Forums » Science & Technology

List of newest posts

    • March 31, 2016 6:06:31 PM PDT
    • The world is flat, dummy.

    • March 31, 2016 1:20:54 PM PDT
    • "Fractional Differentiation" is currently the prevailing theory on the origin of Earth's continents. In this view, plate tectonics is older than continents. The story goes: volcanism creates volcanoes, the sea floor migrates and effectively corrals these volcanoes into larger masses, over eons the piles get quite large, eventually you have continents.

      "All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
      -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust

      Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
      http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/

      I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.

      The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world significantly smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the Moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.

      ProtoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. Earlier in their history they were molten balls with no legitimate crust to speak of. Of course, the laws of physics make it pretty clear how the system would develop from there. In liquids, heavy things sink, light things float. And, the second law of thermodynamics sees to it that relatively hot things cool off. It follows our heaviest components (iron, nickel) would concentrate toward the core while the lightest of materials would distribute throughout the surface. It also follows this surface would cool and solidify. Thus is development of planets. ProtoEarth and Theia were solidly within that later stage of development. They had solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. Then they met. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. Of course, this wasn't a "hit and run" type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today.

      As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of the mass was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. Approximately half of protoEarth's crust survived the impact but the increase of volume meant the remaining crust wound up covering closer to a third of Earth's larger surface area. I find a bit of novelty in this fact: most of humanity doesn't live on Earth's crust. Technically, the vast majority of us live on protoEarth's crust. Unless you live in Hawaii, Tahiti, or other volcanic island, you live on crust that originally formed on a planet that hasn't existed for over 4 billion years. A cursory scrutiny of Earth's properties and the laws of physics confirms it.

      The implications of Fractional Differentiation demonstrate how it fails to provide an accurate assessment of physical reality. The composition and density of sea floor is known to be very different from continental crust. Frractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. However, the composition and density of continental crust clearly shows it did not originate from oceanic crust. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition and density would be more similar to ocean floor composition and density. Rather, they are very distinct. It begs the question: where did all THIS stuff come from? This stuff, the material in our continents, clearly came from somewhere else. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals. Plus, the whole "it all just got swept over to one side" mentality is shaky to begin with. We don't see sea floor getting swept up and adding to continental crust anywhere on this planet. If anything it's the reverse of their views: continental crust is adding to oceanic crust.

      "Fractional Differentiation" is a violation of the laws of physics. There will always be geologic activity to keep things interesting, but the laws of physics in no way permit a planet to form 2 distinct types of crust under normal circumstances. There are hundreds of planetoids in this solar system alone. Most of them have solid crusts of rock or ice. Those other worlds effectively have a single type of crust that have roughly uniform densities because they are made of roughly uniform materials. Their crusts are what we should expect given the simple physics behind their development: light stuff floats, entropy tries to distribute everything evenly across the surface, the surface cools and hardens... There's geologic activity to keep it interesting, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that permits a planet, left unto its own accord, to form 2 types of crust so distinct in composition and density that one type of crust floats on another.

      Kindly look at a sea floor (bathymetric) map of the Indian Ocean... India left tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. The Chagos-Laccadive Ridge and the Ninty-East Ridge, they're tracks. That is unprecedented! Our continents are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet. It turns out we do occupy a special place in the cosmos.

      There is also the question about the origin of plate tectonics. Where did that come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust... -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Okay, how did it get broken? What set off all this activity? Research leaves the impression the current theory isn't developed enough to address that inquiry.

      Um, what subduction? Planetary crust forms at nearly uniform density. Crust at roughly uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. There would be no wide sweeping actions relative to another as current theory implies. Thus, there is no collection technique. There would be no physical process to gather the volcanoes into larger masses. The process attributed to building up continents simply doesn't exist.

      The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to the laws of physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is rather different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. The crust exploding is pure Hollywood style sensationalism, not physics. Energy does not transmute in that fashion.

      These inquiries become much easier to address from the Archaic Crust perspective; Earth didn't form 2 distinct types of crust, it forms only one type, known as "sea floor". The original crust had the lightest of materials so naturally Earth's crust is made of, more or less, the next lightest materials. ProtoEarth's crust was essentially floating on Earth's crustal material all along. Thus that unique feature of our world is neatly explained. The cause of the initial fracturing is obvious...

