If people do not want to learn about socionics or are not able to comprehend the way I explain information, that is not my problem. Just do not make me a God and then get angry when I act like a human.Originally Posted by waddles
I think that this input is fair and I'm sure alot of people are thinking the same thing about it.
I think the situation actually goes about like this:
OTHERS make YOU a god and WE complain knowing that YOU are only human.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Reuben is the same guy that came into my thread saying I'm a pre-teen, when I'm really old enough to be his father.
Try to say things is a more stoic manner and you might get some respect.
Whatever it is, I just wish it would stop ... All I try to do is help people, which is good except I keep finding these bitter dissapointed people with fanatical and unrealistic ideas about who I am or think I am a source of easy answers. Well, I am not and that is clearly not my intention.
This is the thing that annoys me about you. You assume you are correct and that you are such a complex genius that nobody is even able to comprehend what you say.
That's not the case at all. I fully comprehend everything you say 100%. The problem is...it's all wrong. You try to convince people of things that are not accurate at all, and when they disagree you fall back on saying "oh well, I guess I'm to complex for you to understand".
If you disagree with me, that is fine ... just quit acting like an ass about it.This is the thing that annoys me about you. You assume you are correct and that you are such a complex genius that nobody is even able to comprehend what you say.
That's not the case at all. I fully comprehend everything you say 100%. The problem is...it's all wrong. You try to convince people of things that are not accurate at all, and when they disagree you fall back on saying "oh well, I guess I'm to complex for you to understand".
Like I just said a few minutes ago... You kicked shit off with me first. If you want respect dont go around saying people come across as "pre-teen" based on ONE post, when that person can run circles around you.
By the way...How can you confuse ENTj and ENFj? Either you're one or the other.
ENTj's WEAKEST function is Fe, which is ENFj's STRONGEST function.
ENFj's WEAKEST function is Te, which is ENTj's STRONGEST function.
Surely this confusion is the brainchild of a McMoron.
No, both their weakest functions are Si; their SECOND weakest functions are the ones you depicted.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
That stemmed from a misunderstanding from way back in the early stages of my typology test from when a I told a guy he could have an exceptionally weak ROLE function, I never intended people to take that as gospel. And the weakest function is actully the PoLR ...
This is what annoys me about reuben mcnew:
He makes this site out of nowhere that types people without any sort of explanation. It was just a pretentious list of typed celebrities and anonymous photos, mostly of women. It's just like this little sick fantasy he has going in his mind like "I'm a socionist, I'm the next great thinker"
then it gets worse. He had to try and inflate his ego more by making these cruddy type descriptions which take the best of some of the more genuine ones made by gulenko or weisband. He just puts vague fluff in between plagiarized sentences in order to disguise his ignorance. He follows no real logical system but rather just throws together these muddled models, like the "model-x with weak functions" and playing the role of "expert" he throws this model in everyone's face. Despite the obviousness that this model does not work and is a bizarre distortion of the purpose of the "model-x" he keeps it there in a stubborn refusal to admit that he has been walking on thin air since he started his web-page.
You question the validity of these things and he becomes evasive, saying "ENTp's have to reassemble things themselves in order to understand them" Or that he doesn't have "time" to give an explanation or something. He ignores all criticism and only comes up with an ad-hoc explanation when enough pressure is applied. When this happens he improvises something just vague enough to win some sort of acceptance by the majority of forum members...
And that's the worst thing- he basically bases his life off of this forum... but it isn't good enough, he has to make his OWN forum and pull members from over here, over there.
He makes this overly lengthy typology test where he pretends to integrate his "model-x with weak functions" into it. Then he starts to imagine these "patterns" in his typology testing. He throws that out there and then some weird incorperation with braintypes.com theory and socionics. It doesn't make any sense and he assumes that because no one is in awe of his brilliance he is just too far in the heavens for anyone to possibly comprehend. If he had any knowledge, even at an introductory level, he'd see how foolish some of his speculations appear. He's so impatient, so childish in his motives, that he has to keep pushing himself on everyone. He has to keep pushing his insecurity about what type he REALLY is by constantly focusing on his supposed weakand talking about it and how much trouble it brings him.
What threw me was when he got a little place on lytov's site, because that, in my opinion, only reflects poorly on lytov.
