Your Myers Briggs Type?
- Thread starter jason_els
- Start date
Incocknito
Sexy Member
INTP
You are:
You are:
- very expressed introvert
- slightly expressed intuitive personality
- moderately expressed thinking personality
- moderately expressed perceiving personality
Took this a few times over the years, especially in my various psychology classes. INFJ. I remember it being called The Counselor though, although maybe the names are just made up by the different people who are into these things.
I appear to be the first INFP. :smile:
*Edit* Interesting note... just checked the old thread, and the last time I took this test, I was an ENFJ.
*Edit* Interesting note... just checked the old thread, and the last time I took this test, I was an ENFJ.
Last edited:
unique_exposure
Experimental Member
Tested again just now, and as usual I scored INFJ. I've even tried to vary answers on some occasions, because I tend to memorize the tests and how the types of questions they ask are framed and why. That may be an INFJ thing to do... haha.
'The Mystic' seems more accurate than 'The Counselor.'
You are:
moderately expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
slightly expressed feeling personality
slightly expressed judging personality
Introverted 58 Intuitive 38 Feeling 12 Judging 22
'The Mystic' seems more accurate than 'The Counselor.'
You are:
moderately expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
slightly expressed feeling personality
slightly expressed judging personality
Introverted 58 Intuitive 38 Feeling 12 Judging 22
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
I scored INFJ, which was supposed to be The Mystic and one of the rarer types ... by some reports, found in only 1 to 3 percent of the population.
Well, that's kinda nice.
But I see that 20 percent of respondents to this point have The Mystic designation. It's the second most common, after The Mastermind (INTJ), at 32 percent.
Maybe spending years seeing the whole world in a big dick turns peeps into mystics.
(But everyone knows I don't do that; I was a mystic anyway.
)
Well, that's kinda nice.
But I see that 20 percent of respondents to this point have The Mystic designation. It's the second most common, after The Mastermind (INTJ), at 32 percent.
Maybe spending years seeing the whole world in a big dick turns peeps into mystics.
(But everyone knows I don't do that; I was a mystic anyway.
)
Oh, Jason, Jason, why are you promoting this drivel?
I work in standarized testing and I assure you that the Myers-Briggs is inherently flawed. Where's the scientific, research-based evidence that a person's personality can be divided into 4 basic scales, each with two poles? Where's the proof that personalities can be typed in the first place? Why do the types have to depend on dichotomies (e.g., thinking/feeling, sensing/intution)? Even if that's a good way to begin describing a person's personality, why these particular dichotomies? Are they even really dichotomies? Is thinking really the polar opposite of feeling? I don't think so.
If you read the profile for your alleged personality type, you'll find lots of things that fit you. You'll also find lots of things that don't. If you read the profiles for other personality types, you'll still find lots of things that fit you. It's not unlike reading the profile for you astrological sign.
A fundamental problem with the Myers Briggs is that the constructs (thinking, feeling, sensing, intution, etc.) are not well-defined. How can the test developers create questions to measure these things without having defined what they are measuring? What process was used for developing and assessing the items? Are they reliable? If you have questions that are designed to determine if somone is more introverted or extroverted (as if people didn't already know that about themselves), what does it mean when your answers to some questions indicate you are introverted and your answer to other questions indicate you are extroverted?
The fact that many people get a different result each time they take the test puts serious doubt on the reliability and therefore the validity of the test.
I work in standarized testing and I assure you that the Myers-Briggs is inherently flawed. Where's the scientific, research-based evidence that a person's personality can be divided into 4 basic scales, each with two poles? Where's the proof that personalities can be typed in the first place? Why do the types have to depend on dichotomies (e.g., thinking/feeling, sensing/intution)? Even if that's a good way to begin describing a person's personality, why these particular dichotomies? Are they even really dichotomies? Is thinking really the polar opposite of feeling? I don't think so.
If you read the profile for your alleged personality type, you'll find lots of things that fit you. You'll also find lots of things that don't. If you read the profiles for other personality types, you'll still find lots of things that fit you. It's not unlike reading the profile for you astrological sign.
A fundamental problem with the Myers Briggs is that the constructs (thinking, feeling, sensing, intution, etc.) are not well-defined. How can the test developers create questions to measure these things without having defined what they are measuring? What process was used for developing and assessing the items? Are they reliable? If you have questions that are designed to determine if somone is more introverted or extroverted (as if people didn't already know that about themselves), what does it mean when your answers to some questions indicate you are introverted and your answer to other questions indicate you are extroverted?
The fact that many people get a different result each time they take the test puts serious doubt on the reliability and therefore the validity of the test.
D_Fiona_Farvel
Account Disabled
I've never heard of this test before - thanks for the link, Jason!
I'm an ENTJ
Hmm, I am best with a 'follower'/bottom in a relationship? :shrug:
I'm an ENTJ
Hmm, I am best with a 'follower'/bottom in a relationship? :shrug:
I never take these things seriously for the reasons you mentioned above.
Suffice it to say, it was just for fun.
