Just not what I had you down as, but then I barely know you. Ignore me.

Exactly what I would have thought about Ben [emoji23]

I'm a commander too

To be fair, you know him a lot better than I do.

whatever dictators usually are.

Oh, get lost. You’re talking silly beggars. Get out.

INTP-A, according to the link.

lol no, this is 100% what you would call "pop psychology". Vastly over-simplified and a "just-for-fun" exercise for a very basic glimpse at some surface personality traits. Maybe a one-day lecture in 1st semester, 1st year psychology to introduce some of the basic concepts.

1. Big-5 is what’s rightly-called pop psychology. Jungian psychology (including MBTI, and socionics, its more advanced twin) can be very advanced. People get PhDs in the stuff.

2. Why are you even giving LT the time of day when we all know how he trolls? Must you debate with everything and everyone that’s obviously not worth your time/dignify them with serious replies?

I'm not a proponent of the idea that personality type is quantifiable with stats and metrics at all tbf, and online versions of these quizzes are 100% pop psychology. Similarly to IQ tests being flawed, but not entirely without scientific merit, but the ones you'll find on online "test your IQ" sites being purely for a bit of dun/not to be taken seriously in terms of results.

For #2 I only clocked who it was this evening over in SD's and he's been informed that his trash won't be responded to again. As you say, not worth the time nor effort of any response whatsoever.

A scrabbling redway alliance after common or garden darts exposed him as a bog standard bigot, is peak Tibb

Funny how the stars fall in line for "karma" in such circumstances

Online MBTI tests aren’t as serious as the main Jungian-accredited thing, yeah. I did say that. But in general it’s a step above big-5. I’ve never understood why some psychologists (and very eminent psychologists at that) quote big-5 for dear life, like it actually means anything.

Your trolling is laughably sad.

Yet all you serve is fear

What are you so scared of?

Only Lordy in heaven knows what you actually stand to gain from this.

Lordy?

Yep.

We got many ISFPs on here?

https://youtu.be/l_g41Dsfnak?si=m0u44rgokvinWlHR

You may not resonate with the stereotypes of ENFPs (the hyperactive, scatterbrained manic pixie so-and-so) but those stereotypes are a long way off capturing who the true ENFP actually is. Just jumping in with this again.

I am not terribly confident in these tests but I think I had a same result before... INTJ-A

https://youtu.be/km7ga7HON20?si=RT7Tq1vlCy5JkSeQ

Any of this resonate with you? (Go right ahead and speed him up to 1.25x if his talking’s too slow for your liking.)

I can listen and respond to this when I have a bit more time to respond properly. I've been trying to finish out a game and so not posting so much on TiBB. (I did answer one of your other threads, though...) It's 1am here, currently.

I feel like I went back to college and am listening to a lecture. Just to the tone and way of speaking, it's so detached from everything else of non-importance.

I would say a lot of it correct... excluding the slideshow of all these mega-geniuses I'm allegedly supposed to be in affinity with :rolleyes:

The way hub & I have always interacted, we both are intellectual-types and listen to a lot of conversations related to thinking. We still talk a lot by text (when we're not together) so have a continuous IM conversation that documents everything. I'm heavily into documenting conversations and also keeping photos and text conversations active so that there is a "thread" I can to go back to. We're always talking about "what this actually means" when covering current events and reconnecting it back to knowledge and experiences we were bestowed when younger.

As for "out there" thinking, while I try to limit my listening to propaganda (because it's corrosive mentally and emotionally), I do try to listen to enough to where it's "useful" to get a flavor of what motivates people who both make the propaganda and also the type of people who listen to it. I'm much more interested in seeing how other people interact than their interactions with me per say. If I find a good "follower" story (people who heavily into something and form a cohesive ideology), I tend to love to follow those to some extent.

Speaking to your other thread about how others might perceive me, I do worry about one thing, that some people might think I'm more involved in myself than what they have to say at times. I think it's just because of how I construct my thinking around observations, so I have to be careful... not to immediately respond to everything "omg you just said Y, I'm very interested in Y!"... without going into an open wikipedia mode with that person.

Anyway, I think if these tests are useful for one thing, they get us to self-diagnose our own neurosis for the enjoyment of others :laugh: So there is that.

It also helps take away some of this inherent pathologisation/devaluation of introversion away. We live in a world where social extroversion is often framed as the norm and the converse (introversion) a cause for inherent concern, a social deficit to fix rather than an equally valuable personality-type with (many) advantages as well as drawbacks. Introverts are no more inherently clinically socially anxious, on the autistic spectrum (every cognitive function can correspond to certain Asperger’s-traits anyway), covertly narcissistic, avoidant-personality-disordered, schizoid or incipiently depressed than extraverts are ADHD, communal/grandiose narcissists, on the brink of hypomania, dependent-personality-disordered and so-on. Anyone can be anything but just to play the game of introversion being inherently closer to a clinical concern than extraversion, there are corresponding pathologies for extraversion as a broad social-persona dimension, too. You can, of-course, be both, and things do overlap, but they’re not inherently synonymous. A lot of people see introversion as so inherently unhealthy that they think there must be a clinical reason for it but that’s just a misconception.

Jungian psychology (and other deeper frameworks) also teaches us that if you didn’t have introverts, you wouldn’t have any scientists, writers, counsellors, engineers, philosophers, accountants, strategists, professional chess-players, stoic military-men, poets and so-on. Every personality-type has potential value, but using the reductionist big-5 model (which the guy whose video I linked to you has also spoken against in some detail), introversion doesn’t even get its own chapter, because extraversion is implied as the thing you want and introversion means you’re deficient in it or a neurotic overthinker rather-than holding space for the fact that they’re both equal poles in a continuum that we all have traits of (of both). The fact that no-one’s 100% either-or is another thing that deeper personality frameworks hold space for, whereas in the day-to-day sense of the word people can just see and assess someone by their outward social demeanour (as-if it tells a story of whole personality; even MBTI doesn’t do that) and be like, ‘You’re all-loudmouth. I don’t think you have any traits of being an introvert.’ or ‘You’re super-reclusive and quiet in your disposition. Never seen a trace of being an extravert from you.’ when in reality it’s so much more than that. If someone looks at you and goes “social withdrawal” and your mental health is okay (because obviously social reticence can be clinical, e.g., from depression, social anxiety, schizoid-personality), they’re missing the heart of it.

For what it's worth, I feel kind of firmly wedged inbetween extravert and introvert and the test sort of agreed with that? So I guess I get the best of both worlds? It scored me 53% introverted...

My other scores:

Energy 53% Introverted (vs extraverted)
Mind 73% Intuitive (vs observant)
Nature 60% Thinking (vs feeling)
Tactics 51% Judging (vs Prospecting)
Identity 64% Assertive (vs Turbulent)