Insane perhaps but I'll deal with it

The following is based on the results of my post (so far) titled "A change..."



Relationship Definitions (according to the site the quiz is at)
In the 9 of us that answered (2 via email) we only used 7 types (and I included one extra)

Advisor - provides an area of insight the other lacks
Companion - similar modes of expression, bear each others company well
Compliment - compatible strengths w/ opposite emphasis
Contrast - point and counterpoint on each function
Enigma - totally foreign in every aspect
Tribesmen - share sense of culture but w. different interests + abilities
Pal - work + play well together, minimal natural conflict
Pedagogue - each is both mentor + student

I've provided a coloured legend to go along with the Relationship types to show the connections expected by those who analyze these.

I think that you have to look at these things with as much objectivity as possible. It's not like these things are 100% true nor that everyone in every category is IN every category even. My J score last time was 1% and now I have a P score of 11%. It's not that much different. However my N score of 88% is too high to leave much work for it's opposite attribute to do. (S)

Moving on, I liked also looking at each other's "Enigma" and here are some characteristics we can't comprehend:

Type - Enigma
INTP - isfp

trend setters, followers, more in touch with the reality of their senses, more adept at acting then reflecting

INFP - istp

flexible desires that become rigid when their lifestyle is threatened

ENTJ - esfj

enjoy tradition, being in charge, strong allegiance to rights of seniority, hyper-vigilant

ENFJ - estj

thrive on order and supervision of others, enforce the rules dictated by tradition, great need for belonging

ENFP - estp

act on impulses, to whom an admission of weakness is a failure, use Feeling to disarm "victims" to be able to "beat them"

So far we all answered as "N"'s but we have to know some "S"'s. I wonder who they are and what they feel about their type report? How far can this go towards understanding people? I guess that is iffy. Once you even give a type one is probably starting to get off of a real view of someone. And the analysis alone will be more and more flawed the further you take it but as I was trying to say with my title, the consequences of "analyzing too much" are not as interesting as actually doing it!