My Results:
- Ti - Te - Se - Si - Ne - Ni - Fi - Fe
Most Likely: ISTP
or Second Possibility: ESTJ
or Third Possibility: ESTP
Of course, I already knew I was an ISTP. I found that out earlier today. I was thinking I was an INTP for a while, but I thought about it and it didn't really match. Redoing some of the tests and a few others I found reveal that I'm actually an ISTP. Which is a much better fit.
So what is your MBTI type? Have you ever considered this before? What's your thoughts on "type matching"?
Supposedly my ideal match would be an ENFP. Which I can see clearly. When I was younger, I'd have probably been annoyed, but I am kind of craving someone like that now. Most of my friends and family are introverted like myself, and many of them thinkers. So an extraverted feeler would be a nice change.
That said, I couldn't imagine myself with really any other extraverted type (besides maybe an ENTP or ESTJ).
What's your thoughts on this? Do you think the system is accurate, or no? Does it effect your life in anyway?
There was a big project I had to do a while ago, and the teachers thought it was a good idea to base the groups upon something very similar to MBTI. The idea was good: they would combine people with opposing qualities, and thus create a group that was good on multiple facets. We had to do a test and a 'group role' rolled out of it. Then, we looked for the 'allergies' of that role, so the annoyances that that role had. I came out as a leader, so my annoyances were people who didn't do shit. People who didn't care, unmotivated and only willing to do the bare minimum. So I was placed with those people. They had other qualities, the test said, like being more precise and careful with their work, or being better researchers. But the harm was already done. The type matching made me look at people only within those types. When someone was lackluster, I thought 'the test was right, he is unmotivated and annoying'. I began seeing everything they did in the context of the test result. Confirmation bias at it's finest. It took me far too long to let go of the types and to just see them as they were, people who didn't care as much as I did. Maybe I just took the test too literally. But my point is that these kinds of tests are restrictive, not additive. They limited my thinking of other people instead of giving a new insight. While it might have served to give me an insight to how they functioned, there wasn't anything that came out of the test that an hour of working together couldn't expose. Myers-Briggs is the same for me. I'd much rather spend actual time talking to people to find out who they are than to have them take a test. The philosophical discussion that you had two days ago tells me much more about who you are than ISTP ever would.What's your thoughts on "type matching"?
I find that amusing, as your group work description really looked like it didn't have anything to do with the MBTI types. MBTI deals with how you think, not how lazy/motivated you are. The lazy/motivated thing has been done before. And it's always been disastrous. "Type matching" is a bit different. As I said, for my particular type (ISTP) not any opposite-ish person would do. Most annoy me, and bother me to no end. Yet, there was a particular type of outgoing person, that nearly instantly transformed who I was and allowed me to just "be". I tended to get along best with those people. I knew about this weird matching thing before I had heard about MBTI. I figured I just might be a bit weird, as most of my other friends would prefer introverts (and I do too, for the most part). Which is what the "type matching" also says. It basically says you are going to work best with people who share your I/E and J/P traits. J/P refers to how organized&focused the person is. J would probably be someone like you, where you just want to get the work done, and generally take the leader role. I'm a 'P'. Which means that hard as I try, it's in my nature to put off decisions and leave options open. That's just the type of person I am. I've been recently trying to stick to a schedule recently. You know what happened? I say "yea, but I don't really have to do that, that's just something I set up for myself". And then I end up pushing it off, since I could decide to really do something else. If I were in your group, I'd probably be cast as the "lazy" guy who didn't do shit. Yet, when the time rolls around, I end up getting more work done than anyone else. Because it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I keep my options open until the last minute and then panic work. I find the typing system to be particularly interesting, as it seemingly describes everyone I've ever met, with pretty good accuracy. It's matter of personality. This group would fail. The two sides would tire each other out due to clashing personalities, and ultimately decide to work in two fundamentally different things (depending on where the divide was drawn). For work, the best would be similar work habits (I/E and J/P) and different thinking habits (S/N and T/P). That'd create the most flourishing development. For relationships, you'd need someone to help with the parts that you struggle with as well