thisintegrated

Well there, you've proved to yourself MBTI works and is 100% accurate as long you know the system and have enough data on a person. Working out the first 3 letters is easy AF, usually. Then guess P or J. Then confirm using functions.

I hope you've not been basing your arguments off ..comments. For every 100 voters there's a commenter with strong emotions. Don't pay them much attention unless there's no consensus in the polls. Most disagreements come from using the 4 letters vs the functions. They don't always agree. xxxP usually means "less strict, more relaxed, less serious", but the functions say "P means nothing, look at the functions". The overwhelming majority of personalities do have a clear consensus. The ramblings of people in the comments are irrelevant.

You're avoiding the question as you know there is definitely a pattern and it's not random. You just don't want to admit it. I have a suggestion. Just try to identify if someone is I/E, S/N, and T/F. Just for fun, entertain this idea, even if it seems silly to you. See if you can find any pattern. Do this with any person you come across. It might be educational. If it's all BS, then it's all BS. No harm done. Within a few days/weeks of doing this properly, you may find you have a near 100% accuracy rate. If it's a fictional character or a celebrity, you can confirm on the personality database site.

You still think those MBTI votes are completely random and there's no pattern to them? Think careful about your answer or you'll fuck up greatly..

What are you talking about? Free speech won't affect power structures. Twitter's already mostly free speech. It's just racism and calls to violence that's not allowed. Pharma doesn't give a shit. US military doesn't give a shit. They're called out all the time on youtube. Youtube even shows anti-pharma & anti-military videos on my feed all the time. No one's even trying to limit information like this.

When in doubt, everyone will guess NTP. So the fact INFJ votes won means it wasn't a fluke. No one's gonna guess INFJ on someone with strong NTP traits unless they're certain. Since we can account for why 2nd and 3rd positions are NTPs, we can rule them out. But why didn't anyone vote for SFJs if it's all random, as you suggest? Everyone voted either NTP, or NTP with some nuance (which is the INFJ) So even with this edge-case, that is Jordan, there is a clear consensus. Yet you still refuse to accept it.

Who? The fact that people are certain it's NTP is significant, don't you think. It means people have agreed on every function. This should be impossible, according to you. As I keep saying, INFJ. Did you not read what I said about NTP being the low hanging fruit? It's gonna be over-guessed as INFJs looks like NTPs. When in doubt, everyone will guess NTP. So the fact INFJ votes won means it wasn't a fluke. No one's gonna guess INFJ on someone with strong NTP traits unless they're certain.

..if not INFJ. It's proof of consensus. Refresh the page. Having 100% certainty that it's either NTP or INFJ is significant. Don't downplay the significance of this. Why do you think I thought @no_name was INTP? INFJs can be trickly like this. Everyone sees the NTP traits and votes for NTP. Most of the time those NTP traits are, indeed, from an NTP, but sometimes it's the rarest type of all, the INFJ. It takes an extra bit of data about someone to figure out the presence of those INFJ-specific traits.

Proof it's likely to be one or the other, if not INFJ. Finally you're getting it.. There's a reason no one's guessing SFJ. People voting NTP shows how there's a clear pattern and some consensus is forming. If MBTI didn't have any predictive power, you'd get complete randomness. INTP would be guessed as often as ESFJ. INTP and ENTP have the same functions. So really it's just a question of NiSe vs NeSi. But the fact that NiSe has overpowered the other two suggests Jordan is INFJ. INFJ isn't an obvious choice, and requires some thought. The low hanging fruit would be NTP. Anyone unsure would say NTP. But as the less obvious choice won, I'd say it's a genuine win for INFJ. So really, if you just accepted the results of the poll, you would've known the answer without any analysis.

Yeah, quite a few fewer. But we ignore ENFJ and sensors for reasons I stated above The masses have done the work for us, and have left us with just 2 or 3 possibilities. But they've also told us which of those possibilities is the correct one.

How many types can have TiFe AND NiSe or NeSi? NiFeTiSe is twice as likely as NeTiFeSi, which twice as likely as TiNeSiFe. And there's nothing else in the running for the title of "jordan's type". So we throw away all the anomalies in the data, and only compare those that have a chance of being correct. What we'd do is compare the arguments for INFJ, ENTP, and INTP, and see if any type doesn't make sense, function-wise, for Jordan. Then we'd compare the last two and see which are Jordan's stronger preferences. Does he prefer NiFe, or NeTi. Which is more prevalent? Or we could just guess which is most accurate for him, based on what we've seen. There's a chance the guess it wrong, but if enough people do the same, a pattern will start to emerge, and we'll have winner, as we do now in the poll.

