Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator

[introverted1]

14 hours ago, salparadise said:

No I don't think that's a rule. Any combination of E/I can work. The only real assumption is that people with the same perceiving function (N/S) will tend to be more compatible. For example, my ideal match, theoretically, is ENFP.  That's opposite on three axes, but the same perceiving function. I get along quite well with any NF type, and the F is my personal preference as oppose to a rule. Ideal matches are when the dominant function (iNtuition-i for me) is pared with the same dominant function with the opposite expression (iNtuition-e for her). If you're interested in matching, download one of the charts. I would link to one but it might be a few days before it would post.

It's interesting you say that.  I am INTJ and I need another T.  Fs just wear me out. I skew toward logical/rational thinking and I need a partner who is also able to look at things logically.

I've dated strong Es, too, and those guys wear me out with the need to be constantly going and doing. 

I think my dating life is doomed.

[Taramere]

15 hours ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

The problem for me is how is it it is done. Our own bias and all other problems aside, questions that are asked seem very vague/relative. I can answer just about all the questions with “it depends“ if I’m being completely honest with myself. Although humanmetrics was not the site that was recommended to me, I did take the test on that one as well. I did find that site to be a bit better as it does give the option of “uncertain“, but then I just end up answering the majority of the questions that way.  This is one of the questions:

 

“You like to be engaged in an active and fast-paced job”

The answer is sometimes. Depends on the job. Depends on the mood. Etc. 

Another:

” Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent attaining a good outcome”

Again, is this a work environment? Or just life in general?...different situations would be vastly different. 

Yeah, I also find myself looking at these questions and thinking "well...it depends on the situation."  The easiest way I find to move away from the temptation to stick with neutral or "it depends" answers is to think of the question as a fairly rigid core belief or requirement.  So for instance, you might find yourself enjoying a job that's active and fast paced without necessarily prioritising "active and fast paced" when you're deciding what you want to do for a living.  So you're probably fairly neutral on that one.  Another person might prioritise "active and fast paced" as their number one requirement in a job - if, for example, they're consistently very high energy to the point where they're likely to become disruptive and create problems for others in an environment that's too slow paced for them.

"Strict observance of the established rules being likely to prevent a good outcome....well, most people probably find there are times they encounter rules that have outlived their original purpose and have become obstructive relics that are best removed (and, if some rigid rule-lover stands in the way of removing them, justifiably broken).  They might tick "depends" or "agree slightly".  On the other hand, there are people who enjoy breaking rules for the sake of it....and so they would probably tick "strongly agree".

When I've done this test I've generally scored midway between E and I, I invariably score N over S (though not by a marked amount) score F over T (though again there's not that much in it) but the part where I veer very dramatically towards one trait is P over J.  I can see how that plays out in life.  I can see that play out on LS, on occasions when somebody has outlined the skeleton of a problem they're dealing with my instinct is to draw further details out of them in a way that might help them to see the answers for themselves - but that process is obstructed (in my eyes, at least) by other posters bombarding them with opinions, conclusions and answers that seem to be based on scanty knowledge.  However, sometimes I'll ask a question designed to draw the story out and the OP will completely ignore the question - preferring to focus on the opinions and judgements. 

So it's like "oh, okay...they don't actually want anything drawn out of them.  They just want to be told what to do."   Providing that sort of very directive help doesn't come naturally to me and so I have a tendency to condemn it and to even feel a bit annoyed when I realise that actually, directive help was exactly what the person was looking for....to the point where I'd almost like to berate them for wanting that directive help, or berate other people from giving that sort of help.  Which is obviously not a good thing.  There are pluses to scoring very high on perception but there are some pretty major minuses too.  I'm not a natural manager of people, and nor do I like to be managed.  That can be a very big problem in a lot of workplaces. 

I can deal with the latter by allowing myself to be managed even though I dislike it, but the former is far more of a task.  I'd always find that I had very good relationships with admin staff.  They'd come to me to privately offload about difficult office politics, they'd want me to attend social stuff etc.  But when it came to me being directive and asking "would you type this up for me/send this fax/do some other task" I'd feel anxious about it....like "how dare I instruct this person to do something for me?"  And that wasn't down to admin staff being in any way shirty, unco-operative or resentful about being asked to do their job.  It was about me really not enjoying the business of telling another person what to do.  I'd be interested to know if other people who score very highly on "P" have experienced similar difficulties in the workplace.