I don't like being mean, but Mr. McNew does not know where or when to stop. If he keeps wasting his life away behind a computer screen how can anyone possibly expect him to understand intertype relationships? How can you possibly listen to someone with such poor social skills?
And for a supposed logical type he really doesn't have very well developed reasoning skills. I won't doubt his type, but I will say that he is definitely "chasing" his super-ego.
I think that its only fair that criticism is dealt in response to blatant idiocy. I don't really care what anyone says to me about that, because I know my words are justified.
I just got this great idea for my website ... I will be back in a second ...This is what annoys me about reuben mcnew: He makes this site out of nowhere that types people without any sort of explanation. It was just a pretentious list of typed celebrities and anonymous photos, mostly of women. It's just like this little sick fantasy he has going in his mind like "I'm a socionist, I'm the next great thinker"
then it gets worse. He had to try and inflate his ego more by making these cruddy type descriptions which take the best of some of the more genuine ones made by gulenko or weisband. He just puts vague fluff in between plagiarized sentences in order to disguise his ignorance. He follows no real logical system but rather just throws together these muddled models, like the "model-x with weak functions" and playing the role of "expert" he throws this model in everyone's face. Despite the obviousness that this model does not work and is a bizarre distortion of the purpose of the "model-x" he keeps it there in a stubborn refusal to admit that he has been walking on thin air since he started his web-page.
You question the validity of these things and he becomes evasive, saying "ENTp's have to reassemble things themselves in order to understand them" Or that he doesn't have "time" to give an explanation or something. He ignores all criticism and only comes up with an ad-hoc explanation when enough pressure is applied. When this happens he improvises something just vague enough to win some sort of acceptance by the majority of forum members...
And that's the worst thing- he basically bases his life off of this forum... but it isn't good enough, he has to make his OWN forum and pull members from over here, over there.
He makes this overly lengthy typology test where he pretends to integrate his "model-x with weak functions" into it. Then he starts to imagine these "patterns" in his typology testing. He throws that out there and then some weird incorperation with braintypes.com theory and socionics. It doesn't make any sense and he assumes that because no one is in awe of his brilliance he is just too far in the heavens for anyone to possibly comprehend. If he had any knowledge, even at an introductory level, he'd see how foolish some of his speculations appear. He's so impatient, so childish in his motives, that he has to keep pushing himself on everyone. He has to keep pushing his insecurity about what type he REALLY is by constantly focusing on his supposed weak
What threw me was when he got a little place on lytov's site, because that, in my opinion, only reflects poorly on lytov.
I don't like being mean, but Mr. McNew does not know where or when to stop. If he keeps wasting his life away behind a computer screen how can anyone possibly expect him to understand intertype relationships? How can you possibly listen to someone with such poor social skills?
And for a supposed logical type he really doesn't have very well developed reasoning skills. I won't doubt his type, but I will say that he is definitely "chasing" his super-ego.
I think that its only fair that criticism is dealt in response to blatant idiocy. I don't really care what anyone says to me about that, because I know my words are justified.
waste of webspace/money.
LOL! Why did you just delete that post?
I pmed it to waddles ... for the most part I figure that if making me look bad makes a person feel better, I might as well give an outlit for that. I actually asked him in the past if he wanted to contribute by writting an article for the site, but apparently that is the only output I have received from him. I am sort of dissapointed, I was expecting something more positive.
Waddles W
you never asked me to contribute something to the site. I pmed you once saying that the arguing was immature and I, in some ways, apologized to you. You never took the initiative in any such cooperation and if I am not mistaken it was my suggestion that we communicate better, you just said "i have had similar thoughts" in your response.
If I ignore other people's feelings and say harsh things it's my own shortcoming. What I do is come to conclusions based upon what I see. So from an ethical standpoint what I say appears cruel or wrong, all I can say is "I call it like I see it"
and who is to say that my criticisms haven't given you some positive stimulation? Usually when I do something mean like criticize your work you come up with something a little bit better, anyway.
But I'm just an information processing machine when it comes to this stuff. I am human, too, i have made that clear, but I'm not out here to play nice guy.
Re: Waddles W
Well, right now I am trying to keep both of us from becoming losers, which is our apparent direction if this shit continues.
I did ask you to write something on Model-A after you first accused me of plagerism, and I was serious. If you want to write about something else, you can. Just quit trying to make me look bad and do some good for people instead of this poor negitivity. I am not this horrible monster you have somehow imagined me to be.