as someone that keeps you interested. Which is where the ideal matching comes from. I'd find it the opposite. Sure, the philosophical discussion I posted shows you how I think. But it doesn't show what type of person I am, or how I go about doing things in general. I find it particularly difficult to get to "know" someone based on what they write. As I (as an ISTP) tend to separate what is being said from the person. The idea is the idea, nothing more or less. That doesn't tell me what type of person you are. One example (that I didn't quite realize myself until recently) is that I was suppressing my "S" in my MBTI type. As a kid (and still a bit now) I'd readily test/experiment with senses. One particular incident caused me to push myself too far, and I ended up getting hurt. Other times I'd just touch everything (which other people with sensing tend to do). I actually got sick because of it. Myers-Briggs actually says a lot about the person. Sure, you can't learn everything. But it's a great perspective (IMO) into another person's mind. And in terms of MBTI, my Fe is low, (unconscious almost) and I tend to miss what is said nonverbally as well as what's said emotionally. Sure, you could've picked that up had you known me long enough (or just met me and saw how "cold" I am). But something that you (or hardly anyone else) would know without MBTI, is that I do have an Fe, and that it comes out rarely. But it bursts out, generally thrashing about like a little kid. If you've known me for a few years, you might see it, but generally not, as it's a part of myself I generally like to hide (again, another trait of ISTP). So it's not something to base all of your actions on, but I think it provides a great insight on people and how they behave. It also explains a bit why I tend to hang out with the people I do, and who I find attractive. But perhaps your disinterest in MBTI is why you'll be baffled when for the most part I'll avoid outgoing people like the plague, yet attract them and in some cases actually respond positively rather than my snarky cold usual exterior.they would combine people with opposing qualities, and thus create a group that was good on multiple facets
Myers-Briggs is the same for me. I'd much rather spend actual time talking to people to find out who they are than to have them take a test. The philosophical discussion that you had two days ago tells me much more about who you are than ISTP ever would.
It was meant as an example of the point I wanted to make, not as a comparison. My bad if that wasn't clear. The test I took aimed to seek your 'core qualities' and categorized people into roles, like the Architect, the Worker, the Leader etc. The point I was trying to make clear is that categorizing people is often too simplified and does more harm than good. Just because you can put people into categories, doesn't mean you should. It paves the way for illogical thinking, prejudices and biases. It restricted my thinking; I didn't see the people I worked with as complex human beings anymore, but as the label that they were given. I noticed the tendency to attribute their mistakes to their label: oh, they didn't get their work done, it must be because of [insert generalized character trait here]. Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he wasn't motivated enough. The categories were an abstraction that was detrimental to my perspective of the group members. M-B is a similar simplification. I can understand that you want to use it to predict behaviour, but I doubt it's effectivity. For one, it's a binary approach to character traits. I'm not an introvert nor an extrovert; it is a spectrum, not ones and zeroes. But there's no middle ground in the system. There are more criticisms of M-B in particular but Wiki does a better job at that Are you sure that isn't just because a) everyone falls within the categories (so of course it describes everyone) and b) it is easy to see people in a certain light? And how would you know it is an accurate description of them, and not just a too simple way of framing their character traits? Yeah, it failed for me. I don't know what the rest thought, and frankly I doubt they cared at all, which was part of the problem. The idea is good but it didn't work in reality. And I'm not convinced that M-B is any different. I can understand why it is good for yourself, as a critical self-assessment. And it is nice that you found out that you have suppressed a part of you that you hadn't questioned before (or not as deeply as now). I just don't see it as a tool to get 'great insight on people and how they behave'. It is too deterministic, the assessments are mediocre at best, and I found that line of thinking to be harmful to my perspective of people. The categories are binary and restrictive. No, I don't think it is a great perspective into another person's mind. What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not disinterested, I'm just not convinced of Myers-Briggs as anything more than a facebook-questionnaire.I find that amusing, as your group work description really looked like it didn't have anything to do with the MBTI types. MBTI deals with how you think, not how lazy/motivated you are.
