With all due respect, it doesn't take much googling to find out the lack of credibility the MBTI has. Even the Wikipedia article has a lengthy section with many sources about, amongst other things:
1) Much of the published material on the MBTI is produced by a foundation and published in a journal that both happen to be coincidentally linked to the company that does training and administration of MBTI tests.
2) The test depends on a false dichotomy; that is, it has Introvert VS Extrovert as a profound dividing line, but ignores that most people actually score near the middle - an INTJ may actually have answers much closer to a ENTJ (or, indeed, any other result) than another INTJ.
3) The only part of MBTI results that correlate with any other types of personality-assessing tests is the I/E part.
4) Huge percentages of people will actually get a different result when retaking the test after a relatively short time period (as little as five weeks in the first study mentioned). Only 36% of people will get the same type when retesting after nine months - so how meaningful can that test result possibly have been?
5) It has failed to have any correlation whatsoever with what jobs people end up having, and with what performance they will have in that job.
Ultimately, human beings are not creatures that can be broken down into a catch-all 16 types.
The test depends on a false dichotomy; that is, it has Introvert VS Extrovert as a profound dividing line, but ignores that most people actually score near the middle - an INTJ may actually have answers much closer to a ENTJ (or, indeed, any other result) than another INTJ.
So when one person describes another as an introvert or an extrovert, how do you interpret that? Does that communicate anything to you?
4) Huge percentages of people will actually get a different result when retaking the test after a relatively short time period (as little as five weeks in the first study mentioned). Only 36% of people will get the same type when retesting after nine months - so how meaningful can that test result possibly have been?
This is the problem with these test and whenever I had to do them in school, I'd fake it so I would be close to the middle as possible. I'd still answer correctly however, but I took pleasure in "breaking" the tests.
To get a more accurate "reading" one needs to have others that are close to them take the test for them. However, even that would be an inaccurate reading of ones self as you play different roles to different people. A family member may see you as caring and compassionate where a co-worker may view you as cut-throat and calculating.
These test are good however for attempting to balance yourself. If you score in an extreme, (say rational to emotional) you can take a step back and work on the one you are lacking, such as taking other people's emotions into consideration when making a choice.
I am not sure if it's clear, but in MBTI "extroverted" and "introverted" (it's actually extraverted and intraverted), isn't about how outgoing someone is.
From Wikipedia:
- Extraverted are action-oriented, while introverted are thought-oriented. - Extraverted seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverted seek depth of knowledge and influence. - Extraverted often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverted prefer more substantial interaction. - Extraverted recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverted recharge and get their energy from spending time alone; they consume their energy through the opposite process.
INFP-A, which means "Mediator." Apparently that's some sort of shy, artsy hippie diplomat.
I guess that fits me. Yesterday I was planning out a strategy for managing the South China Sea conflict and how to defend it in front of an audience of skeptical policymakers. The day before that, I was mumbling to myself in Chinese. Today I was drawing in crayon for an animated video my boss' daughter is helping me create, to promote a fantasy novel of mine. Tomorrow I'm posting another chapter of an Undertale fan fiction, in which my main character tries to seduce an immortal demon. On Monday I go back to work at the homeless shelter downtown. And for the last several days, I've been re-writing that novel in my head.
You know, maybe my life is more interesting than I tend to think.
@semiticgod are you kidding? Your life sounds fascinating.
I got "Advocate INFJ-T" I don't really know what that means. The only thing I'm sure it got right is that I'm 94% introverted rather than extroverted.
It says I'm 81% intuitive rather than observant, and I'm not sure that's right. If it means that I think analytically and wholistically rather than quantitatively and with precision, then that's probably right.
It says I'm 65% feeling rather than thinking. My impulse is to disagree with that. As I reflect more on it, maybe it's right, and I just don't like to think of myself as dominated by my feelings (or my intuitions).
66% judging rather than prospecting sounds about right.
63% turbulent rather than assertive. It's right, but I think the turbulency rate should be even higher.