Sorry, but this is the part I'm going to have to disagree with. :wink:
Alright, this is it:
I won't say anything else anymore unless there is something that REALLY bothers me.
Now I'm sure McNew's intentions are good, but there is an "inflation". The quanta goes up, but the qualia goes down.
But I think we can all agree that there is a solution to this: Reuben McNew needs to get laid.
Reuben, we're cool, we're cool.
Ok, so your problem is that Reuben said that you came across as a "pre-teen" -- is that it? So you're mad that "you get no respect"?
But what do you expect, after writing things like this:
Now, sorry for pointing this out, but that does look like something a pre-teen would write - - that was my immediate perception.
If you are indeed "old enough to be his father", you surely don't come across as being very mature, because (1) of what you wrote, (2) you let being called a pre-teen annoy you so much, instead of laughing it off.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
- If McNew is a blatant idiot and the content on his site is "ridiculously stupid" then you guys sure are doing a crappy job of convincing me. Many of the attacks are completely unsupported at least in this thread, so why should I take you seriously?
- Also, I think it's very telling that going on 3wks and 5 pages since I started this thread here, there's still no disagreement as to McNew's thoughts about my type - ENTj/ENxj. Never would have thought I was actually an Extrovert due to my strong self-perception of being an Introvert, but guess who figured it out? That's right...
- Finally, like it or not, people like the Lytovs and McNew get the benefit of the doubt with me. They have their own sites, their own tests, profiles, articles, etc, and there's cross-linking between their sites, and they both also have what I like to call "demonstrated competence beyond a reasonable doubt". If somebody thinks they're both idiots then that's fine. Where's your site, profiles, tests, articles, etc? And more importantly, where is your dissertation tearing apart their articles and views proving them wrong to backup your accusations and name calling in the first place? Why should I believe you and not them? Not that you need to have all of that stuff for me to take you seriously, but I'd expect a little more than the 3rd-gradish personal attacks and flaming I've seen in here.
$0.02
[quote="Expat"]
That makes no sense. I have 50 year old co-workers that dont start marketing projects because theyre goofing around online. And there's pre-teens that get straight to business and dont mess around on the net at all. Nothing to do with age.
most 50-year-olds don't have schoolwork. There are some non-traditional students, but it isn't the norm. Assumptions are based on norms.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I dont care if you take it seriously. If YOU can't see how ridiculous his webpage is for yourself, you obviously dont know much. Read a book.
According to his test, I would be an introvert. But I'm not.- Also, I think it's very telling that going on 3wks and 5 pages since I started this thread here, there's still no disagreement as to McNew's thoughts about my type - ENTj/ENxj. Never would have thought I was actually an Extrovert due to my strong self-perception of being an Introvert, but guess who figured it out? That's right...
I'm not going to agree/disagree with your typing, because I dont know anything about you. I've skimmed over two of your posts.
LOL! I'm guessing your an Enneagram Type 6.- Finally, like it or not, people like the Lytovs and McNew get the benefit of the doubt with me. They have their own sites, their own tests, profiles, articles, etc, and there's cross-linking between their sites, and they both also have what I like to call "demonstrated competence beyond a reasonable doubt". If somebody thinks they're both idiots then that's fine. Where's your site, profiles, tests, articles, etc? And more importantly, where is your dissertation tearing apart their articles and views proving them wrong to backup your accusations and name calling in the first place? Why should I believe you and not them? Not that you need to have all of that stuff for me to take you seriously, but I'd expect a little more than the 3rd-gradish personal attacks and flaming I've seen in here.
$0.02
And having a site with paraphrased profiles means absolutely NOTHING. Any McMoron can get his own webspace and write bullshit all over it. That doesnt mean that the bullshit will be true.
If you truly are an ENTj, I'm quite dissapointed.
Good one!!! If you "look at the big picture" you will see that what I said has nothing to do with school work, and everything to do with getting started and doing work. That can be anything from schoolwork, to a major marketing project, to a forensic assignment, etc.
I meant the whole selection, not just the stuff I highlighted -- "lots of enemies, then I destroy them, etc"- the whole lot reads like a pre-teen wrote it. Come on.
I'm not saying you are a pre-teen - I have no idea, nor do I care. But it was a perfectly reasonable assumption based on the evidence, and, frankly, if you can't see that and react the way you're reacting, it's just further evidence IMO.
