[Agent X]

Being a turbulent INTJ myself, I wonder, whether the characteristics of turbulent INTJ differ dramatically to an assertive one? I read about some generalizations, but was wondering specifically if there was more behind the proverbial veil so to speak.

 

[baitedcrow]

I'm definitely INTJ-T and I've noticed that the dom Ni/inf Se dynamic is more exaggerated in me and some other Turbulent INTJs I've known than it seems to be in Assertives. Since "turbulence" is equivalent to neurotic/limbic in Big 5 and those things are straightforwardly related to sensitivity to external stimuli (which can be a trait of inf Se) the relationship always seemed like it made sense. That's just one off-handed observation though.

ETA: fleshing things out a bit, I think that higher nervous/Se sensitivity means that Ni in INTJ-T types may in general be a bit more well-fed and more likely to produce subtlety of insight, whereas the intuition of INTJ-As can lean black-and-white or dichotomous. I'd also trust INTJ-Ts more with accuracy, on average - neuroticism creates a more pronounced need to back-check and reverify. Those same traits lend themselves to lower confidence and less externalization of our plans and ideas, though, which is the downside.

 

[Dare]

I scored 96% Assertive. I agree with baitedcrow that INTJ-T types seem heavier on Ni/Se where us INTJ-A types seem heavier on Te/Fi. The -T/-A does seem to be measuring neurotism.

Like the general description of Assertive says, I'm confident & relaxed. One thing I don't agree with in the description was the idea that A types are not driven to succeed/improve. Perhaps that's more true of someone like my super-chill ISTP-A friend, but I'm a Te auxiliary type to begin with and then that function is particularly developed in me -- so the idea that I'm not going to be driven to succeed/improve is way off. Te dominants like ENTJs are known for their desire to succeed/need to improve over time -- if I'm behind them in this particular respect, it isn't by far (fwiw, in a functions test I scored: Te 100% Fi 85% Ni 75% Se 35%)

I think the main difference in the pursuit of success compared to an INTJ-T is that I care less what others think and 'let go' easily when I perceive there is nothing for me to do about something (I tend to be coldly rational about these calculations). When things aren't 'actionable', I accept that and go take a bath... I display an unusual pattern of working especially hard during the day and then being partularly relaxed in the evenings (as if 'day me' needs to aggressively try to succeed (Te) while 'night me' needs to let go to live in the here & now (Fi/Se))

 

[Judson Joist]

"Tango" type INTJ chiming in.

Since "turbulence" is equivalent to neurotic/limbic in Big 5 and those things are straightforwardly related to sensitivity to external stimuli (which can be a trait of inf Se) the relationship always seemed like it made sense.

That might explain why I'm more sensitive than most INFPs I know (which is a blessing, not a curse, though it does have a sometimes-painful price tag). Seriously, even my long-time INFP best friend (and former roommate) gets annoyed with my sentimental love of '80s movies and how I'm always rambling about whatever "beautiful insect" I saw that day. I like to watch butterflies and bumble bees and other living things being alive. It's relaxing.

I think that higher nervous/Se sensitivity means that Ni in INTJ-T types may in general be a bit more well-fed and more likely to produce subtlety of insight

I can vouch for that.

neuroticism creates a more pronounced need to back-check and re-verify. Those same traits lend themselves to lower confidence and less externalization of our plans and ideas, though, which is the downside.

I can't tell you how often my former co-workers get on my case for all of that stuff. The need for precise instruction. The need to carefully plan and sequence tasks. My tendency to second-guess myself. They're literally always telling me to "be more assertive" (verbatim) but the best I can do is pretend.
:blushed:
They were also constantly telling me to do things faster, but I prioritize order over speed. My brain can't work the way theirs do.

When things aren't 'actionable', I accept that and go take a bath.

I like to use Dr. Teal's mineral mix. It cleared my psoriasis up in a month!

as if 'day me' needs to aggressively try to succeed (Te) while 'night me' needs to let go to live in the here & now (Fi/Se)

Yin (night, fluid, relaxed) and Yang (day, solid, assertive).