It's interesting that I score pretty close to the center on all of those axes except for introversion-extroversion and intuition-observation.
Does that mean I'm a fairly balanced person except for the extreme introversion and reliance on intuition?
I guess I could interpret the results to mean that I am a very introverted, intuitive person. That sounds about right.
It's interesting that out of 16 personality types, four are so prevalent as to represent more than half the voters, and that's without regard for any who went with Unknown. I'm no exception: MEDIATOR (INFP-A). We don't have many votes though.
Are the sixteen types supposed to be equally prevalent?
It's interesting that out of 16 personality types, four are so prevalent as to represent more than half the voters, and that's without regard for any who went with Unknown. I'm no exception: MEDIATOR (INFP-A). We don't have many votes though.
Are the sixteen types supposed to be equally prevalent?
Nope. The description of mine says there is less than 1% of us in the world. And the one that represents me is part of the top 4.
1) Much of the published material on the MBTI is produced by a foundation and published in a journal that both happen to be coincidentally linked to the company that does training and administration of MBTI tests.
This is called an ad hominem argument, an elementary logical fallacy, embarrassing to say.
2) The test depends on a false dichotomy; that is, it has Introvert VS Extrovert as a profound dividing line, but ignores that most people actually score near the middle - an INTJ may actually have answers much closer to a ENTJ (or, indeed, any other result) than another INTJ.
The same "false dichotomy" applies even to gender, that doesn't make the vocabulary useless. When a preference is unclear, it is denoted with `x`; I test as INTx, but since I actually understand the theory, I know that my type is INTP (I am more assertive than typical for that type, which I think skews the results).
3) The only part of MBTI results that correlate with any other types of personality-assessing tests is the I/E part.
This point is just plain confusing. So what? Why are the other tests relevant? Why would there be an expectation of correlation? Do you realize that the MBTI is the name of one specific test, and that there are dozens of different online tests that test for this? I've taken several different ones, and I consistently test close to 100% on the T and close to 50/50 on P/J.
4) Huge percentages of people will actually get a different result when retaking the test after a relatively short time period (as little as five weeks in the first study mentioned). Only 36% of people will get the same type when retesting after nine months - so how meaningful can that test result possibly have been?
But this isn't about how good a particular test is, the question is how useful is this vocabulary. Of course, then you need to understand it.
Ultimately, human beings are not creatures that can be broken down into a catch-all 16 types.
That depends on how much information you omit. We can be broken down into male vs female, adult vs child, lawful vs chaotic, good vs evil, introverted vs extroverted, thinker vs feeler. This doesn't mean we're simple, just that we can think in terms of fundamentals.
This is called an ad hominem argument, an elementary logical fallacy, embarrassing to say.
If you don't think it is just a wee bit suspicious that the journal that mostly publishes on the MBTI is financially funded by the corporation that trains and administers the MBTI, then I'm not certain what to tell you.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as you are clearly very attached to the test and your belligerence about its validity being challenged ("but since I actually understand the theory") suggests that further conversation on the topic is just going to devolve into namecalling.
I would suggest, again, that anyone who actually takes this test seriously google it and find out the numerous criticisms levelled at it by researchers, and the lack of any substantial evidence for its accuracy.
If you don't think it is just a wee bit suspicious that the journal that mostly publishes on the MBTI is financially funded by the corporation that trains and administers the MBTI, then I'm not certain what to tell you.
I find that it makes no difference whatsoever if I pretend that the MBTI and the company that publishes it never existed. You're the only one here talking about the MBTI, I bet that nobody who answered this poll ever took that test. The existence of the MBTI doesn't invalidate Carl Jung's theories about personality even a little bit.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as you are clearly very attached to the test and your belligerence about its validity being challenged ("but since I actually understand the theory") suggests that further conversation on the topic is just going to devolve into namecalling.
I haven't called anyone any name here, but that paragraph of yours is pure insult, and you ought to apologize for it.