Enid
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Posts
- 7,324
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 17,459
- Points
- 393
- Age
- 52
- Location
- Arlington, Texas, US
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
D_MisterBater
Experimental Member
last time I took this (during a useless management training session), ISTJ
now I'm a INTJ, after the online test
distinctively expressed introvert
slightly expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
now I'm a INTJ, after the online test
distinctively expressed introvert
slightly expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
justmeincal
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 1,022
- Media
- 16
- Likes
- 14
- Points
- 258
- Location
- San Diego County
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 10,228
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 162
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Warwick, NY, USA
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Because I find it extremely accurate in my case. Lex started a thread about it and I thought starting a poll would be interesting. The subject has arisen before.
Not to be flippant, but what standardized psychological testing isn't inherently flawed? People are far more complicated than any standardized test I've taken or know about. Even the SAT gets saddled with labels of cultural bias.
That theory was developed by Carl Jung. He published his findings in English in Psychological Types and Modern Man in Search of a Soul in 1933.
You'd have to ask an expert in psychology for the citations but do remember that we're dealing with a working theory in perpetual search of proofs. Jung was the first to offer a working theory and defended his theories in his published work. Other psychologists and psychiatrists have expounded on his work or attempted to refute it completely. There are studies which support Jungian personality types be correlating personality type with certain personality traits. Just what these types are and how they correlate to traits is a subject of no small debate. There are various competing schools of personality theory, some of which support Jung, others which refute him completely.
As you likely know, psychology is still a very young science and we're still in the shakedown phase where no single master theory has been irrefutably proven and so scientists work on various theories that seem to make the most sense to them.
I hate to do this to you but the subject is just SO vast that I can't begin to fully answer this question for you. Both of my sisters are psychotherapists (tells you something about my family, no?). Worse, one is Jungian and the other is Freudian. I can't begin to tell you what fun that makes at the dinner table.
I asked my one sister if this page was any good and she said it was a good basic guide and then began to criticize it for everything it left out. Yes it's Wikipedia, but she says it's accurate and I defer to her expertise.
Because Jung theorized that some traits necessarily exclude others to a degree, not exclusively. He first theorized that there are extroverts and introverts. He then examined what traits went into determining what caused people to be one or the other. Jung found that some people rely far more on rational than emotional experiences (or vice versa) to influence their behavior and thus created the thinking/feeling scale. Thinking and feeling require acts of judgment and so are considered to be polar opposites on the rational scale. Sensing and intuition are a separate axis because they are immediately experiential and not subject to judgment. Some people rely on their sensations more than their intuition/inductive logic (and vice versa).
They are not dichotomous in the sense they appear to be on a graph. They are integral to every person and every person may use one function or the other for various reasons at various times. What the MBTI attempts to do is to show which traits predominate in an individual and then use those predominant traits to describe a type (Jung was big on archetypes).
The labels are just that, labels. Don't mistake the label of Thinking as necessarily exclusive to Feeling. Certainly one can experience both at the same time. It's what an individual does with that experience, how the individual interprets and learns from that experience, which determines where the individual falls on the scale.
I think you're seeing this as being too absolutist.
I read various types and they in absolutely no way resemble me whatsoever. I'm very much my type and I know when I went from an INTJ to an INTP and why. With me, repeated testing has always brought about the same results except for that one change and since I've been an INTP, I've always resulted as an INTP.
You're always going to recognize parts of yourself in other descriptions because we're all human and have thoughts and emotions and share patterns of thought and behavior. Nearly all people find roses pleasant, haunted houses scary, and chocolate delicious. That doesn't mean we're all the same person. It's the same with personality traits. We share emotions, thoughts, and experiences but what makes us unique is our interpretation of them. Of the Grand Canyon one might take a photograph, another paint a picture, another write a poem, another ponder the geological formations, another consider the spirituality, and still another toss over a candy wrapper.
Where it is unlike reading astrological signs is that an astrological sign is something that's being forced to fit you rather you to it. Your personality type is based upon your empirical input, not a random accident of birth.
Yes, that is a fundamental problem and it is the crux of the criticism leveled at the MBTI and in personality type theory in general. There are competing studies which show that personality type cannot be well measured if it exists at all and that it is more accurate to use personality trait measurement inventories such as the Holland or Thurstone. What the MBTI does do for many people is describe learning style and career direction. There is correlation between MBTI type and these areas in terms of career satisfaction, which cannot be confused with career capability. An INTP like me might work as a WalMart greeter, but would likely be far happier working as an architect.
That depends upon whom you ask. Just going through what I can dig-up, I find studies which claim excellent correlation and others which claim otherwise. I'm not qualified to judge if the analytical models used to evaluate performance are valid or not. In this situation I have to defer to the rather discomforting fact that some professionally published peer-reviewed studies declaim the validity of the MBTI and others don't.
