Is my type INFp or INTp?

[Joy]

You are talking about this thread in an I.M. chat?

No, someone who PMed me and let me know that it could sound like a threat (as this person knew that I wouldn't have intended it that way).

[crazedrat]

PM, IM, .... let's get to the point: are you a lesbian?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What, you disagree? You think its a bad point?.........
Tell me Elro, since you decided to enter into my fucking conversation, the likelyhood in your mind of the following:
1: A person is wrong about their type, yet still knowledgable enough about socionics to seek out this forum
2: This person read every intertype relation, experiences them in real life on a daily basis (probably has family which they've typed..), and didn't notice a discrepancy... where if they had their type wrong, every description should be wrong
3: That someone who can argue functions cannot identify their own function use
4: That you can be sure of a persons type through the limited interaction experience online, enough to rationally upheave and reject said persons assertions of their type in favor of your personal observations
5: That this would all happen twice, with two ILI-Nis (me and Java), both times Joy being the main persecutor

I think maybe what one or two people have looked to identify here is that Java has said that he knows MBTT well but is new to socionics, so looking to make sure there is no confusion of what we mean by the functions names and definitions being the same as what others are referring to on socionics, and what Java is referring to.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I think maybe what one or two people have looked to identify here is that Java has said that he knows MBTT well but is new to socionics, so looking to make sure there is no confusion of what we mean by the functions names and definitions being the same as what others are referring to on socionics, and what Java is referring to.

Hey Cyclops,

I'm a fast reader.

[Phaedrus]

I already thought I knew that much... you seem like an ENTp

So almost everyone tells me.

And that would both explain why you identify with Paul James's INTP type profile to a significant extent (ENTps tend to identify with INTP type descriptions, especially that one). At the same time it would prove that it does not describe a LII.

I am giving you some rope here, Elro, showing you the direction in which to look for the truth. I hope you realize that. So, don't fall for the temptation, please ... with the rope I mean.

[Elro]

And that would both explain why you identify with Paul James's INTP type profile to a significant extent (ENTps tend to identify with INTP type descriptions, especially that one). At the same time it would prove that it does not describe a LII.

How would it prove this?

[Phaedrus]

How would it prove this?

Because ILEs and LIIs are very different. For one thing they have opposing temperaments. You identify with the clearly described irrational (P) behaviour in that profile, a LII doesn't. A correctly typed LII does not identify with James's INTP description.

[Enters Laughing]

The paragraph you just wrote makes... absolutely no fucking-shit-in-a-bucket-sense.



........K. (Calm down and don't cuss him out, Ian)
Answer me this:
Suppose there are two socionics tests... Socionic test A, and Socionic test B. (which yes, there are different socionics tests). Suppose a person took both of these tests. Are you telling me they would, without a doubt, correlate 100 percent with one another? (The results..)
The obvious answer is: No.
Why? This is a matter of test integrity. It has nothing to do with socionics theory, myers briggs theory, or fucking Carl Jung... it has to do with how the test was written, and that it is flawed, and that it doesn't coherently express or fully penetrate to its intended theoretical purpose.
k?
What this means: That if an MBTI test doesn't correlate with a socionics test.. this says nothing on whether socionics and MBTI theory are compatible or incompatible. It only speaks to the tests themselves. Not the theory. k?
Furthermore, they do correlate...
so again, (yes again).. what is your point?

If you take a test after six years, the second time you take it, it is basically a new test because you won't be able to remember how you answered the questions.

If you take two seperate tests which are testing the same thing on the same day, and there is a lower correlation between the scores then between the two test results taken six years apart, then clearly there is something wrong. Tests are calibrated to give the most reliable questions for the dichotomy you are trying to measure. If MBTI and the Big Five both use Jungian definitions for extroversion\introversion, you'd expect a higher degree of correlation than 74%. 74% might be fairly high, but it isn't as high as the 77%.

[Joy]

Lord Java the 3rd: IEI (ILE would be an unlikely second choice)
phaedrus: LSI
crazedrat: clearly EIE

I invite you to agree with, disagree with, and/or criticize me to your heart's content. This topic is going nowhere, so chances are good I won't be back.

[Expat]

difference between ILI and IEI is simple.

Ask them if they are proud of their logical approach, or their humanistic approach.

ILI will say: Yeah I'm logical and I'm proud of it.

IEI will answer: Of course I'm not logical, it's harsh and wrong to not include people. I hate being logical.

Rubbish.

[Logos]

Rubbish.

Of course it's rubbish. I'm not sure if anyone apart from Jarno seriously considered that statement to be valid.