I would suggest, again, that anyone who actually takes this test seriously google it and find out the numerous criticisms levelled at it by researchers, and the lack of any substantial evidence for its accuracy.
And I would suggest not to accept some fallacious arguments about some test you've never taken, but to actually learn Carl Jung's personality theory if you want to judge it.
It says I'm 81% intuitive rather than observant, and I'm not sure that's right. If it means that I think analytically and wholistically rather than quantitatively and with precision, then that's probably right.
They are very wrong to use the word "observant" there. What they must have meant is "sensing", which has a specific meaning in the context of personality theory. Sensing is one of the two so-called "perceiving" functions, the other one being iNtuition (written with an N because Introversion has claimed an I). Sensation deals with perceptions and memory, and iNtuition deals with imagination and perspectives. Some of the most "observant" people ever are INTJs.
Both Sensation and iNtuition can be either introverted or extroverted.
When Sensation is extroverted, like in ESFP, ESTP, ISFP, and ISTP types, it concerns itself with perceiving the world with one's senses and interacting with the world using one's hands and body. When Sensation is introverted, like in ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, and ESFJ types, it concerns itself with memories, facts, and concrete knowledge.
When iNtuition is extroverted, like in ENTP, ENFP, INTP, and INFP types, it concerns itself with connecting ideas with ideas, with imagination, possibilities, alternatives. When it is introverted, like in INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ types, it concerns itself with perspectives, viewpoints, worldviews, and systems. Introverted iNtuition, written as `Ni`, is the rarest function. In both cases iNtuition draws more on the subconscious than Sensation, which explains why it's called iNtuition--intuition comes from the subconscious, the sudden epiphany, the subconscious certainty without conscious knowledge.
Both Sensation and iNtuition can be either introverted or extroverted.
When Sensation is extroverted, like in ESFP, ESTP, ISFP, and ISTP types, it concerns itself with perceiving the world with one's senses and interacting with the world using one's hands and body. When Sensation is introverted, like in ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, and ESFJ types, it concerns itself with memories, facts, and concrete knowledge.
When iNtuition is extroverted, like in ENTP, ENFP, INTP, and INFP types, it concerns itself with connecting ideas with ideas, with imagination, possibilities, alternatives. When it is introverted, like in INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ types, it concerns itself with perspectives, viewpoints, worldviews, and systems. Introverted iNtuition, written as `Ni`, is the rarest function. In both cases iNtuition draws more on the subconscious than Sensation, which explains why it's called iNtuition--intuition comes from the subconscious, the sudden epiphany, the subconscious certainty without conscious knowledge.
I don't really see how being extraverted would affect one's way of thinking. The difference between introverted and extraverted is mostly social, while the difference you're putting on intuition and sensation whether the person is E or I is too general. The problem I find on the test is, the importance on one's social behaviour with other things more concerned with your own thoughts. It's what you said before when replying to Ayiekie: the test omits information, but, it does so by applying generalisations which actually work on most cases but aren't precise and they will make the result differ a lot from very small changes. There are too many exceptions when it comes to people to just classify them in 16 categories. A very close friend of mine only fits as extraverted in this test, he doesn't fit in any other category at all (and if you ask me, yeah, he's a bit weird).
I don't really see how being extraverted would affect one's way of thinking.
It's the other way around--one's way of thinking determines whether one is introverted or extroverted. In personality theory, there are two Perceiving functions: Sensation and iNtuition, and two Judging functions: Thinking and Feeling. Each of those can be introverted and extroverted.
When Thinking is introverted, it brings clarity and logic to one's thought processes; when it is extroverted, it seeks to achieve purposes in the outside world. When Feeling is introverted, it brings awareness and regulation of one's emotions, when it is extroverted, it concerns itself with relationships.
