/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10515690]

INFJ here. How does it feel you will never be as good of a writer as me?

[Anonymous No.10515695]

>>10515690
>as good of a
is this b8?

[Anonymous No.10515699]

>>10515690
It feels great knowing I am spared such mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.10515710]

>personality types
You sound like such a Gemini.

[Anonymous No.10515736]

>>10515695
No, no vehemently no. I'm afraid not. I was accepted to UCLA's esteemed English program.
>>10515699
In this picture: neurotic neck beard tries to insult his way to greatness. He will never know what sex feels like. Ladies love INFJs because we can relate to them while also come up with witty remarks that will make them lechorous for our dick.

[Anonymous No.10515819]

>>10515690
E/INFJ- I can actually mix it up with publishers, have a drink or two, put on a fairly decent show etc. So there.

[Anonymous No.10515825]

>paying attention to a horoscope for "smart" people

[Anonymous No.10515847]

>>10515819
Not how MBTI works. If you're ENFJ it just means you're a psychopathic faggot lacking extroverted perception i.e. not fit to be a writer and probably a rapist

[Anonymous No.10515852]

>>10515690
I’m an enfp apparently
Writing gives me anxiety desu

[Anonymous No.10515877]

>>10515736
infj hos love [x]ntp dick

just so you know

[Anonymous No.10515884]

Pisces is redpilled as fuck

[Anonymous No.10515897]

Infp and born in December. I've never known happiness

[Anonymous No.10516041]

heh, try swallowing the INTP pill, kiddo

[Anonymous No.10516056]

>>10515690
with the form your questions take, it looks like their content is questionable, and easily discarded.

[Anonymous No.10516058]

>>10516041
not so fast greenhorn, stick em up

[Anonymous No.10516066]

>>10515877
There are no INFJ girls

[Anonymous No.10516155]

>>10516066
all infj boys are secretly infj girls

[Anonymous No.10516224]

INF/TP. Next Joyce here. Bask in my radiance.

[Anonymous No.10516252]

>>10515847
E-slash-I ... I'm both. That rapist shit I only do on the wkends... ... ....

[Anonymous No.10516285]

>>10515690
>>10515736
>>10515819
>>10515847
>>10515852
>>10515877
>>10515897
>>10516041
>>10516224

MBTI is complete nonsense that was literally made up by two housewives that read a book by Jung once, and no serious psychologist uses it

t. someone with a degree in pyschology

[Anonymous No.10516307]

>>10515690
i don't care about being good at shit unfortunately

[Anonymous No.10516317]

>>10516285
>someone with a degree in pyschology

Lmao who cares

[Anonymous No.10516323]

MBTI is for poor people who couldn’t afford the Mensa subscription

[Anonymous No.10516330]

>>10515690
>believing in feel-good pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10516341]

>>10516285
>t. someone with a degree in pyschology
more like
t. someone with a doctorate in getting fuckin baited on

[Anonymous No.10516362]

>>10515690
>Infinite Jest here

Huh?
Usually we just use IJ

[Anonymous No.10516364]

>>10516330
>describing peoples personalities in terms of cognitive tendencies is pseudo-science

[Anonymous No.10516372]

>>10516364
It has zero empirical validity. The constructs aren't real.

Big Five is what actual psychologist use to measure personality.

[Anonymous No.10516391]

INTJ

Go ahead and start making jokes at my expense.

[Anonymous No.10516396]

>>10516372
>It has zero empirical validity

They're merely descriptive categories, how could they be "empirically valid"?
You're comparing apples and oranges here the Big5 only functions experimentally because it leaves all description to the subjects rather than taking up any hermeneutic agency of its own (except for its arbitrary and teleological bracketing of the (five) categories)

[Anonymous No.10516407]

INFJ's are just completely insufferable, right? You have all of my personal flaws, but without my entertaining spontaneity. What a fucking drag.

[Anonymous No.10516413]

>>10516372
So then how do you confront the notion that people of certain MBTI types correlate with people of certain big 5 makeups

[Anonymous No.10516423]

>>10516285
It's a useful tool for some patients. Academics are too excited to throw out Jung and anyone who associates with him.
t. actual therapist

[Anonymous No.10516432]

>>10516396
For one, the MBTI has little to know test-retest validity. You can give someone the test a week apart, and they'll get different results. Personality, by definition, is something that does not change on a regular basis.

