Captain Levi ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

Captain Levi

Attack on Titan

in Comics

Captain Levi ~ Sakinorva Databank

Captain Levi

Attack on Titan

Comics

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

ISTP 10

ESTJ 1

6w5 6

cp5w6 3

8w9 2

cp6w5 1

1w9 1

sp/sx 5

sp/so 1

so/sx 1

LSI 9

SLI 6

LSE 2

FVLE 1

FLVE 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 66

15

11

13

7

3

17

2

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/11/04 (Sun) 11:50:44 #4041
	Oh, then I don't remember it. then most ENTP are introvert and most ISFJ are extrovert if we go by that You're mixing up disparate theories again. If whoever you're calling an ENTP scores I over E on the MBTI form, they're an more introverted than they are extraverted, and if whoever you're calling ISFJ scores E over I on the MBTI form, then they're more extraverted than they are introverted. That would make the former an INTP and the latter an ESFJ. Maybe "sociability" is the wrong word because people start thinking about social customs hearing that, but extraversion is absolutely about gregariousness and moving toward people a.k.a. sociability. i am not against N/S dichotomy because it involve a not common definition of intuition, but because this bad definition create a hierarchy (N have both a high focus on experience(it is needed for having access to imagination) and a high imagination, and S just have a high focus on experience) who will and already do make people type other according to their views, they will type those who agree with them as N and will type other as S because of the "limited scope of the sensors". This is a valid criticism, but I don't really see anything wrong the axis because while it is easy to use it maliciously, the idea that being imaginatively-oriented as opposed to concretely-oriented isn't really one that should be reinforced. There are benefits and drawbacks to being more along either side of the spectrum, and the problem really just seems to be that people don't acknolwedge that. J/P is not about being closed or open, this opposition is originally between N/S. at first J/P dichotomy is planning/ improvisation+ organization +disorganization. No, the questions might only very be hinting at that on the very surface level, but what actually ties all the various aspects of the axes toward is an overall meaning that moves toward open-endedness and closure. I misunderstood what you meant by temporal organization and thought you were going for something like Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, but you meant it more in a "why do these things go together?" kind of way. That's very valid if you look at J/P as the difference between organization and disorganization, but it isn't that. Scheduling, organizing, and avoiding improvization are all means of closing off options so that you don't keep them open-ended. The opposite means that you'd be comfortable enough with that lack of closure because you'd care much more about keeping your options open, which would cause you to go against anything that ties you down to a "decided" way of doing things. because if there is no precision some people could be easely typed as two contrary. for example let's take a misanthropic very talkative, hyghly susceptible with low agreeableness(he would be sociable if he was not so sensitive), who know how to plan his days for avoiding people but who live a total mess. he could be typed as well as I for his reclusion, T with his low agreeableness, and J for his planification, but he could be typed as the opposite for his talkativeness, his sensitivity and his environment. There are definitely people who lie very ambiguously along some axes, and the system certainly fails in that regard... but does any system not fail at some respect? It's better to look at these problems and see if there is a way to improve it. I feel like most of your criticism of MBTI really comes from a lack of understanding of what it means, and there's honestly no problem with that just so long as you're open to understanding what it does mean. And with regards to your example, what do you think your hypothetical character would score on Form M? I know you intend to create a character here that can't be properly typed, but take a look at the questions the form asks and see how they'd imagine themselves to be. Would they think they're a hard introvert? Ambiguous on F/T? Sort of J? The nice thing in MBTI is that there are easy ways to describe the holes that it doesn't cover, like how I don't really see myself as having an adaptable preference along F and T rather than any fixed preference like hard F, medium T, or right in the middle. What i will ask will appear as rude to you but it is a real question. if you seek simplicity why are you here? why are you not like most people seeing people by the prism of multi-individualness? it is far more simple to use than MBTI. if you seek simplicity in a system who try to create a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity you are condamned to loose your way. Don't misunderstand me--I'm only against the overcomplication of things that are fun because of how uncomplicated they are. I don't care about seeing "people by through a prism of multi-individualness" using typology, because typology doesn't do a great job of representing that by itself. In fact, typology only comes to be useful with respect to that idea whenever more systems come into play, not when a system is tries to complicate itself and catch everyone under its umbrellas while losing its sense of consistency. I really only care about coherence with these systems, because many of them aren't actually as coherent as they'd like to be. Whether they try to create "a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity" is something I don't care much for in typology because it never will be able to do that since there's no one single systematized way that encompasses the entirety of human personality. Or... there is, but what that is would just be living with people every day and noting the many differences each and every person has. A perfect typology would mean having a record for each and every single one of the seven billion or so people on our planet and it would essentially just be a biography for everything somebody has done, wanted to do, and planned to do. But then you'd need to eventually account on people themselves to interpret such a personality behind all the details, so what gives? There's no use in trying to do such a thing in the first place. When you say "for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity," you imply that I try to understand people through these systems, and I absolutely reject that. These systems are created from a place of trying to understand people, not the other way around.