I find the typing system to be particularly interesting, as it seemingly describes everyone I've ever met, with pretty good accuracy.
This group would fail.
So it's not something to base all of your actions on, but I think it provides a great insight on people and how they behave. It also explains a bit why I tend to hang out with the people I do, and who I find attractive.
But perhaps your disinterest in MBTI is why you'll be baffled when for the most part I'll avoid outgoing people like the plague, yet attract them and in some cases actually respond positively rather than my snarky cold usual exterior.
I second this. It's almost the ur-quiz: "How type-A are you?" It's not quite as culturally loaded as an IQ test or the original SATs, but...What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not disinterested, I'm just not convinced of Myers-Briggs as anything more than a facebook-questionnaire.
Then don't view it as a quiz. Just take a look at the functions and determine your type that way. The quiz is just to make it a bit easier. The point is, don't care about the quiz. It's the typing that matters. Many of the quizzes get your type wrong anyway. The one I linked is the one I found to be accurate, but mileage will of course vary.
Make what a bit easier -- determining which pigeon-hole defines me? I spent my childhood being shoved in pigeon-holes, so now I should let a test pick my next one? No thanks. When you say "it's the typing that matters", how does it matter? What problem are you solving when you run this test? it seems like classification for the sport of it.
You don't need to let the test determine your type. Go study up and learn why each type is defined the way it is. As I said, the quiz is just there to make this process easier. Because I can see that you are an "S" person (focusing on practicality and problem solving, rather than theorizing) and thus I can understand how you think and relate to things. Perhaps. I find that it provides a framework for understanding people. Which is something I typically have problems with. Classifying and categorizing them makes it easier for me. That's what the purpose is.determining which pigeon-hole defines me? I spent my childhood being shoved in pigeon-holes, so now I should let a test pick my next one? No thanks.
When you say "it's the typing that matters", how does it matter? What problem are you solving when you run this test?
it seems like classification for the sport of it.
Again, MBTI measures personality. There is nothing inherently good or bad about any of them. Everyone can learn to do everything. It's just different ways of thinking and reacting to information. Yes, the letters are a clear distinction, but if you read more into it, you find that within each typing, there are various levels of development. Some people are better at handling things in a certain way than others. Nothing is inherently "better", just different. My S/N letter is fairly weak. And it almost could go anyway (if I were to follow the tests). The tests are there to give you an idea of where you fall, not to determine your type. Which is why most of them provide percentages and probabilities. That's the whole point. I don't see it that way. I see it as a naming convention for a system I had already used in my mind. Well, not quite. Facebook-questionaires really have nothing to do with categorizing based on personality. They usually have random pointless questions, and 90% of which I can't answer because the creator failed to include certain options. MBTI has a category for each type of person. and doesn't rely on a single quiz to determine placement. I linked to one such way of determining your type (I thought it was the most accurate I've found), but you certainly don't need the quiz/test in order to do so. It's a categorization system, not a quiz. As for your confusion to my comment, let me restate: I'm pretty much the most introverted person I know. Yet, I find some extraverted people (not all, and definitely not most) seem to just make me "click" and I can easily be myself and converse. Up until now, I had no clue why that would be the case. I typically dislike people (even other introverts) and tend to keep to myself. Reading into MBTI and socionics (which is slightly different than MBTI), I now understand why this is the case. It's also able to accurately describe how I think, as well as why I'd do something a certain way. It's scarily accurate. Some other ISTP typed people decided to come up with a wiki. And it pretty much felt like I was reading a biography of myself. How would that even be possible if MBTI was, as you put it, nothing more than a facebook-questionaire? Most people who also determine their type (and ensure it is the correct typing) also say similar things. You can't really do that with generic Facebook quizzes.I noticed the tendency to attribute their mistakes to their label: oh, they didn't get their work done, it must be because of [insert generalized character trait here]
M-B is a similar simplification. I can understand that you want to use it to predict behaviour, but I doubt it's effectivity. For one, it's a binary approach to character traits. I'm not an introvert nor an extrovert; it is a spectrum, not ones and zeroes. But there's no middle ground in the system.