[salparadise]

1 hour ago, Taramere said:

So I don't think it's possible to just neatly categorise a person as ESFJ or whatever else.  You have to know the person quite well in order to get a sense of (for example)  whether they're likely to come out as "F" because they're a very illogical thinker/too lazy to apply themselves to the business of thinking, or if they're F despite being a logical thinker.  There's a complexity to people that isn't going to be covered by a test like that

Of course there is. Nobody is saying that everything about a person is knowable and contained within their type indicator. No two people are exactly alike; even identical twins exist as unique individuals. I think you assume too much with regard to how it works and in what ways it can be useful. But you most certainly can group people the same way you do marbles –– you may choose to group your marbles by size, weight, color, material, roundness, texture, place of origin, or many other characteristics. Think about the classification of living things –– people classify stuff, everything! We group people by damn near every characteristic we can discern, even though many are not seen as socially acceptable anymore. Employers are aways trying to figure out how to identify characteristics that make people successful at specific endeavors. The MBTI does nothing more than identify a person's tendencies or preferences on four axes, and gives a bit of general insight into how that person functions compared to those with different tendencies and preferences.

I just do not see any reason that anyone should object so strongly, or feels so invested in declaring it invalid. What are they afraid of? 

[Taramere]

4 minutes ago, salparadise said:

Of course there is. Nobody is saying that everything about a person is knowable and contained within their type indicator. No two people are exactly alike; even identical twins exist as unique individuals. I think you assume too much with regard to how it works and in what ways it can be useful. But you most certainly can group people the same way you do marbles –– you may choose to group your marbles by size, weight, color, material, roundness, texture, place of origin, or many other characteristics. Think about the classification of living things –– people classify stuff, everything! We group people by damn near every characteristic we can discern, even though many are not seen as socially acceptable anymore. Employers are aways trying to figure out how to identify characteristics that make people successful at specific endeavors. The MBTI does nothing more than identify a person's tendencies or preferences on four axes, and gives a bit of general insight into how that person functions compared to those with different tendencies and preferences.

I just do not see any reason that anyone should object so strongly, or feels so invested in declaring it invalid. What are they afraid of? 

What's your personality type, Sal?

Okay, I checked back.  INTJ.  I don't object to the MBTI, and I don't regard it as invalid.  I actually set quite a bit of store by it in my personal life - but very much as a tool to be used with a bit of caution.  My guess is that your answer to me contains an element of your J reacting to my P.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Taramere

[elaine567]

4 minutes ago, Taramere said:

What's your personality type, Sal?

21 hours ago, salparadise said:

I am INTJ.

[salparadise]

14 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

It's interesting you say that.  I am INTJ and I need another T.  Fs just wear me out. I skew toward logical/rational thinking and I need a partner who is also able to look at things logically.

I've dated strong Es, too, and those guys wear me out with the need to be constantly going and doing. 

I think my dating life is doomed.

Sounds like you need to find another INTJ. I know that quite a few INTJs find happiness with their own type. I also think that T and F have  a bit of gender influence or bias. F tend to feel more feminine, and T more masculine. I am a pretty strong T myself, so I like being with a woman who pulls me out of that mode and brings my feeling side alive. I have also consciously developed my F over the past ten or so years because I have been accused of being too rational (by someone who had little of that awful trait). But yea, I definitely have a soft spot for feelers. Feelings are not inherently irrational, many feelers are spot on with their initial impulses.

[introverted1]

Just now, salparadise said:

Sounds like you need to find another INTJ. I know that quite a few INTJs find happiness with their own type. I also think that T and F have  a bit of gender influence or bias. F tend to feel more feminine, and T more masculine. I am a pretty strong T myself, so I like being with a woman who pulls me out of that mode and brings my feeling side alive. I have also consciously developed my F over the past ten or so years because I have been accused of being too rational (by someone who had little of that awful trait). But yea, I definitely have a soft spot for feelers. Feelings are not inherently irrational, many feelers are spot on with their initial impulses.