 

[Scoobyscoob]

I'm guessing this is in reference to that 16types test. Assertive vs Turbulent: https://www.16personalities.com/articles/identity-assertive-vs-turbulent

It seems to me that being an INTJ and turbulent is bit of a contradiction. I'm going to disagree with some of the previous people here and say that specifically to INTJ, a turbulent type is more Fi-Se focused, not Ni-Se. While the assertive INTJ is Ni-Te focused, not Te-Fi. So among INTJs, the assertive type would be the typical INTJ type with the turbulent INTJ type being either a rarity or simply living in a psychologically unhealthy environment.

 

[Aquiline]

MBTI does not measure the Neuroticism axis of the Big 5.

The A/T dichotomy seems a flawed attempt at rectifying this.

 

[Stawker]

Turbulent INTJs are the ones you don't agree with. Assertive, the ones you agree with.

It's just like with typings. If you like a certain type and come across a person of that type that you don't like, just tell him that he is mistyped. Win-win.

 

[ponpiri]

My assertive score has consistently been in the 90s with agreeableness in the 40-60% range.

-The only difference I've noticed between myself and two other INTJs that have taken that specific survey is that I have a big mouth/sharp tongue and when pushed to a limit, will more readily confront the 'offender' - especially if a soft-spoken person is being taken advantage of - than they would.

In general

-Chill and confident that can turn into condescending and sometimes arrogant when I "know" I'm right.
-In social situations where friends fight or maybe an email or text is ignored, it's easier for me to think 'well, that's their problem' than to worry if I upset them.
-Very hard to understand nervous types that constantly think about what others think of them.
-A 'get a grip and just do it' reaction to almost everything

It took a lot of work to be more conscientious of others' feelings and motivations.

I contributed most of this to upbringing. In my family, if you didn't stand up for yourself or make your voice heard, you'll get left behind. My dad asking 'why don't you speak up?' was a mantra in my head for years before I finally started doing it.

And I partially agree with 'less willing to improve oneself' mainly because I tend to take myself and others as they are. Sort of like an 'it is what it is' mentality when it comes to personality.

 

[baitedcrow]

I'm guessing this is in reference to that 16types test. Assertive vs Turbulent: https://www.16personalities.com/articles/identity-assertive-vs-turbulent

It seems to me that being an INTJ and turbulent is bit of a contradiction. I'm going to disagree with some of the previous people here and say that specifically to INTJ, a turbulent type is more Fi-Se focused, not Ni-Se. While the assertive INTJ is Ni-Te focused, not Te-Fi. So among INTJs, the assertive type would be the typical INTJ type with the turbulent INTJ type being either a rarity or simply living in a psychologically unhealthy environment.

Your premise is probably flawed here. They evidently aren't that rare per self-identified typing (What else is there to go by here really?) and why should they be? This is based on Big 5 Neuroticism and Neuroticism (Calm/Limbic) is the Big 5 measure least correlated with any MBTI dichotomy. It correlates to a tiny extent with F, but Agreeableness (Accommodating/Egocentric) does moreso. I'd be skeptical of an INTJ that was both agreeable/accommodating and limbic/neurotic, maybe, but one or the other seems plausible... especially if the one is limbic. And that doesn't even tap how little something like inborn neuroticism level has to do with cognitive functions and their ordering. You could potentially use any function in a neurotic way.

I don't think Turbulents use Ni more, but Ni is Se-fed, so more sensory sensitivity via a highly strung nervous system should have implications for how Ni works in an individual. I also don't think they use Fi less*. Frankly the biggest difference is probably just that Assertives attain a state of confidence more quickly. Which suggests they may be better at making an impact but could also be at greater risk of overlooking potentially important details if they settle themselves too soon.

*However, if you want to take "Assertive" literally, it does make sense that the judging functions Te and Fi could be more visible in someone that frequently asserts themselves... moreso Te. It could be interesting to see if there's any connection between INTJ-X type and ILI
Ni or Te subtype in Socionics.

 

[Agent X]

My assertive score has consistently been in the 90s with agreeableness in the 40-60% range.

-The only difference I've noticed between myself and two other INTJs that have taken that specific survey is that I have a big mouth/sharp tongue and when pushed to a limit, will more readily confront the 'offender' - especially if a soft-spoken person is being taken advantage of - than they would.
I can strongly relate to this. I feel it's almost a crime not to be true to yourself, otherwise later down the path, you might reflect on this, and think, you were either too timid, or I could have said that. Not being true to yourself leads down, in my experience, to regret, and regret leads me to a Ni-Fi loop.

