ISFJ here.

INTJ

Every time I take it, and even taking different versions of the test, I always get INTJ. Although, I usually take it here.

ISTJ here.

I’ve done one of the “based-on” kind that puts me as an INTJ.

Me too.

Since INTJ's are supposed to represent about 1% of the general population, it's rather surprising to find four or five of them in the 50-odd posts in this thread. That's about 10x greater than would be expected.

tanstaafl.

>ISFJ here.

I knew that one already!

Oh really!! Am I that transparent?

>Oh really!! Am I that transparent?

Naw, but I am. And at the meet it was obvious to me that you & I are nearly complete opposites, except that we're both introverted. So..

Cheers!

One more INTP here. I think these tests have some validity although I wouldn't be foolish enough to make hiring decisions based on them. I took the real MB in college with a class of about 30. After we got the results we spent some time guessing what other people in the class would be and just discussing the results. It was interesting and most people felt the results where pretty accurate.

Even if they aren't perfect knowing the different personality types MB defines gives you some advantage in dealing with others. I was a resident assistant for a couple of years which kind of forces you to be outgoing. Being able to categorize somebody and use some of the MB guidelines for how to interact with them can make that easier for us introverts.

Anyway, interesting stuff as long as you don't take it too seriously.

-Mike

Apparantly, I'm a "slightly expressed" ENTP.

ISTP here - it's difficult to answer some questions because I want to pick one answer, but I know I am really the other. Eg. I would like to be on time for things but it never works out :-)

Gareth

In reply to:

---

Myers-Briggs is complete bullshit, no better than horoscopes, numerology, or tarot.

---

INTP / Taurus

I'm an ENTJ - very expressed (over 75%) all 4 areas. Which seems silly as I know I'm an introvert with some extrovert tendencies. I reckon it's the poor questions. No room for 'maybe' answers.

Tony,

I'm not sure I agree with your "non-scientific" position and putting the MBTI into the same box as astrology. Remember, the MBTI never claims to be anything other than a model of trends or tendencies. My understanding is that the model was derived from the multidimensional analysis of experimental data and observations. It is, in that sense, a hypothesis, or theory if you like, that was developed to structure and organize the observed phenomenon. Astrology has been shown quite extensively to have little or no correlation with observed phenomenon. This is definitely not the case with the MBTI.

Does it model the observations with 100% fidelity or accuracy? No. Neither does Newton's Law of Gravitation (hence, Relativity), though one would be hard-pressed to call it unscientific. Both are useful, though limited. It is important to keep in mind the context of the hypothesis and the data. As Robert Persig says beautifully, it is not correct to discuss whether these systems are "true", but only if they are *convenient*. That is, are they helpful models.

I think it is important to remember what "scientific" really means. It doesn't mean 100% predictable, or 100% accurate, or even True (whatever that means). It just means that it follows a specific system of development, validation, and invalidation called the scientific method. That's all.

I'm not saying that I don't sympathize with some of your concerns. I see concerns about the MBTI and any other psychological model as follows:

1. Misuse and/or misinterpretation. Yes, the MBTI is often used for employment screening, mediation, promotion evaluation, etc. This is very concerning.

2. Confusion about general population tendencies vs. applicability of a model to a specific individual. Our culture is filled with these problems, which result from a logical mistake and are a personal pet peeve of mine. Simply put, people ascribe results of a large statistical sample to individuals (within or even ouside of the sample) and come to conclusions that are not rationally sound. It can be true that the MBTI is very accurate and scientific and sound for large population samples and trends, but that doesn't mean that it is applicable for every individual. We see this everywhere, as another example, USDA recommendations (which are population averages and *never* intended to be interpreted as recommendations for individual diet). Many of the so-called "implications" of medical research reported by the media are flawed in this very way. This "category error" is similar, but not the same issue as:

