# Dissect this, in other words: (what do you think of me or my type)

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
I'm glad I spelt dissect wrong............. not. (Borat)

....ENFP INTP

EN 62% 87%
IN 36% 88%
ES 44% 67%
IS 21% 33%
ET 16% 66%
IT 20% 58%
EF 99% 16%
IF 69% 74%

edit:
I am looking for unbiased perceptions of me and I'm always looking for a better understanding of my interests (as stated in post 18, I think).

#### Yellow

##### for the glory of satan
Re: Disect this

I think some context might be missing.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

I think some context might be missing.
People always ask me for context where I see loads of context but of course that could be the problem.

I'm looking for a pattern in the data, but I need additional perspective. I can read it like a book but that could be because I know what I'm looking for. I'm trying to see if I'm an e/INTP-t (Einstein) or an i/ESTP-f (Sterling Archer).

Its a side by side comparison of me and my girl friend.

She had to help with the last sentence, lol.

#### Cheeseumpuffs

##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Re: Disect this

....ENFP INTP

EN 62% 87%
IN 36% 88%
ES 44% 67%
IS 21% 33%
ET 16% 66%
IT 20% 58%
EF 99% 16%
IF 69% 74%
People always ask me for context where I see loads of context but of course that could be the problem.

. . .

I can read it like a book but that could be because I know what I'm looking for. I'm trying to see if I'm an e/INTP-t (Einstein) or an i/ESTP-f (Sterling Archer).
What do these percentages mean?
What are they connected to?
You've seriously just put a 62% between ENFP and EN without saying what that means.
Do 62% of ENFPs have the letters EN in their type? (Because that seems like it should be 100%)
Are 62% of ENFPs attracted to EN types?
When you say EN do you mean ENxx types or types with Ne?
What do the extra letters and slashes on the bits I've bolded mean?

You've provided absolutely no context and on top of that appear to be using a notation that is not defined in any accessible fashion.

#### Minuend

##### pat pat
Re: Disect this

....ENFP INTP

EN 62% 87%
IN 36% 88%
ES 44% 67%
IS 21% 33%
ET 16% 66%
IT 20% 58%
EF 99% 16%
IF 69% 74%

If you contrast EF (Fe) with EN (Ne) or ES (Se), then you might get a more clearer image. The way you portray it has some inherit bias.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

What do these percentages mean?
What are they connected to?
You've seriously just put a 62% between ENFP and EN without saying what that means.
Do 62% of ENFPs have the letters EN in their type? (Because that seems like it should be 100%)
Are 62% of ENFPs attracted to EN types?
When you say EN do you mean ENxx types or types with Ne?
What do the extra letters and slashes on the bits I've bolded mean?

You've provided absolutely no context and on top of that appear to be using a notation that is not defined in any accessible fashion.

So your saying ESTP? My girlfriend says there's not enough info there either, lmao. She is laughing her ass off.

We took the functions test from here:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/personality-tests.php

#### Cheeseumpuffs

##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Re: Disect this

I am absolutely saying nothing of the sort. I don't know where you see me making any conclusion in my post.

I'm asking you to better explain the seemingly random and arbitrary list of percentages you posted.

#### Absurdity

##### Prolific Member
Re: Disect this

You correlate with both types of intuition but only one type of sensing. Therefore you are an intuitive.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

If you contrast EF (Fe) with EN (Ne) or ES (Se), then you might get a more clearer image. The way you portray it has some inherit bias.
Nice, thanks for making me not feel like archer, lmao. Admittedly, I did purposely post it in a bias manner. So people who would understand would comment on its bias. Only one aspect of context I could see in it.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

You correlate with both types of intuition but only one type of sensing. Therefore you are an intuitive.

A lot of people say that but that's indicative of the diagnosis.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

I am absolutely saying nothing of the sort. I don't know where you see me making any conclusion in my post.

I'm asking you to better explain the seemingly random and arbitrary list of percentages you posted.
The comment you made was indicative of your perception whether you knew it or not, but according to the laws of thermodynamics, I couldn't know that. So I concede.

The seemingly random and arbitrary items will be come less random and arbitrary as conversation goes on. Its the opposite of entropy.