[Anonymous No.10516437]

>>10516407
INFJs don't have personality flaws

[Anonymous No.10516446]

>>10516423
Jung isn't the problem. The problem is that they didn't study Jung seriously, they were two housewives that read one of his books.
>>10516413
It doesn't. Half the people who take the test won't get the same result twice.

[Anonymous No.10516454]

>>10516432
That's an issue with the tests not the categories. Afterall it just becomes a disguised means of asking patients to self diagnose which will undermine any legitimate system
An analyst will be able to identify subjects consistently

[Anonymous No.10516455]

>>10516446
The categories and their utility are not reliant on the test. MBTI has use in one on one sessions.

[Anonymous No.10516460]

>>10516454
Any attempt to categorize humans with binary options is inherently flawed, and to pretend it isn't shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10516467]

>>10516455
The categories are based on completely unproven hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.10516470]

>>10516446
How on earth does that matter
The test blllloooowwwsss

That doesn't make the descriptors or the system invalid.

[Anonymous No.10516475]

>>10516455
>>10516470

Further, the categories themselves are flawed, and rely on binary choices that fail to represent any actual humans.

[Anonymous No.10516476]

>>10516446
Do you have issue with the categories themselves. Surely you don't see a problem with describing someone as introverted or extroverted as a generalization. What about the others?
It seems clear as day to me that different people do have clear tendencies to analyze their given context in specific ways. Favoring certain details, thinking in certain directions.
Do you oppose any attempt to have a descriptive system for these tendencies without falling back on the merely associative linguistic approach of the Big 5 which is extremely limiting when it comes to ubderstanding cognition

[Anonymous No.10516477]

>>10516396
>They're merely descriptive categories, how could they be "empirically valid"?

They were created using factor analysis.

MBTI does not have any sort of rigorous methodology behind it. Its categories are not going to be terribly useful if they don't exist as actual patterns in the world.

[Anonymous No.10516478]

>>10516460
>using the fact that an argument has been made as a counter argument to the argument
could you be more dishonest?

[Anonymous No.10516483]

>>10516476
But I do. No one is completely introverted or extroverted. It is not a binary choice, it is a spectrum.

[Anonymous No.10516486]

>>10516460
>Any attempt to categorize humans with binary options is inherently flawed

Give me a fucking break. Tall, short. Fat, thin. Hair, bald.
Sure there's always grey areas in between but don't act as if binary descriptors are not necessary and useful

[Anonymous No.10516498]

>>10516483
A choice that is axially defined on a binary.
Christ you're fucking daft.

[Anonymous No.10516501]

>>10516486
Maybe not for general use, but someone's actual weight is infinitely more useful than "fat or thin," and by limiting it to those two options, you ignore large swathes of people. What about bodybuilders, for example? Are they fat or thin?

[Anonymous No.10516505]

>>10516498
But the MBTI doesn't give any option than "Completely introverted" or "completely extroverted," and ignores the vast majority of the population that falls in the middle.

[Anonymous No.10516506]

>>10516437
>INFJs don't have personality flaws
I know - that would require first having a personality.

[Anonymous No.10516507]

>>10516501
Oh golly, we found a grey area. Guess we can never help people with anorexia or obesity now

[Anonymous No.10516513]

>>10516505
This

Personality traits are normally distributed in the population. Most people are actually ambiverts.

[Anonymous No.10516514]

>>10516507
The point is, why use a test that only allows for anorexics or obese people when others exist that account for the people in between?

[Anonymous No.10516523]

>>10516505
> ignores the vast majority of the population that falls in the middle.

Mere conjecture. Anyway it provides all the area for ambiguity you need, what you're saying is equivalent to declaring compasses useless because of all the degrees between North and South. Without firm binaries of direction there is no possibility of coordination between them

[Anonymous No.10516529]

>>10516523
No, because compasses can point to those degrees between North and South, the MBTI can't. A compass that only has North and South marked is less useful than one that has the degrees between marked.

The MBTI is fundamentally flawed, based on unproven theories, invented by housewives with no psychological training, and is no longer used by the majority of the psychological community. I have no idea why you feel the need to defend it.

[Anonymous No.10516533]

>>10516523
I'm not saying that introversion or extroversion don't exist, just that a test that only gives those two extremes as options is flawed.