Even then, just what the MBTI is useful for is something of a problem. While it seems to indicate something (if not personality type), it relies on examining the people who test into the various categories to determine its relevance. It asks, "OK, some people are ESFJs and just what are those things that differentiate ESFJs from others? What are those things that ESFJs particularly share?" In that, the MBTI works quite well and can actually be a useful tool to help people meet others like themselves or help them understand their thought processes.
Your particular concern has to be reflected in the fact that personality tendencies are just that. They are not absolutes. Mood, level of energy, health, perspective, and other underlying psychological factors such as the reason for taking the test will influence the outcome of the test. People who take the test in a work environment frequently test very differently than if tested in a clinical setting and they may also test very differently than if at home and they know they will not be judged by the results. I think that's less a failure of the test than the test subject. The test doesn't change, the subject does and does so for reasons external to the test subject.
Jason, thanks for your thoughtful and thorough reply.
But, I hate to say it, you needn't have bothered. My questions were rhetorical, and you didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know.
Actually, because many standardized tests are often high-stakes, it is extremely important that they are NOT flawed. If you're going to deny someone college admission, a degree, or professional licensure or certifiction, the test used to measure that person's knowledge, skills, and aptitudes must be valid and reliable. These are key concepts in the field of psychometrics.
To be valid, the test must in fact measure what it is intended to measure. And, as I mention in my previous post, in order to achieve accurate measurements, the constructs being measured must be clearly defined. Also, fairness is an inherent aspect of validity. To be fair, the test must not disadvantage anyone due to her or his gender, ethnicity, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, etc., etc. (In the case of the SAT, if ETS, the test developer, is following industry standards--and I can't imagine that they aren't--then the claims that they are culturally biased are specious at best.)
To be reliable, the test must consistently produce the same results. Even though an individual may answer a few questions differently each time, the end result must be consistent.
The validity and reliability of a test, or the lack thereof, can be demonstrated through various statistical measures.
Actually, that's one of the biggest concerns that I and other critics have about the use--or misuse--of these types of personality assessments. See the passage below from the wikipedia article on psychometrics.
"More recently, psychometric theory has been applied in the measurement of personality, attitudes and beliefs, academic achievement, and in health-related fields. Measurement of these unobservable phenomena is difficult, and much of the research and accumulated art in this discipline has been developed in an attempt to properly define and quantify such phenomena. Critics, including practitioners in the physical sciences and social activists, have argued that such definition and quantification is impossibly difficult, and that such measurements are often misused, such as with psychometric personality tests used in employment procedures..."
Psychometrics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On a more personal note, a few years ago I wasted a lot of money on career counseling that was too heavily focused on guiding me towards a suitable career based on my Meyers-Briggs type even though it was, and still is, unclear what my type is.
But, I hate to say it, you needn't have bothered. My questions were rhetorical, and you didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know.
Actually, because many standardized tests are often high-stakes, it is extremely important that they are NOT flawed. If you're going to deny someone college admission, a degree, or professional licensure or certifiction, the test used to measure that person's knowledge, skills, and aptitudes must be valid and reliable. These are key concepts in the field of psychometrics.
To be valid, the test must in fact measure what it is intended to measure. And, as I mention in my previous post, in order to achieve accurate measurements, the constructs being measured must be clearly defined. Also, fairness is an inherent aspect of validity. To be fair, the test must not disadvantage anyone due to her or his gender, ethnicity, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, etc., etc. (In the case of the SAT, if ETS, the test developer, is following industry standards--and I can't imagine that they aren't--then the claims that they are culturally biased are specious at best.)
To be reliable, the test must consistently produce the same results. Even though an individual may answer a few questions differently each time, the end result must be consistent.
The validity and reliability of a test, or the lack thereof, can be demonstrated through various statistical measures.
Actually, that's one of the biggest concerns that I and other critics have about the use--or misuse--of these types of personality assessments. See the passage below from the wikipedia article on psychometrics.
"More recently, psychometric theory has been applied in the measurement of personality, attitudes and beliefs, academic achievement, and in health-related fields. Measurement of these unobservable phenomena is difficult, and much of the research and accumulated art in this discipline has been developed in an attempt to properly define and quantify such phenomena. Critics, including practitioners in the physical sciences and social activists, have argued that such definition and quantification is impossibly difficult, and that such measurements are often misused, such as with psychometric personality tests used in employment procedures..."
Psychometrics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On a more personal note, a few years ago I wasted a lot of money on career counseling that was too heavily focused on guiding me towards a suitable career based on my Meyers-Briggs type even though it was, and still is, unclear what my type is.
faceking
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 279
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
MB is always fun, but more often than not, ppl answer to the question... as it NEEDS TO BE DONE PROFESSIONALLY in order to take it seriously.... a handful of questions online, or amongst a group in some office building is not a true Myers-Briggs test.
I have to believe Isabel Briggs Myers is rolling over in her grave on the ineptitude of her work on Facebook and other social portals... (sorry Jason, know you were only having fun... )
I have to believe Isabel Briggs Myers is rolling over in her grave on the ineptitude of her work on Facebook and other social portals... (sorry Jason, know you were only having fun... )
Similar threads