I can understand why it is good for yourself, as a critical self-assessment. And it is nice that you found out that you have suppressed a part of you that you hadn't questioned before (or not as deeply as now).
I just don't see it as a tool to get 'great insight on people and how they behave'. It is too deterministic, the assessments are mediocre at best, and I found that line of thinking to be harmful to my perspective of people. The categories are binary and restrictive. No, I don't think it is a great perspective into another person's mind.
What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not disinterested, I'm just not convinced of Myers-Briggs as anything more than a facebook-questionnaire.
I'm not saying that ISTJ is better than ENFP or anything like that. It's that I noticed that I associated their behaviour with my perception of their personality. Fitting to the curve. No, you're also trying to predict the future behaviour of others with a system that at best might give you a slightly better perspective of yourself. Here's my result. I made the test honestly, swear to god, but apparently my place is dead center. Your Cognitive Functions: Extroverted Intuition (Ne) 9.15 Introverted Intuition (Ni) 5.925 Extroverted Feeling (Fe) 5.38 Introverted Feeling (Fi) 4.85 Extroverted Sensation (Se) 4.48 Introverted Sensation (Si) 4.24 Introverted Thinking (Ti) 4.15 Extroverted Thinking (Te) 3.62 Your Extroverted Intuition (Ne) is very developed. Your Introverted Intuition (Ni) is moderate. Your Extroverted Sensation (Se) is moderate. Your Introverted Sensation (Si) is moderate. Your Introverted Thinking (Ti) is moderate. Your Extroverted Thinking (Te) is moderate. Your Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is moderate. Your Introverted Feeling (Fi) is moderate. Now, what does that tell about me? I'd love to know. Maybe I should become moderator. Any reason why? I haven't heard a good counterargument to what I said there. And it isn't possible that some people can just cooperate well with introverts? So are some horoscopes.Nothing is inherently "better", just different.
That's the whole point.
The tests are there to give you an idea of where you fall, not to determine your type. Which is why most of them provide percentages and probabilities.
I don't see it that way.
Yet, I find some extraverted people (not all, and definitely not most) seem to just make me "click" and I can easily be myself and converse. Up until now, I had no clue why that would be the case.
Facebook-questionaires really have nothing to do with categorizing based on personality.
It was a blunt example to get my point across. Maybe a better comparison: every time you say "as an [MBTI category]", it sounds to me like "as a Capricorn / Leo / Virgo / etc". This part of a Penn & Teller episode on astrology reminds me of your MBTI categorization. Yes, MBTI is technically science and not made up but your reaction to the categorization is the same.It's scarily accurate.
I think what we see here with certain people's adherence to the MBTI types is very similar to what happens with horoscopes: "I like what I read and it is vague and general enough that it absolutely can apply to me, so by god, it's right!" I mean, my MBTI type is "mastermind." It's very flattering to think I"m a rare test result and come on, a name like mastermind? I could go on and on bragging about my type if I wanted to. But it's meaningless. I don't. I agree with all statements about confirmation bias and wanting to see in yourself what you read in your result. It's flattery, plain and simple.
I agree, when people take these tests they expect their answers to come out the way they want them to. Although I don't think that this necessarily disproves the validity of the test, because it still makes you look for what you believe to be true about yourself. I know myself to be an introvert, so when my results came out as INTP/INFP, I found it interesting to see things that seemed to fit my personality type. Flattery-maybe. Untrue-not entirely.
Cognitive dissonance as well. It's a line of thinking that fits with people's current perspective and thus very easy to accept. If the test would say stuff that wasn't true, it would be far easier to dismiss. But the test has a good category for everyone, there's no 'bad' category.I agree with all statements about confirmation bias and wanting to see in yourself what you read in your result. It's flattery, plain and simple.