#### Cheeseumpuffs

##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Re: Disect this

The comment you made was indicative of your perception whether you knew it or not
My perception of you, based off the few posts of yours that I've read, is that you're an INTJ (or someone who fits the INTJ archetype) with a severe inability to understand other people.

The seemingly random and arbitrary items will be come less random and arbitrary as conversation goes on. Its the opposite of entropy.
This is not actually an explanation of your post. Your "data" continues to be useless.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

If you contrast EF (Fe) with EN (Ne) or ES (Se), then you might get a more clearer image. The way you portray it has some inherit bias.
And yes the sex is awesome. She made me change it from good to awesome.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

My perception of you, based off the few posts of yours that I've read, is that you're an INTJ (or someone who fits the INTJ archetype) with a severe inability to understand other people.

This is not actually an explanation of your post. Your "data" continues to be useless.
Thanks for your honesty. Like I have said, many people who know me personally say I'm an INTJ. My GF says I do take action. I built a $25,000 meat smoking concession trailer this passed summer but does that count? I apologize that the data is useless to you. Other people can read it and all of you received the same data. Don't forget that INTPs like to use others for experiments. #### Cheeseumpuffs ##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015 Re: Disect this My GF says I do take action. I built a$25,000 meat smoking concession trailer this passed summer but does that count?
Does that count as what? Where did I say anything about you not taking action?

Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?

That is absolutely a non-sequitur to everything I've said.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

Does that count as what? Where did I say anything about you not taking action?

Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?

That is absolutely a non-sequitur to everything I've said.
Again, I apologize for being vague. You saying that I was a J vs being a P could be interpreted as saying I'm a doer instead of a fantasizer. So, not really non-sequitur. I had to look that word up BTW. I hope you start to understand what I'm talking about soon. I'm not sure if I can handle you being so INTJish to me.

#### TheScornedReflex

##### (Per) Version of a truth.
Re: Disect this

You're a tool. This image to front being 'all that jazz' is laughable. Let's use a few percentages and ambiguous statements that mean nothing to get a reaction then proceed to show our immense cunning by pulling shit out of thin air and enlighten everyone of our great knowledge and insights into reality.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

You're a tool. This image to front being 'all that jazz' is laughable. Let's use a few percentages and ambiguous statements that mean nothing to get a reaction then proceed to show our immense cunning by pulling shit out of thin air and enlighten everyone of our great knowledge and insights into reality.

This is the kind of stuff I live for. You believe in Occam's Razor. I believe there are others reading this that see what I mean. I feel like this entire thread is on topic and forming nicely. Like Einstein said about the book "100 Scientists Against Einstein" if he were wrong it would only take one. Admittedly, this is all very Synergistic. Its hard for people who polarize to understand.

#### Latte

##### Preferably Not Redundant
Re: Disect this

Have you been intentionally vague in this thread?

a simple yes or no will suffice

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

Have you been intentionally vague in this thread?

a simple yes or no will suffice
Unfortunately, I don't see anything vague about it. If there are any remaining questions I would be more than happy to answer. The purpose of the thread wasn't to be asked a bunch of questions or get called names but I understand why people resort to latter, however, I love to answer honest questions if anyone has any. Otherwise, if anyone could afford me a little more feed back we can move on.

#### Latte

##### Preferably Not Redundant
Re: Disect this

Assuming honesty on your part, my feedback will not be related to the original topic or things I have painfully deciphered from your posts, but about the way you communicate.

An important life skill that you will benefit a lot from practicing, is the ability to simulate how it can be to read what you say from an outside perspective.

That is, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the things you haven't said, and do not structure their thoughts precisely the way you do.
It can be difficult at first, but without doing that or something similarly effective (like automatically adopting standards of specificity that others use, which you don't seem to do), you will find yourself in many situations where people just don't want to have a conversation with you because it's too tiresome and potentially frustrating.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

Assuming honesty on your part, my feedback will not be related to the original topic or things I have painfully deciphered from your posts, but about the way you communicate.

An important life skill that you will benefit a lot from practicing, is the ability to simulate how it can be to read what you say from an outside perspective.

That is, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the things you haven't said, and do not structure their thoughts precisely the way you do.
It can be difficult at first, but without doing that or something similarly effective (like automatically adopting standards of specificity that others use, which you don't seem to do), you will find yourself in many situations where people just don't want to have a conversation with you because it's too tiresome and potentially frustrating.
This is great feedback.