Editing post #4041 by strawberry crisis <p>Oh, then I don't remember it.<br /> <br /> <strong>then most ENTP are introvert and most ISFJ are extrovert if we go by that </strong><br /> You're mixing up disparate theories again. If whoever you're calling an ENTP scores I over E on the MBTI form, they're an more introverted than they are extraverted, and if whoever you're calling ISFJ scores E over I on the MBTI form, then they're more extraverted than they are introverted. That would make the former an INTP and the latter an ESFJ. Maybe "sociability" is the wrong word because people start thinking about social customs hearing that, but extraversion is absolutely about gregariousness and moving toward people a.k.a. sociability.<br /> <br /> <strong>i am not against N/S dichotomy because it involve a not common definition of intuition, but because this bad definition create a hierarchy (N have both a high focus on experience(it is needed for having access to imagination) and a high imagination, and S just have a high focus on experience) who will and already do make people type other according to their views, they will type those who agree with them as N and will type other as S because of the "limited scope of the sensors". </strong><br /> This is a valid criticism, but I don't really see anything wrong the axis because while it is <em>easy</em> to use it maliciously, the idea that being imaginatively-oriented as opposed to concretely-oriented isn't really one that should be reinforced. There are benefits and drawbacks to being more along either side of the spectrum, and the problem really just seems to be that people don't acknolwedge that.<br /> <br /> <strong>J/P is not about being closed or open, this opposition is originally between N/S. at first J/P dichotomy is planning/ improvisation+ organization +disorganization. </strong><br /> No, the questions might only very be hinting at that on the very surface level, but what actually ties all the various aspects of the axes toward is an overall meaning that moves toward open-endedness and closure. I misunderstood what you meant by temporal organization and thought you were going for something like Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, but you meant it more in a "why do these things go together?" kind of way. That's very valid if you look at J/P as the difference between organization and disorganization, but it isn't that. Scheduling, organizing, and avoiding improvization are all means of <em>closing off options so that you don't keep them open-ended</em>. The opposite means that you'd be comfortable enough with that lack of closure because you'd care much more about <em>keeping your options open</em>, which would cause you to go against anything that ties you down to a "decided" way of doing things.</br> <br> <strong>because if there is no precision some people could be easely typed as two contrary.</strong> <strong>for example let's take a misanthropic very talkative, hyghly susceptible with low agreeableness(he would be sociable if he was not so sensitive), who know how to plan his days for avoiding people but who live a total mess. he could be typed as well as I for his reclusion, T with his low agreeableness, and J for his planification, but he could be typed as the opposite for his talkativeness, his sensitivity and his environment.</strong><br /> There are definitely people who lie very ambiguously along some axes, and the system certainly fails in that regard... but does any system not fail at some respect? It's better to look at these problems and see if there is a way to improve it. I feel like most of your criticism of MBTI really comes from a lack of understanding of what it means, and there's honestly no problem with that just so long as you're open to understanding what it does mean. And with regards to your example, what do you think your hypothetical character would score on Form M? I know you intend to create a character here that can't be properly typed, but take a look at <a href="http://sakinorva.net/test/formq">the questions the form asks</a> and see how they'd imagine themselves to be. Would they think they're a hard introvert? Ambiguous on F/T? Sort of J? The nice thing in MBTI is that there are easy ways to describe the holes that it doesn't cover, like how I don't really see myself as having an adaptable preference along F and T rather than any fixed preference like hard F, medium T, or right in the middle.<br> <br> <strong>What i will ask will appear as rude to you but it is a real question. if you seek simplicity why are you here? why are you not like most people seeing people by the prism of multi-individualness? it is far more simple to use than MBTI. if you seek simplicity in a system who try to create a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity you are condamned to loose your way.</strong><br /> Don't misunderstand me--I'm only against the overcomplication of things that are fun because of how uncomplicated they are. I don't care about seeing "people by through a prism of multi-individualness" <strong>using typology</strong>, because typology doesn't do a great job of representing that by itself. In fact, typology only comes to be useful with respect to that idea whenever more systems come into play, not when a system is tries to complicate itself and catch everyone under its umbrellas while losing its sense of consistency. I really only care about coherence with these systems, because many of them aren't actually as coherent as they'd like to be. Whether they try to create "a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity" is something I don't care much for in typology because it never will be able to do that since there's no one single systematized way that encompasses the entirety of human personality. Or... there is, but what that is would just be living with people every day and noting the many differences each and every person has. A perfect typology would mean having a record for each and every single one of the seven billion or so people on our planet and it would essentially just be a biography for everything somebody has done, wanted to do, and planned to do. But then you'd need to eventually account on people themselves to interpret such a personality behind all the details, so what gives? There's no use in trying to do such a thing in the first place. When you say "for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity," you imply that I try to understand people through these systems, and I absolutely reject that. These systems are created from a place of trying to understand people, not the other way around.</p>
Replying to post #4041 by strawberry crisis