[Anonymous No.10516547]

>>10516529
>the MBTI can't

Yes it can, why would you assume otherwise?
You may be identified according to your nearest matching code but there is nothing preventing one from displaying category results in a non-discreet form

[Anonymous No.10516549]

>>10516529
Like, most Psychology journals won't even print results if you used the MBTI. It is literally only used by HR people because they get paid to give it to people.

[Anonymous No.10516555]

>>10516547
Then what use is the code? Why use a binary test when others exist? Why won't you answer this question I've asked multiple times?

[Anonymous No.10516558]

Can someone give me details on an INFJ?

[Anonymous No.10516560]

>>10516549
You're saying the people who have to deal with real world consequences of their analysis utilize the system while the fact the poorly regarded discipline of psychology doesn't allow it means anything

[Anonymous No.10516561]

>>10516547
The psycholgists from the company that publishes the test DON'T EVEN USE IT because they don't find it academically sound.

[Anonymous No.10516563]

I have no idea what is being discussed here can someone educate a fag porfavor?

[Anonymous No.10516566]

>>10516555
>Then what use is the code

It provides a hermeneutically useful descriptive system for the cognitive tendencies of any given individual.

[Anonymous No.10516570]

>>10516560
No, people use it because they get paid to. It is literally meaningless. But you just keep ignoring the points you can't argue against, so I think you may just be baiting.
>>10516566
Keep ignoring the important questions, dude.
>>10516563
The MBTI is a personality test that is used by many businesses, despite being completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.10516572]

>>10516561
The use of a system to any given organization and its use among individual analysts are separate questions. Why they would feel it appropriate to apply to their needs or inappropriate is not mine to judge

[Anonymous No.10516575]

>>10516566
That would be true if people got the same results when they took the test more than once. They don't, though, so it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10516580]

>>10516572
No, it's theirs. I didn't make up that they think it isn't academically sound.

[Anonymous No.10516581]

>>10516570
No I'm afraid you're the one who just keeps repeating yourself. Claiming the test is useless without providing any criticism that can't be applied to literally any attempt to describe a subjects personality

[Anonymous No.10516587]

>>10516581
Answer this question, please:
Why use a test that restricts results to a binary, when tests that don't do so exist?

[Anonymous No.10516589]

>>10516575
That speaks about the tests not the categories themselves. Any personality test is going to be subject to patients whims and the economic limits of time and effort expected of them.

[Anonymous No.10516596]

>>10516581
>>10516587
Also, why are you lying about my arguments? There are tests that have test-retest reliability, and there are tests that give more than a binary result. These criticisms cannot be applied to "literally any attempt to describe a subjects personality."

[Anonymous No.10516599]

>>10516587
Except the test doesn't restrict patients to binary, if you look at how the results are calculated you'll find it very explicitly operates on a continuous scale.
The categories exist as a means of allowing comparisons between types but the system is in no way relient to such a behavior.

[Anonymous No.10516600]

>>10516589
Tests that have test-retest reliability exist. Stop pretending they don't. There is also only one test that has those categories as a result, so for the categories to be useful, you need to show me a solid test that uses them.

[Anonymous No.10516606]

>>10516575
People don't score very consistently on the big 5 either. It's actually fucking amazing that the big 5 test asks individuals to self-assess their own intelligence (openness). At least nothing on the MBTI is inarguably/universally desirable.

[Anonymous No.10516609]

>>10516596
>There are tests that have test-retest reliability

Not anywhere near complete reliability that's simply impossible without going to extreme or expensive lengths

[Anonymous No.10516610]

>>10516599
Why are you defending this test? Do you work for CPP? No serious journal will let you use it.

[Anonymous No.10516616]

>>10516610
I laugh you consider any psychology journal to be "serious"

[Anonymous No.10516617]

>>10516609
I never claimed complete reliability. But a test with 50% reliability is particularly bad, and there are tests that are better.

[Anonymous No.10516628]

>>10516617
Do you believe it is impossible to develop an MBTI test which has higher reliability? Is there anything in the categories themselves to suggest such a thing as infeasible?

