scratching off possibilities as they don't fit at all.
So you're not actually going in to find out what type somebody 'is', rather you're using a process of elimination to erase all the types they _aren't_ until you're left with one single possible type.
Continuous binary coin questions. Are they this, or that? Scratch. This or that? Scratch. etc.

This video is stressed as conveying an important concept they use to type with, which is the 'cut the board' so to speak by approaching typology with a logically deductive mindset - rule out possibilities until you're left with the answer.



*Typing Apple CEO, Tim Cook:*
Part by part, piece by piece - demonstration of '_cutting the board_' so to speak.

**it is noted that basically, the more someone is compromised - the more 'hotter' the topic for them, the better, as you're able to pull out more of the real person, bypassing a public persona or front, so to speak**

Here's the interview:






*first minute or so of most videos is worthless as you're getting the public answer of 'here's what I'm supposed to say'*

DSP notes that ideally, what he likes to go for first is whether someone is an 'observer' or a 'decider', though this isn't always what's going to hit you first.


At about 1:15~ or so, Tim brings up a point that is 'this isn't about hacking one phone, this is about a unleashing a problem that can hack everyones phone' - this is a reoccurring point.

At about 1:40~ what's slapping DSP in the face is not what he wanted to go after - whether Tim is a decider or observer - because Tim appears relatively balanced at the moment re: control and chaos - but what _is_ sticking out, is this is _not_ a popularity report (SF) - _not_ getting 'here's the things that we value in the physical world - let me stay with the obvious and the physical, and let me tell you how valuable this is'.

We're not trying to figure out which one of the four social temperaments Tim is - rather we're trying to decide what he's not - and at the moment, he's _not_ matching SF.
_Rather than be hasty and immediately scratch off SF, we need to be sure of we're actually on the right track._

At 1:50~ the interviewer asks 'You're aware of the polling of this, the pew poll this week showed that 51% of Americans say Apple should unlock the phone - the new Reuters poll today showed nearly half understand where you're coming from, but this is clearly a country divided on this - what do you say to the folks who say "you should write that software, you should help unlock the phone"?'

To which Tim responds with 'this is not about a poll, this is about the future and what I have seen here is people understand what is at stake here, and increasing numbers support us - we have support from politicians - the ones that grab me the most, I've gotten thousands of emails since this occurred, and the largest single category of people are from the military - men and women who fight for our freedom, and our liberty - and they want us to stand up to be counted on this issue for them.'

In this response, Tim is getting riled up - he's going beyond the question and putting in more energy about the tribe related issues - so, possibly, Te/Fe - however, the question was a set-up question - it was coming from this perspective, i.e 'the tribe is divided, they are upset, they're having negative emotions, what do you say?'

So, what we're hearing here is _reasons_ - he's saying here's what it's about (the future) and here are reasons that support us (support from politicians, thousands of emails - then he elaborates into reasons behind what the military people want) etc.
Basically he's saying 'they need to understand _why_' Tim has taken the stance he has - reasons.

So here we are eliminating _anything that doesn't have a T in it_ - but, we do need to actually make sure.. anyway..

In response to the question at 2:58~, Tim again repeats a focus on the future - reoccurring pattern - what is the future? Is the future a physical, sensory thing that you can go by?
Usually, anecdotally, Ni owns the future - but, need to be careful with that - depends on Tims understanding of the future, his interpretation of the future - need to understand what Tim means by 'future'.

What we _can_ perhaps deduce, is that Tim doesn't have a real obsession with the physical, in the moment 'now', and past information sensory - in fact, he's also said numerous times that its not about the phone, not about the literal sensory object, not about the information on the phone, not about the physical - it's about the 'future' - he's literally comparing this abstract possibility (N) and the sensory (S) and he is placing more emphasis on the N - ergo, N _over_ S.

So, we're narrowing in on possibly N - at the moment, we're think we're hearing N and T - NT, though we need to confirm that:

In response to the question at 3:37 - Tim rattles off some sensory facts - 'we don't know this or that, this is what we did' etc - but the point, is an N point - "to do what the FBI would like us to do now, would expose hundreds and millions of people to issues" - this is an _abstract possibility]/i], so even though is somewhat of a sensory buildup, Tims punchline - his 'point' - is N.

