Myers-Briggs, Wow.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I have found that I don't get along with "S" people at all.

[Priv]

INFP and totally agree with it. I read all the other types and couldn't identify myself with them.

 

It has been 10 years since I studied psychology (starting again soon though since I went on to another field for my masters) , and never covered this test but it is one of the more accurate ones (for me) I have come across.

[salparadise]

I have found that I don't get along with "S" people at all.

 

Same here. I am not able to develop much synergy with S's, or in the case of dating, chemistry. S's and N's have fundamentally different awarenesses and ways of being. The theory is that most people match up well with their opposite on any axis except S/N, and it's better to the same on that one. My personal experience confirm it. I am also aware that I have a strong preference for F's. I am somewhat balanced on F/T, leaning more toward T. I have made considerable effort in recent years to become more sensitive to others' feelings as well as my own. So I've got an eye out for a sexy NF and I think the chances of me ever being happy with a ST are remote. I tried a NT and she was too cerebral. I was married to a SF and she would get all emotional over little sh*t that wasn't even on my radar. I tried a INFJ and she was a sweetheart but a bit rigid––perceived that her feelings were right/correct/the way things are. My INFP was the best fit by far even if somewhat flighty and disorganized (I'm ok with that, up to a point). I'd really like to take a nice ENFP for a spin.

 

The people who discount the validity of the MBTI are probably ST's.

[Els]

I have found that I don't get along with "S" people at all.

 

Yeah, ditto. I can be friends with S types, but all the guys I've ever had romantic relationships with have been N's.

 

Actually, now that I think of it, they were all INT's , even. They only varied by P or J.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Elswyth

[amaysngrace]

I took it a while ago and the only thing that I remember about my result was that it said I'd make a good assassin :/

[Secret Advisor]

They are like horoscopes. Your mind is conditioned to accept the analysis. Read some of the other type descriptions and you will find that they fit you to a tee as well.

[Andy_K]

They are like horoscopes. Your mind is conditioned to accept the analysis. Read some of the other type descriptions and you will find that they fit you to a tee as well.

 

No.

 

Horoscopes are a personality analysis done with no meaningful input whatsoever from the subject, therefore they HAVE to be written to fit everyone or anyone.

 

Myers-Briggs personality types are determined by answering questions indicative of your general personality and tendencies to form a psychological profile, and therefore can be a damn sight more accurate and specific. They are not written to 'apply to everyone'.

[Keenly]

They are like horoscopes. Your mind is conditioned to accept the analysis. Read some of the other type descriptions and you will find that they fit you to a tee as well.

 

Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree.

 

 

This was far more specific. Nothing like a horoscope, the described nuances and things air me to a T

 

 

A specific one would be " loves family and partner explicitly and generously, but does not discuss relationships with the ones they love with outside parties. This has no bearing on the level of which he cares for them "

 

Describes me pretty well actually. That's one of two dozen completely accurate points? Nothing like a horoscope.

[M30USA]

My results over ten years ago were: INTJ.

[FitChick]

Describes me pretty well actually. That's one of two dozen completely accurate points? Nothing like a horoscope.

 

Ignore the sun sign horoscopes in magazines. Real astrology is nothing like that. A professional astrologer would be even more accurate than any test questions you could answer because a lot of people are not self aware or have wishful thinking. Some psychologists use astrology in their counseling. It's a great tool.

 

Self discovery is always entertaining.

[newmoon]

My results over ten years ago were: INTJ.

 

did you take the test recently? my understanding is that even though we change and grow as a person over time our default way of dealing with things does not. so, you would very likely still be an INTJ today ; Myers-Briggs types (allegedly) to not change over time

[salparadise]

They are like horoscopes. Your mind is conditioned to accept the analysis. Read some of the other type descriptions and you will find that they fit you to a tee as well.

 

No, horoscopes are fortune cookies without any calories. The MBTI doesn't have any calories either. That's the extent of the commonality.

 

My results over ten years ago were: INTJ.