Yep - it is very much a gender thing.  It's hard to find F guys who can (or want to) stand up to a strong T.  And even though I try to tamp down the T, and have been successful in tapping in to my F side to some extent (having kids certainly helped on this front), I am self-aware enough to know that I present as a huge T. Which, ironically, guys are super drawn to.  The problem is entirely with me, alas.

[salparadise]

1 hour ago, Taramere said:

My guess is that your answer to me contains an element of your J reacting to my P.

My answer was in part a reaction to several other who had depreciative things to say, using words such as crap, invalid, astrology  and more. Your post was quite moderate by comparison, which I appreciate and should have pointed out. I just don't understand why, if they believe MBTI to be an empty shell, they have such strong negativity toward it. I think it has to be fear, but fear of what? 

[Taramere]

51 minutes ago, salparadise said:

My answer was in part a reaction to several other who had depreciative things to say, using words such as crap, invalid, astrology  and more. Your post was quite moderate by comparison, which I appreciate and should have pointed out. I just don't understand why, if they believe MBTI to be an empty shell, they have such strong negativity toward it. I think it has to be fear, but fear of what? 

Ah, I understand.  My inner F was clearly working overtime when I read it.  Or is that my inner P or N? 

From a bit of reading, it seems that the MBTI is one of any number of things that provokes some conflict in professional psychologist circles.  I haven't read enough to make a particularly informed comment, but from a little reading the sense I have is that people are more likely to disagree with it if they've taken several tests that produced wildly fluctuating results - and more likely to agree with it if their tests produce consistent results.   I'm not really up on current psychometric testing methods, but no doubt there are competing methods - and inevitably the competition element results in discussion becoming more heated.  In this Psychology Today blog, a critic complains that it fails to test a person's ability to remain calm under pressure:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die

I'm not a psychologist, so I perceive the MBTI purely from the perspective "do I find this useful in understanding why I react in a certain way to particular situations?" - and I do find it useful.  The blog I've linked mentions The Big Five Personality Traits, and cites this as a better tool.  That tool (the Big Five) is not something I've looked at, but I'd certainly be open to trying it out.  I can see why professional psychologists probably want to select and stick to one particular model...but for the rest of us who are just using what's out there to develop our own self awareness, there's no reason why we shouldn't try out a selection of models.   I guess when it comes to deciding which tests ought to be delivered in a clinical setting - or, for instance, by an HR company that has been instructed to carry out a recruitment exercise, the stakes are high and therefore the debate about which test should be used is likely to be heated.  Maybe that results in the MBTI being ufairly ridiculed at times - when, in fact, there are probably a lot of people out there who have found it quite a useful tool to employ on a private, personal basis.

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Taramere

[Miss Spider]

6 hours ago, introverted1 said:

It's interesting you say that.  I am INTJ and I need another T.  Fs just wear me out. I skew toward logical/rational thinking and I need a partner who is also able to look at things logically.

I've dated strong Es, too, and those guys wear me out with the need to be constantly going and doing. 

I think my dating life is doomed.

I tested as an I(E)INF(P)J depending and I  prefer people without  E or F characteristics too for the same reasons. However, like I said I thought because I kind of seesaw between because I analyze the questions carefully, do depending on how I feel and what the situation is, the answer differs. That’s an innate problem with asking very vague, subjective  questions. I thought maybe I could possibly E, especially at certain points in my life, 

 

I am sorry if I offended with the harsh words about it. That’s just the language I use sometimes. Arguments about why or why to believe in the validity of the test have been discussed. I respect others’ beliefs about it even if they differ with mine and it’s still fun to take and discuss. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[mark clemson]

FWIW, I've tested as a Protagonist (ENFJ) consistently in the two times I've taken the test...

