Myers-Briggs Test: Is it Informative or Garbage?

[~christina~]

I took this test and I'm apparently a INTJ.

 

[Ithina]

INTJ
89 50 50 33

Wee ^_^

The descriptions for INFJ and INTP fit me well too.

 

[Kerrie]

BTW, introverted versus extroverted does not mean what we usually think it means. It's not about talkative versus quiet.

Introverts get their energy from solitude. eg. In a workshop meeting with other colleagues, they will need to return to their desks and process the meeting mentally before they are ready to proceed.

Extroverts get their energy from interaction. eg. In the same workshop, they will be at their best when directly interacting with people, and may come out the of the meeting feeling they've accomplished what needs to be done.

Thank you for this! I am an ISTJ (didn't see any other PF members with this?). I used to believe that my preference of solitude was wrong because it was considered anti-social, but in the past few years have come to embrace it.

 

[Andre]

For what it's worth:

Your Type is INTJ

Strength of the preferences %
28 81 25 33

Blending in the crowd of 1%?

 

[S_Happens]

Well, I haven't taken one of these tests in about 4 years, so I took this one. I used to score ESTP very strongly, but this time...

Your Type is
ENTP

Strength of the preferences %
67 75 62 56

It's not surprising, considering that at the earlier time I was more of a daredevil and worked in sales jobs. Now I work in a job where I am constantly troubleshooting complex processes.

 

[nismaratwork]

We can use it as ice breakers when we try to pick someone up at a bar. It's not as cliche as asking about Zodiac signs, plus there's 16 personality types and only 12 Zodiac signs - so it's got to be better.

That is probably the best use for this and any test which seeks to categorize a healthy personality. Evo's comment about her mood being a strong influence is another fine example of the subjectivity of this test, because few people don't have a self they wish to be. That image of yourself changes to some degree, and 70+ questions which purport to measure semi-obsolete concept seem suspect to me. It is this kind of thing which leads people to be suspicious of psychology, and dismiss other specialized tests such as the Rorschach Inkblot, which is useful for some perception disturbances.

There is no universal window into the personality of a person unless they are ill, and even then the complexity is often staggering.

 

[rolerbe]

Can we do a poll of user's here for percentage of each type? Might not be useful, but would be interesting.

 

[BobG]

19 of the three rarest personality types (INTP, INTJ, INFJ)
13 of the other personality types
0 of the three most common personality types

What strange results.

 

[BobG]

Not only do INTJs have their own internet forum, but there's even a 1-900 number for INTJs.

I dialed 1-900-INTJ*** once:

"Hello, you obviously have dialed a wrong number. We do not do sex talk. We do not do sex. If you believe that you have dialed the correct number, and require mental stimulation, push
1 for politics,
2 for quantum physics,
3 for philosophy,
4 for morality,
5 for freudian and jungian beliefs about non-existent relationships,
6 for relational composition and complexity in music and the comparison to calculus and astronomy,
7 for those of you who believe you are INTJ and simply wish to appear intelligent,
8 for computer programming,
9 for the voice of god who will tell you you are always correct and not a narcissist and
0 for an ENFP who will sympathize with you for 10 seconds before this number disconnects.

Thank you for you attention. This call is $7.99 a minute, and will be charged to your home or cell phone account."

 

[nismaratwork]

Not only do INTJs have their own internet forum, but there's even a 1-900 number for INTJs.

I dialed 1-900-INTJ*** once:

"Hello, you obviously have dialed a wrong number. We do not do sex talk. We do not do sex. If you believe that you have dialed the correct number, and require mental stimulation, push
1 for politics,
2 for quantum physics,
3 for philosophy,
4 for morality,
5 for freudian and jungian beliefs about non-existent relationships,
6 for relational composition and complexity in music and the comparison to calculus and astronomy,
7 for those of you who believe you are INTJ and simply wish to appear intelligent,
8 for computer programming,
9 for the voice of god who will tell you you are always correct and not a narcissist and
0 for an ENFP who will sympathize with you for 10 seconds before this number disconnects.

Thank you for you attention. This call is $7.99 a minute, and will be charged to your home or cell phone account."

I'm calling that from a friends house. :)

 

[Anticitizen]

19 of the three rarest personality types (INTP, INTJ, INFJ)
13 of the other personality types
0 of the three most common personality types

What strange results.

