I noticed that Kafke and others seemed interested in the Myers-Briggs Test. In the September 20, 2004, issue of The New Yorker, Malcom Gladwell wrote an article on the history and usefull-less-ness of the MBTI test.
This article addressed many of my problems with the Myers-Briggs. It's a good long read, but well worth it.
Implying that you aren't consistent in one situation to another? I am me, no matter what situation I may be. I act like myself. Situation agnostic. How you see me on here (besides my deeply personal ramblings) is generally how you'll see me in any other situation. A bit more outspoken, but that's due to the nature of being able to type my thoughts, rather than say them. I fail to see how people can be inconsistent in who they are. My opinion is actually similar. MBTI by itself is fairly pointless and arbitrary, as the article points out. In my other post (which I assume you are talking about) I kind of quickly posted without thinking much, and posted a mixed view of MBTI combined with Jung's type functions. It was very unresearched, and I simply wanted to reach out and see what Hubski user's thoughts on Jung, Personality Typing, and MBTI in general were. The article goes on to describe some sort of picture describing test. Which I find to be ultimately pointless. I've done a rorschach test before and my answers consisted of "ink blot, ink blot, ink blot, ink blot". I'd imagine describing a picture would go the same way "there is X in the picture. There is y in the picture." Making up stuff that isn't apparent in a picture isn't my cup of tea. And even if I did come up with a story (for the sake of the assignment) It'd have no representation of my personality or how I think, since I could come up with two drastically different stories with no overlap. The rest of the article goes on to discuss the potential of forcing someone to play a role they don't know, understand, and aren't familiar with and then seeing how they act. I'm not a big fan of the "let them do creativity activity X and observe what they do" approach. It's too open ended. It relies too much on the observer making coherent descriptions and thus one person may be typed differently depending on who is observing. That's just retarded. That's not personality, that's subjective appearance. With MBTI, yes, it does do a bit of pigeon holing. And yes, it's a bit confusing with a few conflicting models (socionics is slightly different than MBTI which is slightly different than Jung). But what it doesn't do is require other people to assess someone's personality. How the hell can you "know" someone's personality by a quick observation? Most of my personality doesn't even show up until I know you for over a year. The rest trickles out slowly. And I'm pretty sure to get to know me completely would take a life time. MBTI allows me to quickly explain quite a bit about myself: how I think, how I relate to people, how I spend my time, what I think about, how I view the world around me, what's important to me, etc. MBTI works because it's a self assessment. You don't need a test. You don't need to role-play. You just be you, and you pick the MBTI type that's the closest to you. It's a logical system that allows people to understand each other. And honestly, I've met more people that think/act like me in the past couple days of checking out MBTI than I have using any other personality testing (or just winging things). And MBTI also ends up explaining why that is. Amazing, isn't it? Hell, MBTI even predicted this little "outburst" I'm having. What does that damn picture test tell me? Fucking nothing, since I pulled the stories out of my ass. It tells me as much about myself as looking at dreams does. Or doing an ink blot test. Those things don't tell me anything about myself or anyone else. And hell, MBTI states that I'm into practicality, and you can bet your ass I am. I sure as hell have my complaints about MBTI and the whole culture surrounding it (mistyping, people not understanding the system, too much conflicting info, etc). But the shit at least works if you stick with what Jung thought. Edit: just to prove how stupid that picture test / story thing is: Story 1: The boy was holding onto a rope. He was climbing down the mountain. Story 2: The boy was holding onto a rope. He was hanging for dear life. Story 3: The boy was holding onto a rope. He was climbing up the mountain. What's that tell you? That I'm goal oriented? That I don't really want to climb the mountain? That I'm in a tough place? No. That I know how to write stories? Possibly. I just pulled all three out of my ass, and they don't represent me at all. What does MBTI say? That I'd probably love all three situations getting a thrill out of it. And MBTI is the one that's correct. Sounds exciting. Dangerous, but exciting.The Myers-Briggs assumes that who we are is consistent from one situation to another.