There are therefore 8 fundamental functions: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti
The typical person (and many are atypical) has a preference for using one of those functions more than the rest (preference != ability). Typically their preferred (aka dominant) function is assisted by an auxiliary function, which tends to be introverted if the dominant is extroverted and vice verse, and perceiving if the dominant is judging, and vice-versa. The 16 types described by various people are these archetypes, a frame of reference.
ENTJ and ESTJ both have the same dominant function: Extroverted Thinking (Te). You can see a caricature of this function in characters like Eric Cartman and Walter Sobchak (both ESTJ). The difference is that while the ESTJ's auxiliary function is Introverted Sensing (Si), the ENTJ's is Introverted iNtuition (Ni). This means that the ESTJ's purposes are likely to be chosen based on concrete, factual considerations, to accomplish specific purposes while the ENTJ's are more likely to look for useful perspectives and points of view to help them set their direction.
An example of an exception to these archetypes is Tony Soprano, whose dominant functions are both extroverted: Te and Se. His psychiatrist actually comments that the man seems to be incapable of introspection, and is oblivious to his emotions.
This is called an ad hominem argument, an elementary logical fallacy, embarrassing to say.
If you don't think it is just a wee bit suspicious that the journal that mostly publishes on the MBTI is financially funded by the corporation that trains and administers the MBTI, then I'm not certain what to tell you.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as you are clearly very attached to the test and your belligerence about its validity being challenged ("but since I actually understand the theory") suggests that further conversation on the topic is just going to devolve into namecalling.
I would suggest, again, that anyone who actually takes this test seriously google it and find out the numerous criticisms levelled at it by researchers, and the lack of any substantial evidence for its accuracy.
I never saw anyone call pointing out an obvious conflict of interest an ad hominem before.
Comments
1) Much of the published material on the MBTI is produced by a foundation and published in a journal that both happen to be coincidentally linked to the company that does training and administration of MBTI tests.
2) The test depends on a false dichotomy; that is, it has Introvert VS Extrovert as a profound dividing line, but ignores that most people actually score near the middle - an INTJ may actually have answers much closer to a ENTJ (or, indeed, any other result) than another INTJ.
3) The only part of MBTI results that correlate with any other types of personality-assessing tests is the I/E part.
4) Huge percentages of people will actually get a different result when retaking the test after a relatively short time period (as little as five weeks in the first study mentioned). Only 36% of people will get the same type when retesting after nine months - so how meaningful can that test result possibly have been?
5) It has failed to have any correlation whatsoever with what jobs people end up having, and with what performance they will have in that job.
Ultimately, human beings are not creatures that can be broken down into a catch-all 16 types.
To get a more accurate "reading" one needs to have others that are close to them take the test for them. However, even that would be an inaccurate reading of ones self as you play different roles to different people. A family member may see you as caring and compassionate where a co-worker may view you as cut-throat and calculating.
These test are good however for attempting to balance yourself. If you score in an extreme, (say rational to emotional) you can take a step back and work on the one you are lacking, such as taking other people's emotions into consideration when making a choice.
From Wikipedia:
It says I'm 81% intuitive rather than observant, and I'm not sure that's right. If it means that I think analytically and wholistically rather than quantitatively and with precision, then that's probably right.
It says I'm 65% feeling rather than thinking. My impulse is to disagree with that. As I reflect more on it, maybe it's right, and I just don't like to think of myself as dominated by my feelings (or my intuitions).
66% judging rather than prospecting sounds about right.
63% turbulent rather than assertive. It's right, but I think the turbulency rate should be even higher.
It's interesting that I score pretty close to the center on all of those axes except for introversion-extroversion and intuition-observation.
Does that mean I'm a fairly balanced person except for the extreme introversion and reliance on intuition?
I guess I could interpret the results to mean that I am a very introverted, intuitive person. That sounds about right.
