On the other hand, I don't really mind being called a "Mastermind"

Yes, that does lend the test some credibility.

Ouch!

nah, I agree

I agree with all of that, but I do feel that I have to point out that all the M-B tests I've taken (usually because I'm bored, and to see if I always get the same result -- I do), they always list the degree to which your test result exists along each axis. For example, my test was listed at 11% iNtuitive and Thinking, but 56% Introverted and 78% Perceiving, which, IIRC, was about accurate with most of the other ones I've taken.

And to some extent, the vagueness of the questions forces you into more of an existential mode of thought, rather than focusing on specific incidents.

But again, no one should make any sort of life-altering judgements based on this sort of bean-counting armchair psychology.

bean-counting armchair psychology.

Ah, so you do see my problem with it.

Yes. But just because it's not precise doesn't mean it's wildly inaccurate, either.

A real-life example of how this kind of evaluation can help. My Pastor (now ex-pastor since I’ve moved) is an extreme extrovert. I don’t remember the rest of his attributes, but I do know the extrovert part was a problem as it made the difference between being a vision-caster who never followed through vs. a vision-caster who would finish and excel at what he did. After taking the Meyers-Briggs test and reading the two different personality profiles (I and E), he made the conscious choice to avoid not following through with things and was able to be very successful. To this day I still see him fight this battle, but by being aware of the “traps” inherent in his particular profile he is able to be a more productive person.

That being said, I don’t think you can pigeonhole people, especially with a test of this sort. Like anything else, the results of Meyers-Briggs must be taken in moderation.

To this day I still see him fight this battle, but by being aware of the “traps” inherent in his particular profile he is able to be a more productive person.

Okay, that's a good example. But do you really think that this trait was only detectable by the MBTI test? Decades ago, when I was still a child, I recognized the exact same trait in my father, and I personally try to avoid it in my life because (like most people I suppose) I don't want to turn into my parents.

And here's a question: Because I recognize a bad tendency in myself and fight to correct it, does that mean I fall on the corrected end of the axis or the tendency end of the axis?

And here's a question: Because I recognize a bad tendency in myself and fight to correct it, does that mean I fall on the corrected end of the axis or the tendency end of the axis?

I don't think "corrected" is really an issue. For my pastor, it wasn't that being an extrovert was incorrect; it's just that it yielded undesired results in certain situations. He is still very much the extrovert, but he does take time to force himself to work in solitude when it’s required.

One thing I’ll say about the particular version of the test I linked is that it is particularly obvious in how it works. If you know what the eight letters mean it is very hard not to answer the questions the way you “think” you are, especially since they’re grouped together. I can only assume the real Meyers-Briggs test is a little craftier; I know other’s I’ve taken have been.

As for tendencies detectible by other methods, certainly they are. My pastor happened to realize it through this test (or actually the real Meyers-Briggs test) instead of one of the other ways available, so that was good for him. It’s just a tool, and like a hammer it’s good for a certain purpose . . . but don’t try to use for everything.

ISTJ

Just the facts, Ma'am

For my pastor, it wasn't that being an extrovert was incorrect; it's just that it yielded undesired results in certain situations.

I wasn't referring to the extrovert tendency. I was referring to the tendency to start big projects and never finish them.

I wasn't referring to the extrovert tendency. I was referring to the tendency to start big projects and never finish them.

Ah, I understand. So you're saying he no longer fits his "profile". His knowledge has now altered the outcome of the test (hmmm, sounds like a short story I recently read, not to be confused with it's movie counterpart of the same title but inferior plot). Yes, that’s true. But where he benefited from the test was not only recognizing that he had trouble finishing things, but also that this was due to his lack of spending time in solitude. There are many reasons why people don’t finish what they start: lack of drive, lack of time, lack of ability, etc. He discovered that by forcing himself to get away from people (not a natural thing for an extrovert) he was able to be much more productive.

I only read it because of that post, actually, so I am forever in your debt.

Well, fairly rare among the general populace, but this BBS is going to be highly self-selective with INT* types.

I took a full Myers Briggs test back perhaps 15 years ago, and scored near the extreme end of the scale for each of I * N * T * P -- kinda shocked the training facilitor who was administering the test.

Since then, I've lost a few IQ points and drifted more towards the middle on a couple of the four letters (not saying which couple of them though).

Cheers

There are many reasons why people don’t finish what they start: lack of drive, lack of time, lack of ability, etc. He discovered that by forcing himself to get away from people (not a natural thing for an extrovert) he was able to be much more productive.

Interesting. If true (if it's not just confirmation bias), then it's an example of how something like MBTI can truly be helpful. My dad was a bit of a loner, so his reasons for not finishing project were different ones. So I see how recognizing the reasons for this sort of thing can be helpful in some cases.

Then again, it's just one testimonial.

Okay, okay, I've exceeded my quota for skepdic.com links, I'll stop now.

MBTI is not bullshit. Who wrote the descriptions that you are talking about, Tony? I have read all of the type descriptions from a number of different sources. (I've also studied the theory.) Some of them are quite good and some of them are terrible. If you thought they sounded like horiscopes and could apply to everyone then what you read was not written by a good author.