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/11/04 (Sun) 03:11:31 #4027
	i already have a discussion with you ON P-D (not in mbti base). "and introversion/extraversion basically just means general sociability and openness. " then most ENTP are introvert and most ISFJ are extrovert if we go by that i am not against N/S dichotomy because it involve a not common definition of intuition, but because this bad definition create a hierarchy (N have both a high focus on experience(it is needed for having access to imagination) and a high imagination, and S just have a high focus on experience) who will and already do make people type other according to their views, they will type those who agree with them as N and will type other as S because of the "limited scope of the sensors". "It's about open-endedness vs closure. " J/P is not about being closed or open, this opposition is originally between N/S. at first J/P dichotomy is planning/ improvisation+ organization +disorganization. "And how do you even type based on temporal organization? That just sounds like another hazy mess that no one really knows anything about." one of the question in the MBTI test is about temporal organization (the question about ability to finish a work at time). "Why does it need to?" (for both utilization of this scentence ) because if there is no precision some people could be easely typed as two contrary. for example let's take a misanthropic very talkative, hyghly susceptible with low agreeableness(he would be sociable if he was not so sensitive), who know how to plan his days for avoiding people but who live a total mess. he could be typed as well as I for his reclusion, T with his low agreeableness, and J for his planification, but he could be typed as the opposite for his talkativeness, his sensitivity and his environment. What i will ask will appear as rude to you but it is a real question. if you seek simplicity why are you here? why are you not like most people seeing people by the prism of multi-individualness? it is far more simple to use than MBTI. if you seek simplicity in a system who try to create a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity you are condamned to loose your way.

Editing post #4027 by fg <p>i already have a discussion with you ON P-D (not in mbti base).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>"and introversion/extraversion basically just means general sociability and openness. " </strong>then<strong> </strong>most ENTP<strong> </strong>are introvert and most ISFJ are extrovert if we go by that</p> <p> i am not against N/S dichotomy because it involve a not common definition of intuition, but because this bad definition create a hierarchy (N have both a high focus on experience(it is needed for having access to imagination) and a high imagination, and S just have a high focus on experience) who will and already do make people type other according to their views, they will type those who agree with them as N and will type other as S because of the "limited scope of the sensors".</p> <p><strong>"It's about open-endedness vs closure. "</strong></p> <p> J/P is not about being closed or open, this opposition is originally between N/S. at first J/P dichotomy is planning/ improvisation+ organization +disorganization. <strong>"And how do you even type based on temporal organization? That just sounds like another hazy mess that no one really knows anything about."</strong> one of the question in the MBTI test is about temporal organization (the question about ability to finish a work at time).</p> <p><strong>"Why does it need to?" </strong>(for both utilization of this scentence ) because if there is no precision some people could be easely typed as two contrary.</p> <p>for example let's take a misanthropic very talkative, hyghly susceptible with low agreeableness(he would be sociable if he was not so sensitive), who know how to plan his days for avoiding people but who live a total mess. he could be typed as well as I for his reclusion, T with his low agreeableness, and J for his planification, but he could be typed as the opposite for his talkativeness, his sensitivity and his environment.</p> <p> </p> <p>What i will ask will appear as rude to you but it is a real question. if you seek simplicity why are you here? why are you not like most people seeing people by the prism of multi-individualness? it is far more simple to use than MBTI.</p> <p>if you seek simplicity in a system who try to create a map for understanding something as labyrinthic as humanity you are condamned to loose your way.</p>
Replying to post #4027 by fg