So here, we believe we're seeing NT - he's using sensory, but he's using it to get to a possibility - whether this is Ne or Ni, it sounds like Ni at the moment because he's focusing - but maybe he's super introverted, so his Ne is getting narrowed in - we don't know yet - all we know, is that he's not SF, he's not ST and he's not NF - so, he's some kind of an NT.

We know he's not some kind of double-extrovert, he's not obsessive about what's going on in the outside world, how we need to expend energy, how we need to just go go go, how we need to gather more energy and take care of the tribe - he's a very reserved, introverted, inside-world say - in Myers Briggs land, we can tell he's an introvert and not an extrovert - his information is prethought out, preprocessed, not reactionary.

Now, we're looking to see if Tim is a 'tribe' guy, or a 'controller' guy - this will help discern IP from IJ.


At about 6:45~ Tim says 'our job is to protect our customers' - this is a tribe related sentence - though, everybody has these functions, everybody has a 'tribe' function - so we need to see if there's an emphasis over 'us' 'me and the tribe' (IxxP) over 'control and chaos' (IxxJ) - we've actually seen Tim navigate through 'control and chaos' - i.e 'if we had the information we would, if we could break into people phones (and there be no negative consequences) we would' 'if we could control them we would' 'if we had freedom we would' - so he seems to be pretty good on control and chaos - but we need to see this relative to himself and the tribe - need to watch where his emotions start getting amped up, and he starts feeling he needs to pull out the big guns.

At about 6:55~ Tim calmly runs through some S/N observations - 'there's probably more information about you on your phone than in your house' 'our smart phones are loaded with our intimate conversations, health records' etc.. then at 7:12~, Tim leans in and hits you with what's important to him - his punchline - "it's not just about privacy, but it's also about public safety" - i.e, protecting the people. 

Right after that, he aggressively speaks for everyone - "no one would want a masterkey built that would turn hundreds of millions of locks, even if that key were in the possession of the person that you trust the most, that is what this is about".
Note - "no one"? No one would want this? What about the other half of the people in those polls i.e the reason he's even doing this interview?

Also note, Tims reasons for not doing what the FBI want him to do, are basically built off of an abstract principle - he needs to protect the people - his reasons are not that it will cost too much, or based in facts etc - even the interviewer noticed at around 8:10~ or so, when he asked "if you didn't believe this was a slippery slope, is this something your engineers could do, and how quickly could they do it" - so the interviewer has also caught on that Tims reasons are not based in the physical world (i.e costs etc).
N over S.

So here, we've actually got a second vote from the interviewers point of view - basically "so I see that you are standing on abstract principles" - triangulation of preferences (it's noted in the class that a good way to actually find your own type out, is to ask your friends/family etc about it).

At 8:50~ or so, you hear Tim say 'I know people like to frame this argument as privacy versus national security - that is overly simplistic and it is not true' - reasons again, 'not accurate' - T.

At about 9.20~ Tim says 'if the government can order Apple to create such a piece of software, it could be ordered for anyone else as well' - this is Tim standing on a principle - not sensory, and not a feeling - so we're really confirming that Tim is an NT - still having a hard time proving he's an IP or IJ, but locking down on NT.

So, what happens here is again, we 'cut the board' - from the list of 32 possible types, we erase everything that isn't NT.

In doing this - we cut the board from 32 types, down to 8 by just nailing one single part of the checklist (the letters)

Ni-Ti
Ti-Ni
Ti-Ne
Ne-Ti
Ni-Te
Te-Ni
Ne-Te
Te-Ne

You have to get temperament before functions - you can't go in narrow i.e "I see Fe" or "I see Fi" - you don't even know if they're a fucking observer or decider so are you sure about that?
That kind of typology is like looking at the minutia when you need to start broad, and narrow down by cutting the board.

If you think about the various ways you can cut the board:

By observer/decider - cuts in half.
By temperament - cuts in 4.
By letters - cuts in 4.
By functions - cuts into 8 - too narrow - too much room for error - try not to start here.

The entire interview, we get the idea that Tims introverted world is his saviour - at around 19:15 we hear him say "I don't agree that going case by case is the right approach" and this is the mentality that rules Tim - decisions - self above tribe - deciding first for own self, doesn't want help of tribe to decide - sticks to what he decides, and everyone else needs to get on board.