In general

-Chill and confident that can turn into condescending and sometimes arrogant when I "know" I'm right.
Again, relatable.
-In social situations where friends fight or maybe an email or text is ignored, it's easier for me to think 'well, that's their problem' than to worry if I upset them.
Relatable.

-Very hard to understand nervous types that constantly think about what others think of them.
I disagree with this one on principle. If you are nervous, it encourages you to reconsider everything, and that can lead to self-growth. Fear can be a powerful motivator, if applied properly, and in small amounts.

-A 'get a grip and just do it' reaction to almost everything
Oh, lordy, how I can relate to this one. Usually if a person is an emotional trainwreck, I usually tell them to "build a bridge and get over it".

It took a lot of work to be more conscientious of others' feelings and motivations.
It is something I am working on.

I contributed most of this to upbringing. In my family, if you didn't stand up for yourself or make your voice heard, you'll get left behind. My dad asking 'why don't you speak up?' was a mantra in my head for years before I finally started doing it.
He sounds like a very wise man.

And I partially agree with 'less willing to improve oneself' mainly because I tend to take myself and others as they are. Sort of like an 'it is what it is' mentality when it comes to personality.
Not sure what to think of this one. I'll think on this further.

Let's assume a turbulent INTJ and an assertive INTJ met out of curiosity. Despite sharing the same identification code, would their approach to life and problems be dramatically different? I can see contradictions in the way those two could theoretically approach a problem and try to solve it.

However, yet another interesting realization struck me. While cognitive types and MBTI are more or less "set in stone", exceptional circumstances excluded, something tells me the dichotomy between being assertive/turbulent can actually be "consciously" changed as it's a behavioral property, rather than a cognitive one. Would I be correct in assuming that?

 

[baitedcrow]

Let's assume a turbulent INTJ and an assertive INTJ met out of curiosity. Despite sharing the same identification code, would their approach to life be dramatically different? I can see contradictions in the way those two could theoretically approach a problem. However, yet another interesting realization struck me. While cognitive types and MBTI are more or less set in stone, exceptional circumstances excluded, something tells me the dichotomy between being assertive/turbulent can actually be "consciously" changed as it's a behavioral property, rather than a cognitive one. Would I be correct in assuming that?

The behaviors definitely can be changed, but I think T vs A* has a lot to do with nervous response and genetics and early experiences can really set the tone for that in a semi permanent way. I'll always identify as INTJ-T because I know it's my long term and probably inborn tendency, but that doesn't mean I can't act in ways more associated with Assertive types when it's circumstantially smart to, with practice. I can, and do.

* Not usually the debate context you see that phrase in is it? Lol.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

Your premise is probably flawed here. They evidently aren't that rare per self-identified typing (What else is there to go by here really?) and why should they be? This is based on Big 5 Neuroticism and Neuroticism (Calm/Limbic) is the Big 5 measure least correlated with any MBTI dichotomy. It correlates to a tiny extent with F, but Agreeableness (Accommodating/Egocentric) does moreso. I'd be skeptical of an INTJ that was both agreeable/accommodating and limbic/neurotic, maybe, but one or the other seems plausible... especially if the one is limbic. And that doesn't even tap how little something like inborn neuroticism level has to do with cognitive functions and their ordering. You could potentially use any function in a neurotic way.

I don't think Turbulents use Ni more, but Ni is Se-fed, so more sensory sensitivity via a highly strung nervous system should have implications for how Ni works in an individual. I also don't think they use Fi less*. Frankly the biggest difference is probably just that Assertives attain a state of confidence more quickly. Which suggests they may be better at making an impact but could also be at greater risk of overlooking potentially important details if they settle themselves too soon.

Well, I was basing my statement that - Turbulent and INTJ seems contradictory, based on INTJ I know and have known. I can't really think of anyone I'd consider neurotic who was psychologically healthy. Because to me, neuroticism is most evidently an unhealthy manifestation of Fe and Fi, not Ni and Se. Including Se doesn't make any sense given the description of the function so I'd have to again disagree with you there. Plus it seems that Assertive/Turbulent is blurring neuroticism with conscientiousness and I don't think very many INTJ would score high on neuroticism and low on conscientiousness, which is what a turbulent type seems to be.

*However, if you want to take "Assertive" literally, it does make sense that the judging functions Te and Fi could be more visible in someone that frequently asserts themselves... moreso Te. It could be interesting to see if there's any connection between INTJ-X type and ILI
Ni or Te subtype in Socionics.