If you want to read good type descriptions then try "Please Understand Me" by Kiersy, Bates. If you want a more academic background then read "Types Differing" by Myers, Briggs.

I haven't looked in a while, but last time I want looking on the net for MBTI information I found the descriptions and tests to be poor. Don't make judgements based on what you read online.

Of course, 16 personality types is too broad to describe people. It would require [insert world population] types to be accurate. But these 16 types aren't arbitrary or based on mystical voodoo like horoscopes or the enneagram. It's very possible that you don't have a strong preference on one or more axis. If so, then the descriptions of a particular type will tend to be less accurate. If you read the books I mention above you'll also learn that the theory is deeper then distilling it down to a single type for each person.

The point is not to perfectly describe people with one of sixteen different descriptions. Myers, Briggs and all the others who have created, refined and researched these theories aren't idiots. Unfortunately, the application of their theory is sometimes practiced by idiots - such as making hiring decisions based on personality type.

I have found an understanding of MBTI to be quite useful in my life. I can accurately peg sometime's type without a lot of difficulty. It's useful in giving me a broad understanding of what motivates them, predicting how they are going to act, and allowing me to be effective in interacting with them. You are the one who is losing out on a richer understanding of yourself and others if you dismiss it.

I'm an INFP, BTW.

-Dylan

And not to forget.. the letters don't mean much without knowledge of how polarized each was. If someone scores one point off of center on each category, well of course they're going to find that most of the type descriptions fit them -- they're too centrist to be pigeonholed.

But for someone (like me) with a 10-20 point polarization on each of the four axis, only a few of the descriptions will fit accurately.

Cheers

Taken the test 3 times in 10 years - Always an ESTJ

But for someone (like me) with a 10-20 point polarization on each of the four axis, only a few of the descriptions will fit accurately.

Or, depending on how you look at it, all of the descriptions will seem to fit equally, at least to a certain extent. Sure, some of them will say things that contradict your behavior, but they'll also say things that match your behavior. Then again, even the ones that seem to fit pretty well will contain contradictory statements...

yet another INTP here.

--dan.

I'll provide a simple application of personality types that is probably relevant to a lot of people on this board.

Most of us are on this board are N's - which is an iNtuitive as opposed to a Senser. This axis has a lot to do with how you absorb information about the world and how you learn. How many of you have had this situation:

Someone asks you how to do something on the computer. This same person has asked you how to do something similar in the past. You don't understand why you have to give them step by step directions for every little task. Don't they understand that it's like the other programs and this thing they want to do is in the File menu or is a right click or whatever. On the other hand, this person asking you the question is annoyed that you can't just give them easy step by step directions. Why do you have to give them a dissertation on how something works just to answer a question?

This is an illustration of N vs. S. The iNtuitive tends to learn by understanding how something how something works. Then, from that understanding, the iNtuitive can figure out how to do a specific task. The Senser tends to be proceduraly oriented and learns from sensory input and repetition.

I used to have tremendous difficulty in teaching my mom how to use her computer. The scenerio above is lifted out of my dealings with her. Then I realized the failing was that I was trying to teach her the way I learn. But my mom is a strong S and it only frustrated her. Now I walk through things with my mom giving her step by step directions. We're both a lot less frustrated now and she's much more adept at using the computer. She's not stupid and now she is capable of seeing how a procedure in one app relates to another. But she had to get to that point in her way - not mine. It was an understanding of personality types that led me to this realization.

What I wrote above isn't rocket science and many of you have probalby encountered similiar situations and resolved it with common sense. My point is to show the application goes beyond putting people into sixteen buckets. Recognizing archetypes and recognizing behavior patterns can allow you to quickly resolve situations such as above without months of frustration as my mom and I endured.

-Dylan

You are the one who is losing out on a richer understanding of yourself and others if you dismiss it.

This sounds like the old "skeptics have closed minds and therefore live unenlightened lives" argument, which I'm not going to contest here because it's already been contested a million times elsewhere.

I did check out MBTI and spent a lot of time looking into it before finally dismissing it. I will concede that perhaps I looked at the "crappy" versions of it instead of the "good" versions of it. Unfortunately, I don't have a way of knowing the difference. And I'll try not to let myself be swayed by seeing a parallel between that and similar claims by psychics: "oh, that other psychic is a phony, but I'm for real".

I'll provide a simple application of personality types that is probably relevant to a lot of people on this board.

I think that people who have trouble learning a computer task may have a multitude of different reasons for it, not just a position on one end of an MBTI axis. I see that your choice of step-by-step instructional style worked for teaching your mom, but a step-by-step instructional style works well for a lot of people. Most people, in fact.

(I happen to work at a company that writes computer training, so I've got a lot of real-world experience to back this up.)

By saying that "MBTI told me she was an S, and I changed my teaching style to step-by-step, therefore MBTI is useful", you're simply showing confirmation bias via a testimonial. There's nothing scientific or testable to back up your claim that the N/S axis is the reason that she responded well to a step-by-step teaching style.

