# Thread: Code numbers, and why

1. ## Code numbers, and why.

Do you use four-letter, three-letter, or two-letter codes? Why?

Discuss!

EDIT

And 4-letter codes are dumb. They don't give you any useful information that doesn't need to be heavily processed. Two-letter codes are the best, imo, but I guess nobody uses them |:

A: "She's an IL."
B: "You mean ILE?"
A: "Yeah. IL."
C: "... ENTp? What are you guys talking about?"

2. SEI - so three letters because it is more phonetically appealing and a little more specific- can't be easily confused with MBTT

3. Originally Posted by hkkmr
Doesn't matter... the content is identical.
Well of course it is, but four-letter codes don't immediately give you the needed information. You need to process them too heavily.

j -> check 2nd function
E -> Fe
S -> Si
ESFj = Fe/Si

Rather than just ESE which instantly tells me Fe/Si

4. Originally Posted by hkkmr
Then why not the 2 letter code?

ES?
I haven't learnt them yet. I only know I, L, S, F, and E.

Plus, I'd assume most people don't know them either. This argument is applicable to three-letter codes as well, however.

EDIT

And after further consideration, the three-letter codes are probably slightly more useful (for my ) for figuring out intertype relations without remembering a massive chart.

5. because then you would know if you were dealing with a ESI Fi/Se or an ESE Fe/Si.

Dipshit.

6. Originally Posted by bee
because then you would know if you were dealing with a ESI Fi/Se or an ESE Fe/Si.

Dipshit.
Actually, bee, two-letter carries the order of preference.

7. that was the joke... rolls eyes.

8. hk, I think we both missed the joke.

9. I find the four-letter codes most useful, because the most important dichotomy to me is static/dynamic, an that's easier to obtain from the four-letter code. However, I often use the three-letter code just because it's easier to type.

Using the element symbols (, for instance) is best imo. It's like the two-letter code, except that it's commonly understood. I am familiar enough with it that I can tell at a glance whether the type is static or dynamic, and I'd guess that most people are the same way (if they remember what static/dynamic is).

10. Originally Posted by Brilliand
Using the element symbols (, for instance) is best imo. It's like the two-letter code, except that it's commonly understood. I am familiar enough with it that I can tell at a glance whether the type is static or dynamic, and I'd guess that most people are the same way (if they remember what static/dynamic is).
Well, Brill, when you figure out how to speak light, be my guest.

But yeah, agreed on symbol names.

However, I don't see how two or three carries static/dynamic any less than four.

11. Originally Posted by Gulanzon
Well, Brill, when you figure out how to speak light, be my guest.

But yeah, agreed on symbol names.

However, I don't see how two or three carries static/dynamic any less than four.
Three is a bit convoluted - I have to think to get static/dynamic out of it. It's the same problem that you have with the four-letter codes, basically. As for the two-letter codes, I just don't understand them. OK, I suppose I could learn, but it's a little troubling that there's nothing obvious

When I'm speaking, I usually use the English titles, i.e. Analyst, Enthusiast, Inventor...

Look at it this way: the three-letter codes carry 5 bits of data, 1 of which is syntax. I must read 3 of those bits (the first letter and the last) to determine static/dynamic. On the other hand, the 4-letter types use only one bit per letter (because each slot has only two possibilities), and I only need two of those to determine static/dynamic. The two-letter codes carry 6 bits (2 of which are syntax), and take 3 bits (one letter) to determine static/dynamic. The shorter, more redundant representations are best when you want to fully parse the type into the 24-bit form of Model A, but not when you want to extract just some of the information.

12. Originally Posted by hkkmr
Then why not the 2 letter code?

ES?
that wouldn't distinguish between Fe/Si or Fi/Se, genius

13. Originally Posted by crazedrat
that wouldn't distinguish between Fe/Si or Fi/Se, genius
Congratulations, Smash.

14. : Profit
: Emotions
: Law
: Relationships
: Intuition
: Force
: Time
: Sensing

So that's where the one-letter element symbols come from...

15. I don't care for the three letter code, myself. It doesn't make for easy translating unless one just memorizes all 16 codes. For example:
ESE when translated from left to right like how many of us read becomes F?S? then you see the E/I part so now you can go back and fill in the ? marks so that you get E applies to F so Fe, making the S Si.

It bugs me to no end to have to pause in my reading so I can decode it to know what the person is saying. And having to do this in real time?? I wind up having to suspend that code until the person finishes talking so I can go back in my head, decode it, put it back into the context of what the person said, hope I didn't forget something important, and hope that the person gives me enough time to do this.

Things like ESFj I already have an immediate reference for in my head. Same with FeSi coding.

I prefer stating FeSi so as to be a reminder to myself and the other person that we're talking information metabolism and/or intertype relations as opposed to some odd trait theory that tries to incorporate things like types that cheat, types that are over critical, types that are overweight, etc.

The two letter coding is something that seems kind of attractive to me, but I'm not very good at memorizing stuff so I haven't been successful with it. It would help if others used that regularly, but they don't, so I don't see any reason to put that effort into memorizing it.

16. I usually use the 4-letter code. It's what I'm more familiar with. I use the 3-letter codes too, but I have to think when I use them.

17. Originally Posted by Brilliand
: Profit
: Emotions
: Law
: Relationships
: Intuition
: Force
: Time
: Sensing

So that's where the one-letter element symbols come from...
Excellent, but you cannot use law, it is the name of one of the legs of Chuck Norris

18. Actually, the camelcase encoding anndelise mentioned (i.e. FeSi) has all the advantages of the two-letter code, but is more familiar to English speakers. In the bit-counting metric I was using, the main difference is that you only have to read 4 bits to determine the club, and 1 bit to determine extraversion/introversion.

As far as length and taking up space to type/time to say, the 3-letter code hits the sweet spot, imo; two letters is a bit too short.

19. Originally Posted by Kioshi
I like the three letter code (functional ordering, attitude) better than the four letter code. Why have a fourth letter to represent the order of the functions when you can just order the functions. ST (STP) or TS (STJ), it's not that difficult.
I'd have no problem dropping the p/j part, but I would still need the E/I part first so that I'm not having to do the cycling thing. Even the ESE SEE thing I could handle better if the E/I part was first, so that I could quickly translate which functions are actually being talked about.

A few times I've done that, actually...what's quoted above. Talking FN, TN, etc. But quite a few people hadn't a clue what it meant, so instead of being shorthand, it wound up adding in a few extra posts with them asking what it meant and me or someone else answering.

...[]...

I prefer to use the direction switch:

-: STNF, TNFS, NFST, FSTN
+: SFNT, FNTS, NTSF, TSFN

Example: -S (STP) or +T (STJ)
This would be interesting, imo. But that would require many people to alter their....not sure what the term is...thinking? model? perception? ... of Model A etc.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•