Because that's what the statistics say! And the statistics were formed from thousands of reasons from thousands of people. SFJs are waaaaaay more common than INFJs. Like at least 10x more common. Yet that changes nothing. SFJs aren't in the running for "what's Jordan's type". SFJ types were ruled out before the polling even started.

omg.. and you claim to be a university student..?? It's 1.5% of the general population. If you took a person at random, there's a 1.5% chance they're an INFJ. 3.2% that they're an ENTP. But that all changes when it's no longer the "general " population. Obviously. The probability of a random person being INFJ is 1.5%. The probability of a nerdy book author being INFJ is greater. The probability of a nerdy book author who acts like Jordan, speaks like Jordan, thinks like Jordan, etc. being INFJ is even greater still! We're not comparing within the general population. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this stuff to someone on this forum.

That's stupid, tbh. Many people are voting on him based on having seen just a single talk of his, or hold biased views, or are new to MBTI, or see themselves in him and believe he's the same type. Whatever the case, the most likely answer will come out on top. Of course there will be noise, that's unavoidable with any data/statistics. If instead of a few thousand votes you'd have a billion, and the winner was the same type, would you then accept the conclusion of the poll? Would you really still be saying there's no consensus just because there are millions of wrong votes? You have to decide on what sample size is good enough at some point. That's how science works. if 10 people voted, it means little, if 100 voted and there's a pattern, it's evidence. If it's thousands, then it's very good evidence. etc.

No.. 50% on top of the 2nd place type. You ignore the rest as it's noise. The top two types are both predictions of Ti and Fe. So clearly we have a definite consensus about Ti and Fe. We also know that Ni and Se are twice as likely as Ne and Si. This gives us a very accurate picture of his type. Jordan is TiFe. And he's a NiSe, unless you have good reason to doubt this.

In both of these cases, the winning type has 50% more votes than the runner up. What's vague about that? In such cases, it's usually because the two types are very similar, and a socionics model may be more accurate. But this is quite rare. Jordan is a particularly weird person, so people will have disagreements. He's a feeler, but he's also a representative of modern intellectualism, or whatever you'd call it. Another factor in the confusion is that some people type by functions, and some by the 8 letter system, which can give different results. This is another reason I say MBTI needs more attention, scrutiny, and development. These misconceptions can easily be cleared up, if there was only enough public will. The laymen will just have a look at "16 personalities", and be done with it.

They're not.. the vast majority have a clear winner at the top of the MBTI list. E.g. a random person I clicked on just now: https://imgur.com/a/k0hjbJS

You're just manifesting all the no-fap benefits from your belief in no-fap bringing you benefits. Be honest, did you believe no-fap will give you "benefits" before you started no-fap? ..Exactly. No-fap is actually unhealthy, shrinks your dick, and lowers your testosterone levels. About 5-7 days after ejaculating, testosterone peaks, reaching around 145% of baseline levels. If you never masturbate, you'll never experience this benefit. Your dick will also experience minimal blood-flow, and shrink from underuse. Your blood vessels are the main thing responsible for penile function/size, and they adapt to the needs you place upon them, just like muscles. As for semen retention.. you've increased your risk of cancer, and have basically told your body you're not interested in sex and it should not make sexual function a priority. Any improvements you made to you life have been in spite of no-fap.

I kind of pushed her to breaking up by spending all my time here, rather than with her. She just had no intellectual interests, being an ESFJ, so on some level I probably wanted to break up. I could've easily maintained the relationship, but the lack of intellectual connection made it kind of shallow, despite all the deep love.

I think I already am. But it's nice to have someone to share ideas with, and I can't do that with myself as I know all my responses.

There is clear consensus on every person who's a public figure. Check out personality-database.com. Every person has a clear consensus. Study the site enough, and maybe you'll start seeing patterns. But again, you avoid every point I've made. Introversion/extroversion isn't arbitrary nonsense. It's a very obvious and well-accepted phenomenon. Your denial of this is clearly indication of your bias.

Serious. You have to use inductive reasoning here. Highly unlikely he's making it all up for his own amusement. Impossible, I'd say. And there are many secondary sources which verify much of what he's talked about. But I won't argue with you.

You can manifest anything you want. Just takes time.

No.

I never suggested it's perfect. All I'm saying is the people who do research on it have to be experts in understanding the theory to have any chance of getting results. It's not just gonna "figure it out" by itself. So you've never even heard of Socionics? What hope did you expect to have at this? And why did the algorithm fail at even telling apart extroverts from introverts? This is a clear indication the study is inherently flawed. And how did that guy earlier today in this thread predict my type? And how do I consistently have "far above chance" results at typing people based on just a few sentences? Well? You're an expert doing "real science" on this. You want to find the truth, even if it conflicts with your biases, right? You really can't rest until you figure out why the results are always far greater than chance.