In reply to:

---

I think that people who have trouble learning a computer task may have a multitude of different reasons for it, not just a position on one end of an MBTI axis.

---

I didn't say that every person in the world who had difficulty learning a computer task was due to where they fall in the MBTI S vs. N scale. I gave a specific example where that was true.

In reply to:

---

I see that your choice of step-by-step instructional style worked for teaching your mom, but a step-by-step instructional style works well for a lot of people. Most people, in fact.

---

The majority of the population are the S type. Your experience supports that. You say most people learn better with step by step instructions. That's a way of classifying people. Why is that any different then classifying them as an S? Don't you believe that this need for step by step instruction could be part of larger model of thinking that some people have?

In reply to:

---

By saying that "MBTI told me she was an S, and I changed my teaching style to step-by-step, therefore MBTI is useful", you're simply showing confirmation bias via a testimonial. There's nothing scientific or testable to back up your claim that the N/S axis is the reason that she responded well to a step-by-step teaching style.

---

Of course it's a testimonial. That was the point of my post. I wanted to take it away from being a way of labeling people into 16 buckets and showing real world applications. Then again, being that you clearly fall into the T axis I should have realized that this would be an ineffective argument for you. Being that I'm an F, shared experience and relationships tend to carry more weight then less personal arguments. I did suggest some books to read for T's like you. You'll find it more to your liking then my anecdotes I'm sure.

-Dylan

You say most people learn better with step by step instructions. That's a way of classifying people. Why is that any different then classifying them as an S?

Okay, you have a point. That is a classification.

The difference is: I'm not drawing an inference that "because they learn better with step-by-step instructions, then they will also have other specific but unrelated personality traits that go with it". I think that such inferences are dangerous when dealing with something as complex as the human brain.

In reply to:

---

And I'll try not to let myself be swayed by seeing a parallel between that and similar claims by psychics: "oh, that other psychic is a phony, but I'm for real".

---

I fail to see the parallel. If the topic were calculus and the question was one author's ability to explain it vs. another would you still drawl the same parallel?

Specifically, what did you read?

-Dylan

In reply to:

---

The difference is: I'm not drawing an inference that "because they learn better with step-by-step instructions, then they will also have other specific but unrelated personality traits that go with it". I think that such inferences are dangerous when dealing with something as complex as the human brain.

---

That's a very good argument. I agree that it's dangerous and I wouldn't trust an uneducated inference. But this isn't a personality test to determine if you are an Amiga or a Mac. There is a lot of research and accepted theory behind it. I don't know why you've lumped it into the same category as Miss Cleo.

-Dylan

I fail to see the parallel. If the topic were calculus and the question was one author's ability to explain it vs. another would you still drawl the same parallel?

Good point, I see what you're saying, but...

Bad analogy, though, because we're not talking about an instructor's ability to teach a scientific subject. We're talking about the end-result classification details, not the ability to teach the system.

A better example, using your same analogy, would be... What if all calculus teachers got different answers to the same equations? Which teacher would be the right one? And how would you know? And more importantly, how would you test to be sure which one was right?

Specifically, what did you read?

I have deleted most of my links, but I recall spending a lot of time reading stuff at http://keirsey.com , and a few other places.

I don't know why you've lumped it into the same category as Miss Cleo.

Because both Miss Cleo and MBTI use non-scientific methods to back up their claims.

ENTJ... And I seem to be quite rare too. I knew I was special !

Because both Miss Cleo and MBTI use non-scientific methods to back up their claims.

Ah, what a refreshing digression from invasion! The MBTI-Miss Cleo thread!.....

....I'm having nostalgic flashbacks to when we'd sit around on the graveyard shift on the psych ward at Fort Gordon, shuffle the cards, and play to see who could score the highest on the femininity-masculinity scale on the MMPI (and what was that question about _Alice in Wonderland_ all about???)

I tend to view these tools as adjuncts to anything else that is going on. It *is* interesting to me that the MBTI reduces things to something akin to "Earth, Air, Fire, Water". This does *not* inspire confidence!

One of the most interesting (most circumspect?) articles on MBTI I found was at: http://www.du.edu/~psherry/mbti2.html. Not sure of the provenance of this (like, what is the author's background? is this the author's work?) but it seemed to cover MBTI pretty well.

I am wary of *all* sorts of management fads that promise to reduce management to a simple set of jazzy tools. We've just *been* through a period where companies like Enron presumed that a focus on individual qualities could provide a substitute for a solid organization and a plan. As such, I tend to view things like MBTI -- or at least the popularity of same -- with some suspicion.

Anyhow, my opinion leans toward Tony's. I took the sample test in that link, answered all the questions as frankly as I could, then was quite amused at my personality type. Twenty bucks to anyone who can guess *both* my MBTI and my astrological sign in the first go!

[edit: provenance-wise, I think I found that gent Zenke's web site: ]http://www.socksoff.com/index.html]