[Expat]

Of course it's rubbish. I'm not sure if anyone apart from Jarno seriously considered that statement to be valid.

I'm relieved (seriously).

I think the only type that might say something like that - and on occasions, out of exasperation, perhaps - would be the IEE.

[crazedrat]

Joy = clearly fucking retarded

[Logos]

I'm relieved (seriously).

I think the only type that might say something like that - and on occasions, out of exasperation, perhaps - would be the IEE.

Was it niffweed or you who thought that Jarno may be an LII? I cannot honestly remember. But I must say that Gamma quadra has my sympathies for the "Nouveau Gamma" influx.

@crazedat: While I agree that sometimes Joy has a habit of sidestepping the issues that you present that seem out of context and non-issues by turning it into a "proof" regarding your type, I would hardly say that Joy is "clearly fucking retarded." She can be frustrating, as I am many times as well, but not clearly fucking retarded.

[crazedrat]

74% might be fairly high, but it isn't as high as the 77%.

...... it's not a percentage score. It's a correlation score. why are you building a big theory around a 3 point score difference

[Expat]

Was it niffweed or you who thought that Jarno may be an LII? I cannot honestly remember.

I never made that suggestion as far as I remember. Not sure about niffweed.

But I must say that Gamma quadra has my sympathies for the "Nouveau Gamma" influx.

Why, thanks.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

But I must say that Gamma quadra has my sympathies for the "Nouveau Gamma" influx.

Do you mean new gamma members, or people who incorrectly think they are gamma? If you're referring to me, I'm going to note that in a negative light. I'm not happy. Btw, I can totally tell that you're EIE, what now?! Oh noes, your world is corrupting because other peoples minds control your type. Defend it? Nah, you have enough status in this forum to lean on.

Pick on someone else with your title. If anything, Gamma needs some more threads to keep them from dying. Sympathy. Really.

Why don't you do something 'constructive'.

[Jarno]

hmm since my statement about how an IEI might react was rubbish,
I guess I can't be an IEI myself afterall...

[Logos]

Do you mean new gamma members, or people who incorrectly think they are gamma? If you're referring to me, I'm going to note that in a negative light. I'm not happy. Btw, I can totally tell that you're EIE, what now?! Oh noes, your world is corrupting because other peoples minds control your type. Defend it? Nah, you have enough status in this forum to lean on.

Pick on someone else with your title. If anything, Gamma needs some more threads to keep them from dying. Sympathy. Really.

Why don't you do something 'constructive'.

No comment.

[Enters Laughing]

...... it's not a percentage score. It's a correlation score. why are you building a big theory around a 3 point score difference

There isn't actually any difference between a 'correlation score' and a percentage correlation. A correlation of 74% is the same as a correlarion of 0.74 on a scale of -1 to 1.

Not only is it a three point difference, it is a gap of six years.

And you're the one who assumes that Socionics and MBTI must be the same because they must be the same...

[crazedrat]

There isn't actually any difference between a 'correlation score' and a percentage correlation. A correlation of 74% is the same as a correlarion of 0.74 on a scale of -1 to 1.

Not only is it a three point difference, it is a gap of six years.

And you're the one who assumes that Socionics and MBTI must be the same because they must be the same...

a percentage score is not exponential... a correlation score is exponential. Meaning the upper limits of the score are more variant then a linear interpretation of the scores scale would lead one to believe... it is this linear interpretation (and of only a 3 point difference) which you are basing your entire argument on.
k, next.
I um.. am the one who assumes socionics and MBTI are the same because......... they must be the same?
What?
.
No, I think their functions are the same, in that they have a common phenomenon they are attempting to describe. We have said nothing about the functions themselves in this exchange... if you would like to discuss them, and give me your ideas (you know, get to the heart of the matter) i promise to seem interested.
Now for the part where I reword and repeat myself:
in one instance we have socionic test A being taken 7 years apart, so as to treat them as "seperate tests" (and although this assumption is somewhat flawed, a discussion on this is beyond the scope of what we are doing now)... with a .77 correlation.
In another instance we have socionic test A and socionic test B being taken simultaneously with .X correlation
In another instance we have socionic test A and MBTI test A being taken simultaneously with a .74 correlation.
You have not specified X.
It is necessary to specify X, in order to establish differences in scoring related to testing, but unrelated to theory.
Furthermore, if you were to specify X, and it turned out X was a certain number of points or more higher then .74 (this will be dependent on whatever the standard error is for this, which you haven't said anything about yet) all you would prove is there is a difference in the testing methods of MBTI and socionics. You would prove nothing about the theories themselves.
k?