I don't automatically adopt standards of specificity that others use because I always find errors. Not always but my method surely does cut through the crap a whole lot faster than sifting through other peoples standards of specificity. When I do find an error in a specific standard of specificity I am overwhelmingly compelled to point it out and suggest corrections. This practice is just as damaging as trying too convince them that you have a better way. I use physics as the standard model (they are virtually interchangeable, I only say virtually because I don't claim to know everything), there is a lot to reference and I have a huge grasp on it.

I understand that. I'm a horrid communicator. I understand that I have many short comings in this area, mostly stemming from my introverted/extroverted Thinking/thinking and complete lack of extroverted feeling. I have no patience for bullies and I will make short work of anyone I feel is trying to intimidate me. This is a very unpopular trait to have in the work place and is compounded when you are the new guy. The same thing goes in the forum world.

If you have honest questions or feed back on this topic, my sole intention is to lift the fog. The only way to do this is by evolutionary conversation. This is why it is difficult for polarizing or polarized people to grasp this concept, it has nothing to do with superiority.

#### Cheeseumpuffs

##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Re: Disect this

I love to answer honest questions if anyone has any. Otherwise, if anyone could afford me a little more feed back we can move on.
If you have honest questions or feed back on this topic, my sole intention is to lift the fog.
Literally all of the questions in my first post in this thread.

I have asked you multiple times to better explain your original post and you have avoided doing so each time by extrapolating incorrect information from my posts and providing irrelevant responses to the nonexistent information you seem to perceive.

I want to help you find a pattern in whatever data you have. I want to make sense of things. I cannot do this, however, when it seems like I'm talking to an even less helpful version of fucking CleverBot.

#### Latte

##### Preferably Not Redundant
Re: Disect this

I don't automatically adopt standards of specificity that others use because I always find errors.
There aren't errors in standards of specifity in communication, only what works to convey what one intends to convey, and what does not work.

Not always but my method surely does cut through the crap a whole lot faster than sifting through other peoples standards of specificity.
This thread is evidence to the contrary. Your shortcuts have not accelerated discourse on anything related to the original topic.

One of the two only responses that was indicative of that was a parody of the lack of specificity in your attempts to communicate.

When I do find an error in a specific standard of specificity I am overwhelmingly compelled to point it out and suggest corrections. This practice is just as damaging as trying too convince them that you have a better way. I use physics as the standard model (they are virtually interchangeable, I only say virtually because I don't claim to know everything), there is a lot to reference and I have a huge grasp on it.
The context was communication, I was talking about standards of being specific about what you are talking about. Standards that are used because it is pragmatic to use them.

I understand that. I'm a horrid communicator. I understand that I have many short comings in this area, mostly stemming from my introverted/extroverted Thinking/thinking and complete lack of extroverted feeling. I have no patience for bullies and I will make short work of anyone I feel is trying to intimidate me. This is a very unpopular trait to have in the work place and is compounded when you are the new guy. The same thing goes in the forum world.
If you have honest questions or feed back on this topic, my sole intention is to lift the fog. The only way to do this is by evolutionary conversation. This is why it is difficult for polarizing or polarized people to grasp this concept, it has nothing to do with superiority.

Lift the fog about what? And why is the only way to do "that" "evolutionary conversation" (this can mean many things)?

You make short work of people who bully you? How?

Will people always have to ask you several questions about what you meant by something because you are highly vague in your language? Are you fine with this? Is this ideal for you? Is this evolutionary conversation? Evolving through speaking back and forth until the fog of vagueness being lifted from what exactly you are trying to convey?

Why should others bother to be a part of that?

Why should others bother to spend energy and time being a crutch for your lack of wanting to or lack of being able to explain yourself to a degree where it is relatively easy to be sure about what you are talking about?

How did you conclude that your lack of communication skills result from poor extroverted feeling?

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

Literally all of the questions in my first post in this thread.

I have asked you multiple times to better explain your original post and you have avoided doing so each time by extrapolating incorrect information from my posts and providing irrelevant responses to the nonexistent information you seem to perceive.

I want to help you find a pattern in whatever data you have. I want to make sense of things. I cannot do this, however, when it seems like I'm talking to an even less helpful version of fucking CleverBot.
Awesome, you must have missed it. I posted a link to a full explanation that should have answered all of your questions. I see now that you want to be in the conversation and weren't just busting my balls.

