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.