[Anonymous No.10516636]

>>10516606
>Openness is intelligence
Confirmed you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>10516628
It isn't AN MBTI, it is THE MBTI, and is owned and administered by CPP for profit. You seriously have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10516647]

>>10516636
No I'm afraid it is you who are confused here. My interest is in the categories themselves not a particular instanciation of them. Why on Earth would I care about a particular institutions deployment in a merely theoretical discussion

[Anonymous No.10516650]

>>10516616
>journals run by scientists are not serious but a personality model developed by a housewife and her daughter is trustworthy

[Anonymous No.10516657]

>>10516647
Because they developed the categories? They literally don't exist outside the MBTI. I think you're just assmad that you can't lord your MBTI over people anymore.

[Anonymous No.10516659]

>>10516650
>psychologists
>scientists

Come on man

[Anonymous No.10516664]

>>10516659
5/10 I replied

[Anonymous No.10516669]

>>10516664
I'm not kidding, you're seriously stretching the bounds of the term scientist here. Are you going to tell me economists are scientists too?

[Anonymous No.10516678]

>>10516657
What you're saying is ludicrous. You can find ideas developed from an organization useful without being dependent on the organization itself thereafter

[Anonymous No.10516680]

>>10516669
Soft sciences are still sciences. People who pretend any conclusion by psychologists is as solid as a geologist is stupid, but that doesn't make psychology completely invalid.

[Anonymous No.10516687]

>>10516678
Please, tell any psychologist that you want to categorize people into 16 rigid categories. I'll wait while they laugh you out of the room.

[Anonymous No.10516689]

>>10516669
>le psychologists aren't scientists meme

because we know MBTI adherents care a lot about science

[Anonymous No.10516692]

>>10516678
>You can find ideas developed by a housewife and her daughter useful without being dependent on the housewife and her daughter themselves thereafter
FTFY

[Anonymous No.10516693]

>>10516687
Coming from the people that promulgate CBT I won't be phased

[Anonymous No.10516700]

>>10516693
Wait, so you don't believe the thing with evidence, but believe the thing invented by a housewife?

[Anonymous No.10516705]

>>10516680
>Soft sciences are still sciences

Psychology barely even qualifies as a soft science much less science. Meterology is a soft science, psychology is a hobby

[Anonymous No.10516713]

>>10516636
>confirmed for having no idea what you're talking about
Openness is encapsulated by and regularly described as aesthetic sensitivity, active imagination, and intellectual curiosity... Whilst this is obviously not identical to intelligence as a concept of raw reasoning and problem solving ability, i don't see how you could argue for the divorce of Openness, as a psychometric trait, with a strong association to intellect.

[Anonymous No.10516718]

>>10516713
I didn't say they weren't related, my point was that someone self assessing their curiosity or imagination is completely different than assessing their intelligence, and you were being disingenuous to imply they were the same thing.

[Anonymous No.10516720]

>>10516705
>Meterology is a soft science

the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10516724]

>R: 98 / I: 8
I'm leaving this board and never returning.

[Anonymous No.10516725]

>>10516713
Like how now you're being disingenuous by strawmanning my argument to make it easier to argue against.

[Anonymous No.10516728]

>>10516700
Its almost as if I am able to view the world as an intuitively whole and see how something as proposterous as CBT can qualify as useful to psychometrics while other things which help one understand people and the world can not fit into those clumsy and arbitrarily defined metrics.
You know its hilarious you were arguing earlier about the legitimacy of placing someone along binaries while psychology still seriously asks people how "happy" they are out of ten.

[Anonymous No.10516733]

>>10516728
At least I'm not asking them if they're "happy" or "unhappy" with no other options. Come back when you have an argument.

[Anonymous No.10516736]

>>10516718
>>10516725
the association is to the point that many, many (admittedly amateur) tests simply call the trait "intelligence"

[Anonymous No.10516743]

>>1051672
One is extremely limited when experimenting with entire atmospheric systems no matter how well we know the fundamental physics of pressure and temperature involved. This is the difference between a real soft science and a hard science.

[Anonymous No.10516744]

>>10516736
And those tests suck too.

[Anonymous No.10516747]

>>10516733
Oh is that the MBTI does now, it just asks you if you're introverted or not?
You're a disingenuous little weasel after having the gall of accusing me of misrepresenting you earlier

[Anonymous No.10516754]

>>10516747
Okay, I've figured it out. This is a bait thread, and you have successfully baited me. 10/10 have fun with those (you)s

[Anonymous No.10516759]

>>10516754
Your discipline is a joke and where it stands now will be viewed akin to lobotomists in the next couple decades. I hope for all our sakes you find little employment in the meantime

[Anonymous No.10516764]

>>10516759
I'll keep em coming. I can't stand the thought of a shitposter going hungry.