However, in my search for clarity, I reread your first messaged and noticed you might be having formatting issues on your end. Maybe my numbers came out jumbled up?

#### Cheeseumpuffs

##### Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Re: Disect this

Awesome, you must have missed it. I posted a link to a full explanation that should have answered all of your questions.
No you did not. You posted a link to a collection of online tests -- some of which include "Star Wars Test", "Movie Star Test", and "Car Test". This is not a helpful link.

However, in my search for clarity, I reread your first messaged and noticed you might be having formatting issues on your end. Maybe my numbers came out jumbled up?
No, I don't think so. It appears to me that you've created a table of sorts, where the first column of percentages corresponds to ENFP and the second to INTP. And then each row corresponds to EN, IN, ES and so on.

EDIT: Oh, I see now. I didn't follow exactly which test you took. I stand by my decision that you are an INTJ with shit communication skills.

#### peoplesuck

##### doesnt approve of your life choices
Re: Disect this

people arent supper consistent, and the only functions that are somewhat consistent are going to be T/F I/E , from what ive seen. so as long as you know those, why do the other functions matter? maybe im the only one whos functions are not as consistent.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

There aren't errors in standards of specifity in communication, only what works to convey what one intends to convey, and what does not work.
The failure is actually there, if it wasn't we wouldn't have ISIS or Rod Parsley.

This thread is evidence to the contrary. Your shortcuts have not accelerated discourse on anything related to the original topic.
People are resistant to change. Its the resistance we are seeing here and is data in favor of my understanding.

One of the two only responses that was indicative of that was a parody of the lack of specificity in your attempts to communicate.
I want to address this but I'm not sure of what your intended reference is.

The context was communication, I was talking about standards of being specific about what you are talking about. Standards that are used because it is pragmatic to use them.
Again, people are resistant to change and being pragmatic is only useful until you pass the point of diminishing gains. Then you can start subtracting value right off the top of any return on your investment. This is poor economics but is perpetuated by peoples resistance to change, very related to ohms law.

Lift the fog about what? And why is the only way to do "that" "evolutionary conversation" (this can mean many things)?
The "fog" of understanding. It has to be evolutionary because there are levels of understanding and its too much to transfer in one shot. Like yoda says, you must unlearn what you have learned, it cant be forced. Only when you understand will you understand.

You make short work of people who bully you? How?
Its very obvious to me. Maybe it will be obvious to you as well someday. People who understand it, understand it even if they cant quantify it. Its one of the short comings of standard specefities. Its a failure not seen in my model.

Will people always have to ask you several questions about what you meant by something because you are highly vague in your language?
It is really incalculable to think of it so generally but the short answer is yes. That's the only answer anyone could be obligated to give and remain honest. Vagueness is relative to the perceiver not the transmitter. The transmitter can not know what data receiver already knows or even receives. Thermodynamics dictates this. The transmitter cant really even know what they are transmitting according to the uncertainty principle, but I find that to be splitting hairs most times. I find that if you have gotten to that point you know the velocity and location pretty fucking good.

Are you fine with this?
Yes, its unavoidable due to the anarchic mechanism.

Is this ideal for you?
Ideal has nothing to with reality. Reality is just like it is because if it wasn't it wouldn't be reality.

Is this evolutionary conversation?
Kind of, lol.

Evolving through speaking back and forth until the fog of vagueness being lifted from what exactly you are trying to convey?
The back and fourth part is the most important aspect. Think of the data transfers as exchanges of energy. General relativity tells us E=MC2. The very act of us exchanging the energy changes us forever. We have no control over what data we receive or even how we will perceive the data we receive so we have no way to control the changes these transfers of energy invoke in us. The egg comes before the chicken because the egg is the combination of the two previous entities and thus becomes an new entity.

Why should others bother to be a part of that?

Why should others bother to spend energy and time being a crutch for your lack of wanting to or lack of being able to explain yourself to a degree where it is relatively easy to be sure about what you are talking about?
Its fun and challenging for one but if its understood by enough people, it could end fundamental radicalism, dependence on fossil fuels and world hunger just to name a few of things.

