Typology Random Thoughts

[Adam Strange]

Nice to see you again, @Rusal.

[Adam Strange]

Re ITR relations. Yes, Does Adam Strange feel i'm a benefactor at all? Good questions. Or other. I've yet to have SLI say we are duals here, or similar in that vein.

@Distance, I believe that inter-type-related feelings don't carry well over text, but there are some impressions which do come through in any text.

I can't say that I strongly felt you were a Benefactor from your writing; rather, I'd say that I agree with your self-typing and that causes me to attribute (amplify) ENFp characteristics to you. Some of those characteristics are those of a Benefactor, but they are a minor part of the image I have of you. Mostly, I picture you as a person who acts like a blend of the IEEs whom I know.

I don't feel Benefitted by them, but rather I admire how nice, and how much fun, they can be.

[godslave]

"Tell me what you want, so I can help you get it".

I've heard that phrase somewhere yesterday. I don't remember who said it and in which context but it stuck in my mind for some reason. It sounds like something LIE or SLE would say to their dual, and really mean it.

[Distance]

Fictional ENFJ ENFP romance interaction with Beebe model of functions.

[Enters Laughing]

If you can't describe and measure it via a checklist of properties, you don't know it.

[SacredKnowing]

If you can't describe and measure it via a checklist of properties, you don't know it.

You can't take a checklist of dichotomies of size 2^N, increase N, and then gain some knowledge. That's relying on the Narcissism of Small Differences. And it is impossible to use LSE or SLE methods to gain omniscience.

This is the reason why Big 5 can never be comprehensive BTW.

[Enters Laughing]

You can't take a checklist of dichotomies of size 2^N, increase N, and then gain some knowledge. That's relying on the Narcissism of Small Differences. And it is impossible to use LSE or SLE methods to gain omniscience.

This is the reason why Big 5 can never be comprehensive BTW.

There's no evidence that combinations of Jungian dichotomies increase precision. Rather, the opposite.

[SacredKnowing]

There's no evidence that combinations of Jungian dichotomies increase precision. Rather, the opposite.

Yes. That was my point precisely.

Combinations of Jungian dichotomies => 2^N as n -> infinity => piling on small differences => invoking narcissism of small differences.

And it is metaphysically impossible for any method that belongs to LSE or SLE to increase knowledge. That is why it is impossible for academia's favorite toy to tell you anything useful about personality.