Not that strange, really. Read up on the traits of those three rare types and you'd pretty much expect PhysicsForums to represent them.

/INTP

 

[nismaratwork]

Plus, this test is a load of horse**** that just happens to be fun.

 

[wild999711]

INTJ
11 50 62 33

First time I've taken one and it was like reading a very accurate horoscope. Explanation of other types was enlightening, didn't know just how differently I tend to think. Apparently the forum is a good representation of INTP and INTJ types.

 

[Phyisab****]

Apparently I'm INTJ, rational mastermind.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm NKVD... apparently former Soviet secret police. Weird, I didn't know that was an option.

 

[Ms Music]

INTJ.

You are:

* slightly expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* moderately expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed judging personality

Strength of the preferences %
22 50 25 56

Often times when I take this test I will actually come up as ENTJ, it seems that normally there is just one question that flips me back and forth from I to E. But lately, I have been feeling extremely overworked, so came out stronger on the I than normal. (but I expected that)

I frigging LOVE these personality tests, and I agree that we should make a poll. I also like the color test, (someone else mentioned that) and find it very useful. But I have never been able to determine my "core" color. Every time I take the test, I come up equally red/yellow dominant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Plus, this test is a load of horse**** ...

Why do you think so?


Do you think the test is flawed, or do you think humans are somehow fundamentally uncategorizable?

 

[nismaratwork]

Why do you think so?Do you think the test is flawed, or do you think humans are somehow fundamentally uncategorizable?

I think that the test is too simplistic in some ways, and moreover that in a simple "1-5" test people often test for the qualities they WANT, not the ones they have. I do believe that most people can be categorized given enough time and the proper testing, up to and including tests under an fMRI. The flaw lies more in the claims the test makes... that it can quantify the personality in a relatively few ways in a brief, self administered test. If you say instead that it can be one of many tools used for that end, then it's not so flawed... sort of the way that string theory claims to eliminate "quantum fluctuations" by 'smearing' things over 1 dimensional strings instead of point particles.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that the test is too simplistic in some ways, and moreover that in a simple "1-5" test people often test for the qualities they WANT, not the ones they have. I do believe that most people can be categorized given enough time and the proper testing, up to and including tests under an fMRI. The flaw lies more in the claims the test makes... that it can quantify the personality in a relatively few ways in a brief, self administered test. If you say instead that it can be one of many tools used for that end, then it's not so flawed... sort of the way that string theory claims to eliminate "quantum fluctuations" by 'smearing' things over 1 dimensional strings instead of point particles.

It has limited application and accuracy as does every form of polling; no rational person disputes that.

A far cry from horse**** though, wouldn't you say?

 

[nismaratwork]

It has limited application and accuracy as does every form of polling; no rational person disputes that.

A far cry from horse**** though, wouldn't you say?

Good polling makes less extravagant claims, AFAIK seeks the answers to simpler conundrums than the human psyche, and isn't given in the form: 'here's a test that tells you the 'shape' of your personality, please try not to skew it with your desire for a given outcome'. In addition, a poll is based upon a large sample, but the MBPT is always a sample size of one. In short, I don't dispute your point, but it's not relevant. I still cry, "Neeeeiiiiigggghhh"... and then horse****.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good polling makes less extravagant claims, AFAIK seeks the answers to simpler conundrums than the human psyche, and isn't given in the form: 'here's a test that tells you the 'shape' of your personality, please try not to skew it with your desire for a given outcome'. In addition, a poll is based upon a large sample, but the MBPT is always a sample size of one. In short, I don't dispute your point, but it's not relevant. I still cry, "Neeeeiiiiigggghhh"... and then horse****.

MB was meant to be issued in a controlled situation, where the results can be kept in-context and agglomerated with other methods.

You can see this intent by browsing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_briggs#Precepts_and_ethics", whcih make it pretty clear that the test needs context and trained guidance - and a grain of salt.


MB is one tool in a toolbox.


The horse**** you speak is of is not the test itself, but of its misuse, by unqualfied individuals, in a contextual vacuum.

Agreed?

 

[nismaratwork]

MB was meant to be issued in a controlled situation, where the results can be kept in-context and agglomerated with other methods.