Right. So how many turbulent: ie: chaotic; INTJ do you know? Again, seems like a contradiction. As for Socionics, it would seem to me that both subtype ILI would be assertive, with the Te subtype being more strongly assertive than the Ni subtype and that's in line with the subtype descriptions as well. FWIW, on the 16types test, I score in the high 70% on assertiveness and I'm an Ni-subtype.

 

[baitedcrow]

Well, I was basing my statement that - Turbulent and INTJ seems contradictory, based on INTJ I know and have known. I can't really think of anyone I'd consider neurotic who was psychologically healthy. Because to me, neuroticism is most evidently an unhealthy manifestation of Fe and Fi, not Ni and Se. Including Se doesn't make any sense given the description of the function so I'd have to again disagree with you there. Plus it seems that Assertive/Turbulent is blurring neuroticism with conscientiousness and I don't think very many INTJ would score high on neuroticism and low on conscientiousness, which is what a turbulent type seems to be.



Right. So how many turbulent: ie: chaotic; INTJ do you know? Again, seems like a contradiction. As for Socionics, it would seem to me that both subtype ILI would be assertive, with the Te subtype being more strongly assertive than the Ni subtype and that's in line with the subtype descriptions as well. FWIW, on the 16types test, I score in the high 70% on assertiveness and I'm an Ni-subtype.

I know many. INTJ aren't rare in IT and neither are people with "neurotic" tendencies, who also manage themselves quite healthily.* Turbulence/Assertiveness doesn't seem to
have too much to do with conscientiousness necessarily, but if it did I'd expect Turbulents to be more conscientious, not less - the Mindtrackers system that also tries to combine MBT and Big 5 in this way describes the INTJ-T equivalent as specifically highly perfectionistic (to the point that they won't put ideas forward until they're "unassailable", whereas an Assertive would do so sooner). It doesn't seem to have anything to do with being chaotic, either. It's sensitivity + lower natural confidence (which often comes precisely from high conscientiousness). You're coloring your reading of the concept with a lot of unwarranted assumptions it seems - probably based on the word 'turbulent' which might sound a little chaotic if it wasn't just a label to describe a measure I already get the gist of with or without the new word for it - and ignoring the reality that per the measures we have (tests that look at both dimensions, or try to) there are plenty of people testing as both.

Socionics ILIs overall are described as being potentially a bit drippy and passive compared to MBT INTJs. (On phone and too tricky to link atm, but the first ILI description I found on Google uses the phrase "plagued by gnawing doubts" - I probably double checked my perception here because I was plagued by doubts, because I am Turbulent). You can definitely tell they aren't quite the same system.

Also, the fact that highly literal sensory Se feeds symbolic Ni in types with both is just standard interpretation of how they work together in the contemporary elaboration of Jung's work (so, most CF stuff). There's a reason that types with one always, theoretically, have the other. You can't just read standalone descriptions of them if you want to get at how the typology system works.

Again, being Limbic is also simply not that closely related to being F or probably by extension the feeling functions per the actual measures we have (Big 5 correlations). Both "limbic" and "neurotic" as terms do imply potential relationship to the nervous system, which has something to do with sensory stuff. Though I don't want to fall into the trap of conflating Si and Se with actual sensing any more than Fi or Fe with actual emotion - they're all called "cognitive" for a reason - and I've seen obvious neuroticism expressed through any number of functions (the bossiness/anal organization of my ESTJ-T cousin, for example, is very Te and often an expression of her "turbulence")

* Take note, if I've perceived that they're naturally reactive after years of knowing them or they score INTJ-T, it doesn't mean that they act "turbulent" or "chaotic" or whatever externally. For an inexpressive type the Limbic/Calm thing isn't going to be super visible to casual observers, and if peeping wild or disorganized behavior is how you're trying to place people on the T/A scale you will misplace lots.

 

[Davidkal]

I usually score at 50-50 (a little more assertive than turbulent) and it's most because I hate interacting with more than 2-3 people at the same time (it just feels too much),especially if I don't know them well.So I tend to feel quite uncomfortable in university and other places that I am supposed to be friendly.On the other hand,I am not really shy...I would say that my Fi is not very well-developed either.I am quite bad at handling my own emotions..