In contrast to an EJ - they kill themselves helping others, without leaving anything for themselves - Tim is definitely not trying to collect everyones opinions to form his own opinions - he's saying "this is my decision, you get on board with my opinion" - you can compare and contrast Tims personality with the SF girl from this thread - a different video is demonstrated in the class for this comparison here, but basically she gets asked to speak at a statewide conference for mentors and teachers and off she goes and does it - i.e, someone asked for something, and I did it - not Tim.
EJs have a swing back and forth between doing things for everybody, and then having to take some time off for themselves.

Are we getting the sense that Tim kills himself for others?
Or does Tim basically push the tribes decisions away, in favour of his own?
"I know my identity, and the tribe should get on board with that - if the tribe only knew how good my reasons were, my values were etc, then they would be smart enough to get on board with me" - not looking around going "what's everyone else doing and I'll just pander to them - Tim is literally taking on the government, and half of the USA, and going "No, I'm standing on my abstract possible principles - screw you"

Tim is definitely not an EJ. He could be an IJ that prefers both introverted functions (a 'sleep' IJ).

Due to Tim not being tribe above self, and instead being self above tribe - we can erase the EJs from the list.

We know now that we can delete every possible type that is not a 'decider introvert saviour' - which by default, as all the F types were erased earlier, leaves only types that prefer Ti, which are:

Ni-Ti (INFJ)
Ti-Ni (ISTP)
Ti-Ne (INTP)
Ne-Ti (ENTP)

The board has been cut in half, and we're down from 8 to 4.
Due to Tim being a self/tribe guy predominantly, they're cutting the EP and the IJ out here leaving only the Ti-Ni ISTP, and the Ti-Ne INTP - down to 2.

What's the difference between the above types? Ni-Ne.
So what we need to find out, is when Tim has an information problem - does he run to known information (Ni here) or does he consult outside information (Ne here).

Anybody can be controlling about something (introverted observer) - but, when you go into a war, when you go into a fight - are you like 'hold on, let me go get more'? That's a gatherer.

In this video:

* *











..at around 8:15 - 'what we did with the iPad was to try and bring more productivity to it' - more features - does this sound like Steve Jobs? Henry Ford?
Henry Ford was the king of narrowing down - wanted one colour, for one car, and just mass produce that. Narrowed down to the point where he almost wrecked his company.

Tim wants freedom and more new features.

But, to really narrow down on whether Tim actually prefers Ne over Ni here, after you've honed in on him being a self-above-tribe introverted reasons guy - to know for sure that it's Ne or Ni, you need to watch more videos, get to know him more, got to watch more and more videos until hours later, days later, you know him, you know what he's going to say before he says it - predict things like when he's asked a 'tribe' question, knowing he's going to get a little freaked out and respond with something that relates to him holding true to his own identity (which is reasons) and the tribe needs to get on board (so, not literally predicting his words).

Is Tim somebody who is going 'we need to narrow down our product range, we need to have just one product that we go after - in fact, the reason we need one product to go after is because all of that chaos that we have to deal with is terrifying so we have to narrow down to the one thing, because we have to organize it' (Ni/Si) or is he saying 'you know what we really want to do is we want more developers on board, more features, more more more' - that's when see the pattern of his life - it's about opening up, he wants more, doesn't want to organize it, wants others to decide for themselves - and have the freedom to decide for themselves (Ne/Se).


Answer is pretty clear - Tim Cook is an *INTP* - a stock standard Myers Briggs Ti-Ne INTP, at that - as determined via cutting the board and focusing on what he isn't.

*************
It is stressed that you don't get to know someone from one interview - need to get to know them from many clips, interviews, etc.
This interview is used to demonstrate how to 'cut the board' - I repeat, they definitely do not, in any way shape or form, condone typing people via one single interview or clip etc.