How did you conclude that your lack of communication skills result from poor extroverted feeling?
I think poor extroverted feeling is better described as a general apathy for their surrounding or in other word narcissistic tendencies. That's my personal interpretation.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

No you did not. You posted a link to a collection of online tests -- some of which include "Star Wars Test", "Movie Star Test", and "Car Test". This is not a helpful link.

No, I don't think so. It appears to me that you've created a table of sorts, where the first column of percentages corresponds to ENFP and the second to INTP. And then each row corresponds to EN, IN, ES and so on.

EDIT: Oh, I see now. I didn't follow exactly which test you took. I stand by my decision that you are an INTJ with shit communication skills.
LOL... I have heard it to be envious to be an INTJ but I really don't like the picture the data I have collected on INTJ paints. It really make more sense to me that I am a ESTP that comes off as an INTP like Archer would if you didn't know he was an idiot.

PS. My shit communication skills coupled with your shit listening skills is what added up to the miss understanding. I like you, you remind me of me.

#### TheScornedReflex

##### (Per) Version of a truth.
Re: Disect this

You still haven't elaborated what you want out of this thread. Instead you have come up with excuses as to why we're failing to understand you. Maybe the 'transmitter' is bust? Or has nothing to transmit so keeps playing static.

A true narcissist wouldn't think of themselves as one. Keep up the charade. What other cards will you play, tool?

#### Latte

##### Preferably Not Redundant
Re: Disect this

So, what you're saying now is that you're trying to manipulate us into seeing in a different way (structurally), and that through people changing to see things in the way you want them to, you think there can be a massive shift in how human society operates.

Which means you dodged the question I asked earlier about whether the vagueness was intentional or not when you could have just said that it was.

To a degree, it certainly can estimate. If there is no such estimation, how did you even arrive at saying anything at all?

Go play games with other people.

Of all possible scenarios, the one where you are a troll is the one in which you are the most clever, and even not that clever because the pseudo-profound allusions to concepts in physics are too suspicious.

Courtesy and patience is gone.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

You still haven't elaborated what you want out of this thread. Instead you have come up with excuses as to why we're failing to understand you. Maybe the 'transmitter' is bust? Or has nothing to transmit so keeps playing static.

A true narcissist wouldn't think of themselves as one. Keep up the charade. What other cards will you play, tool?
I argue that I'm not a narcissist but realist, which makes me look more narcissistic. I think it comes down to interpretation errors on the receivers end that can be attributed to personal biases.

Actually, I have elaborated at least a couple of times. I think is humorous because I can explain your static comment with the use of my model and show you how it adds value to the validity of my model.

#### Blarraun

##### straightedgy
Re: Disect this

I argue that I'm not a narcissist but realist, which makes me look more narcissistic. I think it comes down to interpretation errors on the receivers end that can be attributed to personal biases.

Actually, I have elaborated at least a couple of times. I think is humorous because I can explain your static comment with the use of my model and show you how it adds value to the validity of my model.
What do you intend to achieve in this thread?

To show your cooperation, explain yourself instead of defending a pointless argument.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

So, what you're saying now is that you're trying to manipulate us into seeing in a different way (structurally), and that through people changing to see things in the way you want them to, you think there can be a massive shift in how human society operates.
Yes, however improbable it is.

Which means you dodged the question I asked earlier about whether the vagueness was intentional or not when you could have just said that it was.
Is didn't say that is was because it wasn't. Nor was it even vague to all receivers. The ones doing the most talking are the ones who perceived it as vague. And have led much of the conversation off topic is the arbitrary topic rules were strictly adhered to. minuend and absurdity both comprehended it well enough and, in minuends, case they even pointed out something I didn't even realized was revealed by the stats I posted.

To a degree, it certainly can estimate. If there is no such estimation, how did you even arrive at saying anything at all?
They are called potentialities. There are a myriad of potentialities built into everything happening. Some potentialities are easier to pin point, like when you hit a light switch there is a high potential for the light to turn on but there is no guarantee. Some are not so easy. Like what happens when you add free will to chaos theory. This is my weak point you guys have so graciously pointed out to me.

Go play games with other people.
No games here I'm very serious, but I would be much more light hearted if the conversation wasn't so serious. When I posted this originally I just wanted to talk about test results and validate the results from non bias participants.