 

[Scoobyscoob]

I know many. INTJ aren't rare in IT and neither are people with "neurotic" tendencies, who also manage themselves quite healthily.* Turbulence/Assertiveness doesn't seem to
have too much to do with conscientiousness necessarily, but if it did I'd expect Turbulents to be more conscientious, not less - the Mindtrackers system that also tries to combine MBT and Big 5 in this way describes the INTJ-T equivalent as specifically highly perfectionistic (to the point that they won't put ideas forward until they're "unassailable", whereas an Assertive would do so sooner). It doesn't seem to have anything to do with being chaotic, either. It's sensitivity + lower natural confidence (which often comes precisely from high conscientiousness). You're coloring your reading of the concept with a lot of unwarranted assumptions it seems - probably based on the word 'turbulent' which might sound a little chaotic if it wasn't just a label to describe a measure I already get the gist of with or without the new word for it - and ignoring the reality that per the measures we have (tests that look at both dimensions, or try to) there are plenty of people testing as both.

Socionics ILIs overall are described as being potentially a bit drippy and passive compared to MBT INTJs. (On phone and too tricky to link atm, but the first ILI description I found on Google uses the phrase "plagued by gnawing doubts" - I probably double checked my perception here because I was plagued by doubts, because I am Turbulent). You can definitely tell they aren't quite the same system.

Also, the fact that highly literal sensory Se feeds symbolic Ni in types with both is just standard interpretation of how they work together in the contemporary elaboration of Jung's work (so, most CF stuff). There's a reason that types with one always, theoretically, have the other. You can't just read standalone descriptions of them if you want to get at how the typology system works.

Again, being Limbic is also simply not that closely related to being F or probably by extension the feeling functions per the actual measures we have (Big 5 correlations). Both "limbic" and "neurotic" as terms do imply potential relationship to the nervous system, which has something to do with sensory stuff. Though I don't want to fall into the trap of conflating Si and Se with actual sensing any more than Fi or Fe with actual emotion - they're all called "cognitive" for a reason - and I've seen obvious neuroticism expressed through any number of functions (the bossiness/anal organization of my ESTJ-T cousin, for example, is very Te and often an expression of her "turbulence")

* Take note, if I've perceived that they're naturally reactive after years of knowing them or they score INTJ-T, it doesn't mean that they act "turbulent" or "chaotic" or whatever externally. For an inexpressive type the Limbic/Calm thing isn't going to be super visible to casual observers, and if peeping wild or disorganized behavior is how you're trying to place people on the T/A scale you will misplace lots.

I believe I first replied in this thread stating that turbulence and INTJ is contradictory and nothing you've written has changed my mind on that matter. If anything, your use of Ne with Ti is kind of annoying and pointless to have to read through. Especially when you're not really telling me anything I don't already know. So rather than lecture me on the intricacies of a mediocre internet typology test, why don't you tell me what was it that I previously stated that was wrong? Because the way I'm seeing the dichtomy is that turbulence is neuroticism with low conscientiousness but oh wait, they're also more successful (lol) and assertiveness is low neuroticism with high conscientiousness but also unambitious (contradictory much, test?). So yeah, crappy test overall and I think you may just be falling into the Forer Effect with this one.

Also, might I suggest you check out the INTP forum, perhaps? :wink:

 

[baitedcrow]

I believe I first replied in this thread stating that turbulence and INTJ is contradictory and nothing you've written has changed my mind on that matter. If anything, your use of Ne with Ti is kind of annoying and pointless to have to read through. Especially when you're not really telling me anything I don't already know. So rather than lecture me on the intricacies of a mediocre internet typology test, why don't you tell me what was it that I previously stated that was wrong? Because the way I'm seeing the dichtomy is that turbulence is neuroticism with low conscientiousness but oh wait, they're also more successful (lol) and assertiveness is low neuroticism with high conscientiousness but also unambitious (contradictory much, test?). So yeah, crappy test overall and I think you may just be falling into the Forer Effect with this one.

Also, might I suggest you check out the INTP forum, perhaps? :wink:

Right, the extant data contradicts your understanding of what an INTJ is and the range of traits they may have but it's not your conceptual understanding that's flawed, of course.

Use of objective measures/external sources to inform one's understanding is more Te than Ti, and so more INTJ-like than INTP-like, incidentally.