MB is one tool in a toolbox.

The horse**** you speak is of is not the test itself, but of its misuse, by unqualfied individuals, in a contextual vacuum.

Agreed?

Mostly yes, much as with the Rorschach Inkblots or the Rey-Osterrieth CFT. They are fine tools in their proper administration and context, but note that the MBPT claims to measure a LOT more than other personality tests or neurological tests. Even in context, I don't believe it is accurate in its conclusions given that the goal is too broad, but properly administered as a single tool... no, I would rescind the horse**** for that. I'm still no fan of it, but it's not crap in that setting.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, I think the test is flawed, but not as much as people might think.

Psychology tests and trends measure general and perhaps more apt guidelines of one's personal expression. They're not tell-tales, and they are by no means anywhere close to pipe lining people into a profession which in these times is anywhere close to generating success, much less satisfaction.

They're a guide, nothing more. Based on personal experience, I think they're a fairly good guide. As a manager, however, I contended with folks from widely varying backgrounds, many of them struggling to keep pace in their primary duties while learning their ancillary skills who were often rather phenomenal in totally unidentified skills! I was very frustrated at times by not being able to place employee x in slot x when he would have been a star performer in slot x.

Ugh.

And I myself felt rather hampered by a machine which strove to rather unintelligenty "round out" it's employees with little regard to either the employee's strengths or the company's needs.

So, in my mind, it's a guide, and a good one at that. If anything, it helps weed out the obviously ridiculous professions for which the individual has no business pursuing. But it's by no means a panacea, pigeon-holing people into occupations in which they really don't belong.

In my opinion and expertise, an individual's life-long "best fit" involves all of three things: innate competence/experience, education, and desire. Lacking one of these two they'll make do, but it won't be a best fit, by any means. Lacking two of the three, they my yet be the most competent, but it'll be a disaster because it's just not where they belong.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I think the test is flawed, but not as much as people might think.

Psychology tests and trends measure general and perhaps more apt guidelines of one's personal expression. They're not tell-tales, and they are by no means anywhere close to pipe lining people into a profession which in these times is anywhere close to generating success, much less satisfaction.

They're a guide, nothing more. Based on personal experience, I think they're a fairly good guide. As a manager, however, I contended with folks from widely varying backgrounds, many of them struggling to keep pace in their primary duties while learning their ancillary skills who were often rather phenomenal in totally unidentified skills! I was very frustrated at times by not being able to place employee x in slot x when he would have been a star performer in slot x.

Ugh.

And I myself felt rather hampered by a machine which strove to rather unintelligenty "round out" it's employees with little regard to either the employee's strengths or the company's needs.

So, in my mind, it's a guide, and a good one at that. If anything, it helps weed out the obviously ridiculous professions for which the individual has no business pursuing. But it's by no means a panacea, pigeon-holing people into occupations in which they really don't belong.

In my opinion and expertise, an individual's life-long "best fit" involves all of three things: innate competence/experience, education, and desire. Lacking one of these two they'll make do, but it won't be a best fit, by any means. Lacking two of the three, they my yet be the most competent, but it'll be a disaster because it's just not where they belong.

If more people thought as you did, then I'd probably be much more relaxed about this test, and some others. DaveC as usual, got to the heart of the issue when he isolated the human misuse element as the source of the horse stercore.

 

[Mekanpreth]

hullo I am new to this site , could anyone guide me on how to go about using this site

 

[Andre]

Here is another one found via this. Any comments?

Extroversion results were medium which suggests you are moderately talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting.

Neuroticism results were low which suggests you are very relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.

Psychoticism results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense of your own individual development (martyr complex).

 

[nismaratwork]

Here is another one found via this. Any comments?

It's making my head hurt... a lot, and I think I taste blood.

 

[Andre]

It's making my head heard... a lot, and I think I taste blood.

heard? hurt?

Anyway I knew that couldn't be me, could it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah yeah. But we're getting off-topic.

More about this:

DaveC as usual, got to the heart of the issue...

 

[nismaratwork]

heard? hurt?

Anyway I knew that couldn't be me, could it?

Not you, the test, I enjoy your posts and respect your views.


DaveC: The image of you blushing is going to stay with me for a long time.