Talk:Jungian Type Index
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New changes incoming
[edit]I'm going to publish some changes to the article to stop it from being a stub in the next couple of hours. Depending on the amount of support I can/have found, I will attempt to change the following:
- A category explaining the differences between the JTI and MBTI. This is touched on in the introductory paragraphs in the current article, but I think it merits its own section.
- A category explaining the basics of the JTI. Even though it is similar to the MBTI, it is more than a spin-off and you shouldn't have to go to a separate article to get information about it -- particularly if you live in a country (e.g. Denmark) where the JTI has actually replaced the MBTI
- A category explaining the origins of the JTI, and perhaps includes how it relates to Jungian Psychology. I'll only be able to add this if I can find a good source.
- If I can find basis for it, I'd like to include some information (or links) to Jung's theory on Cognitive Functions, which is what I believe the JTI helps one discover.
- A section describing the commercialization of the product and its success.
This also includes cleaning up the intro section. I'll update my changes on the talk page here.
Cadunne (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: Changes made. Here are the things I changed:
- Added Overview section
- Added Differences from MBTI
- Added commercialization
- Deleted Critical points, as it has no evidence and I've seen counter-evidence in a source
- Migrated part of intro to new Commercialization section
- Updated "see also"
- Updated intro to read better
Cadunne (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jungian Type Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411230430/http://conference.cfl.dk/participant/speakers to http://conference.cfl.dk/participant/speakers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Astrology and academics
[edit]Just take a look at the profile bars on the Socionics website. There are no dominant or auxiliary functions. All you can do is a statistical language analysis to find the attitudes in which people differ most. And even more important: it seems to be a scientific fact that low intelligence is positively correlated with the ESFJ personality. These are the kind of folks who just miss the last ounce of mental capacity to check for trueness of facts. So they usually don't care if something is right or wrong, they believe whatever they want. For example, they might have no concept of probability as this is a basic mathematical concept and they usually hate maths. You can literally tell them anything and declare it as science. If one day astrology becomes an academic subject, fine. Maybe define zodiac signs as personality disorders and invent some neurotransmitters for them to give it an academic touch. I have faith. I believe in the equilibrium of contradictions. Undefined void. And in evolution. Evolution of universes, evolution of structures, body and evolution of thought processes in interaction with the environment. Statistically, you perceive and are the most repetitive structure at a random point of time. However, they of course will tell you that there is no evolution. It would be blasphemy to call god a statistic. My religion also gives me insights about human character. A long time ago, other spammers did quite good research on that using some algorithms and models to analyze, predict and match patterns in ASCII text. Consult them if you really want to know about human personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C6:E716:5600:3855:B2C3:520C:261 (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)