      Supporting evidence also includes Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River (New Madrid). Those features don't seem to have much association with global tectonics and are subsequently hard to explain in current contexts. On the other hand, they are easily understood in context of Archaic Crust Theory. There are consequences to forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. A few of those original fractures include what separates North America from Siberia, the rift zone that houses Lake Baikal, and the New Madrid Fault line. The latter two don't contribute much to plate tectonics but all three are merely stress fractures that occurred while flattening out.

      Aside from predicting everything we already know about our world, there is a less obscure fact predicted: we all know the continents kinda fit together. If you reduce the size of the globe they are plotted on they will fit together even better.

      Thanks for taking the time to review Archaic Crust Theory.

    • August 11, 2015 9:26:24 AM PDT
    • Delete, wrong forum

    • September 23, 2014 4:11:24 PM PDT
    • The existence of the Higgs boson, a very small particle, has been researched at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. This project is an ongoing attempt to verify the idea of supersymmetry. The concept of supersymmetry states that every boson is related to a corresponding fermion and, subsequently, every fermion is related to a corresponding boson. This idea transcends or supersedes traditional symmetry within the widely recognized Standard Model of particle physics. How does the theory of supersymmetry go beyond traditional symmetry? In particle physics there are four fundamental interactions of nature. These are strong interaction, electromagnetism, gravitation and weak interaction. Weak interaction is also known as quantum flavordynamics. The weak force, or weak interaction, is defined in terms of the electro-weak theory. Weak interaction is responsible for the radioactive decay and nuclear fusion of subatomic particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics the weak interaction is caused by the release or absorption of bosons. All known fermions interact through weak interaction. A fermion can be an elementary particle like electrons or it can be a composite particle like protons. The mass of various bosons is much heavier than that of protons or neutrons. The mass of the bosons makes the weak nuclear force have a short range. It is a weak nuclear force because its field strength is consistently much less in magnitude than strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. The timeline of the Big Bang is as follows: Big Bang - Planck Epoch - Grand Unification Epoch - Electroweak Epoch - Quark Epoch - Hadron Epoch - Lepton Epoch - Photon Epoch - Dark Ages - Reionization! During the Quark Epoch (very soon after the initial Big Bang) the temperature of the universe was too great to allow quarks to bind together and form hadrons. The preceding Electroweak Epoch ended as the electroweak interaction split into the weak interaction and electromagnetism. During the Quark Epoch the universe was a dense, hot quark-gluon plasma. Mesons and baryons could not yet form from the quarks. When quarks succeeded in being confined in hadrons it would mark the dawn of the Hadron Epoch on the aforementioned timeline of the Big Bang. Therefore, during the Quark Epoch the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and weak forces. Most fermions eventually decay by weak interaction. Examples of these decaying fermions include beta decay (where the production of deuterium and helium from hydrogen powers the sun's and other stars' nuclear processes), radiocarbon dating and radioluminescence. The weak interaction out of the four fundamental interactions of nature is unique because it breaks parity-symmetry and Charge Parity symmetry. This is also referred to as CP violation. The universe consists primarily of matter instead of equal parts of matter and antimatter. If the tenets of Charge Parity symmetry were preserved immediately after the Big Bang then equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been produced. Theoretically this would have caused cancellations...protons cancelling antiprotons, electrons cancelling positrons and neutrons cancelling antineutrons. This would have created an ocean of radiation in the universe and no matter. So what happened just after the Big Bang? Experiments indicate that the weak force's symmetry (such as during the Electroweak Epoch) should cause the bosons to have 0 mass. This is not the case! The weak forces bosons are very massive and short-ranging. The mass and short-range of the bosons makes material structures such as atoms and stars possible. The Higgs mechanism is a mathematical model. It explains how bosons could retain their mass despite their governing symmetry. The Higgs mechanism states that the conditions for the symmetry would be broken if a field happened to exist in all of space. Then the particles would be able to have mass. The Higgs Field: According to the Standard Model the Higgs Field exists throughout space and breaks certain symmetry laws of the electroweak interaction. This field triggers the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons responsible for the weak force to be massive. Furthermore, this may explain why electrons and quarks have mass, too. The existence of the Higgs Field might be proven by identifying a matching particle associated with it. Detecting the Higgs bosons in their various renditions or forms would prove that the Higgs Field exists. Particle colliders, detectors and computers capable of looking for Higgs bosons have taken some decades to develop. By 2013 scientists have virtually proven that the Higgs boson exists and thus the Higgs Field permeates the known universe. Certainly, additional research is necessary. According to Rolf Dieter-Heuer, "[The] verification of real scalar fields would be nearly as important as its role in generating mass." Some people think the Higgs Field (a scalar field) could be the inflation responsible for the exponential expansion of the universe during the Big Bang. Speculatively, the Higgs Field has been proposed to be the energy of the vacuum. Through the successive symmetry-breakings of the Higgs Field at phase transitions the present universe's known forces and fields arise. Personally, I am also interested in the significance and function of black holes. A black hole can be very large or so small that it is evaporated. According to Stephen Hawking black holes do radiate some particles. Also, dark matter may be related to the reactions observed in the early Big Bang. I have read about white holes (theoretically from which new universes might emerge) and creation and annihilation operators in quantum field theories. Another interesting avenue of scientific exploration are states, including "squeezed coherent states" along with vacuum state, squeezed vacuum state, phase squeezed state, arbitrary squeezed state and amplitude-squeezed state. Squeezed coherent states relate to Hawking radiation...such as the radiation from black holes. Can a black hole become a white hole? I don't know but certainly the continued research of the Higgs Field and Higgs bosons are bound to reveal a greater knowledge for mankind of the changing fabric and properties of the universe as it ages. And the possibility of the existence of other universes in the past and future and multiple dimensions via string theory or M-theory and the S-matrix and D-brane.