3. Confusion of causality and correlation. Lay followers of science (especially medicine) are more often confused by this than scientists, but media specializing in science make this mistake often, and the general media make it almost every time. Most of the members of this bbs have some formal scientific training and know what I'm talking about, but for completeness I'll give an example. If people who live under high voltage power lines have higher incidence of cancer, that is correlation. It is not correct (knowning only that fact) to assume that high voltage power lines *cause* cancer. They might. They might not. There may be other things that occur in environments that have high voltage power lines (more pollution, for instance) that is the "real" cause. It might be a combination of causes. This one you see every day: obesity and diabetes, etc. I could go on and on. People make similar comments regarding MBTI or other personality results. One of the most dangerous, IMHO is the confused interpretation of the MMPI, which is a test which *correlates* with so-called "mental illness" in certain population groups. The problem is many people give this test as a screen to large populations making this error and the category error described above at the same time.

4. Most importantly, people fail to see this system (and often any other system) as a *model*. That's all it is: a model. The actual individual may fit this model more or less accurately, depending on many, many factors. Technologists, (though often not research scientists) often make this error in thinking, for example, Hooke's Law, or Ohm's Law, or whatever, are True. They forget that these are merely models which experience has validated as particularly useful. They are, at best, descriptive and predictive of reality. They are not the reality itself (except, of course, to the extent that the ever expanding sphere of rational understanding, or the noosphere as Ken Wilber calls it, is a *part* of reality). Note that I am not falling into "constructivism" and saying that all reality is simply a construction, nor am I claiming that all models are equally valid. They are not. Some are more *convenient* than others.

I think the MBTI is convenient in some circumstances, though not all of those in which it is employed. For one thing, it makes the important statement that not everyone is (or should be) the same. That there *are* different types of people and that it is OK if not everyone is, for instance, an extravert. As an "I" myself, I have experienced (as a younger man) feelings of inadequacy because I didn't feel as comfortable in certain social situations. I saw these as defects or shortcomings in me. Maybe the MBTI can help people to move past social conventions. It was a *start* for me along that path many years ago. It wasn't the final model for me, but it was a start. If it can help people in that way, I'm all for it.

Jim
INTP

Jim,

Thank you. That was very well written and is what I wanted to say but didn't know how to articulate.


Since this debate is about personality types I think it's interesting how the arguments presented by Tony, Jim and myself are exemplary of our types.

Dylan (INFP) - Argument focused on how understanding of types has helped in relationships with people. Gave personal experience. Claimed that model isn't perfect but that it has practical applications.

Jim (INTP) - Academic and well supported explanation for validity of MBTI. Claims model is imperfect but useful.

Tony (INTJ) - Makes strong statements of judgement. Seeks scientific explanation. Unimpressed with personal anecdote. Adheres strongly to prior judgements but makes rational and fair arguments. Argument centers around lack of scientific basis and MBTI's imperfections.

Does it model the observations with 100% fidelity or accuracy? No. Neither does Newton's Law of Gravitation (hence, Relativity), though one would be hard-pressed to call it unscientific.

Newton's law of gravitation can be tested empirically. It can be falsified by experiment. MBTI can't. That's the definition of science and non-science.

Confusion of causality and correlation.

Exactly. MBTI is all based on correlation, not causality. Correlation and statistics can be useful in giving someone the idea for a testable scientific theory. But until you posit a causality and can test it empirically, it's isn't science yet.

I sure wish I knew how to quote nicely like you. I bet that's in a FAQ somewhere... :-)

"Newton's law of gravitation can be tested empirically. It can be falsified by experiment. MBTI can't. That's the definition of science and non-science."

Depends upon what you mean. Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations. It just isn't the be-all end-all of Truth.

"Exactly. MBTI is all based on correlation, not causality. Correlation and statistics can be useful in giving someone the idea for a testable scientific theory. But until you posit a causality and can test it empirically, it's isn't science yet. "

Not true, as my example of gravitation demonstrates. Gravity is an extremely reliable model that *correlates* with the ordinarily observed behavior of what we call "mass". Not in all situations, but in many useful and regularly encountered (by humans) situations. However, nobody knows what *causes* gravitation. In fact, causality was never part of the "Law". That doesn't make it unscientific.