The problem, as Paul points out, is that Myers and her mother did not actually understand Jung at all. Jung didn’t believe that types were easily identifiable, and he didn’t believe that people could be permanently slotted into one category or another. “Every individual is an exception to the rule,” he wrote; to “stick labels on people at first sight,” in his view, was “nothing but a childish parlor game.”
Well, we're all ourselves in all situations, but which side the world sees in which context matters. If your statement isn't bullshit (which I suspect it is, even if you aren't conscious of it), then you're setting yourself up for some serious failure and disappointment in life. Social adaptability is one of the great skills of life. Where you go to school, how smart you are, how 'real' you think you are, how hard you work, mean jack shit if you can't figure out how to act around person A as opposed to person B. If you treat your girlfriend, your boss, and your buddies all the same, I can guarantee you're going to cultivate more animosity than respect.I am me, no matter what situation I may be. I act like myself. Situation agnostic.
The way I've been has gotten me further than any of my peers growing up. And all I've done is be myself. While I notice everyone else constantly change themselves. Perhaps my way is best? That's why assholes and shitty people are popular and as the saying goes "nice guys finish last". That's also why people who have a better education are generally more successful. And hard workers generally benefit (as long as they work smart as well). Yea, socializing isn't everything. I've only had one job so far (still in school), and my boss seemed to like me. "buddies" was always a problem, ever since I was little. But that's mainly because of my intolerance of them. There's always a few distinct types of people who tend to flock around me for some reason or another. I had a social circle in middle school that I didn't care about. I doubt friends are that big of an issue. So that's work/friends down, my attitude and personality seems to meld fine with both. As for girlfriends.... I can't say I've ever dated seriously. I have yet to find someone that I'd like to settle down with. I guess I had what you could call a fling at one point. That was fun, but ultimately led nowhere (as expected). But I guess I'll just have to cross this road when I come to it. I doubt I'll act any different than I do now though.If your statement isn't bullshit (which I suspect it is, even if you aren't conscious of it), then you're setting yourself up for some serious failure and disappointment in life.
Where you go to school, how smart you are, how 'real' you think you are, how hard you work, mean jack shit if you can't figure out how to act around person A as opposed to person B.
If you treat your girlfriend, your boss, and your buddies all the same, I can guarantee you're going to cultivate more animosity than respect.
This is exactly my problem with it. (one of them.) MBTI doesn't measure who you are, it measures how you perceive yourself to be. We all know people who think they are one thing but aren't; my roommate considers herself an introvert but can't stop talking to people and making new friends in random places. The category of "introvert" is more comfortable to her than "not many close friends." We all know people who think they are brilliant at something but aren't. You talk about logic but you ignore some of the article's statistics: such as the fact that when people re-take the Myers-Briggs, even within a few months of taking it the first time, something like 40% of them are put in a different category. How does that work with your declaration of ?MBTI works because it's a self assessment.
I fail to see how people can be inconsistent in who they are.