Of all possible scenarios, the one where you are a troll is the one in which you are the most clever, and even not that clever because the pseudo-profound allusions to concepts in physics are too suspicious.
I think you are trying to dismiss me with a reverse Occam's Razor (if you know the technical term I would love to know it)? Please, feel free to fact check me if you doubt the validity of my so called pseudo-profound references, I don't guarantee any more then general similarities and don't forget that the sun is just a collection of atoms. The lack of depth is coming from your end as a result of lost data through the effects thermodynamics. my references are only suspicious if you don't understand them.

Courtesy and patience is gone.
Learning isn't voluntary but a series of small realizations. Every moment is pregnant with the next and its all unpredictable, its all an infinite number of potentialities.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

What do you intend to achieve in this thread?

To show your cooperation, explain yourself instead of defending a pointless argument.
Refer to posts numbers 3, 6 and 18 I think. I have been cooperating and I feel like defending the argument is part of my cooperation.

#### Blarraun

##### straightedgy
Re: Disect this

Refer to posts numbers 3, 6 and 18 I think. I have been cooperating and I feel like defending the argument is part of my cooperation.
I feel like this entire thread is on topic and forming nicely.
Well then, based on post 18 it seems you see nothing wrong with the direction you've given.

It seems others think to the contrary.

I should mention that posts 3 and 6 contain no information, going by the definition of what information entails. No structure was given.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

people arent supper consistent, and the only functions that are somewhat consistent are going to be T/F I/E , from what ive seen. so as long as you know those, why do the other functions matter? maybe im the only one whos functions are not as consistent.
I think the bigger picture lies in the finer details. The finer the detail the more of an effect can be made with much less effort. Again, I attribute this to the evolutionary nature of reality.

#### Minuend

##### pat pat
Re: Disect this

I was just writing something random to illustrate how you can interpret anything from nothing or how you can't expect people to understand something from barely anything. Alternatively how many interpretations openness and vagueness allows for. I did this because you yet again blamed others and I wanted to illustrate it in a different manner since rational arguments didn't get through to you.

It's quite obvious the transmitter can be partially to blame. If I say "bananaface" I can't expect you to understand I was alluding to the second world war. In some context one can partially guess, but much can be lost in different perceptions (even among those of equal mental capacity), culture, language, bias, knowledge etc. It's more efficient to be clear in the first place. There are also inadvertently benefits by having more people understand you. If you have particular insights, more people can learn and grow. If other people have particular insights, you can learn and grow.

I guess in the end you need to ask yourself what you want to achieve (in life and general), and whether you think your current approach is doing that for you.

#### Latte

##### Preferably Not Redundant
Re: Disect this

Is didn't say that is was because it wasn't. Nor was it even vague to all receivers. The ones doing the most talking are the ones who perceived it as vague. And have led much of the conversation off topic is the arbitrary topic rules were strictly adhered to. minuend and absurdity both comprehended it well enough and, in minuends, case they even pointed out something I didn't even realized was revealed by the stats I posted.

They are called potentialities. There are a myriad of potentialities built into everything happening. Some potentialities are easier to pin point, like when you hit a light switch there is a high potential for the light to turn on but there is no guarantee. Some are not so easy. Like what happens when you add free will to chaos theory. This is my weak point you guys have so graciously pointed out to me.

No games here I'm very serious, but I would be much more light hearted if the conversation wasn't so serious. When I posted this originally I just wanted to talk about test results and validate the results from non bias participants.

I think you are trying to dismiss me with a reverse Occam's Razor (if you know the technical term I would love to know it)? Please, feel free to fact check me if you doubt the validity of my so called pseudo-profound references, I don't guarantee any more then general similarities and don't forget that the sun is just a collection of atoms. The lack of depth is coming from your end as a result of lost data through the effects thermodynamics. my references are only suspicious if you don't understand them.

Learning isn't voluntary but a series of small realizations. Every moment is pregnant with the next and its all unpredictable, its all an infinite number of potentialities.
I understand your metaphors very well and before my first reply, as I have said before, I understood your original post. That it was two sets of results and that you wanted people to analyze those results. I also understood that if you had just added a few more words, like "Person 1, Person 2, please analyze the cognitive function test results individually and interpersonally between them", no one would have complained, no one would have been confused.