edza ENTJ 8w7 SLE 2018/11/04 (Sun) 00:49:56 #4020
I don't think he fits LSI particularly well: despite the memes he does not actually take a hands on approach to create order, and even in the memes it is that lack of cleanliness bothers him at a personal level (in what appears to be a lot more of a Socionics Si way). Ti leading types tend to have a lot more conviction in what they see as the right way on a level above "this is filthy which bothers me" which he mostly lacks, however it is possible he can be a Te leading type (LSE, although SLI may fit as well). He's also not weak on Se, which makes SLE type plausible, although his modesty on issues concerning power seem to make that a poor fit. MBTI P is also about leaving options open (which he does), I think "works according to the strategy of Erwin" while being generally correct is more just about military hierarchy - the relationship between him and Erwin is he is basically the leader of the special operations team which ad hoc responds to demands outside of the routine, and he's given a lot of liberty in how to operate from within this role probably because that's where he works best. He even emphasizes when training Eren not how to follow orders but how to make decisions in the moment, and this seems to be a constant theme in how he prioritizes this spontaneous decision making. Rigidity in itself isn't much of an (MBTI) trait and it seems that despite being uncompromising and picky on certain things, it's not related to making plans, plotting out things with specificity, taking systematic approaches to problem solving etc. In fact he's quite the opposite on the major P/J things.

Editing post #4020 by edza <p>I don't think he fits LSI particularly well: despite the memes he does not actually take a hands on approach to create order, and even in the memes it is that lack of cleanliness bothers him at a personal level (in what appears to be a lot more of a Socionics Si way). Ti leading types tend to have a lot more conviction in what <strong>they</strong> see as the right way on a level above "this is filthy which bothers me" which he mostly lacks, however it is possible he can be a Te leading type (LSE, although SLI may fit as well). He's also not weak on Se, which makes SLE type plausible, although his modesty on issues concerning power seem to make that a poor fit.<br /> <br /> MBTI P is also about leaving options open (which he does), I think "works according to the strategy of Erwin" while being generally correct is more just about military hierarchy - the relationship between him and Erwin is he is basically the leader of the special operations team which ad hoc responds to demands outside of the routine, and he's given a lot of liberty in how to operate from within this role probably because that's where he works best.<br /> <br /> He even emphasizes when training Eren not how to follow orders but how to make decisions in the moment, and this seems to be a constant theme in how he prioritizes this spontaneous decision making. Rigidity in itself isn't much of an (MBTI) trait and it seems that despite being uncompromising and picky on certain things, it's not related to making plans, plotting out things with specificity, taking systematic approaches to problem solving etc. In fact he's quite the opposite on the major P/J things.</p>
Replying to post #4020 by edza

	Khel NEET owo space TIT 2018/11/03 (Sat) 22:35:27 #4017
	@Zal This site is the only one I know that allows cohabitation between those two interpretations of MBTI, as well as many other stuff type-tards enjoy, why do you have to get triggered upon a bunch of data on an internet server just because your favourite one just isn't the first to show when you browse it (as if it wasn't the second) ? I wonder if MBTI has a special attraction power towards immature people.