People are bad at self assessment. I never said otherwise. I've gotten the same result every time I've taken any of the MBTI tests. It's amusing. It's because people mark what they want and not who they are. But looking at the questions, it's hard to see how you'd flip from one to the other. Let me walk you through an example, using a site that was linked to me (supposedly it's one of the better tests/quizzes): http://www.25quiz.com I'll walk through the questions it asks me (it adapts based on your answers): 1. Social interaction comes to you (naturally | with effort). That's easy. It takes effort for me to interact socially. I've always been that way. Yes, I can do it, but it wears me down and I typically dislike it. So that'd be "with effort." But I know plenty of people who would pick the other option. 2. You are better at learning (abstract concepts | facts and procedures). Again, really easy. I suck at anything abstract. As long as there's a method or procedure to going about it, I'm fine. But when people start talking theory, it just goes over my head. I need clear statements and a procedure. So I pick that. 3. Are you more (sensitive | impartial). Impartial. It's just who I am. Not really the sensitive type. Even when people die. 4. When you make plans, you follow them consistently (yes | no) No. I wish I did, but I make plans and then end up half-hazardously following them. Mainly because when the time rolls around I get distracted or don't feel like doing it. Again, this is something that will never change. 5. Are you more (imaginative | realistic) Easy. Realistic. I love fantasy and such, but that isn't what it's asking. My imagination itself is distinctly lacking, and I focus more on real world stuff, even though I've recently surrounded myself with fiction. My thinking and general being is based on reality and facts. Not fantasy and imagining stuff. 6. Your workspace is usually (cluttered | organized) Cluttered with a clear spot for everything. So cluttered. 7. You're able to control your temptations (yes | no) Nope. I suck at that. If I see something, I'll end up going for it. There's times where I can resist if I convince myself otherwise, but in general, I'm gonna buy that candy bar if I see it. So "no". 8. You favor the path that is more (conventional | unconventional) Unconventional for me. I hate tradition and old people stuff. I like to not stick to dogma or do things because "that's how it's always been done." I might try it out once or twice, and if I like it I'll stick with it. But I don't do things because that's how they've always been done. So "unconventional". 9. In small groups, you are usually (one of the most talkative | relatively quiet and restrained) Quiet. I've been a quiet person my whole life. I'll talk a lot if something catches my attention, but otherwise I'm almost mute. 10. You prefer video games that reward you for playing (efficiently | creatively) I'd have to go with efficiently. This was a tough one for me though. I was thinking about what the terms could imply/mean, but I realized most of my gameplay isn't all that creative. It's usually about getting something done quickly and well. Not coming up with creative solutions (which I'll do if I have to, it's just not my focus). 11. Meeting a new person, you first might try to (probe how he thinks | connect with his emotions) Again, easy. "probe how he thinks". I love intellectual discussion and couldn't care less about people's emotions. And again, I know people who are the exact opposite. 12. In difficult situations, you're more often (too soft | too uncaring) Easy. Uncaring. Unless something grabs my attention I really don't care. And I'm not one to try and make people feel better either. Most of the time the thing that's bothering them wouldn't bother me at all. 13. Is it worse to be (scatterbrained | stuck in your ways) Stuck in your ways is worse. Scatterbrained just means you are thinking about a lot. But being stuck in your ways is no better than being stubborn. It's a stupid philosophy. 14. Do you perform better under pressure? (Yes | no) Nope. I start stammering and do significantly worse. I suck at exams and tests because of such, and I hate giving presentations. Being under pressure is awful. 15 Would you rather (get the facts | understand the theory) Facts. I mentioned this earlier. 16. You tend to (live in the moment | visualize the future). Besides a few random thoughts about the future, I hardly think about it. So much that I've always hated those "where do you see yourself in 5 years" things. How the hell would I know? Moment definitely. 