[Hezza]

On 12/21/2020 at 7:11 AM, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

Not sure how I missed this post at first, as in-depth as it, but thank you for the information. The problem is not categorizing people into 16 broad types. The problem for me is how is it it is done. Our own bias and all other problems aside, questions that are asked seem very vague/relative. I can answer just about all the questions with “it depends“ if I’m being completely honest with myself. Although humanmetrics was not the site that was recommended to me, I did take the test on that one as well. I did find that site to be a bit better as it does give the option of “uncertain“, but then I just end up answering the majority of the questions that way.  This is one of the questions:

Think the same. The 4 categories and 16 types are way to narrow. Also the questions and asking someone to asses themselves I don't think work very well. I have done the test a few times and think I got a different type each time because I answer the questions differently depending on mood or just the way I interpret the questions that day.

[Ollie180]

Oh my partners closest friend would love this, she is really into stuff like this! She uses it with the young people where she works... I think even she would agree that the history of its design is more than a little sketchy but, what she would say is that it serves as a gateway to get people to reflect on their own personality.

 

What gets me about it though is, I’ve taken this test a few times in my life, probably I was 16 the first time. I’ve always got the same result - ESFP - and if you read up on it, I lot of the stuff it says is very true. It’s also a lot of the same stuff that people associate with my ADHD.

I think that’s quite interesting.. what’s personality, and what’s adhd? Does the condition effect my personality? Or is the condition & my personality all to mixed up together to be a considered separate entity? 🤷🏼‍♂️
 

Anyways, I wouldn’t date (or not date) someone based on their type, I wouldn’t judge them on it.. I just judge as I find 🤷🏼‍♂️
My fiancée is a INFJ, which is apparently the rarest result in the world, I think because a lot of it is quite a paradox. Her mate googled our compatibility one time, which I don’t think means much more than like your star sign or whatever, but the one interesting non vague thing I remember about it, was that supposedly we might not click initially, it might be a slower burn - which was accurate for sure!

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Ollie180 said:

the history of its design is more than a little sketchy

Really it wasn't, the original stuff by the Myers-Briggs mother/daughter team anyway.

The stuff which has come out since...yeah, the typical 'missing the point' about models and tools!

[Ollie180]

38 minutes ago, Ellener said:

Really it wasn't, the original stuff by the Myers-Briggs mother/daughter team anyway.

The stuff which has come out since...yeah, the typical 'missing the point' about models and tools!

So story goes, as I was told it, that the mother was a huge fan of Carl Jung and based almost all her work on his. His work however hasn’t stood the test of time, he supposedly never created any evidence and his writings is almost as religious as it is scientific. It was either African or Greek mythology, I cant Remember which, that he based the first personality categories on.

Not that takes anything away from Myres-Briggs as such.. but this girl told me that when she was studying it all there’s word that a large part of the early personality categories the mother said Carl Jung brought to her in a dream. She apparently worshipped the guy!

Doesn’t mean her work was wrong, just interesting history I thought!

[Ellener]

26 minutes ago, Ollie180 said:

the mother was a huge fan of Carl Jung and based almost all her work on his. His work however hasn’t stood the test of time, he supposedly never created any evidence and his writings is almost as religious as it is scientific. It was either African or Greek mythology, I cant Remember which, that he based the first personality categories on.

Jung went further than his original 'sensing, thinking, feeling and intuition' functions and described 12 personality 'archetypes'. 

But there are as many Jungian psychologists today as there are Freudians, the two 'founding fathers' of psychoanalysis.

The psyche, Jung's interpretation of personality, does indeed contain religious/spiritual components, and in a different way than Freud's 'wish-fulfillment-dream' description of the need for a powerful father-figure 'God'.

Again, these are just models and tools for analysing emotions, behaviours and what we persistently describe negatively as 'mental illness'.

I actually think as time goes on Jung becomes more relevant and we recognise there are as many 'mental illnesses' and 'personality types' as there are people! The weakness of all these ideas is people don't neatly fit into category boxes and tend to have as many differences as similarities.

[Beachead]

I've gotten a INFJ-T personality type with the T and A at about 50/50.  The personality type has held consistent for 4 years now and I'd say it's pretty bang on.  I don't expect it to remain that way though as we're constantly being stimulated and shaped by our surroundings which changes us.  I also don't take it so seriously but it is a nice in that it can provide some guidance when you're trying to make sense of yourself.

