The examples do as well. The real difference lies in how much information is collected and how it's compared to the archetypes. I get what you're saying, though, and it's clear there is a difference in at least the intent.Rob wrote:But I think it is better than your examples since it uses actual human input.
I think these could be very useful to somebody who isn't very introspective, and I didn't find it horrible.
Part of my problem could be (read: was) Wikipedia, as the profile there is very short.
Here some guys throw more words at the problem of explaining my personality type. To be fair, they're getting pretty close to me at times. Basically all of Joe Butt's response fits me:
It's easier playing at being drunk in IRC. I don't tickle people.ENFPs have what some call a "silly switch." They can be intellectual, serious, all business for a while, but whenever they get the chance, they flip that switch and become CAPTAIN WILDCHILD, the scourge of the swimming pool, ticklers par excellence. Sometimes they may even appear intoxicated when the "switch" is flipped.
Thought about that for a while.ENFPs like to tell funny stories, especially about their friends. This penchant may be why many are attracted to journalism.
I'll let you guys decide. I put a lot of stock in precision, although I have to work at it.ENFPs are global learners. Close enough is satisfactory to the ENFP, which may unnerve more precise thinking types,
I like how they gave Ghost Dad as an example of what Bill Cosby's done.