    • September 9, 2014 8:54:19 PM PDT
    • It has been many years since men landed on the moon. More recently astronauts have entered space, orbiting the Earth. This was accomplished with the use of powerful, multi-stage rocket propulsion and exit and re-entry vessels such as the now retired Space Shuttle. The Cold War is over. The space race between the Soviets and the Americans is in the past. Hence, what is the incentive for humanity to return to manned space exploration and the continued development of the International Space Station?
      I believe there are many incentives. These include but are not limited to the continued development of satellite and communications technology, diplomacy between astronauts of different national origins, the testing of super computers and microprocessors at zero gravity and the peace of mind of knowing that homo sapiens live beyond our planet.
      The Hubble telescope (which was repaired in space by astronauts) and now the Kepler telescope have provided us with invaluable knowledge about the physics, chemistry and otherwise previously unknown features of the deep cosmos. We now know there are hundreds of Earth-like planets orbiting sun-like stars in neighboring solar systems.
      --There may be other phenomena close to us such as dark stars or nemesis stars along with radically elliptical orbit-holding gaseous, rogue, giant planets in our own solar system similar in constitution to Jupiter.--R.Dean
      I feel that a large-scale permanent space station would better assist astrophysicists in early warning and diversion of asteroids and meteor showers approaching our planet. Even better would be a infrared or radar array that surrounds the earth. The same goes for small settlements on the moon and Mars. We have a long way to go to reach the level of technological advancement theorized in the Star Trek TV shows and movies. I heard on YouTube that if astronauts approached one half of light speed and maintained their velocity at that degree for one year, they would return to an Earth several decades ahead of the time that they departed. Einstein argued that surpassing light speed is impossible. I think a space craft could still travel extremely fast without breaking his axiom. What does this mean? I'm sure that humanity will return to the moon and eventually Mars. But I hope they do it in a big wave of international teamwork, guaranteeing that it won't be a limited expedition like the original manned space program. It is amazing to see the images brought back by Hubble and Kepler. I can only imagine what secrets the deep universe and its conglomeration of various shaped and colored galaxies holds for us.