I was and still am not interested in what the OP seemed to originally be about. I only replied to this thread due to what we are currently talking about.

This post that I am quoting now, I am merely skimming, because my patience is gone.

You know precisely what is meant by "vague". That vagueness is relative and ultimately subjective doesn't mean you don't know what I mean when I say it and thus can't respond because you reject the idea of vagueness alltogether. You can simply answer based on your understanding of what vagueness means to the person that is using that word when speaking to you, which is "a lack of specificity relative to communication success requirements".

You also seem to have not absorbed or believed me when I earlier said that one of the only two posts that were indicative of your "cutting through the crap" succeeding in any way was just a joke making a point about your lack of specificity.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

Well then, based on post 18 it seems you see nothing wrong with the direction you've given.

It seems others think to the contrary.

I should mention that posts 3 and 6 contain no information, going by the definition of what information entails. No structure was given.

There was too much information being requested for me to accurately write the info. I felt it was better for anyone wanting to get on board with the thread if they educated their selves on the specifics of the test in question.

I feel as if some people need me to type the entirety of all the cumulative pertinent information of the thread in every post I post. Its very exhausting. This is another reason why I feel like INTP is less accurate than INTJ, I don't need to have all the information on the table for it to be viable. I have a very limited short term memory but my long term memory is phenomenal as long as I can quantify the data in a logical or visual format.

But, yes, to answer your question, I am looking for unbiased perceptions of me and I'm always looking for a better understanding of my interests (as stated in post 18, I think). However, as stated in the third post (in conjunction with the title post), We are dissecting the results (again, listed in the title post) of the test featured in the link you don't want to look at located in post 6.

#### Polaris

Re: Disect this

You seem to be using Ni and Te. I don't see much Fe. This seems apparent to me just from reading your posts - the percentage breakdown of functions are just a skeleton and hail from what seems to me to be a rather dubious test site (although some of the questions are better than some other tests I have seen out there ). Obviously I know nothing about your girlfriend other than the breakdown you have posted, so it is difficult to comment. Great sex does not equal a potentially great relationship, although it helps - but you knew that. You could potentially be running into problems with the Fe/Fi dynamic down the line.

*covers up crystal ball*

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

I understand your metaphors very well and before my first reply, as I have said before, I understood your original post. That it was two sets of results and that you wanted people to analyze those results. I also understood that if you had just added a few more words, like "Person 1, Person 2, please analyze the cognitive function test results individually and interpersonally between them", no one would have complained, no one would have been confused.

I was and still am not interested in what the OP seemed to originally be about. I only replied to this thread due to what we are currently talking about.

This post that I am quoting now, I am merely skimming, because my patience is gone.

You know precisely what is meant by "vague". That vagueness is relative and ultimately subjective doesn't mean you don't know what I mean when I say it and thus can't respond because you reject the idea of vagueness alltogether. You can simply answer based on your understanding of what vagueness means to the person that is using that word when speaking to you, which is "a lack of specificity relative to communication success requirements".

You also seem to have not absorbed or believed me when I earlier said that one of the only two posts that were indicative of your "cutting through the crap" succeeding in any way was just a joke making a point about your lack of specificity.
You also understood it (and my metaphors many are claiming are incomprehensible). I fail to see how I'm supposed to be at fault for those who did not. I'm glad that you can choose verbiage to clarify to you something that already made sense to you, perhaps you should have offered your ideas up to help me where I was failing before the confused people got mad. I was having a hard time figuring out what additional information a couple people were requesting to finish their synapse. I kept giving the information I thought they wanted. If you want more understanding of what I'm saying, try reading it. Its not my fault you are refusing to receive data I'm sending.

I got your joke. I still wanted to help clarify your mis-understanding. Of course, you have to accept the data for communication to be effective. Instead you continue to fail at trying to dominate me.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

You seem to be using Ni and Te. I don't see much Fe. This seems apparent to me just from reading your posts - the percentage breakdown of functions are just a skeleton and hail from what seems to me to be a rather dubious test site (although some of the questions are better than some other tests I have seen out there ). Obviously I know nothing about your girlfriend other than the breakdown you have posted, so it is difficult to comment. Great sex does not equal a potentially great relationship, although it helps - but you knew that. You could potentially be running into problems with the Fe/Fi dynamic down the line.