If you accept the existence of a non-material aspect of reality (which I believe I can demonstrate using examples of language, zero, love, beauty, etc, etc), then it is reasonable to be interested in correlations and models of that aspect of reality. As reasonable, I believe, as being interested in creating models of the correlations we observe in the physical world.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

There are many directions to take the conversation:

- I can suggest (as I have) that the physical, material aspect of reality is not the whole story and "science" should not be constrained by that demonstrably false assumption.

- I can propose that science isn't concerned with finding Truth, but only *approximations*, or models that *explain* reality after the fact, as Feynman, Einstein, Scroedinger and many others have stated.

- Or, I can suggest that whether something is "scientific" is not the ultimate condition of something being useful or good. To pick an example somewhat relevant to the bbs: music.

To the extent that something claims to make claims of fact that can be demonstrated to be false (as in astrology) I agree with you, Tony. I don't think that is the case with the MBTI. I think it is intended only to be a general model showing trends of groups of people.

To the extent that it makes claims of percentages of populations, etc, it *is* verifyable and falsifyable, and it has been validated consistently, to the best of my understanding. That makes it totally different than astrology.

Please keep in mind, I agree with you that most people don't think about using these models. But let's understand exactly what it is *claiming* and base the discussion on that.

Jim

Quoting is easy... just put a q and /q around the text. With [] around them. I'd show you, but it just quotes the space between. Better yet, go to the FAQ and scroll 'to the bottom. (well, about 75% of the way down)

Well, Tony us quoting with:

[ q ][ orange ][ i ] text [ / i ][ / orange ][ / q]

I'm usually too lazy to go to all that, so I usually just make it orange.

ps- why doesn't the [ code ] tag work with BBS tags?

Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations.

I was trying to say something different than that. What I was trying to say was: The definition of a scientific theory is something that can be tested via experimentation. Whether or not Newton's theories of gravitation were partially disproved isn't the point. The point is that they could be tested with experimentation, therefore they were scientific theories. In science, that which is disproved by experimentation is discarded, and work begins on coming up with a new theory to explain the observations.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

No, I'm simply defending my statement that MBTI isn't scientific. I agree that just because something isn't scientific doesn't mean it's not real or not valuable. I was just defending my statement.

I think my main problem with MBTI is that it's a pseudoscience that's trying really hard to look scientific, when it's not really science. That happens to be one of my hot buttons. MBTI isn't a science, it's just a set of copyrighted multiple-choice tests based on some of Jung's ideas. That's why I'm lumping it in with astrology. I agree that it's got a lot more real research under its belt than astrology ever will. Its origins are based on observations and statistical correlation, not on carnival tricks like the Forer effect. I'll give it that. But in the end, it still reads like a set of horoscopes, Forer effect and all, and it's still not genuinely scientific.

Well, Tony us quoting with:
[ q ][ orange ][ i ] text [ / i ][ / orange ][ / q]

Actually, I'm just using [ q ]....

ps- why doesn't the [ code ] tag work with BBS tags?

Because it's meant for HTML code, not BBS code. The code could do the logic checks to disable BBS code inside [code] tags, but that would be more work then I'm willing to do right now.

To quote bbs tags, you can do this:

[cod[i][/i]e]

Typing in the above to show the workaround was a pain

INTP

The percentages are pretty important, though. Mine were:

Introvert 6%
Intuition 60%
Thinking 30%
Perceiving 1%

So as an INTP I have a similar personality to some INTJs, ENTJs and ENTPs.

I like quoting BBS tags like this: [q] text [/q]

Cheers

this is text

interesting! the last time I tried quoting I thought it just indented it.

the last time I tried quoting I thought it just indented it.

The old [quote] tag would, and also it threw a "in reply to" up. I added the [q] tag in about a month ago, after getting tired of manually typing out the old orange code. I access the BBS from too many different systems, so a server side "macro" was more efficient then loading macro programs on all my systems.

Then I thank you, sir! That is quite helpful.