    • March 13, 2014 8:28:06 PM PDT
    • I don't buy into the "instinct" personality theory.

    • February 20, 2014 1:40:55 PM PST
    • TheFrenchCoq said:
      Rift Zone said:
      Thanks. I don't know much about MBTI and this is the first time I've come across instincts so I have no idea what any of this means. Still, I found a few things interesting about how the numbers were spread out. First off, our romantics and rationals are well represented but compared to general population, we're still missing a lot of our guardians and creators. Like Fuzzyslug mentioned in the original population breakdown: INFJ: [9.39% currently] -lolwut? (Thanks for the inspiration!) Ya, the numbers on the instincts do have a decent spread. There's a lot going on there. Some types (ISTP, ESFJ) have a really strong preference toward a single instinct. Other types (INTJ, INFJ) have significant populations in multiple instincts. It would be nice to know more about instincts and why that variation exists. Some instincts are more popular than others. Most types have strong numbers in Secure/Sexual. Sexual/Secure is another favorite. Secure/Social and Social/Secure have only a few types that favor them, their numbers will likely stay low compared to the others. I think the numbers will even out a little more for them when we get more guardians and creators. That is to say I think the % for Secure/Social and Social/Secure will climb a bit more. Speaking of climbing, the Secure/Sexuals seem poised to clear 30% of the population, could reach a third or more. Who knows? I'll probably do this again when we come out of beta to see how things are shaping up.

      Amen (Or call it however you want). It'd be interesting to make a study on the interactions but it would be much more exhaustive and I don't know if the private data like friends or post replies can be accessed easily (In of course an Anonymous way). But as said in your post the larger the data, the better the results. If we could just possible analyze a Framework in between the interactions (Instincts + MBTI) it would be awesome. I'm an ENFP so I'm just saying but would be interested in that kind of projects.. I have a statistical background but I'm not sure I could do that on my own. Data extraction seems really difficult. Hope to hear from you soon. PS: Excuse my French, but I forgot if that post was 2 years old...

      I agree; it would be fun to run the numbers. Of course, we'd have to throw life experience ("nurture", not just "nature) in the mix, but I don't know how we'd go about quantifying/qualifying that.

    • February 6, 2014 5:10:23 AM PST
    • Rift Zone said:
      Thanks. I don't know much about MBTI and this is the first time I've come across instincts so I have no idea what any of this means. Still, I found a few things interesting about how the numbers were spread out. First off, our romantics and rationals are well represented but compared to general population, we're still missing a lot of our guardians and creators. Like Fuzzyslug mentioned in the original population breakdown: INFJ: [9.39% currently] -lolwut? (Thanks for the inspiration!) Ya, the numbers on the instincts do have a decent spread. There's a lot going on there. Some types (ISTP, ESFJ) have a really strong preference toward a single instinct. Other types (INTJ, INFJ) have significant populations in multiple instincts. It would be nice to know more about instincts and why that variation exists. Some instincts are more popular than others. Most types have strong numbers in Secure/Sexual. Sexual/Secure is another favorite. Secure/Social and Social/Secure have only a few types that favor them, their numbers will likely stay low compared to the others. I think the numbers will even out a little more for them when we get more guardians and creators. That is to say I think the % for Secure/Social and Social/Secure will climb a bit more. Speaking of climbing, the Secure/Sexuals seem poised to clear 30% of the population, could reach a third or more. Who knows? I'll probably do this again when we come out of beta to see how things are shaping up.

      Amen (Or call it however you want). It'd be interesting to make a study on the interactions but it would be much more exhaustive and I don't know if the private data like friends or post replies can be accessed easily (In of course an Anonymous way). But as said in your post the larger the data, the better the results. If we could just possible analyze a Framework in between the interactions (Instincts + MBTI) it would be awesome. I'm an ENFP so I'm just saying but would be interested in that kind of projects.. I have a statistical background but I'm not sure I could do that on my own. Data extraction seems really difficult. Hope to hear from you soon. PS: Excuse my French, but I forgot if that post was 2 years old...

    • October 13, 2012 9:44:28 AM PDT
    • Thanks.