[Anonymous No.10516806]

>>10516506
OP here, your insult (because I assume the worst of you) is low hanging fruit. But please do go on with your generic vitriolic, it's hillariously entertaining.

[Anonymous No.10516807]

>>10515690
>believes in the Myers-Brigs test
At least it feels better knowing I'm not as stupid as you

[Anonymous No.10516813]

>>10516807
>what is a rough estimate for 500$, Anon?

[Anonymous No.10516818]

>>10516806
Don't worry fellow INFJ masterrace, these pathetic ISTJs will wash away like bugs on the windscreen

[Anonymous No.10516827]

>>10516285
>t. someone with a degree in pyschology
hahahaha sorry bro

[Anonymous No.10516835]

>MBTI trolling
I guess it was all an... INF Jest.

[Anonymous No.10516915]

INFP here. Feels whatever, I'm not a writer. Good for you though anon.
A lot of IFNJs on 4chan though. Kind of paints a picture...

[Anonymous No.10516960]

>>10515736
>ucla
>impressive

ja ja ja

[Anonymous No.10517001]

>>10515736

Even if we pretend MBTI is somehow legit and you're not trolling. INFJs are usually either obsessive weirdos who shun sex or have a horrible case of tfw no gf due their suppression of their sensing function. The first results in gravitating towards philosophical/spiritual pursuits and the latter results in calling everyone else a degenerate for having fun.

>>10515877

This is true.

Super Reliable Source: I qualify as INFJ by all the weird nebulous metrics of this test

[Anonymous No.10517021]

>>10515736
> UC school

[Anonymous No.10517079]

>>10515736
UCLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.10517236]

I get IN every time then rest fluctuate between FJ, TJ & TP. I don't really think it's able to classify everyone but I know a few people (especially INFPs) who are almost exactly the same person.

[Anonymous No.10517244]

I'm also an INFJ and writing is the best thing I can do if I'm in the mood. So this MBTI meme can be correct sometimes

[Anonymous No.10518274]

>not using socionics
plebs, the lot of you

[Anonymous No.10518284]

>>10515710
This, people who think human personalities can be reduced to four letters are no better than astrologists.

[Anonymous No.10518309]

>>10518284
t. ISFP virgin

[Anonymous No.10518315]

>>10515736
>>10515690
Post your writing.

[Anonymous No.10518588]

>>10518309
I always get INTP, not that it means anything of course

[Anonymous No.10518738]

>>10518284
>>10518588
Very INTP things to say, frankly

I agree it's absolutely not the objective or reliable measurement it presents itself as, but it's still a convenient descriptor in the same sense that the terms "fiery" or "humble" are convenient ways of describing somebody's personality. It's just a tool for assigning characteristics to a person, and apparently a lot of people feel it at least coincides with their self-perception. I disagree that it's equivalent to a horoscope, which is not a signifier based on self-reported behaviors and temperaments, but a collection of behaviors and temperments arbitrarily assigned to people of a particular birth date. A Buzzfeed "Which sitcom character are you?" quiz is a better analogy.

Personalities are to some extent malleable and usually self-contradictory, making them pretty resistant to any attempt at a lasting and accurate definition. The MBTI is an interesting attempt at determining the ways in which people see themselves, and thus the ways in which other people see them.

[Anonymous No.10518839]

>>10515690
INFP here. We're better than you lot at writing.

Cheers.

[Anonymous No.10518882]

>muh science
Fuck off. Science is nothing more than a control mechanism.
>It's not science, so it's not valid
>hurr durr we're HARD scientist!
They think they can measure reality, when it's all in their heads. The whole world of science is bullshit. What a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.10518923]

>>10518882
This, but ironically

[Anonymous No.10518929]

>>10518839
Its easy to seem good when nobody has a fucking clue what you're on about

[Anonymous No.10518946]

>>10518929

>this green-eyed loco anon

INFPs own writing

>Homer
>Virgil
>Shakespeare
>Blake
>Melville
>Kafka
>Woolf

Boof stick it in thank you and goodnight.

[Anonymous No.10518949]

>>10518946
oops wrong pic i hate those cunts

[Anonymous No.10519009]

>>10516285
What makes one theory of personality more valid than another?