I just mean that it's unlikely a 50-year-old would choose schoolwork as an example. A person who does work projects would probably say, "I hate starting projects at work" instead of "I hate starting schoolwork."Good one!!! If you "look at the big picture" you will see that what I said has nothing to do with school work, and everything to do with getting started and doing work. That can be anything from schoolwork, to a major marketing project, to a forensic assignment, etc.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Where is your website?
Where is your typology test?
Where are your articles?
Where are your profiles?
Is your site linked on socioniko.net?
Ability to read a book doesn't not equate to ability to comprehend said book, which is why I'm asking to see YOUR works. Any assclown can log onto a forum and call somebody stupid or ridiculous, so put up or shut up. No I don't see how his site is so stupid. I'm not an expert on socionics and never claimed to be either so my ignornace is excused. I'm just somebody passing through here to figure out their type. If it's so ridiculously stupid then please explain it to me. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as stupid as you say it is, and YOU know so much better.
Garbage in = Garbage out, just like all the rest of your posts that I've seen here.
Low and behold though, all 3 times I took his test the Type by Attribute told me I was an introvert too, because that's how I perceived myself. Functionally, ENTj is what makes the most sense, which is what mcnew's test also looks at (which you must have ignored), and upon self-reflection also makes a lot of sense too. If you can't even interpret the results of his test properly then why should I believe that you actually understood what you read in some book?
Here were my enneagram scores the last time I took it.
Yep, I got a "2" for type 6, so you were "dead on" on that one too....Code:Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9 6 3 7 1 6 2 2 6 3
And once again, any assclown with an axe to grind can log on to some forum and personally attack somebody with a bunch of BS claims. But just because you say it doesn't make it true either. Where is your proof? Where is your site? Where is your test that is "100% accurate" with enough coding that it will interpret all of the questions and methods of testing together to come out with one giant 24 point bold font RESULT dead center in the screen? Where are your articles? Where are your profiles? Doesn't appear that you have crap, so why should I believe you?
Wow, so you've read a book. That doesn't mean you understand it though, just as you didn't understand that Si is PoLR and weakest for ENxj's (not Te or Fe) and that it could be difficult deciding between those two types, just as you don't even understand how mcnew's test works in the first place (all you did is read the big font and said it's wrong and mcnew is a mcidiot), just as you don't understand... Wait a minute, what DO you understand? You've demonstrated enough intelligence here in this thread that one could put together that you're intelligent enough to get online, can manage to post on a forum that doesn't even require registration and call somebody names.
A monkey could do that.
I agree with Larceny and waddles on this... this stuff means nothing. You are just "appealing to authority"... and sometimes give authority where none should be given based on false perceptions. Also, I'm starting to think that Lytov isn't meant to be taken seriously anymore...Where is your website?
Where is your typology test?
Where are your articles?
Where are your profiles?
Is your site linked on socioniko.net?
Rocky it's *very* easy to criticize the works of others. Coming up with things that are ACTUALLY BETTER, now that's hard. My point is, if others think that everything he does is stupid or sucks, then it shouldn't be too hard to create something better. So let's see it. Enough with the talk and the name calling which is pointless. Do it better than mcnew does it. Code a better test. Write a better profile. Write articles that are more easily understood. It's not whether you "have" them or not and have "authority" because of that, but rather I'd just like to see the better ones and how mcnew's are so bad. Again, shouldn't be too hard, given how stupid and incompetent mcnew is...
:wink:
Also, what's your problem with Lytov now?
Edit: I've seen people blasting mcnew and socion.info here. I've also seen whomever writes socionics.com getting blasted here. And now the Lytovs and socioniko.net aren't meant to be taken seriously? good grief. So if somebody is trying to learn about socionics on the Internet, then where exactly do you suggest people go? Just this forum? BTW, much of the content on this site outside the forum is taken directly from the Lytovs and socioniko.net.
I did write profiles.
http://socion.info/ISTP2.html
http://socion.info/ISTJ2.html
As for "articles", I guess you could look at some stuff people post on this site as "articles". And I don't have money (or time) enough to set up a website.
As for Lytov, the profiles on his site were not written by him. And there are other sites you can find socionics information, such as this one:
Russian Site.
Also, I have no problem with socionics.com much, except for their use of acronyms such as ESFj and ESFp.