      I don't know much about MBTI and this is the first time I've come across instincts so I have no idea what any of this means. Still, I found a few things interesting about how the numbers were spread out.

      First off, our romantics and rationals are well represented but compared to general population, we're still missing a lot of our guardians and creators. Like Fuzzyslug mentioned in the original population breakdown: INFJ: [9.39% currently] -lolwut? (Thanks for the inspiration!)

      Ya, the numbers on the instincts do have a decent spread. There's a lot going on there. Some types (ISTP, ESFJ) have a really strong preference toward a single instinct. Other types (INTJ, INFJ) have significant populations in multiple instincts. It would be nice to know more about instincts and why that variation exists.

      Some instincts are more popular than others. Most types have strong numbers in Secure/Sexual. Sexual/Secure is another favorite. Secure/Social and Social/Secure have only a few types that favor them, their numbers will likely stay low compared to the others. I think the numbers will even out a little more for them when we get more guardians and creators. That is to say I think the % for Secure/Social and Social/Secure will climb a bit more. Speaking of climbing, the Secure/Sexuals seem poised to clear 30% of the population, could reach a third or more. Who knows?

      I'll probably do this again when we come out of beta to see how things are shaping up.

    • October 13, 2012 1:08:35 AM PDT
    • Nice ;)
      The types seem to be quite balanced. The large difference is in the instincts.

    • October 12, 2012 6:02:34 PM PDT
    • I was curious how instincts and MTBI interacted. The attached image shows where the current population lies. Enjoy.

    • October 30, 2013 12:09:47 PM PDT
    • Does anyone know how to get to it? I did several times before but I can't figure out how I did.
      (I do it to see how many total members there are, being the nosey nerd that I am.)

    • October 12, 2012 5:38:19 PM PDT
    • sec/sex sec/soc sex/sec sex/soc soc/sec soc/sex Totals %
      ENFJ 0 1 7 6 1 31 46 5.14%
      ENFP 2 3 5 22 2 32 66 7.37%
      INFJ 9 6 35 9 2 23 84 9.39%
      INFP 30 3 25 1 1 15 75 8.38%
      ENTJ 3 1 21 19 0 0 44 4.92%
      ENTP 32 1 17 5 0 4 59 6.59%
      INTJ 18 2 19 29 0 2 70 7.82%
      INTP 32 2 28 8 0 3 73 8.16%
      ESFJ 0 2 0 0 46 1 49 5.47%
      ESTJ 18 24 0 0 0 0 42 4.69%
      ISFJ 5 19 1 0 23 0 48 5.36%
      ISTJ 14 31 1 0 1 0 47 5.25%
      ESFP 0 1 1 11 32 0 45 5.03%
      ESTP 43 0 2 1 0 1 47 5.25%
      ISFP 3 1 5 28 1 16 54 6.03%
      ISTP 45 1 0 0 0 0 46 5.14%
      Totals: 254 98 167 139 109 128 895
      % 28.4% 10.9% 18.7% 15.5% 12.2% 14.3%

      That sucked... DEV, please delete this. Will try something else.

    • September 20, 2012 5:42:30 AM PDT
    • Too many numbers! I am glad someone else did this for me, for I would have quit a quarter way through that project.

    • September 19, 2012 5:48:10 PM PDT
    • Well so far every type seems pretty evenly represented, at least compared to all the MBTI forums I've been to; they're very unbalanced, even ones that are about typology in general and not focused on any one type.

    • September 19, 2012 2:14:20 PM PDT
    • lovelytulip said:
      this is cool! I wonder what you would get if you looked at the Instincts too... I think in general intuitives spend more time online, thats why you have so many.

      It is possible that intuitives spend more time online and that might be why the numbers are skewed towards intuitives, but I think another explanation is that intuitives are more interested in abstract psychology. I have a few _NT_ friends, and they are all fluent in Myers Brigs, but I really can't imagine too many of my fellow S types friends who would care about this kind of stuff. We want results, and we want action! Haha.

    • September 19, 2012 1:11:45 PM PDT
    • this is cool! I wonder what you would get if you looked at the Instincts too...

      I think in general intuitives spend more time online, thats why you have so many.