Editing post #4017 by Khel <p>@Zal This site is the only one I know that allows cohabitation between those two interpretations of MBTI, as well as many other stuff type-tards enjoy, why do you have to get triggered upon a bunch of data on an internet server just because your favourite one just isn't the first to show when you browse it (as if it wasn't the second) ?</p> <p>I wonder if MBTI has a special attraction power towards immature people.</p>
Replying to post #4017 by Khel

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/11/03 (Sat) 19:52:24 #4014
	Hahahahaha that's actually great @fg I don't think we had a discussion because you never responded to my first reply to your comment on mbtibase... at least as far as I know. i think a system more closed and who don't englobe exactly all type of individuals is better than a system with dichotomy as imprecise or controversy as the four letter, who can lead us as well as the incapacity to make someone fit into a box as well as the ability to put anybody in any box. How does a system that doesn't allow some people to be typed superior to one that does? Precision that doesn't hit the mark isn't useful for categorizing people. I/E don't incorpore the distinction between introversion/extroversion in an formal environment and extroversion/introversion into a formal environment . Why does it need to? Something I've liked about MBTI is that its four facets are straightforward and easy to work with, and introversion/extraversion basically just means general sociability and openness. Would you incorporate your idea into the existing axis? If so, how? You'd be diverging from how it's currently defined, so you'd have to find a way to create an new umbrella definition that describes the axis and its two poles correctly. I think if you wanted to make sure there were more logical consistency, you would just add another axis for it. But I would then argue 1) I/E being split like that would need to be justified by a genuine trend in personality 2) adding another axis that is too similar to another unnecessarily complicates a system by having too strong an internal trend (like how N+P/S+J are kind of guilty of). MBTI's definition of intuition is closer to imagination rather than the original term of it, but it cause a problem because imagination is the result of synthetisation of experience (sensation ==>S) so this dichotomy is weak too It's weak because it doesn't resemble the original definition of intuition? Yes, imagination is a result of synthesizing experiences, but that doesn't contradict what the system tests for at all. If you do think that, you probably don't understand what intuition stands for in MBTI. the T/F dichotomy is also clumsy because it assimilate feeling with agreeableness and oppose T to it, while people can be agreeable because of a processus of rationnalization that make them think that they have to be sympathetic for pragmatic reason of association, and some people score low on agreeableness because they are highly susceptible (feelings here!) I also dislike the T/F dichotomy for similar reasons, but I would just describe it as thinking and feeling not fitting well on opposite sides of a spectrum. the J/P dichotomy don't take in account the difference spatial organization and temporal organization. Why does it need to? It's about open-endedness vs closure. And how do you even type based on temporal organization? That just sounds like another hazy mess that no one really knows anything about.

Editing post #4014 by strawberry crisis <p>Hahahahaha that's actually great<br /> <br /> @fg I don't think we had a discussion because you never responded to my first reply to your comment on mbtibase... at least as far as I know.<br /> <br /> <strong>i think a system more closed and who don't englobe exactly all type of individuals is better than a system with dichotomy as imprecise or controversy as the four letter, who can lead us as well as the incapacity to make someone fit into a box as well as the ability to put anybody in any box. </strong><br /> How does a system that doesn't allow some people to be typed superior to one that does? Precision that doesn't hit the mark isn't useful for categorizing people.<br /> <br /> <strong>I/E don't incorpore the distinction between introversion/extroversion in an formal environment and extroversion/introversion into a formal environment . </strong><br /> Why does it need to? Something I've liked about MBTI is that its four facets are straightforward and easy to work with, and introversion/extraversion basically just means general sociability and openness. Would you incorporate your idea into the existing axis? If so, how? You'd be diverging from how it's currently defined, so you'd have to find a way to create an new umbrella definition that describes the axis and its two poles correctly. I think if you wanted to make sure there were more logical consistency, you would just add another axis for it. But I would then argue 1) I/E being split like that would need to be justified by a genuine trend in personality 2) adding another axis that is too similar to another unnecessarily complicates a system by having too strong an internal trend (like how N+P/S+J are kind of guilty of).<br /> <br /> <strong>MBTI's definition of intuition is closer to imagination rather than the original term of it, but it cause a problem because imagination is the result of synthetisation of experience (sensation ==>S) so this dichotomy is weak too</strong><br /> It's weak because it doesn't resemble the original definition of intuition? Yes, imagination is a result of synthesizing experiences, but that doesn't contradict what the system tests for at all. If you <em>do</em> think that, you probably don't understand what intuition stands for in MBTI.<br /> <br /> <strong>the T/F dichotomy is also clumsy because it assimilate feeling with agreeableness and oppose T to it, while people can be agreeable because of a processus of rationnalization that make them think that they have to be sympathetic for pragmatic reason of association, and some people score low on agreeableness because they are highly susceptible (feelings here!)</strong><br /> I also dislike the T/F dichotomy for similar reasons, but I would just describe it as <em>thinking</em> and <em>feeling</em> not fitting well on opposite sides of a spectrum.<br /> <br /> <strong>the J/P dichotomy don't take in account the difference spatial organization and temporal organization.</strong><br /> Why does it need to? It's about open-endedness vs closure. And how do you even type based on temporal organization? That just sounds like another hazy mess that no one really knows anything about.</p>
Replying to post #4014 by strawberry crisis