And if you really want to know (this is going to sound like attacking, but it's the truth), much of McNew's test was not his work. He pretty much took the function descriptions from socionics.com and put them in his test as questions. I also agree that I never saw the point in the "Model-X with weak functions" thing, really. You could learn about the Model-X from socionics.com. What I DO like is how McNew's test was bringing people into socionics, but now people expect him to have some higher knowledge of socionics because of the test, and because he set up a website, which is not true. Hell, Waddlesworth ran away with the "Most Knowledgable" award on this site, but he doesn't get any credit from people who were not around this board for awile (when he should). I think the only vote McNew got was from darklord, who strated this whole thing, and is one of the "post-mcnew-test" people.
EDIT// I forgot to mention that I don't dislike Lytov's site, just noting that it is not his work, mostly. Also, I did add a section into McNew's test (although I don't really believe in testing anymore more...). And, IMO, I have added some decent stuff in the past.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=849
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...9663dd7d854cd2
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1435
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...a2b805785f35cb
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1158
Yes I've seen your posts here, the one you just did about J/P (very well-written), and you've come across as somebody worth listening to on this site. You have substance which is far more than the others here seem to have.
Okay, so that's one part of his site (if you say so), but what about the rest of it? There's tons more. What about his "Introduction to Socionics" article? And their own test (ZIP)? They state in the profiles where the original source was and that they just translated it into English so I see no problem there, and no reason to not take them seriously...
I couldn't even find where the functional descriptions are at on that site, but even if that's true I don't think it's plagiarism. He created "new work" from an existing work. And you don't just slap in the questions. What about Strong vs Weak bias checking? What about the algorithms to calculate likely type pairings? I don't think that would have been at socionics.com too.
I posted this thread because I wanted 2nd opinions on my type because I knew that he wasn't a "God", that he's only human, has his flaws just like everybody else, and in the end he's just another person with an opinion on the Internet no matter how well-informed he is or not. M.D.s and PhD's disagree with each other all the time, so no matter how good he is there still could be some critical detail that he may have missed, hence asking here too. I value everybody's opinion, not just rmcnew's. For that matter, still don't see any real disagreements from anybody here on me being an ENTj...
Okay fair enough, and I'm sorry that I wasn't around back then. But all that proves is that there are people here that know their stuff too, which I never doubed or questioned. It doesn't prove that Reuben doesn't too though. I've seen some forums where those considered "gurus" honestly didn't know jack crap about what they were talking about and I felt bad for all of the people being grossly misled to all the wrong conclusions on things. This is not one of those forums, and thank God for that. That was one piss poor excuse for a forum.
What this is looking like to me is that Reuben is getting way too much credit from newbies not unlike myself, and the other brainiacs here (there are many) are feeling left out and betrayed in a way. To that I'll just say that it takes initiative, courage, and a lot of time and effort to go to the trouble of putting up your own site. He felt he had enough "stuff" to pile into his own site, so why bother sticking with a forum where it'll all be lost after whatever he posts gets bumped off of page 1 unless it's well organized in a sticky/FAQ, or unless somebody just happens to run across it in search? It's painful to see somebody asking about what you just posted extensively about the week before, except they didn't see it because it's on page 2 now. Hence the motivation for creating your own site.
There are a number of topics on which I'm extremely well-versed and could easily start my own sites about them. I've also largely stopped posting on forums relating to these topics because anything that comes up I've probably posted about 10 times already and it's been there done that, so why bother for an 11th time? If I really wanted to, I could create my own site. But I just don't care enough, am too busy, etc. But somebody else could, "stealing" all of my ideas. As long as they're not directly plagiarising my posts as their own original work (mcnew's test is not socionics.com's "original" work) there's not much I can do besides blame myself for not taking the initiative to do something that I "could have" myself. If I knew more than they did but they were still getting all the credit, would I be pissed? Probably, but I never took the initiative to do a site myself....
If Waddles is as smart as everybody thinks he is, then he ought to stop wasting his time posting here and instead get his stuff "out there" on his own site where it won't be mixed in with zillions of other posts if it really is that good. I know who Lytov is. I know who Sergei Ganin is. I know who Reuben McNew is. Who the hell is Waddlesworth?? Do you see the benefit of having your own site now? :wink: This fits right in with "first to market" theory. If you recognize a demand, and get a reasonably good product out you'll win the vast majority of the market share. If something "better" comes along but it's too late, guess what? You're dead in the water. Anybody remember VHS vs Beta? What about DVD vs Divx? Maybe Reuben's stuff isn't the best, but at least it's out there, people can find it easily, it does have original works and one very comprehensive test, and it also looks at things in a way that others don't. There's nothing wrong with that.
