| Did you not read anything I said? I don't even know how you can type what you did unless you didn't read. I do not care about whether or not it's a system that describes "all types", I literally said that in my original post that it might be completely useless to most "types" or it could just be not an all encompassing formula at all. I care that it describes MY TYPE, or even more specifically, ME. Did you watch the video I put and the subjects he talks about? The things he discuss in that video resonate so well with me to the deepest interworking mechanisms within my own mind, and they're complex in nature, they are not vague statements. All if this anyway is completely irrefutable to me, because I have observed it. No amount of Hacker news people lamenting that it's not scientific will ever change my mind, as I know my own mind 1000x better, and I know what explains it and what does not. I know how it's interwoven and related in 1000 interconnected ways, and the ways it is not. I can look at certain things about my mind and see them so clearly it's like looking at the sky is blue. I also literally JUST said the "overall descriptions" are too general to be useful, and the real benefit is learning the actual function stack, and in what positions. Looking at 4 sentence descriptions of types to disprove what I'm saying is a stupid endeavor. Most of everyone's interpretation has to do with behavior, this probably makes it "bite sized" for low-attention span people who just want to take quizzes online and move on. For the most part, it has nothing to do with behaviors, at least the parts I am interested in. It has to do with the way the brain perceives, processes, interprets, and assimilates information in vastly different ways. |