(Adding more for the benefit of readers: I didn't intend to imply that Turbulence = more successful at any point and I don't think any of the tests or descriptions do either. )

 

[Scoobyscoob]

Right, the extant data contradicts your understanding of what an INTJ is and the range of traits they may have but it's not your conceptual understanding that's flawed, of course.

Use of objective measures/external sources to inform one's understanding is more Te than Ti, and so more INTJ-like than INTP-like, incidentally.

(Adding more for the benefit of readers: I didn't intend to imply that Turbulence = more successful at any point and I don't think any of the tests or descriptions do either. )

Data that likely contains 50%+ mistyping, btw. Not exactly solid data to lay a foundation on by any means. Like I was saying, I was basing my assertion on myself and other I-know-for-sure-are-INTJ and being turbulent+INTJ don't seem likely. The exception being if said INTJ were in a psychologically unhealthy state, then yeah, I guess being a turbulent INTJ makes more sense. Otherwise, it just seems plainly apparent to me that being moody and emotional is kind of the opposite of being perfectionist and impeccable but I guess that's where we'll just continue to disagree. Because the only way that would be true is for someone neurotically obsessive, which is again, not a psychologically healthy state of mind.

Eh. I was simply suggesting that you check out the INTP forum. If you think you're an INTJ then sure, great. I work in a field with a lot of other NTs and my interaction with you reminds me of my difficulties in interaction with NTPs. Namely, Ne+Ti is expansive and possibility creating while not wanting to leave the ideas phase, while Te+Ni wants to reach a conclusion to create an actionable plan.

 

[baitedcrow]

Data that likely contains 50%+ mistyping, btw. Not exactly solid data to lay a foundation on by any means. Like I was saying, I was basing my assertion on myself and other I-know-for-sure-are-INTJ and being turbulent+INTJ don't seem likely. The exception being if said INTJ were in a psychologically unhealthy state, then yeah, I guess being a turbulent INTJ makes more sense. Otherwise, it just seems plainly apparent to me that being moody and emotional is kind of the opposite of being perfectionist and impeccable but I guess that's where we'll just continue to disagree. Because the only way that would be true is for someone neurotically obsessive, which is again, not a psychologically healthy state of mind.

Eh. I was simply suggesting that you check out the INTP forum. If you think you're an INTJ then sure, great. I work in a field with a lot of other NTs and my interaction with you reminds me of my difficulties in interaction with NTPs. Namely, Ne+Ti is expansive and possibility creating while not wanting to leave the ideas phase, while Te+Ni wants to reach a conclusion to create an actionable plan.

Data is rarely perfect. Willingness to use what's available and has been reliably measured as opposed to solely personal perceptions to reach a conclusion (turbulent INTJs happen; they're testing both, I am one, I know others, correlative data between Big 5 and MBTI does not make it seem unlikely, descriptive writing on INTJ's cognitive functions, dichotomies and closest socionics type overlaps with certain features of it, enough so to allow for it) is Te. I'm no more failing to leave the ideas phase than you are here, my conclusion is just different.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

Data is rarely perfect. Willingness to use what's available and has been reliably measured as opposed to solely personal perceptions to reach a conclusion (turbulent INTJs happen; they're testing both, I am one, I know others, correlative data between Big 5 and MBTI does not make it seem unlikely, descriptive writing on INTJ's cognitive functions, dichotomies and closest socionics type overlaps with certain features of it, enough so to allow for it) is Te. I'm no more failing to leave the ideas phase than you are here, my conclusion is just different.

It rarely is, but making decisions on bad data is often times worse than making a decision based on no data at all. Which is, you know what Ni is supposed to be good (or at least better than average) at. Otherwise there's an entire field of study dedicated from picking out the good from the bad. :wink:

Yes, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[baitedcrow]

It rarely is, but making decisions on bad data is often times worse than making a decision based on no data at all. Which is, you know what Ni is supposed to be good (or at least better than average) at. Otherwise there's an entire field of study dedicated from picking out the good from the bad. :wink:

Yes, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Ni isn't supposed to use no data, it just distills data other functions (like Se) put into it. Decisions based on no data if data is there are practically arbitrary and certainly anti-scientific (correcting conclusions when better data presents itself, though, is right on.) I might have to revisit some decision and outcome studies but I doubt pulling answers out of your butt actually produces better outcomes than using methodologically sound data that happens not to catch the full picture because of acknowledged limitations.