Clubs and I/E

[Hugo]

Is the following correct:

If you are xNTj, which describes you best:
Idealistic (INTj) v Practical (ENTj)

If you are xNTp, which describes you best:
Idealistic (ENTp) v Practical (INTp)

If you are xSFj, which describes you best:
Idealistic (ESFj) v Practical (ISFj)

If you are xSFp, which describes you best:
Idealistic (ISFp) v Practical (ESFp)

If you are xNFp, which describes you best:
Theoretical (INFp) v Concerned with peoples needs (ENFp)

If you are xNFj, which describes you best:
Theoretical (ENFj) v Concerned with peoples needs (INFj)

If you are xSTp, which describes you best:
Theoretical (ESTp) v Concerned with peoples needs (ISTp)

If you are xSTj, which describes you best:
Theoretical (ISTj) v Concerned with peoples needs (ESTj)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND

This is what I have come up with:

Theory - and
Peoples needs - and
Practical - and
Ideal - and


Therefore:

ENTp + INTj are Theoretical and Idealistic
ENTj + INTp are Theoretical and Practical

ESFj + ISFp are Peoples needs and Idealistic
ESFp + ISFj are Peoples needs and Practical

ENFj + INFp are Idealistic and Theoretical
ENFp + INFj are Idealistic and Peoples needs

ESTj + ISTp are Practical and People needs
ESTp + ISTj are Practical and Theoretical


Therefore, on the whole:

Alpha Quadra is Idealistic
Beta Quadra is Theoretical
Gamma Quadra is Practical
Delta Quadra is concerned with Peoples needs

[Cone]

Assuming that I am an xNTp type, I get Practical (INTp). So it works for me.

[Hugo]

Thank you.

[Rocky]

Hugo, there's nothing wrong with your theories and what is on your test is legitamite. The only problem is people have a certain self-perception of themselves, which means taking short tests to find out their types aren't going to work. It's great you're trying to find short, simple tests to type people, but I don't see how it would work.

[Hugo]

Hugo, there's nothing wrong with your theories and what is on your test is legitamite. The only problem is people have a certain self-perception of themselves, which means taking short tests to find out their types aren't going to work. It's great you're trying to find short, simple tests to type people, but I don't see how it would work.

Aren't all tests based on self-perception?

[Rocky]

Yeah, and I hear most tests are wrong about half the time. I would be very intrested if someone can come up with a simple test that can point people in the right direction at least most of the time. I think male21 is actually on the right track, because this doesn't seem to rely on self-perseption as much, it gets right to how you do things. You are getting closer with things like "therotical" and "idealistic". Maybe if you described them in more detail people would be more sure of which one to pick. Describing how people think or do things would probably get the best results.

[Hugo]

I have been getting a very good response for http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...?t=745&start=0 and virtually all the results have been accurate.

I have found that wording is very important to test accuracy. In my opinion, good wording means there is little need for many questions.

[Rocky]

So what? People here are agreeable. Also haven't you ever heard that story about the professor who gives a psychological profile to his class and asks them whether or not it describes them and like 80% of the people said yes? All of them had the exact same profile... if people see even 15% of themselves in a description they think it is them if it is favorable.

I think the class gave the overall profile about a 4.3/5 or something, even though it was the same one for everyone. This is why cold reading works; all you have to do is say something good about the person and they will think you know what you are talking about. Like Pedro said, people here know their types and what functions SHOULD go where, so they convince themselves to order them the right way. Most people couldn't order their functions.

[Hugo]

Pedro,

You seem to have a hostile attitude to me in your current postings.

What's up dude?

If it helps, you can send me a private message so that we can clear the air.

[Eidos]

So what? People here are agreeable. Also haven't you ever heard that story about the professor who gives a psychological profile to his class and asks them whether or not it describes them and like 80% of the people said yes? All of them had the exact same profile... if people see even 15% of themselves in a description they think it is them if it is favorable.

I think the class gave the overall profile about a 4.3/5 or something, even though it was the same one for everyone. This is why cold reading works; all you have to do is say something good about the person and they will think you know what you are talking about. Like Pedro said, people here know their types and what functions SHOULD go where, so they convince themselves to order them the right way. Most people couldn't order their functions.

I totally agree... words of wisdom from both of you guys.

This is why it is of the utmost importance to have properly designed tests, observation methods, etc.

Until I read a scientific study of the order of functions (which will probably never happen, academia doesn't give a toss about type - and not necessarily wrongly so), I'm staying cautious.