 

There seem to be a lot of INTJ's posting in the MB threads, although it is the rarest type for women and second rarest for men. I am one as well. I wonder what it would be like to date a female INTJ? I went on two dates with one and we did click initially but not so much the second time. I think it was more the individual than the type though.

[Mr Scorpio]

I have found that I don't get along with "S" people at all.

 

Did I ever mention I'm an "I" person?

[pickflicker]

MBTI is bull. I'm supposedly an ENTP/INTP (doesn't make sense I know, but then I probably veer between the two), and I guess I share the base traits, but then it's just some ploy (like most of psychology these days) to control society.

 

I'm not judgmental, but then psychology and its tools make the profession and its adherents seem dopey and weird lol..

 

It's perhaps not the assessment, per se, but the administering of personality tests on the internet that throws their validity into question...

[Els]

 

 

There seem to be a lot of INTJ's posting in the MB threads, although it is the rarest type for women and second rarest for men. I am one as well. I wonder what it would be like to date a female INTJ? I went on two dates with one and we did click initially but not so much the second time. I think it was more the individual than the type though.

 

One of the female members who has ceased posting here for the most part is an INTJ; I recall watching you get into more than one tiff with her. My SO is INTJ as well, and very different from you in many ways.

 

It's definitely more the individual than the type.

[salparadise]

One of the female members who has ceased posting here for the most part is an INTJ; I recall watching you get into more than one tiff with her. My SO is INTJ as well, and very different from you in many ways.

 

It's definitely more the individual than the type.

 

Uh Oh, that would implie that you have formed notions... and I didn't even realize that you'd noticed! I don't know about everyone, but I don't think that my interactions here match my real life interpersonal style. I can get away with expressing a certain amount of underlying cynicism here that wouldn't be deemed acceptable in person. Perhaps that's beside the point.

 

I think you've hit on one the INTJ's primary weaknesses; one that may be an issue for two such creatures pairing up. Our primary function is T, secondary is N. So we tend to be rational and we confirm it with intuition. We tend to believe we're right when we feel right, and we're not likely to let a small amount of empirical evidence throw us off balance. Now the poster you're talking about (pretty sure I know who) is a really smart cookie, and she knows she is too, so getting into a debate with her has two possible outcomes... concede, or agree to disagree. She's a hard science gal and thus subscribes to, "if it isn't measurable it doesn't exist." I love the soft sciences such as evolutionary psychology and the social sciences. So my interactions with her were largely a matter of her pointing out that none of the theories in play were provable. So yea, you're right. While I do enjoy a good discussion with that type of intellectual, I don't think getting paired up with one would be a good idea.

 

I am pretty well convinced that I need to find myself a really sweet NF of one variety or another. ENFP being the theoretical ideal, but I could easily go for an I instead of E. Not as certain about the J/P. I think a P is better with a J. The best match I've ever had was with an INFP.

[Els]

 

I am pretty well convinced that I need to find myself a really sweet NF of one variety or another. ENFP being the theoretical ideal, but I could easily go for an I instead of E. Not as certain about the J/P. I think a P is better with a J. The best match I've ever had was with an INFP.

 

That's interesting. I'm an INFP (well, borderline T/F, but I tend to approach relationships as F, career as T); I think my guy and I are largely compatible, but the few problems that we've had have a lot to do with the FP vs TJ issue. Different ways of handling problems and communicating. I can definitely complement him in that I don't need to be 'right' so often, though.

 

Myers Briggs suggests ENFP as my complementary type - now THAT would drive me bonkers. I have never understood the rationale for recommending Is to seek Es. All the guys I've ever been with (or even been attracted to) have been Is.

[salparadise]

That's interesting. I'm an INFP (well, borderline T/F, but I tend to approach relationships as F, career as T); I think my guy and I are largely compatible, but the few problems that we've had have a lot to do with the FP vs TJ issue. Different ways of handling problems and communicating. I can definitely complement him in that I don't need to be 'right' so often, though.

 

Myers Briggs suggests ENFP as my complementary type - now THAT would drive me bonkers. I have never understood the rationale for recommending Is to seek Es. All the guys I've ever been with (or even been attracted to) have been Is.