Extroverted Sensation (-S-P) - Perception
Introverted Sensation (-S-J) - Memory
Extroverted iNtuition (-N-P) - Imagination
Introverted iNtuition (-N-J) - Perspective
Introverted Feeling (--FP) - Emotion
Extroverted Feeling (--FJ) - Relationships
Introverted Thinking (--TP) - Clarity
Extroverted Thinking (--TJ) - Purpose
INTJ - Perspective/Purpose
ENTJ - Purpose/Perspective
INTP - Clarity/Imagination
ENTP - Imagination/Clarity
ISTJ - Memory/Purpose
ESTJ - Purpose/Memory
ISTP - Clarity/Perception
ESTP - Perception/Clarity
INFJ - Perspective/Relationships
ENFJ - Relationships/Perspective
INFP - Emotion/Imagination
ENFP - Imagination/Emotion
ISFJ - Memory/Relationships
ESFJ - Relationships/Memory
ISFP - Emotion/Perception
ESFP - Perception/Emotion
We don't have many votes though.
Are the sixteen types supposed to be equally prevalent?
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as you are clearly very attached to the test and your belligerence about its validity being challenged ("but since I actually understand the theory") suggests that further conversation on the topic is just going to devolve into namecalling.
I would suggest, again, that anyone who actually takes this test seriously google it and find out the numerous criticisms levelled at it by researchers, and the lack of any substantial evidence for its accuracy.
Both Sensation and iNtuition can be either introverted or extroverted.
When Sensation is extroverted, like in ESFP, ESTP, ISFP, and ISTP types, it concerns itself with perceiving the world with one's senses and interacting with the world using one's hands and body. When Sensation is introverted, like in ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, and ESFJ types, it concerns itself with memories, facts, and concrete knowledge.
When iNtuition is extroverted, like in ENTP, ENFP, INTP, and INFP types, it concerns itself with connecting ideas with ideas, with imagination, possibilities, alternatives. When it is introverted, like in INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ types, it concerns itself with perspectives, viewpoints, worldviews, and systems. Introverted iNtuition, written as `Ni`, is the rarest function. In both cases iNtuition draws more on the subconscious than Sensation, which explains why it's called iNtuition--intuition comes from the subconscious, the sudden epiphany, the subconscious certainty without conscious knowledge.
When Thinking is introverted, it brings clarity and logic to one's thought processes; when it is extroverted, it seeks to achieve purposes in the outside world. When Feeling is introverted, it brings awareness and regulation of one's emotions, when it is extroverted, it concerns itself with relationships.
There are therefore 8 fundamental functions: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti
The typical person (and many are atypical) has a preference for using one of those functions more than the rest (preference != ability). Typically their preferred (aka dominant) function is assisted by an auxiliary function, which tends to be introverted if the dominant is extroverted and vice verse, and perceiving if the dominant is judging, and vice-versa. The 16 types described by various people are these archetypes, a frame of reference.
ENTJ and ESTJ both have the same dominant function: Extroverted Thinking (Te). You can see a caricature of this function in characters like Eric Cartman and Walter Sobchak (both ESTJ). The difference is that while the ESTJ's auxiliary function is Introverted Sensing (Si), the ENTJ's is Introverted iNtuition (Ni). This means that the ESTJ's purposes are likely to be chosen based on concrete, factual considerations, to accomplish specific purposes while the ENTJ's are more likely to look for useful perspectives and points of view to help them set their direction.
An example of an exception to these archetypes is Tony Soprano, whose dominant functions are both extroverted: Te and Se. His psychiatrist actually comments that the man seems to be incapable of introspection, and is oblivious to his emotions.
INTJ: Elrond
ENTJ: Theoden
INTP: Gandalf
ENTP: -
ISTJ: Saruman
ESTJ: Denethor
ISTP: Aragorn
ESTP: Gimli
INFJ: Grima
ENFJ: Boromir
INFP: Frodo, Eowyn, Faramir, (and Tolkien)
ENFP: - (Tom Bombadil in the books)
ISFJ: Samwise
ESFJ: Bilbo
ISFP: Legolas
ESFP: Merry, Pippin
BlueGreen. :D