Same with you Rocky... You've got a lot of good stuff here. Stop posting here (for awhile) and start building your own site. You seem to have a knack for the VI stuff. Make a site based on that. When somebody posts a "how 2 VI" question then you can just link them to your own site which you control and can update as needed in clear view to everybody. Or maybe there should be better organization of threads and stickys here. how bout an FAQ with links to commonly discussed topics where waddlesworth posted a bunch of his stuff so that it isn't lost on newbs like myself?
OK, fair enough to everything in your above post. Except I would like to add this:
http://socionics.com/advan/prof/prof.htm
The + and - profiles above were originally strong and weak function descriptions for each type (the site was remodeled). That's where McNew originally got them from.
Precisely my point!
Rocky you have some great stuff here, but how the heck is a newb like myself that's trying to figure out what type they are when all of this stuff is lost in the forum somehwere? Even if I could search to find it, how does a newb know what to search for? I have probably a few dozen good threads with original works on other forums with TONS of information, but even with stickys/FAQs it's still missed by the majority of people. If I make my own site with all of *MY* work, then I can link it in my sig and people will find it and use it as a reference, and see it everytime they post. Look at Reuben's sig... Do you think I have his site bookmarked? Now what about those individual forum threads that you posted, or yours or other's methods of testing? Do you think I have those bookmarked? :wink:
Rocky pretty much summed up most of it.
Test results dont mean much.
As for why I dont write desciptions? Id rather NOT write a description at all, than to waste time paraphrasing and stealing material from other people.
As for typing people. I've typed MANY people. All across the board. The difference is that I dont waste money on webspace. The other difference is that my typing is accurate. I would never list the entire cast of Friends as Intuitives. That's just ridiculous.
like ive already said...just because you buy a bit of webspace for 15$, that doesnt make your opinion correct. ANYONE can make a website. it doesnt mean youre a professional.
Reuben, here is a critical flaw, and where the door is also wide open for others (hint). You have a lot of great stuff on your site (in my view), but much of it is completely lost on a newbie like me because it's just not put into layman's terms very well. Somebody else who's much more well versed than I am could pickup on your ideas, give you credit as a source, but explain it 100x better than you did while also expanding on it and then guess what? They have a new and original work that they'll be getting credit for. You'll just be a source.
You may see patterns in things and you may also have some great ideas which others might not have thought of or seen before, but if you're the only one that understands them then what good are they to anybody else? And if somebody comes along that can explain it 100x better they'll get the credit and the mass appeal, not you. Your test provides by far more information than any other FREE test out there, but the results are seriously lacking inI would love to see some bar graphs in there, and newbs like myself often have no clue what the hell
type thingies aren't important and will instead just look at the bold font type by attribute answer, or at the functional pairing scores. The first time I took your test I had no clue what the hell I was looking at. The only thing I understood was the big bold INFP letters. You oughta make the test results much more easily understood.
I have some analysis software in Excel that I wrote myself, and takes the specifications for two cars and a chassis dyno plot and then plots thrust curves, aerodynamic drag, and overall acceleration, and it does that for all speeds and all gears and includes every factor you could think of (vehicle weight, driver weight, fuel weight, frontal area, drag coefficient (Cd) chassis dyno (engine power) curves, gear ratios, final drive, tire sizes, tire sag factor, tire drag, etc). So you can take Car A, compare it to Car B, and then see where each car is both strong and weak compared to the other. It's harcore
I realize that's apples to oranges, but there's definitely room for improvement in your test. I would love to see you do a "HOW TO" article on how exactly you look at somebody's test results, along with a "Socionics 101" summary and put it right in the test results plain as day. Along with some of those bar graphs. You do realize that there's not even a max/min scale on your test right? I mean, is 30 as high as it goes? I've seen -2 for my Si, huh?? You mean it goes below 0? Okay so what's the lowest possible score then? Hence, a nice little bar chart for all the functions would fix that.