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/11/03 (Sat) 19:27:32 #4013
	zal, i just have to warn you if you don't know that Socionics =/= CF because function don't have the same definition despite sharing the same name in socionics and in Cognitive functions. i agree with the fact that Levi is both LSI and ISTP, but i have to warn you that this association is not systematic and is also not that common. for convince you if you have to i refere myself to this scentence from a socionist who studied the difference between MBTI and socionics"What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI. Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things). For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful. "http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/model-a.html

Editing post #4013 by fg <p>zal, i just have to warn you if you don't know that Socionics =/= CF because function don't have the same definition despite sharing the same name in socionics and in Cognitive functions. i agree with the fact that Levi is both LSI and ISTP, but i have to warn you that this association is not systematic and is also not that common. for convince you if you have to i refere myself to this scentence from a socionist who studied the difference between MBTI and socionics"What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI. Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things). For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful. "http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/model-a.html </p>
Replying to post #4013 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/11/03 (Sat) 17:55:29 #4010
	we already had this discussion, but i think a system more closed and who don't englobe exactly all type of individuals is better than a system with dichotomy as imprecise or controversy as the four letter, who can lead us as well as the incapacity to make someone fit into a box as well as the ability to put anybody in any box. I/E don't incorpore the distinction between introversion/extroversion in an formal environment and extroversion/introversion into a formal environment . MBTI's definition of intuition is closer to imagination rather than the original term of it, but it cause a problem because imagination is the result of synthetisation of experience (sensation ==>S) so this dichotomy is weak too, the T/F dichotomy is also clumsy because it assimilate feeling with agreeableness and oppose T to it, while people can be agreeable because of a processus of rationnalization that make them think that they have to be sympathetic for pragmatic reason of association, and some people score low on agreeableness because they are highly susceptible (feelings here!). the J/P dichotomy don't take in account the difference spatial organization and temporal organization.

Editing post #4010 by fg <p>we already had this discussion, but i think a system more closed and who don't englobe exactly all type of individuals is better than a system with dichotomy as imprecise or controversy as the four letter, who can lead us as well as the incapacity to make someone fit into a box as well as the ability to put anybody in any box. I/E don't incorpore the distinction between introversion/extroversion in an formal environment and extroversion/introversion into a formal environment . MBTI's definition of intuition is closer to imagination rather than the original term of it, but it cause a problem because imagination is the result of synthetisation of experience (sensation ==>S) so this dichotomy is weak too, the T/F dichotomy is also clumsy because it assimilate feeling with agreeableness and oppose T to it, while people can be agreeable because of a processus of rationnalization that make them think that they have to be sympathetic for pragmatic reason of association, and some people score low on agreeableness because they are highly susceptible (feelings here!). the J/P dichotomy don't take in account the difference spatial organization and temporal organization.</p>
Replying to post #4010 by fg

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/11/03 (Sat) 16:29:13 #4007
	Four-letters-dichotomy isn’t the main typing system on the site (we don’t really have one?), but we don’t interpret Myers-Briggs dichotomically to begin with. Interpreting its four preferences scalarly has shown to be more reflective of people’s personalities than through interpreting them dichotomically. And that goes for any dichotomy-centric typology system: the cognitive functions are a good example of a dichotomous “system” that fails because it pushes people into forced categories that don’t encompass a wide enough breadth of personality.

