You have slight preference of Introversion over Extraversion (6%)
You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (56%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (19%)
You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (41%)
That’s what I got on the test.
Description below:
Your INFJ-A, A for Awesome.
That score would explain a lot about you Ec… my J over P is very slight (not sure how that translates into my thoughts/actions) but your I/E and F/T are very slight, but I have no idea how that would affect you out in the world with others etc… I’d say Turd’s A makes up for that though.
It’s not quantity Magsj, but how it is networked. Circumstantially, people shift. I’m not always INTJ in a given day.
You stagger the primaries anaginst the fallback positions. You gotta take into account his schizophrenia will make that cascade come off oddly at times, but the question that you gotta ask is, does it effect the overall superstructure of personality.
A ESFP in solitary confinement could come off as introverted upon bring released, in terms of quantative observance of this single trait, but other thought processes will remain largely structured as it would be in any other ESFP. Doesn’t change fundamentally who they are, even if the readjustment period leaves them a bad bit squirrelly. Your learning entire networks of traits moving together, not just the quantity of “a” trait, and if someone has undergone a personality change in the past (most do at least once in early childhood, we all start off INFPish) they retain that functionality consciously, unless traumatic brain injury caused that shit.
It can be switched to or away. That’s life. MBTI doesn’t show this inherently, but Hung noted this sort of 9th type would happen (his system had 8 types), and some people would get even more complex. Hence why you pay attention to the overall scheme for abnormalities. And no, just because someone absolutely insists they are unique and breaks the mold, and doesn’t like their typology, and wants to feel special unique them doesn’t mean they are that 9th type by any means, they tend to be some of the most generic thinkers we got. I’m talking about when the networks become partially bizarre, too many routes taken. A innovative philosophy that insists on applying and networking several separate schools of thought can “sometimes”, not usually, pull this off. I’m not talking about mere eclecticism, but actully forcing a system that uses a whole personality range to merge with one it doesn’t naturally relate to, by explaining in full the merger of thought processes involved. The merger of mathematics and beauty in the 20th century produced a few such thinkers, but only a few. For most of us, it hasn’t been merged yet, we don’t comprehend that transitional philosophy. Would you try to type Patanjali as only one type?
I recommend start looking at short biographies of famous people. I don’t mean Mikey Cyrus or Justin Timberlake, they have generally fake commercial personas, coached for a audience, I mean historical figures.
Always read more than one biography, because sometimes it is the biographers personality comming through, over the supposed subject. After your done typing them, Google the results.
People like me do it for philosophers, nasty disputes can arise, but it is a good place to study why those disputes arise.
Always choose primary sources over secondary sources. Beware of far too codied works, like Lives of Philosophers, or Lives of Saints, or far too critical or approving works. You need a balanced biography when starting off. Later on you can juggle bias, asking what it implies.
Don’t stop at MBTI, learn how other personality systems type as well.
I would say it’s pretty spot on about me.
I’m the rare subtype of apparently the rare personality that excels also in logic.
But whatever …
I’m still waiting for Carleas and Uccisore to debate me…
I find it funny that their excuse is that I’m mentally disabled…
I will crush them on all three debates I offered…
Do I sense fear from the “intellectuals”?
Even Turd went out of his way to define me as an experimental rhetoric machine who’s only subhuman at best…
I’ll debate all of you at once, and I will crush you.
I am in many ways, a shaman, a secular one…
I have a very stable personality.
To explain to someone what it’s like to be in both worlds at once is hard for those only in one or the other.
I always tell people that if they met me, they’d like me …
Not an idea of me, but actually getting to know me…
Maybe that causes jealousy for other types shrugs
Have I ever claimed otherwise to any of the above? in fact, I’ve been declaring such the last few weeks, but you were too busy with other things to acknowledge that.
Miley Cyrus? Justin Timberlake? do I come off as a fan/a person interested in knowing any more about them than what is already out there in the public arena? Surely you jest, sir?
I grew up reading about and watching documentaries on public figures from various claims to fame, both the living and the dead, from History, The Arts, The Sciences, Sports, etc. etc. etc. I guess whomever I find compelling enough to want to delve deeper into their persona.
Isn’t the above a given that anyone with a decent amount of intelligence would figure out? 
one’s studies alone would lead to that conclusion… when in the library doing a write-up on someone or other… and signing out a selection of books on that person, to get a complete balanced overview of them.
I’ll be sure to look into that.
Yes
No
I’m glad that you agree that, yes… you were too busy with other things to acknowledge that I had already previously concluded all that.
If, no… it is not a given that anyone with a decent amount of intelligence would figure out such things, then I can only speak for myself.
What?
Would you like to expand on that?