17. What's more appealing (harmony | success) Success. 18. Making decisions, do you tend to favor (what should work | what has worked) What has worked. No point in doing something that "should" work, when you have a guaranteed method. 19. Your approach is usually (new and different | conventional) new/different for me. As I said, I'll try the conventional way, but generally I like to come up with my own solution to things. 20. You work better (with a deadline | in your own time) Deadlines. Need them otherwise I keep putting off things. 21. You are more likely to be (too trusting | too skeptical) Skeptical. I never trust anything or anyone without a reason to. 22. On vacation, do you (plan ahead | just go) Just go. Planning sucks up too much time. Or I'll plan and just not follow the plan. Though I'd love to be the planning type. I'm just not. And it's awful. 23. Would you rather rely on (careful plans | improvisation) As I said, I'd like to be the planning type, but when push comes to shove, I rely on improvisation. If I relied on plans, I'm sure something would be forgotten or some weird issue would come up, because I suck at planning and following those plans. 24. You usually say exactly what you're thinking (yes | no) To a fault. I've broken friendships because of this. 25. Would you rather be (a great painter | a great singer) Painter. I don't care much for singing, but painting is cool (even though I suck at it). Results: 79% ISTP 7% INTP 6% ISTJ 3% ESTP 1% ENTP Huh, that's amusing. 80% that I'm ISTP with only a 7% or less for anything else. All I did is answer those questions exactly how I've always been. I've also come up with the ISTP result when looking at the functions themselves and deciding which is the way I think and behave. I could've never seen myself vary on any of those answers. Not one. Yet, I know people who'd think I was crazy for picking those and would pick something else. On top of that, the test is adaptive, to ensure that you are being typed correctly. And it's 80% sure I'm ISTP instead of something else (with 7% being INTP, which I thought I might have been before looking into MBTI a bit more). As I said, I can't imagine how anyone would choose one answer, and then just change their mind (?) the next time. Are you really that indecisive? Or perhaps you just don't know yourself? It's amusing because then I go see other people who were typed as ISTP and they are almost exactly like me personality wise. Sure, interests and hobbies might be different, but the personality is the same. And I'll tell you what, message me back in a few months, and I'll gladly retake the test. I'm guaranteeing I'll be an ISTP again. Because I understand myself and don't pick shit at random. But yea, if you are so intent on breaking it, then I'm sure you'd pick false answers or change them the second time. Or perhaps just the method you used to determine type was awful. Hell, even this deviant art flash thing could correctly determine my type, and it was only a few options: http://www.deviantart.com/art/MBTI-Personality-Test-14701064... Seriously. I tried faking that thing, to get an INTP type. I failed miserably. Yet it got my type perfectly. Coincidence? maybe, but it's a damn impressive one. I've typed ISTP on a variety of different tests, and typed myself as such after looking at the functions. The ISTP wiki (http://istp.wikia.com/wiki/Istp_Wiki) describes me accurately (shockingly accurate) and explains a lot of how I think. That wouldn't be possible if MBTI was a load of bullshit. In comparison to horoscopes (since I've seen a few people compare the two), I'd be a pisces. Yet, I identify with all, none, or some of the horoscopes (mainly because they aren't written about personality, but about the future, and are specifically written vaguely). Horoscopes are bullshit, while MBTI is describing different groups of personalities and thought patterns. Introverts can easily talk to and make new friends. There's nothing that says otherwise. That's another problem people have. Introvert =/= shy =/= social anxiety =/= bad social skills. They are different things. Also, introvert is such a horrible term since people always have different definitions.You talk about logic but you ignore some of the article's statistics: such as the fact that when people re-take the Myers-Briggs, even within a few months of taking it the first time, something like 40% of them are put in a different category. How does that work with your declaration of
my roommate considers herself an introvert but can't stop talking to people and making new friends in random places.