Editing post #4007 by strawberry crisis <p>Four-letters-dichotomy isn’t the main typing system on the site (we don’t really have one?), but we don’t interpret Myers-Briggs dichotomically to begin with. Interpreting its four preferences scalarly has shown to be more reflective of people’s personalities than through interpreting them dichotomically. And that goes for any dichotomy-centric typology system: the cognitive functions are a good example of a dichotomous “system” that fails because it pushes people into forced categories that don’t encompass a wide enough breadth of personality.</p>
Replying to post #4007 by strawberry crisis

date	username	vote
23/09/10 15:12	rock and roll	ISTP
22/09/14 02:28	GIJOEBusta Cap	ISTP
21/05/29 12:50	Luna_xxx	ISTP
20/09/27 06:08	Diobono	ISTJ
20/05/21 20:59	cyber_ninja	ISTJ
21/03/15 17:30	TheMemphis	ISTJ
19/06/07 14:09	Sallust	ISTP
19/08/17 16:07	Tman	ISTJ
18/12/17 18:21	Zero	ISTP
18/11/04 01:08	edza	ISTP
18/11/02 15:01	tch	ISTP
18/11/01 23:58	Zal	ISTP
19/08/17 13:33	Teru Mikami	ISTP
18/06/19 02:55	~snow~	ISTJ

date	username	vote
23/09/10 15:12	rock and roll	ISTP
22/09/14 02:28	GIJOEBusta Cap	ISTP
21/03/10 20:10	eyern	ISTP
20/05/21 20:59	cyber_ninja	ISTP
19/06/07 14:09	Sallust	ISTP
19/01/27 22:11	tch	ISTP
18/11/01 23:58	Zal	ISTP
18/07/05 12:02	fg	ESTJ
18/06/19 08:09	Teru Mikami	ISTP
18/06/19 02:55	~snow~	ISTP

date	username	vote
23/09/10 15:12	rock and roll	6w5
22/09/14 02:28	GIJOEBusta Cap	6w5
22/05/23 01:54	fleetingpetals1	6w5
21/05/29 12:50	Luna_xxx	6w5
20/09/27 06:34	Diobono	cp5w6
20/05/21 20:59	cyber_ninja	cp6w5
19/12/06 17:11	Tman	8w9
19/08/17 13:34	Teru Mikami	cp5w6
19/07/17 12:11	TheMemphis	6w5
19/06/07 14:09	Sallust	cp5w6
19/06/25 19:33	Ryugan	8w9

date	username	vote
22/09/14 02:28	GIJOEBusta Cap	sp/sx
22/05/23 01:54	fleetingpetals1	so/sx
21/05/29 12:50	Luna_xxx	sp/sx
19/12/06 17:12	Tman	sp/sx
18/11/02 09:49	Teru Mikami	sp/sx
18/09/09 08:05	Ryugan	sp/sx

date	username	vote
21/05/29 12:51	Luna_xxx	684
19/12/06 17:11	Tman	853
18/09/26 11:18	Ryugan	351

date	username	vote
25/07/25 20:29	nicotineseries	LSI
25/07/25 03:47	Woll Smoth	LSI
22/09/14 02:28	GIJOEBusta Cap	LSI
21/05/29 12:51	Luna_xxx	LSI
21/03/10 20:10	eyern	SLI
20/05/21 20:59	cyber_ninja	LSI
19/12/06 17:12	Tman	SLI
19/09/08 14:34	Lol	SLI
21/03/15 17:30	TheMemphis	LSE
19/01/27 22:11	tch	LSI
18/12/17 18:32	Zero	SLI
18/11/04 01:08	edza	LSE
18/11/03 18:45	Zal	LSI
19/08/17 13:33	Teru Mikami	SLI
18/09/09 08:04	Ryugan	SLI
18/08/04 04:43	~snow~	LSI
18/06/28 05:19	Resonare	LSI

date	username	vote
22/05/23 01:54	fleetingpetals1	FLVE
19/12/06 17:12	Tman	FVLE