    • September 19, 2012 9:45:55 AM PDT
    • Woo first topic in the Science and Technology (I didn't think it would be proper to toss in the Psychology General Board)

      I decided to crunch some numbers on this project, here's the results as of: 09-18-2012, 09:30 AM. (Yes the population has gone up, it's still relevant though.

      ------
      These were the following search parameters:

      Looking for: I'm a $GENDER seeking $GENDER: _BLANK_
      Age: _BLANK_
      Zipcode: _BLANK_
      Within: _BLANK_, $Unit_of_Distance_Measurement

      Instincts:
      {
      ☑ Secure/Sexual (SP/SX)
      ☑ Secure/Social (SP/SO)
      ☑ Sexual/Secure (SX/SP)
      ☑ Sexual/Social (SX/SO)
      ☑ Social/Secure (SO/SP)
      ☑ Social/Sexual (SO/SX)
      }

      Personality Types: I just searched each type individually to compile the stats.
      ------

      ------
      [TYPE] - Type_Description: (Population #) -- (($Type_Population / $Total_Population) * 100) == (%))

      [Romantics] ------(221) -- (0.277; 27.77%); NF-Combined: 27.7% (± 0.07%)
      ENFJ - Teacher: (46) -- (0.058; 5.8%)
      ENFP - Inspirer: (55) -- (0.069; 6.9%)
      INFJ - Counselor: (63) -- (0.079; 7.9%)
      INFP - Healer: (57) -- (0.071; 7.1%)

      [Rationals] -------(206) -- (0.2581; 25.81%); NT-Combined: 25.9% (± 0.09%)
      ENTJ - Executive: (44) -- (0.055; 5.5%)
      ENTP - Inventor: (50) -- (0.063; 6.3%)
      INTJ - Mastermind: (59) -- (0.074; 7.4%)
      INTP - Architect: (53) -- (0.067; 6.7%)

      [Guardians] ------(183) -- (0.2293; 22.93%); SJ-Combined: 23.0% (± 0.07%)
      ESFJ - Provider: (49) -- (0.061; 6.1%)
      ESTJ - Supervisor: (42) -- (0.053; 5.3%)
      ISFJ - Protector: (46) -- (0.058; 5.8%)
      ISTJ - Inspector: (46) -- (0.058; 5.8%)

      [Creators] -------(188) -- (0.2356; 23.56%); SP-Combined: 23.5% (± 0.04%)
      ESFP - Performer: (44) -- (0.055; 5.5%)
      ESTP - Promoter: (47) -- (0.059; 5.9%)
      ISFP - Artist: (53) -- (0.066; 6.6%)
      ISTP - Crafter: (44) -- (0.055; 5.5%)
      -----------------
      Total: 798
      Combined Totals (NF/NT/SJ/SP): 100.1% (± 0.27%)


      Breakdown (Keirsey Style):
      NF: 27.7%
      NT: 25.9%
      SJ: 23.0%
      SP: 23.5%

      E: 47.3%
      I: 52.8%

      S: 46.5%
      N: 53.6%

      T: 48.4%
      F: 51.7%

      J: 49.6%
      P: 50.5%
      ----------
      According to the picture attached located at: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp

      the following list is pretty lulz:
      ----------
      Types ordered by most represented to least represented:
      INFJ: 7.9% - lolwut?
      INTJ: 7.4% - lolwut?
      INFP: 7.1%
      ENFP: 6.9%
      INTP: 6.7%
      ISFP: 6.6%
      ENTP: 6.3%
      ESFJ: 6.1% - why is this one so low?
      ESTP: 5.9%
      ENFJ: 5.8%
      ISFJ: 5.8% - why is this one so low?
      ISTJ: 5.8% - why is this one so low?
      ENTJ: 5.5% - lolwut?
      ISTP: 5.5%
      ESFP: 5.5%
      ESTJ: 5.3% - why is this one so low? lolinternet?
      ------

      As you can see something seems off, especially with the high concentration of INFJ's and xNxx types in general...what do you guys think?

      By the way there seems to be an issue with using quotation marks and greater-than / less-than symbols.