*covers up crystal ball*
Excellent assessment and it aligns with mine. We are having issues with her massive (overwhelming) desire constantly be in contact with me as seen with her very high Fe and semi-high Fi . She sees my Fe as an absence of Fi but I'm strong there. I have to learn to let my dismal Fe to develop.

I like how this person used the data they gathered by reading my posts and compared it with the data from the test. This person was also able to look passed whether or not the content of my claims are valid and looked at my method of assimilation and the reasoning behind it.

#### Blarraun

##### straightedgy
Re: Disect this

I feel as if some people need me to type the entirety of all the cumulative pertinent information of the thread in every post I post. Its very exhausting. This is another reason why I feel like INTP is less accurate than INTJ, I don't need to have all the information on the table for it to be viable. I have a very limited short term memory but my long term memory is phenomenal as long as I can quantify the data in a logical or visual format.
This is your problem. It's quite arrogant of you to expect of others to put in the effort necessary to understand what you mean, if you yourself can't offer this courtesy. It's been said before.

You're quite defensive about your way of doing things and ultimately it doesn't matter, that's your problem, not others.
But, yes, to answer your question, I am looking for unbiased perceptions of me and I'm always looking for a better understanding of my interests (as stated in post 18, I think).
How gracious of you to confirm that you wanted to be typed/hear an opinion, really, answering this question was very helpful and now you don't have to make another thread about it.

I will add it to your op so that everyone can thank you for telling them what your expectations are (besides none).

Sorry, I don't know your type and I won't help you, through your effort you've managed to completely disinterest me in this topic. Maybe someone else will do it.

#### redbaron

##### but why
Re: Disect this, in other words: (what do you think of me or my type)

Cubulabazybyu mjebech bananaface vrabankaba zdravstvuyte.

Се разбере?

#### QuickTwist

##### Alive - Born Anew
Re: Disect this, in other words: (what do you think of me or my type)

TL;DR,

What is your source for the OP?

#### Lot

##### Don't forget to bring a towel
Re: Disect this, in other words: (what do you think of me or my type)

I'm glad I spelt dissect wrong............. not. (Borat)

....ENFP INTP

EN 62% 87%
IN 36% 88%
ES 44% 67%
IS 21% 33%
ET 16% 66%
IT 20% 58%
EF 99% 16%
IF 69% 74%

edit:
I am looking for unbiased perceptions of me and I'm always looking for a better understanding of my interests (as stated in post 18, I think).

I don't see how people don't get this. It's clearly an attempt to show that bogart is a try hard. You either have Asperger, you're not very bright, lived in a basement and never learned how to communicate, or are really bored because you're a college kid on christmas break and no friends.

You claim to be an alpha male, yet you can't hold a job. You claim to get laid often, yet you don't even know how to communicate. You claim to be a genius, but you post nonsense like this to inflate your ego.

You don't belong here. People tried to help you. You behave like all the previously banned members combined into one person. I give you two more weeks tops before the mods ban you for being annoying.

#### Jennywocky

##### guud languager
... I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

#### Bogart

##### Active Member
Re: Disect this

This is your problem. It's quite arrogant of you to expect others to put effort necessary to understand what you mean, if you yourself can't offer this courtesy. It's been said before.

You're quite defensive about your way of doing things and ultimately it doesn't matter, that's your problem, not others.

How gracious of you to confirm that you wanted to be typed/hear an opinion, really, answering this question was very helpful and now you don't have to make another thread about it.

I will add it to your op so that everyone can thank you for telling them what your expectations are (besides none).

Sorry, I don't know your type and I won't help you, through your effort you've managed to completely disinterest me in this topic. Maybe someone else will do it.

Please refer to the uncirtainty principle to clarify your error. The actual problem is mine in that i have to live along side of people like you. However, the problem you percieve is your own. The confirmation of my desire for feed back was plainly listed in my title post, however, you chose to vehemently add discord. The effect of communication reduces entropy so even your attempts to add entropy actually reduced it. I thank you for that.

If you have no desire to be helpful in anyway you could have just said nothing at all but according to the anarchic mechanism, your materialization has a high potential. You even used your authority in a failing attempt to dominate me. Evidence of your own frustrations with your short comings. The funny thing is somehow i understand your actions and you didnt even have to be explicit. See how much trouble i saved you?