Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[MorleyDev]

I've gotten "you can just let people be wrong [MSH], why do you have to cause so much trouble" more than once

I usually go the Socratic route. If I spot something I think is a mistake, I try and phrase pointing it out in the form of a question. Experience taught me that people take less offence to being asked a question and led to explaining their thinking. Also if their thinking is correct and I, not being perfect, didn't consider something then I learn. If not, odds are good they'll realise the mistake as they answer the question. Either way, some kind of progress is made.

[scrdest]

Oh, is that how that works.

Indeed, and while it has probably happened at least by chance to you at some point, if it hasn't you should give shifting Extroverted Thinking to socialization a shot. It's pretty hard to do intentionally or unintentionally, but it's an amazing feeling when it does happen. If you've ever had a time in which everybody seemed to fall in line and obey you while you expressed simple certainty of something, that's that.

Yep, at a certain point you can be certain enough that something is so that it suddenly becomes that way. I wrote a bit of a paper on the effect a while ago.

Oh? What field you are on, Psych?

[SalmonGod]

I'm INTP! The description thingy is 50% spot on and 50% kind of similar to how I act. I feel like those things are written vaguely and broadly like horoscopes, anyway.

The thing I like about Myers-Briggs is that it's NOT like that.  It measures you on 4 very clear dichotomies and builds profiles that are very different from each other.  The two that I match up with as an INXP describe me really well, while none of the others do at all.  Of course, you may not match up so well if you're not strongly expressed on any of those 4 dichotomies, but that's a good thing.  It recognizes that people aren't binary, and rates you on a gradient.  There just aren't profiles written up for people at various gradient levels.  It shows you what the descriptors mean in an absolute sense and it's kind of up to you to figure out how you relate to that absolute based on where you place on the gradient scale.

[MeimieFan88]

ISFP.

You have distinct preference of Introversion over Extraversion (67%)
You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (12%)
You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (50%)
You have strong preference of Perceiving over Judging (78%)

I usually get INFP, but I guess the preference is slight either way. After reading about the difference, I think I might be more S than N.

[Remuthra]

Oh, is that how that works.

Indeed, and while it has probably happened at least by chance to you at some point, if it hasn't you should give shifting Extroverted Thinking to socialization a shot. It's pretty hard to do intentionally or unintentionally, but it's an amazing feeling when it does happen. If you've ever had a time in which everybody seemed to fall in line and obey you while you expressed simple certainty of something, that's that.

Yep, at a certain point you can be certain enough that something is so that it suddenly becomes that way. I wrote a bit of a paper on the effect a while ago.

Oh? What field you are on, Psych?

It was just a general theoretical look at the nature of leadership, for some sort of society or something, if I remember. I don't know that I have a copy on it anymore, but it was related to the nature of the cliche and the processes of stigmatization and reformation associated with changing a group dynamic.

[penguinofhonor]

The thing I like about Myers-Briggs is that it's NOT like that.  It measures you on 4 very clear dichotomies and builds profiles that are very different from each other.  The two that I match up with as an INXP describe me really well, while none of the others do at all.  Of course, you may not match up so well if you're not strongly expressed on any of those 4 dichotomies, but that's a good thing.  It recognizes that people aren't binary, and rates you on a gradient.  There just aren't profiles written up for people at various gradient levels.  It shows you what the descriptors mean in an absolute sense and it's kind of up to you to figure out how you relate to that absolute based on where you place on the gradient scale.

Yeah, I guess if I read it as a description of the absolute INTP then a lot of differences make more sense. The description I found still feels a bit too horoscopey even when viewed like that.

I'm like 60% I, 50% N, 60% T, and 20% P. I used to be ~100% I and ~0% P/J. A lot can change in like five years, I guess.

[Vector]

.

[Parsely]

I don't like personality tests..

[SalmonGod]

The thing I like about Myers-Briggs is that it's NOT like that.  It measures you on 4 very clear dichotomies and builds profiles that are very different from each other.  The two that I match up with as an INXP describe me really well, while none of the others do at all.  Of course, you may not match up so well if you're not strongly expressed on any of those 4 dichotomies, but that's a good thing.  It recognizes that people aren't binary, and rates you on a gradient.  There just aren't profiles written up for people at various gradient levels.  It shows you what the descriptors mean in an absolute sense and it's kind of up to you to figure out how you relate to that absolute based on where you place on the gradient scale.

Yeah, I guess if I read it as a description of the absolute INTP then a lot of differences make more sense. The description I found still feels a bit too horoscopey even when viewed like that.

I'm like 60% I, 50% N, 60% T, and 20% P. I used to be ~100% I and ~0% P/J. A lot can change in like five years, I guess.

...

I think I see what you're talking about now.  They've changed the website a bit since I last looked at it.  They used to have a second link after the test results that was much more technical and in-depth, but I can't find it now.  If that hadn't been there when I was first introduced, I probably would have thought the same.

[penguinofhonor]

Oh, this might not be the same site. The test I took didn't have a description afterward (or at least I couldn't find it), so I looked up an INTP description on Google.

[Putnam]

...really accurate

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

[penguinofhonor]

Man, that must be a combination Taurus/INTP/Rooster description because it is spot motherfucking on for me.

[Vector]

.

[penguinofhonor]

Vector, that's such a [whatever Putnam is describing] thing to say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Sometimes you're one thing, and sometimes you're its opposite? With no indication as to percentages? My god! A wild tautology has appeared!

Kill it! Kill it before the sophomores see!