Perhaps it'd be best then to look at the functions themselves and decide that way? I didn't have any problem answering the questions. A couple of them, maybe, but the vast majority were fairly quick/simple to answer and involved clicking one of the "extreme" answers. Regardless of what your answers to the questions may be, your personality doesn't change instantly. Neither does your way of thinking. Here's a few short questions that could replace the quiz: Social (E) or No (I)? AkA do you like to be in large crowds of people and large friend groups, or do you prefer less people? This is fairly straight forward. Do you like abstract thinking (N)? Or prefer more "in the now" type stuff (S)? Are you interested in practicality and stuff that can be done right now (S), or more of thinking in the future/past, and your thoughts tend to be unrelated to what's happening (N)? I found this is the hardest part to answer (at least in my case). Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)? Do you logic and reason through your answers, relying on mental equations to determine how you react? Or do you react with emotion, thinking in good vs bad? This one is also fairly easy IMO. AKA Is your question Who or Why? And finally, do you make plans (J)? Are you super goal/plan oriented (P)? Or tend to go with the flow? Again, fairly easy if you know yourself. Do you procrastinate, or get things done on day 1? Grab the letters and put them together. This is the naive way of seeing what type you are. Works decently, but may type incorrectly if you aren't aware of your reasons for picking those answers. From there, you'd want to look at a function table: And see if that matches you correctly. My type is ISTP, which means I have internal Thinking, external sensing, internal intuition, and external feeling, in that order of intensity (thinking being my strongest, feeling the weakest). These functions take a bit to learn how each works, but I find they are all accurate. A quick example would be my external (but weak) feeling. Which basically means that I tend to ignore it (since it's lower) but it bottles up and I just kind of explode, revealing my emotions raw and being unable to handle them. That's the combination of unconscious/lower feeling, combined with it being external. As I said, you'd have to read more for each function. It's all interesting stuff though. And once you figure out your type, you can google around and find a lot of people who think/act like you. It's quite surprising. I'm sad to see that hubski is apparently against this whole system.
I tried and I have to agree with codingvagrant. I really don't know how to answer most questions. There are days i'm social, there are days I want to be left alone. I think and feel. I honestly don't know which matters most to me because it depends a lot on the situation. Some decisions I make by thinking them through, others I base more on feelings. Or a combination of both. I can make plans to be safe, but be perfectly fine with going with the flow if things don't work out. But I don't really enjoy planning and things not going as planned can be frustrating. Maybe it's a good test but I probably lack the self awareness to take it correctly. Haha maybe I lack introverted thinking or something.
I took the MBTI about a decade ago and came up ENTP. My only shock was that my I/E was so close to the line -- I think of myself as ridiculously extroverted with a side of obnoxion. Nevertheless the only thing I've used from this knowledge is the understanding that I am a process-based person, not goal-based. I have always enjoyed figuring out the specifics that lead to more consistent results, figuring out the analogies that get a person to do something more intuitively. I've always been a good loser at games -- I learn which tactics I didn't have. ...except for chess. I cannot stand playing chess. It looks like a purely deductive game until you play against people that know what they're doing. Then you learn they aren't seeing the best approach but merely sorting known approaches to a situation. They're flipping flash cards in their heads, and the winner has a bigger stack of memorized flash cards. Using personality testing to get an efficient team seems like guessing the playoff spots before the first game. Teams rise or fall based on how well they work together to tune out noise and survive events. You can tell me that a person is more goal-based or introverted by nature, but that won't tell me which factor has become that person's personal hang-up. A "feeling" person may have grown up hating the pain of having sensation and therefore makes bad decisions by taking a gut instinct and rejecting it. An introspective person may have become hung up on getting out of the shell, aced Toastmasters, and otherwise become a skilled presenter or sales person based on sheer rebellion. Tests such as these tell me less about a person than a single round of a role-playing game. Who will be a snitch instead of a struggler? Who will be bossy and who will give in when that's a bad idea? Put on some character masks and show me your real person.