I feel like you are confusing your one experience with the test ('unilateral' and 'easy' and so on) with everyone's. You are assuming because the test is easy for you, or the answers "seem obvious" to you, that that's the case for everyone. I can pick out several questions where answers could easily vary depending on the situation. In fact, I don't even understand what the point was of you walking through the test and pointing out which answer you'd choose, except perhaps to reassure us how easy it was for you? Your main point seems to be that if the test yields different results for the same period over short expanses of time, it's not the test's fault, it's the people's. Either way, though, doesn't it negate the results? That's nice! When I read the description of my horoscope, I can also see how it could be extremely accurate. MBTI types are often general, mostly-positive, affirming representations of things maybe most people could be. I'm sorry, would it have been more accurate to say that my roomate considers herself an introvert because really, she has bad social skills but isn't willing to accept that fact? Would it help you if I told you she tests extroverted on the MBTI? Maybe that will sway your opinion of my statements... Here: Naturally if it is someone I like, with effort if it is someone I don't like. Naturally if it is someone I know, with effort if I am talking to a stranger at a bar. Naturally if I am comfortable with the conversation topic, with effort if it is a difficult topic for me. I prefer a conventional path in the workforce. I prefer an unconvential path in my personal life. In the workforce you damn well better be following a standard path that I can understand. In my personal life, I'm unconventional. If I was taking this test for work, with that setting in mind, I'd absolutely choose "conventional." You don't have to do this with every question. Just a few would probably change a result, depending on how "strong" it is. You seem very happy with your type and I'm not saying that your "type" is wrong - but I also fight against the notion that all humanity can be neatly packaged into 16 groups. Maybe the "test" is right for you. What does it really tell you - besides things you have claimed to know already? And most importantly, just because the test seems to have spit out an appropriate answer for you - or one you like - doesn't mean that it's an overall accurate indicator of personality type for people in general.The ISTP wiki (http://istp.wikia.com/wiki/Istp_Wiki) describes me accurately (shockingly accurate) and explains a lot of how I think. That wouldn't be possible if MBTI was a load of bullshit.
Introvert =/= shy =/= social anxiety =/= bad social skills.
1. Social interaction comes to you (naturally / with effort).
8. You favor the path that is more (conventional / unconventional)
My thoughts on this matter is that people who can't decide simply don't know themselves well enough to be able to answer the question. That or they aren't being "true" about what they are/do. Yes, just because you can do something that doesn't follow with your type, doesn't mean that you can't do it or that you are not that type. It describes how you think, not what you do/say/are. I don't see why people are failing to understand that. I could say "oh yea, I'm organized, I make plans all the time". But I don't. I sometimes try to, and thus I might get confused on what to pick. But if I look at myself with no bullshit, I can see that I clearly don't plan things out. That's why the questions are so easy for me. Because I actually know myself. To show how easy the test is, yes. I can't imagine how you'd say "both" to any of those questions. They are opposites. Conflicting idea styles. How can you be both "follow traditions" and "not follow traditions". It's logically impossible to be both. You either follow them or you don't. No, because as I said, the specific method of testing requires the taker to be honest about how they actually act/think. Some people don't think about how they act/think, or they aren't sure. This would cloud test results. Another problem is that the tests go off behavior, rather than just explaining the functions and letting you decide. This means that some similar types (ENTP and INTJ for instance) might get confused as the test can't read your mind. My brother actually had this problem. So I had him take a particular test that showed the functions (the one I linked here), and saw his functions. That showed his method of thinking and revealed he was an ENTP. he couldn't clearly explain his method of thinking to me, and just resorting to saying "both. both. both". I leave him alone, and he comes out a few minutes later to confirm he is indeed ENTP after reading descriptions of both. He's the type of guy who flips because he wasn't sure of his thinking. That's a human problem, not a test problem. So that's why when I read other MBTI things, it doesn't describe me at all. Only ISTP descriptions do. As for horoscopes, I generally find that 1. they don't actually describe me, they describe vague events in the future (so most would relate to anyone). And 2. Most descriptions can be swapped around, as they aren't describing anything in particular. And 3. Horoscopes are based on birthdate, not personality. If you wanted to try and relate MBTI to something, it'd be closer to "well you have the same type of personality as darth vader, and darth vader does X Y and Z, so you'd be likely to do those things as well". Which surprisingly, if you match up fictional (or nonfictional) characters to their appropriate MBTI, they do. One particular example (relevant because it's ISTP) would be Kyon from the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. He's