 

Oh I get it, and I and I can feel it as well as rationalize it. I enjoy being with someone who does more than her share of the work in terms of initiating interaction. An E will often draw the I out and allow us to function more like an E than we'd normally be able to in certain situations. For example, if we were at a party where we didn't know many people the E would take you around and facilitate interaction with a lot of people... you just have to hold on so as not to get left behind. Two I's may tend to spend the entire time talking to only a few people, or just each other.

 

I'm a soft T and I've worked at developing my F, as well as moderating the J. It has helped socially. So it would seem that one's complementary function can work on all the scales except the S/N, and that the opposite is preferred on F/T. The only only thing that's not negotiable is the N/S. I think that opposites there are like different species.

[Els]

Oh I get it, and I and I can feel it as well as rationalize it. I enjoy being with someone who does more than her share of the work in terms of initiating interaction. An E will often draw the I out and allow us to function more like an E than we'd normally be able to in certain situations. For example, if we were at a party where we didn't know many people the E would take you around and facilitate interaction with a lot of people... you just have to hold on so as not to get left behind. Two I's may tend to spend the entire time talking to only a few people, or just each other.

 

Ah, okay, fair enough. I think I prefer someone who enjoys spending time in a similar manner as I do, so there isn't the divide between one person wanting to attend multiple social events every week and the other party preferring more one-on-one time. Most extrovert guys whom I know wouldn't sync well with me in that aspect. Whereas with I types like my current SO, there isn't much quibble about how we spend our spare time.

 

I'm a soft T and I've worked at developing my F, as well as moderating the J. It has helped socially. So it would seem that one's complementary function can work on all the scales except the S/N, and that the opposite is preferred on F/T. The only only thing that's not negotiable is the N/S. I think that opposites there are like different species.

Yeah, I've found it really difficult to understand S types a lot of the time. Many are wonderful people, but I probably couldn't get in a R with them due to the mental/worldview disconnect.

[what_a_blonde]

Haven't read through this whole thread yet, but I'm ESTJ and find it very accurate for the most part.

 

However, I was surprised to see the E, as I tend to be happier in my own "bubble" and don't really see myself as an extrovert. Socializing is fun for me, but only every so often... I'm not too big on going out on the weekends. Others would say they see me as an extrovert (since at work I'm very outgoing), however when it comes to home and personal life, I enjoy most being laid back and not having so much "commotion" going on around me.

 

I would much rather stay at home, go do something active, drink some wine, just kind of "veg" out, than run around socializing.

[salparadise]

Haven't read through this whole thread yet, but I'm ESTJ and find it very accurate for the most part.

 

However, I was surprised to see the E, as I tend to be happier in my own "bubble" and don't really see myself as an extrovert. Socializing is fun for me, but only every so often... I'm not too big on going out on the weekends. Others would say they see me as an extrovert (since at work I'm very outgoing), however when it comes to home and personal life, I enjoy most being laid back and not having so much "commotion" going on around me.

 

I would much rather stay at home, go do something active, drink some wine, just kind of "veg" out, than run around socializing.

 

The terms used to describe preferences should not be interpreted with the common usage meaning. I/E indicates whether an individual is more inwardly or outwardly focused. It's also described as the way in which a person is energized––through interacting or solitude. It's not absolute either; people can have elements of both.

 

The preferences are on a spectrum from strong one way to strong the other, and some people are at the mid point, which means they do not exhibit a strong preference on that scale. When that happens you have to dig a little deeper to figure it out, and sometimes the answer is that you are actually balanced on that scale. Online questionnaires are less reliable than the proprietary evaluation, and differentiating when someone has an apparent balance or doesn't feel the result reflects their true preference is where the trained administrators and extra tools come into play. So you might be balanced or you might have gotten a wrong result.

 

I know someone who claims to be balanced on all the scales. She says that she took the proprietary test and work with the trained admin and still comes out balanced, which is rare. I don't know her well enough to form an opinion. I can often guess a person's type after getting to know them, and sometimes just by talking to them awhile... which confirms that there is no voodoo involved. I am quite amused by people who deny it's existence.