[Anonymous No.10519023]

>>10518946
Shakespeare is overrated and hates philosophy, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.10519030]

>>10519023
>Shakespeare is overrated
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Anonymous No.10519035]

>>10519023
>Shakespeare is overrated

yanks man. i don't even...

[Anonymous No.10519065]

>>10516041
INTP and born in June add that to being a Cancer
Which means I'm emotionally all over the place.
However, human personalities can't completely be put in one category or even four letters without being inaccurate in some way or another.
That doesn't mean that this isn't fun.

[Anonymous No.10519084]

>>10516759
>I'm going to pretend that any psychometric, evidence based differences between psychological theories don't exist at all, it's all equal man
>wow, this discipline is a joke
Are you for real?

>man physics is all just particles or waves no difference
>whoa physics is a joke can't know nuthun
This is how retarded you sound.

[Anonymous No.10519100]

>>10519084
Particles can be measured, "psychometrics" are mere postulations that can be arbitrarily framed or discarded for whatever model you wish to teleogically spawn from them. Its simply not science, I would even say economics has more of a claim to science because at least the flow of money can actually be measured and you can see what a shitshow that is.

[Anonymous No.10519106]

>>10519100
So you think that the beliefs, attitudes, and states that generate validated differences in self reports literally don't exist, or that they can't be inferred at all?

[Anonymous No.10519109]

>>10515690
>F

Truly embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10519126]

>>10519106
I think they're all there but the work of their interpretation is so complex and subjective we, as yet, have no means of scientifically modelling them and any attempt to do so is misdirected to the point of counter-productive.
And this is bearing out in reality, psychology as a discipline has reverted from a holistic tradition back to being a system of mere containment. Diagnoses such as autism and schizophrenia rather than becoming clarified are now simply shown to be more mysterious than ever, if accepted to be legitimate categories at all. Psychologists are seeing their funding dry up across the board through the world and are a laughing stock in the private sector.
Your whole temple is coming down around you, its a dismal state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.10519167]

>>10519126
The quest for truth and understanding is not counter-productive, even if we figure out a certain direction has limitations, that is a benefit. You're also conflating psychometry, all the many different treatment models, and the philosophical underpinnings of abnormal psychology, none of which depend on each other to the extend you're implying. You don't need to be able to pinpoint the aeteology of a disorder to improve understanding about how to manage it, for example. These fields are not of equal standing or merit, so to call it all "psychology" and evaluate them as one and the same is laymen nonsense. Funding is definitely not drying up, corporate psychologists are growing, as are clinical, academic, and especially forensic, I'm not saying thats a good thing, only that you're a liar to suit your weird predudice. Finally, if all of the fundamental tenets of "psychology" hypothetically changes in the next 50 years towards truth, that would be a credit to the discipline, not a failure. Science and philosophy should continue moving and developing, and to the extent that my "temple" is the study of human beings as an intersect between biological laws and social, moral consciousness, as well as all the other "complex and subjective" facets... Yeah I don't think that's going anywhere. It's as ancient as thought and hardly dismal.

[Anonymous No.10519306]

>>10517001
Fuck that hit way too close to home. I used to think MBTI was BS but you basically just summarized my entire existence without even knowing I exist

[Anonymous No.10519318]

>>10517236
You can’t rely on the tests to accurately type yourself. It’s a good starting point but if you really want to know what you are you need to familiarize yourself with different types and pick the one you most identify with. It took me years of dismissing Myers Briggs as astrology bullshit before figuring this out.

[Anonymous No.10519330]

Jesus Christ is an INFJ

[Anonymous No.10519384]

>>10515690

What does being an Inbred Nigger Faggot Jew have to do with writing?

[Anonymous No.10519396]

>>10519330
U fucking wot m8? Jesus was an ENFJ

[Anonymous No.10519399]

>>10519167
btfo

[Anonymous No.10519494]

>>10519396
>was
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.10519520]

>>10519494
Have you not read the news? God is dead and so by extension are the son and the holy spirit.

[Anonymous No.10519531]

>>10519396
u wot?

Jesus is introverted intuition personified

[Anonymous No.10519542]

>>10519531
>through sheer charisma initiated a cult that has snowballed over thousands of years
>introverted
Yeah I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.10519549]

>>10519542
INFJs are known to often be charismatic. See hitler, Gandhi, et al

[Anonymous No.10519559]

>>10519542
Introverted describes your own association to people not how people associate to you retard.