Besides what Steve had said above, I think that it would be fair of me to say that I have given most people here ample opportunity to post their own socionics articles on the socion.info website. In fact, my origional incentive was to make many of the articles a community effort, with people of their own various types producing their own material and their own typology descriptions. I knew that if I were to have to write most of the articles, then there would be the potential of distorted bias, and I did not want that. I wanted ample representation and I did get that to a certain degree, but not perfectly. I do admit, some things still need to be improved upon. Although, even waddlesworth I have given opportunities to write for the socion.info website. But, he has always seemed more concerned with criticising my own efforts than for boistering his own. Instead, the only real output he has given me goes for the most part like this: http://socion.info/waddlesworthcontr...ondotinfo.html ... the offer is still extended to him if he ever decided to produce something worthwhile.
And also, as far as the test questions for the socion.info type test ... I basically got those by comparing questions from several diffrent test and also during brainstorming sessions in which I would read various descriptions of the functions, some MBTI and Socionics based [some from Gulenko] and think of the diffrent way I could word questions for weak and strong function. I suppose some might want to use that as ammunition to criticise my efforts and to make accusations of plagerism, but who is to say that there is anything new under the sun? I could have popped that stuff out of thin air, and I probably would have still been accused of plagerization by some disgruntled entity. I think it is just something to be expected when you are putting yourself out into full-view like I have been doing.
As far as my modified model-x with weak functions, it is basically a mixture of model-a and model-x. I conbined the two after I realized that it is easier to explain the intertype relationships and the ordering of functions for my own purposes and I consider it a tool. I like to create tools, charts, and I feel there is a need for that in helping people along.
Another thing that has not been mentioned is that most of my motivation stems from the fact that I need to experiement. People look at what I do and do not realize that much of what I have done is an attempt to prove socionics to myself, and I like to combine diffrent materials to make things out of them in the process. If I discover a concept that is useful for me, I like to leave it out in the open where other people can see the same concept and use it as a tool to make their own discoveries. In fact, I would not really consider anything on the socion.info website anything more than a collection of tools, and I would not say it is anything else. If you do not like to use tools, then you may not like the socion.info website. I think what it comes down to is personal preferance, some like the socion.info website and find it useful for them, some do not. I can not force people to accept everything that is there, but that does not give others the right to tell me that I wasted my time, because I know better.
You know, I honestly can not disagree with this and I have felt this has been a problem for some time. And I do lackReuben, here is a critical flaw, and where the door is also wide open for others (hint). You have a lot of great stuff on your site (in my view), but much of it is completely lost on a newbie like me because it's just not put into layman's terms very well. Somebody else who's much more well versed than I am could pickup on your ideas, give you credit as a source, but explain it 100x better than you did while also expanding on it and then guess what? They have a new and original work that they'll be getting credit for. You'll just be a source.
You may see patterns in things and you may also have some great ideas which others might not have thought of or seen before, but if you're the only one that understands them then what good are they to anybody else? And if somebody comes along that can explain it 100x better they'll get the credit and the mass appeal, not you. Your test provides by far more information than any other FREE test out there, but the results are seriously lacking in
I have some analysis software in Excel that I wrote myself, and takes the specifications for two cars and a chassis dyno plot and then plots thrust curves, aerodynamic drag, and overall acceleration, and it does that for all speeds and all gears and includes every factor you could think of (vehicle weight, driver weight, fuel weight, frontal area, drag coefficient (Cd) chassis dyno (engine power) curves, gear ratios, final drive, tire sizes, tire sag factor, tire drag, etc). So you can take Car A, compare it to Car B, and then see where each car is both strong and weak compared to the other. It's harcore
I realize that's apples to oranges, but there's definitely room for improvement in your test. I would love to see you do a "HOW TO" article on how exactly you look at somebody's test results, along with a "Socionics 101" summary and put it right in the test results plain as day. Along with some of those bar graphs. You do realize that there's not even a max/min scale on your test right? I mean, is 30 as high as it goes? I've seen -2 for my Si, huh?? You mean it goes below 0? Okay so what's the lowest possible score then? Hence, a nice little bar chart for all the functions would fix that.oriented ...
By the way, I am planning to make my typology test open source here sometime soon. I think it would help to have other programmers help to improve the code and to make variations of the code in which they would in turn share with others. But, there are a few things I need to do first before I can do this...
what exactly is the problem people have with mcrew's site?
im lost
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote