-Jung Typology Test-

lel

Btw prob didn't mean that to come off like a direct criticism of you or something. just rambling really. classic ALCO behavior imo.

feels the fuck out

  On 10/9/2014 at 4:15 AM, Alcofribas said:

But anyway: ALCO

holic?

• You have strong preference of Extraversion over Introversion (89%)
• You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (12%)
• You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
• You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (11%)

oh sheit guys im extrovert i dont belong to this forum :(

  On 10/8/2014 at 9:30 AM, MadameChaos said:

I found the info on wiki about different types pretty interesting and for me pretty accurate. I don't really go by the self fulfilling prophecy with this although some people may vary in terms of the amount they are effected by certain aspects. IT'S SCIENCE. In fact I would go as far as challenging anyone who takes the test and says "that's nothing like me" and question if they answered the questions honestly. holy crap, i just checked another site on my type out and it pretty much nailed me.

It isn't science... but it has some value. The link goDel posted was unfortunately rife with misunderstandings of the purpose of the test (in particular claiming it's "binary" in the sense that it's "either/or" without noting any sort of scaling or mobility between types over time), and focused mainly on the abuse of the typologies wrt workplace/HR management scenarios, which I agree are an inappropriate (or at least weak) way to utilize this thing.

I should also add that Keirsey, whose book I recommended ITT yesterday, is also an INTP -- I suspect INTPs are a particular type that is easily described by this test. And I also lol'ed at one comment in the link goDel posted: "There is an 'arsehole' type: INTJ." From my experience at this forum, that comment struck me as at least partially true and lolsy (no offense meant to intjs, but you guys are quintessential aphex fans). I also notice that SJ and SP types are the sort of people to not give a single fuck about this sort of test; NT's dig it but are suspicious; and "idealists" (NF) are usually the ones to promote it beyond its actual worth.

  On 10/5/2014 at 4:44 AM, eugene said:

we've done in not so long ago i remember, 90% of watmm is INTJ.

Yep, we had a thread around spring of last year on the same thing, albeit with more criticism than this one. I wind up in that 90 percent from at least three different tests of this type. But apparently Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars is also INTJ...

• You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
• You have distinct preference of Intuition over Sensing (75%)
• You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (38%)
• You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (44%)

Every time I take this I get either INTP or INFP.

The "binary" critique is a methodological one instead of it being about its purpose: "but the most obvious flaw is that the MBTI seems to rely exclusively on binary choices."

It's binary in the sense that every question has only two answers to choose from. It hasn't got anything to do with not being mobile or scalable over time. Even a test full with binary questions is mobile/scalable over time. That's not the point. The point is being forced to jump through either hole A or B without any alternative.

I agree that it has some value, btw. Just like horoscopes.

I found this comment particularly valuable:

  Quote

 

 

The Myers-Briggs "test" consists of the simple application of two principles known to magicians. It was shown in the 1950s that 12 statements supposedly describing a person's personality will be accepted by 85 to 90 pecent of people. If you offer someone an apparently "free choice" (such as a selection from a deck of 52 identical cards) and pretend to read his mind, the subject does not feel like he has been forced to choose what the magician wants. The Myers-Briggs forces choices and produces results that a person feels are descriptive of his personality. It is pseudoscience, and should be listed under "Snake oil and other scams" rather than any quasi-respectable label.

From the article:

  Quote

"For example, in the category of extrovert v introvert, you're either one or the other; there is no middle ground. People don't work this way, no normal person is either 100% extrovert or 100% introvert, just as people's political views aren't purely "communist" or "fascist"."

That is what I meant by a misunderstanding; that's clearly false just by the results posted in this thread ("Extravert(89%)"). The author was somehow under-informed...or misrepresenting the test. That's all I was getting at. You're right, the choices are binary, but the results are not.

Fair. Lets agree that that wasn't the most intelligent part of the blog. If he would have kept his critique purely methodological, he would have scored some "scientific" points.

But NF's are "idealists" .... tsk tsk

so binary ;D

Haha. That "idealist" thing is Keirsey's addition to the test, that's not inherent in the MBTI. But I do like Keirsey's interpretation, it's at least been useful in my own life. I would never recommend this be used in a workplace setting though, that's ridiculous. In that sense I'm in agreement with the author of the guardian article. The test just seems to be a good way to learn a small bit about one's personal (current) disposition. I think it has a bit of merit, no more no less.

And FWIW, find me a test that doesn't "force choices" lol. Without forced choices, a test wouldn't be a test, it'd be a free roaming sini essay impossible to grade, nearly useless to anyone but the author!

Also, interesting blog/article about the introvert vs. extrovert schism. It's basically claiming behavioural strategies can be "situational bound".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-kashdan/introvert_b_5889398.html

Although the MBTI distinction between introversion and extraversion is said to be a different one. It's not about behaviour per se, but about the way people process their experiences. Or so I've been told...

  On 10/9/2014 at 8:36 AM, luke viia said:

 

And FWIW, find me a test that doesn't "force choices" lol. Without forced choices, a test wouldn't be a test, it'd be a free roaming sini essay impossible to grade, nearly useless to anyone but the author!

most test nowadays have these scalable answers like "always, often, rarely, never". I'm sure we can agree this is a little less "binary". (although the assburgers test from a while back translated those to binary choices behind the proverbial curtain)

and also: the mbti in a workplace-environment is a bit forced in the sense you have a problem if you refuse to do the test. ;P

Yeah, thank goodness I've never been asked to take a personality quiz just to get a job. I think I'd intentionally fail just to get out of working for those sorts of people.

and even in the light of only personality tests, 'always often rarely never' are still forced choices, aren't they? Binary or not they impose a decision that the test taker may not feel is accurate, and even essays force a discussion. I was being a little facetious and overly exact to prove a point, but I think it stands on some lame abstract level :P

O, now you're just being in the business of proving you still have some kind of point. Well good sir, your point is granted!

But still though, intentionally failing a test? That's a pretty binary solution!

Personally, when it comes to tests like these, if it helps with learning about the stuff that's talked about in the next quote, I think it's all good. Binary or not.

  Quote

 

Like me, your extroverted behaviors might be constrained in easily interpretable ways. Consider a brief atlas of social situations:

• Unstructured situations with unclear rules and norms.
• When there is a clear power imbalance between you and others present.
• When you feel submissive.
• When you feel dominant.
• When your desired outcome conflicts with someone else's.
• When you are open to a possible sexual or romantic liaison when there are more strangers than friends present.

What is important is to discover the "strong situations" that pull for particular sides of your personality (in this case, extroversion or introversion). The same level of importance can be said for knowing the predictable situations when the spotlight is more of a punishment than a reward to others who are a regular part of your social world. The leader that knows this has an edge in influence/persuasion. The parent that knows this can be more sensitive, empathic force for acceptance and change. The romantic partner that knows this can create a more compassionate, loving atmosphere for a lifetime of shared and unshared goals.

  On 10/9/2014 at 9:09 AM, goDel said:

 

O, now you're just being in the business of proving you still have some kind of point. Well good sir, your point is granted!

Booyah!

TBH I read some of that article and I don't think the author there is using the same lexical def of "introversion" as I am, so it made the whole thing a little muddled, and the second paragraph seemed to define introversion by placing it in negative terms ("introversion is not...") without any external backup I could believe in. I kinda stopped there. I'll admit it's late here and I'm tired; I'll give it another go later this week. Always a pleasure, goDel!

  On 10/9/2014 at 9:16 AM, luke viia said:

I'll give it another go later this week.

 

Don't bother. The posted quote above is basically the gist. ;)

• You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (44%)
• You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (25%)
• You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
• You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (11%)

weird because yeah i'm a bit shy but 44% introvert doesn't look/sound like me

LOL

• You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (44%)
• You have marginal or no preference of Sensing over Intuition (1%)
• You have marginal or no preference of Thinking over Feeling (1%)
• You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (33%)

So, Basically I'm IP.

  On 10/9/2014 at 9:49 AM, klore said:

weird because yeah i'm a bit shy but 44% introvert doesn't look/sound like me

Introvert is when you value more the images that things or persons bring to your thought/imagination better than the things/person in itself. It is not to be confused with the ordinary meaning of it.

So, to make an example, if you value a disc for the music it contains but you don't care much about that disc if you can find another one with the same music on it, you're an introvert: you value the effect that disc has on you more than the disc itself. If you like that disc for the disc in itself (think about collectors who look for rare records despite their musical taste) despite the music it contains you're an extrovert.

Of course, there is no one who is a pure extrovert or a pure introvert

  On 10/9/2014 at 10:43 AM, pierlu said:

 

  On 10/9/2014 at 9:49 AM, klore said:

weird because yeah i'm a bit shy but 44% introvert doesn't look/sound like me

 

Introvert is when you value more the images that things or persons bring to your thought/imagination better than the things/person in itself. It is not to be confused with the ordinary meaning of it.

 

So, to make an example, if you value a disc for the music it contains but you don't care much about that disc if you can find another one with the same music on it, you're an introvert: you value the effect that disc has on you more than the disc itself. If you like that disc for the disc in itself (think about collectors who look for rare records despite their musical taste) despite the music it contains you're an extrovert.

 

Of course, there is no one who is a pure extrovert or a pure introvert

 

thx for the precisions, makes more sense now

  On 10/9/2014 at 9:09 AM, goDel said:

 

O, now you're just being in the business of proving you still have some kind of point. Well good sir, your point is granted!

 

But still though, intentionally failing a test? That's a pretty binary solution!

 

Personally, when it comes to tests like these, if it helps with learning about the stuff that's talked about in the next quote, I think it's all good. Binary or not.

  Quote

 

Like me, your extroverted behaviors might be constrained in easily interpretable ways. Consider a brief atlas of social situations:

• Unstructured situations with unclear rules and norms.
• When there is a clear power imbalance between you and others present.
• When you feel submissive.
• When you feel dominant.
• When your desired outcome conflicts with someone else's.
• When you are open to a possible sexual or romantic liaison when there are more strangers than friends present.

What is important is to discover the "strong situations" that pull for particular sides of your personality (in this case, extroversion or introversion). The same level of importance can be said for knowing the predictable situations when the spotlight is more of a punishment than a reward to others who are a regular part of your social world. The leader that knows this has an edge in influence/persuasion. The parent that knows this can be more sensitive, empathic force for acceptance and change. The romantic partner that knows this can create a more compassionate, loving atmosphere for a lifetime of shared and unshared goals.

 

Thanks for sharing the article, yeah that list rings true for me. When I'm comfortable around a person or group of people and I don't feel left out I can be pretty outgoing, but that seems to be an exception and not a rule. Also when people want to do things that require a lot of mental or physical energy, I lose interest quickly when I feel like my tastes aren't being sated, so generally I'd rather pursue that alone. I don't feel nearly as "shy" or socially anxious as I used to but my sense of others' social expectations can still weigh heavily on me. I do feel the need to think about and mentally test what I say before speaking.

  On 10/9/2014 at 12:26 AM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 10/8/2014 at 2:16 AM, xox said:

will i ever meet another INFJ? :(

 

i think jung was full of shit and personality tests are the worst thing ever (i'm reminded of the quote about Adorno despairing about his secretary asking him if he was an introvert as if people were starting to take pop magazines into real life) but supposedly i'm an infj too. interestingly you're one of the watmm'ers i feel some affinity for.

 

next:

watmm political compass 2014

 

Hey, man! I feel the same about you, from the start. Interesting, right? Now, does that say a thing about this test and his reliability? I don't know. Probably not.

Regarding, Jung... some of his books are shit, i agree, but I also really like some, especially Symbols of Transfomation and Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

This test is just partially based on Jung's personality theories, but i can find some truth in it, and 'some' is a lot, when we think about how diverse we are.

get a room you filthy INFJ freaks

  On 10/9/2014 at 11:58 PM, xox said:

 

  On 10/9/2014 at 12:26 AM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 10/8/2014 at 2:16 AM, xox said:

will i ever meet another INFJ? :(

 

i think jung was full of shit and personality tests are the worst thing ever (i'm reminded of the quote about Adorno despairing about his secretary asking him if he was an introvert as if people were starting to take pop magazines into real life) but supposedly i'm an infj too. interestingly you're one of the watmm'ers i feel some affinity for.

 

next:

watmm political compass 2014

 

 

Hey, man! I feel the same about you, from the start. Interesting, right? Now, does that say a thing about this test and his reliability? I don't know. Probably not.

 

Regarding, Jung... some of his books are shit, i agree, but I also really like some, especially Symbols of Transfomation and Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

This test is just partially based on Jung's personality theories, but i can find some truth in it, and 'some' is a lot, when we think about how diverse we are.

 

fwiw memories, dreams, reflections is mostly a book written by his colleague aniela jaffe.

edit: fuck you baph