This information is derived from the third ObjectivePersonality class - it is not a verbatim transcription, though the essence is intact - I take zero credit for this.
First one.
Second one.
*************_


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Even if this post alone isn't enough, there's been such a widespread pattern of evangelizing for one specific paid service that I can't imagine Turi's recent behavior not breaking this rule:


> 4. No Advertising
> Advertising bots, propaganda accounts, accounts used for evangelizing, and persons who register with the intention of using this forum for SEO or link-dropping will be banned without warning. We ask that other registered users also refrain from engaging in casual or commercial ad campaigns on the forum.
> 
> Advertising and discussion of chat rooms (including but not limited to tinychat, Skype, and Facebook groups) is not allowed on PersonalityCafe. This includes the use of private messages, blogs, visitor message walls, and forum posts for this purpose.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Even if this post alone isn't enough, there's been such a widespread pattern of evangelizing for one specific paid service that I can't imagine Turi's recent behavior not breaking this rule:


It's not 'no advertising' rules I need to be worried about, I'm doing pretty much the _exact opposite of advertising a paid service_ by sharing everything here.

Evangelizing means to attempt to convert somebody to Christianity, I'm not religious therefore this isn't applicable - let's not attempt to stretch very specific definitions into whatever shapes we so please.

People are really getting all bent out of shape by this possible threat to their subjective bs, aren't they.

I believe I've already told you - if not - keep _irrelevant, off-topic bs_ out of my threads. 
_Thanks in advance_.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> It's not 'no advertising' rules I need to be worried about, I'm doing pretty much the _exact opposite of advertising a paid service_ by sharing everything here.
> 
> Evangelizing means to attempt to convert somebody to Christianity, I'm not religious therefore this isn't applicable - let's not attempt to stretch very specific definitions into whatever shapes we so please.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, this is a (mostly) open forum. If you want safe spaces to shill for DaveSuperPowers, make your own Reddit or something.

Also, my use of "evangelizing" is correct, almost too correct. See: evangelize (link)


Wiktionary said:


> 2. To preach any ideology to those who have not yet been converted to it.
> 3. To be enthusiastic about something, and to attempt to share that enthusiasm with others; to promote.


Also that irony of you saying we feel our subjective bs is threatened when you are evangelizing DaveSuperPowers' subjective BS... :dry:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I'm sorry, this is a (mostly) open forum. If you want safe spaces to shill for DaveSuperPowers, make your own Reddit or something.


In order to shill, I'd have to actually be getting paid to advertise something - not the case and if you're going to make outlandish claims, support them. 
In some other thread. Because this is off topic and I don't want your bs in my topics. 



> Also, my use of "evangelizing" is correct, almost too correct. See: evangelize (link)


I don't see a need to read your wiki sources. 




> Also that irony of you saying we feel our subjective bs is threatened when you are evangelizing DaveSuperPowers' subjective BS... :dry:


You're merely responding for the sake of hoping somebody will empathize with you. 

I'm not sure how many times I really have to say it, keep your off topic bs out of my threads.

Any and all low quality, trolling posts from you in my threads will be reported. 

I come here to learn and share what I learn, from any source - I don't come here to have to deal with internet warriors trying to fight literally every word I post, so I'm just going to go all out on reporting people from herein rather than engage with these people.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> In order to shill, I'd have to actually be getting paid to advertise something - not the case and if you're going to make outlandish claims, support them.


Wow you're getting awfully defensive to the point where you are hand-picking definitions and taking them ultra-literally. I'm pretty sure you know what I mean when I say "shill". Given the lack of any sort of meaningful criticism you show to DaveSuperPowers, one may even infer that you are being incentivized in some way, but my bet is on you just being incredibly biased.


> In some other thread. Because this is off topic and I don't want your bs in my topics.


These threads aren't your property.


> I don't see a need to read your wiki sources.


Of course you don't. Ignorance is bliss.


> You're merely responding for the sake of hoping somebody will empathize with you.


_[does best Turi impression]_ Prove it!


> I'm not sure how many times I really have to say it, keep your off topic bs out of my threads.


One could similarly say your evangelical bs is polluting the entire forum.


> Any and all low quality, trolling posts from you in my threads will be reported.


Oh great. Threaten to report me, when you are blatantly breaking forum rules with your own behavior and I am simply pointing that out now.


> I come here to learn and share what I learn, from any source - I don't come here to have to deal with internet warriors trying to fight literally every word I post, so I'm just going to go all out on reporting people from herein rather than engage with these people.


How entitled... you really do deserve that crown.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Ocean Helm - I'm not even going to read your most recent post.

Stop trying to piss over every thread I make, all you do is try to fight people and disagree, it's toxic and is not welcome in my threads. 

All the best.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

Fi isn't selfish. infact in a round about way Fe is.


----------