commonly typed as an ISTP. That's the same as my type. And I found that his personality/behavior is pretty much me. And I've gotten comments as such. Relate that with a different character, say Haruhi (the main character), she's not an ISTP, and acts completely differently than I. Again, extrovert/introvert is different on MBTI than other things. I hate the terms because it means different things depending on what you are talking about. The "common" definition (which doesn't relate to MBTI) is where you get "energy" and motivation from. You either get drained or empowered when you are with people. That's the classic definition most people use. Social anxiety and social skills have no part. Depending on MBTI type, "extrovert" would mean a few different things. The clear-cut definition is: your primary function is extroverted. Which has a completely different definition depending on what your primary function is. And that will appear in different ways. An "e" in MBTI can be introverted, and an "i" can be extroverted. As that's not what it means. So you are saying that you have problems interacting if it's someone you don't like? AKA, you hate this guy, so you have problems speaking or interacting in a way that says "I fucking hate you so please go". It sounds like you naturally interact with people. Even if I'm with someone I like or if I'm familiar and comfortable with the topic, I still have a hard time interacting. The topic/person doesn't have much to do with it. Again, this isn't how you adjust yourself to fit in with places. This is how you are as a person. Your ideology and how you think. If you prefer an unconventional path in your personal life, that's probably what you'd prefer. Put it this way, if you had the choice would you prefer the unconventional path in work? If yes, then you'd choose unconventional. Otherwise choose conventional. It's preference/thoughts/personality. Not what you have to do to fit in (though that says something about you as well). Of course not. MBTI type isn't the only thing dictating how people act. Usually people go along and do another type of test, called an enneagram. Which is a bit more detailed (9 extra types, along with something called a "wing"). And generally for each MBTI most people get about 4 or 5 different enneagram types. This causes differences in the MBTI. For my type ISTP, there's I noticed two distinct types. One more focused on action, which is where most of the stereo types come in, and then the other type more focused on logic and thinking. It's an interesting split. But both share major ideologies and personality traits, just with a different focus on things. Remember, as I said, MBTI is mostly just a "how you think" and a personality typing. There's still variations and someone can be stronger/weaker on their type. That's actually a big part of MBTI as well, is that you develop your functions as you grow older. So some people have developed their functions to different levels. Which would again cause differences. Someone more developed would have a harder time answering the questions, since they grew to understand that they should consider the other options. Well, besides reassuring me that there actually are people that think like I do (I was seriously doubting it for a while. My MBTI is actually one of the rarer types), it's also given me insight to a few things. The first is that I was caught in what's described as a "Ti Ni loop". Which is something common for ISTPs. Basically we exclude our main information gathering method and instead focus on digging through pointless thoughts and kind of just lock ourselves up. I was offered a solution, which I'm now following, and I've improved quite a bit. It's also described why I'm able to get along with the people I do, how to find these people, and what type of person I'd best get along with for work and relationships (even though I figured some of this out on my own, when the suggestions popped up I was genuinely surprised). It confirmed a lot of my thinking, and also showed me some stuff I wasn't aware about. People with the same type who've been through similar things as I are able to offer insight and help into various topics. And I have learned a lot about how other people think (which was a big problem for me). So... it's helped a lot. I've yet to find someone who can't be typed. I had a few friends take it, and they've all come out to be types that describe them perfectly. Some denied it at first, but later accepted that it was indeed them. Some of them spread the test on to other friends and family, confirming that it typed them correctly as well. As I said, it's more of a learning and understanding thing, rather than something I "like". Ideally I wouldn't want to be an ISTP. But that's who I am. And so I'll work with it.I feel like you are confusing your one experience with the test ('unilateral' and 'easy' and so on) with everyone's. You are assuming because the test is easy for you, or the answers "seem obvious" to you, that that's the case for everyone. I can pick out several questions where answers could easily vary depending on the situation.
In fact, I don't even understand what the point was of you walking through the test and pointing out which answer you'd choose, except perhaps to reassure us how easy it was for you?
Your main point seems to be that if the test yields different results for the same period over short expanses of time, it's not the test's fault, it's the people's. Either way, though, doesn't it negate the results?
That's nice! When I read the description of my horoscope, I can also see how it could be extremely accurate. MBTI types are often general, mostly-positive, affirming representations of things maybe most people could be.