Never took the test prior to 4 years ago but I imagine I was probably an ENFJ-T before

Edited January 1, 2021 by Beachead

[Angelle]

On 12/20/2020 at 2:11 PM, Taramere said:

I used to always get INFP, but as I've got older that's changed and I usually score ENFP now.  I still think I'm more INFP though.  I enjoy being around people and I feel energised at the time...but after they've left I tend to feel exhausted, and my Fitbit usually records me falling into a deep sleep pretty soon afterwards.

I'm the opposite. I used to score ENFP all the time, and now I usually get INFP.  I'm always on the border of E and I. 

[Angelle]

On 12/21/2020 at 6:56 AM, Taramere said:

 

So I don't think it's possible to just neatly categorise a person as ESFJ or whatever else.  You have to know the person quite well in order to get a sense of (for example)  whether they're likely to come out as "F" because they're a very illogical thinker/too lazy to apply themselves to the business of thinking, or if they're F despite being a logical thinker.  There's a complexity to people that isn't going to be covered by a test like that, even if they've been very honest and consistent in their answers.  An ENFP might seriously clash with one ISTJ and enjoy a very close and positive friendship with another.  There's a lot more to people than these labels, but personally I do think they provide some helpful guidance in our everyday relationships and in understanding why people react to certain things, in ways we find a bit unreasonable or irrational....or why, conversely, they react calmly to things that would make us furious.

That reminds me of when I went for a hypnosis session, ten years ago. The woman had me fill out a form before we started, and she told me that I may be a creative person, but I'm very analytical. 

My feelings can override the rest of me, though, and I don't always apply myself, unless I'm really interested in something. If someone upsets me, or I'm just feeling anything other than calm or happy, I'll have trouble focusing, or doing something that I need to do - I'll want a distraction instead. My mum used to clean the house when she was stressed. That only works occasionally for me - staying in one place and trying to clean something, will continue to drive my stress levels up. My sister and mum were both FP's too, though. One INFP, one ENFP. I don't know why it's harder for me. 

In astrology, I'm an Aries. I'm not supposed to get along with Capricorns. That has been true with my sister, over the past nine years, but I have friends who are cappies. We might not always see eye to eye, but we "get" each other in ways that other people don't. 

[Ollie180]

19 hours ago, Ellener said:

I actually think as time goes on Jung becomes more relevant and we recognise there are as many 'mental illnesses' and 'personality types' as there are people! The weakness of all these ideas is people don't neatly fit into category boxes and tend to have as many differences as similarities.

Absolutely! People are largely unpredictable, they always contain the potential to break rank or act out of character - I think that’s the fun of humanity tbh!

[salparadise]

2 hours ago, Angelle said:

n astrology, I'm an Aries. I'm not supposed to get along with Capricorns. That has been true with my sister, over the past nine years, but I have friends who are cappies. We might not always see eye to eye, but we "get" each other in ways that other people don't. 

Yea, but astrology is just... astrology. Do you read the column in the newspaper to figure out who you are and how you feel today? I really do not get why you imply there would be some equivalency.

[Angelle]

1 hour ago, salparadise said:

Yea, but astrology is just... astrology. Do you read the column in the newspaper to figure out who you are and how you feel today? I really do not get why you imply there would be some equivalency.

I'm not going to bother explaining. I don't study it anymore, but there is a lot more to it. 

[jah526]

INFP. I work in a field with INTJ/ISTJ types and have never, ever fit in. I occasionally find some people with a little more of the F in them but it’s rare. I think my tribe is out there somewhere, just not sure where. Maybe I’ll find it when I retire.

[salparadise]

5 hours ago, jah526 said:

INFP. I work in a field with INTJ/ISTJ types and have never, ever fit in. I occasionally find some people with a little more of the F in them but it’s rare. I think my tribe is out there somewhere, just not sure where. Maybe I’ll find it when I retire.

INFP and INTJ aren't a bad fit at all. There is a broad range of expressions, so maybe give it a chance. You can choose to date one that is kind, aware, and considerate of the things that matter to you. But stay away from the "S" types, it's best if the perceiving function matches.