I'm sorry, would it have been more accurate to say that my roomate considers herself an introvert because really, she has bad social skills but isn't willing to accept that fact? Would it help you if I told you she tests extroverted on the MBTI? Maybe that will sway your opinion of my statements...
Naturally if it is someone I like, with effort if it is someone I don't like. Naturally if it is someone I know, with effort if I am talking to a stranger at a bar. Naturally if I am comfortable with the conversation topic, with effort if it is a difficult topic for me.
I prefer a conventional path in the workforce. I prefer an unconvential path in my personal life. In the workforce you damn well better be following a standard path that I can understand. In my personal life, I'm unconventional. If I was taking this test for work, with that setting in mind, I'd absolutely choose "conventional."
You seem very happy with your type and I'm not saying that your "type" is wrong - but I also fight against the notion that all humanity can be neatly packaged into 16 groups.
Maybe the "test" is right for you. What does it really tell you - besides things you have claimed to know already?
And most importantly, just because the test seems to have spit out an appropriate answer for you - or one you like - doesn't mean that it's an overall accurate indicator of personality type for people in general.
> I fail to see how people can be inconsistent in who they are. Because they simply are. My MBTI results have varied every single time I've taken it. For a practical example, my daughter currently attends two different daycares. The one she has only attended a few months, where she started at a later age, she is perceived completely differently at. She is happy at both, but still shyer with the second, and when the carers at each describe her day to me, it's almost like two different children. Now imagine the same with two different corporate cultures. The problem with "personality tests" is that humans adapt their personalities and behaviour to different environments. They may also act differently or think differently based on their mood. There is any amount of research to show this (studies into gender and testing are an interesting example - how being told something negative about their gender before a test actually affects test results).
And mine has stayed the same. My personality hasn't changed since the day I was born. Are you sure you aren't faking? I fail to see how someone could be one way, and then be a completely different person a little while later. Are you sure that's not due to comfort levels? I'll generally act in a particular way until I'm comfortable with something and then reveal my "true" self. Never to act the old way again. That's simply due to how comfortable I am with my current surroundings. And nothing to do with my personality. Really? I've never done that. I've always been "me" in every single situation. My personality has always been the same, and my behavior as such. My acting may be restricted at some points (due to better judgement), but generally my impulses are the same, and I'd act the way I'd act no matter where I am. As for my thinking, I generally think the same way. I'll occasionally have emotional outbursts (which my MBTI type describes) that cause me to behave differently, but that is described in MBTI as a weak Fe (if you look at the functions, you'll see mine is underdeveloped in accordance to the other types). But yea. If you are sincerely being honest about behaving in different ways and having different personalities. I think that's like serial killer crazy. And I'm kind of shocked if this is the truth.Because they simply are. My MBTI results have varied every single time I've taken it.
For a practical example, my daughter currently attends two different daycares. The one she has only attended a few months, where she started at a later age, she is perceived completely differently at. She is happy at both, but still shyer with the second, and when the carers at each describe her day to me, it's almost like two different children.
is that humans adapt their personalities and behaviour to different environments. They may also act differently or think differently based on their mood.
I am so glad to see someone prominent tackle this bullshit: >It’s not surprising, then, that the Myers-Briggs has a large problem with consistency: according to some studies, more than half of those who take the test a second time end up with a different score than when they took it the first time I always get totally different scores. If I was ever asked by an organisation to take the test, I would decline based on this alone: it simply wouldn't give them a fair or accurate picture of me. And if their hiring processes were focused on something so inaccurate, and they were too rigid to consider a different approach, they wouldn't be the kind of company I would want to work for.
To be truthful, a) I've yet to see a company administer a Myers-Briggs in the hiring process, and b) when companies do administer "personality assessments," most people - in my understanding - just tend to give the answers they feel the company would "want." Moreover, a company's HR department is not the same as the company as a whole.