Meyers-Briggs Personality Type

[Richter]

You're using it right then.  Most of my degree in this stuff was us getting drilled on where test data should / shoudl not be applied, and as you and Silly said, they're suggestions, not boxes.

I agree socializing yourself does get odd at times.

Also: the most exact sample is everyone included in the group you want to learn about.  Any smaller sample, by nature, will introduce more error the smaller it gets.

[Vene]

You're using it right then.  Most of my degree in this stuff was us getting drilled on where test data should / shoudl not be applied, and as you and Silly said, they're suggestions, not boxes.

I agree socializing yourself does get odd at times.

Also: the most exact sample is everyone included in the group you want to learn about.  Any smaller sample, by nature, will introduce more error the smaller it gets.

Does anybody post over at poee.co.uk?  Maybe getting their input as well could make this data set more accurate.

[That One Guy]

Chiming in a bit late, I'm an INTP, and have been every time I've taken this particular test over the years.

I wouldn't put a ton of weight behind a 25 or 30-question test with limited answers - if you want a full psych profile, it needs a LOT more data and reactions to specific situations and environments. This is just a vague, general kind of overall approach rather than a "this is what you are and shall forever be!" kind of thing.

Fun though 

[Cain]

You're using it right then.  Most of my degree in this stuff was us getting drilled on where test data should / shoudl not be applied, and as you and Silly said, they're suggestions, not boxes.

I agree socializing yourself does get odd at times.

Also: the most exact sample is everyone included in the group you want to learn about.  Any smaller sample, by nature, will introduce more error the smaller it gets.

Does anybody post over at poee.co.uk?  Maybe getting their input as well could make this data set more accurate.

I could post it there.  Someone should post it on some of the Facebook groups too.

[Cain]

You're using it right then.  Most of my degree in this stuff was us getting drilled on where test data should / shoudl not be applied, and as you and Silly said, they're suggestions, not boxes.

I wonder if there is a special school they go to where they're taught just to give that speech?  We must have got it like 20 times in our first year alone.

[Xooxe]

I'm suspicious that the people who usually give the answers which get them scored as an INTP are also the people more likely to know or care about the MBTI and either make threads about it or vote in them.

Also, this is a pretty decent INTP essay. Nice balance of positive and negative points in there. http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

[AFK]

I'm suspicious that the people who usually give the answers which get them scored as an INTP are also the people more likely to know or care about the MBTI and either make threads about it or vote in them.

Also, this is a pretty decent INTP essay. Nice balance of positive and negative points in there. http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

Not too surprising really though is it?  Introverted Thinkers.  Makes sense really. 

[That One Guy]

There's a line from that INTP link that sheds some light on why we might be getting a bunch of it here out of proportion to the other types:

For here is the central goal of the INTP: to understand and seek truth.

Now, that's definitely not something that is specific to Discordians, but I'd say it IS something that most of us share - why the hell else would we waste our time reading and listening to the ramblings of acid-heads from 40 or 50 years ago?

[Cain]

The lulz?

[That One Guy]

The lulz?

Troof.

[Richter]

You're using it right then.  Most of my degree in this stuff was us getting drilled on where test data should / shoudl not be applied, and as you and Silly said, they're suggestions, not boxes.

I wonder if there is a special school they go to where they're taught just to give that speech?  We must have got it like 20 times in our first year alone.

Probably there is.  Otherwise you get a bunch of students driving themselves and everyone around them bonkers with newfound irrelevant knowledge.

Edit: Taleb echoed it too, I recall.

[Lies]

I too have some gripes with the actual test questions and answers, but I feel that it's a reasonably accurate system of personality types, personally anyway, since I've tried it on a few other people and have had results that were pretty much spot on.

The main problem with the system though is that its quite possible to fall into 2-4 different catagories, depending on how strong your percentage for a particular personality indicator is.

For example, my girlfriend, who got me to do the test the other day, is very familiar with it herself and before I did it, claimed that she was sure that I'd be an EN*P, because she couldn't work out if I was more F or T. Turned out when I did the test she was spot on- I ended up classified literally as a ENTP, but my % for T was extremely low, at about 5%, and so it can be taken that really, I could be either, and so both personality types have to be taken into consideration, and not surprisingly, both described me very well for the most part. Rather then have contradiction information, it turned out both seemed to compliment each other quite well, which I personally feel makes sense.

But you know, whatever.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I too have some gripes with the actual test questions and answers, but I feel that it's a reasonably accurate system of personality types, personally anyway, since I've tried it on a few other people and have had results that were pretty much spot on.

The main problem with the system though is that its quite possible to fall into 2-4 different catagories, depending on how strong your percentage for a particular personality indicator is.

For example, my girlfriend, who got me to do the test the other day, is very familiar with it herself and before I did it, claimed that she was sure that I'd be an EN*P, because she couldn't work out if I was more F or T. Turned out when I did the test she was spot on- I ended up classified literally as a ENTP, but my % for T was extremely low, at about 5%, and so it can be taken that really, I could be either, and so both personality types have to be taken into consideration, and not surprisingly, both described me very well for the most part. Rather then have contradiction information, it turned out both seemed to compliment each other quite well, which I personally feel makes sense.

But you know, whatever.

It's a model and as such its not gonna perfectly represent the territory

However, I've taken the test several times in multiple forms (both administered by a psychologist and online). My personality has always shown up as *NFP, with the E or I varying by less than 10%. The first time I took the test was about 8 years ago I think.

Mosbunal of my friends who have looked at the description of an ENFP (or INFP), think it matches me to a 'T'.

However, I doubt Jung would argue that any variation of these sorts of tests would identify WHO we are... rather it would, at best, give us a snapshot of how we perceived ourselves to be... lots of snapshots that correlate might give us a better, though not complete, view of what our personality type might be ordered/modeled/labeled as.

[Lies]

I too have some gripes with the actual test questions and answers, but I feel that it's a reasonably accurate system of personality types, personally anyway, since I've tried it on a few other people and have had results that were pretty much spot on.

The main problem with the system though is that its quite possible to fall into 2-4 different catagories, depending on how strong your percentage for a particular personality indicator is.

For example, my girlfriend, who got me to do the test the other day, is very familiar with it herself and before I did it, claimed that she was sure that I'd be an EN*P, because she couldn't work out if I was more F or T. Turned out when I did the test she was spot on- I ended up classified literally as a ENTP, but my % for T was extremely low, at about 5%, and so it can be taken that really, I could be either, and so both personality types have to be taken into consideration, and not surprisingly, both described me very well for the most part. Rather then have contradiction information, it turned out both seemed to compliment each other quite well, which I personally feel makes sense.

But you know, whatever.

It's a model and as such its not gonna perfectly represent the territory

However, I've taken the test several times in multiple forms (both administered by a psychologist and online). My personality has always shown up as *NFP, with the E or I varying by less than 10%. The first time I took the test was about 8 years ago I think.

Mosbunal of my friends who have looked at the description of an ENFP (or INFP), think it matches me to a 'T'.

However, I doubt Jung would argue that any variation of these sorts of tests would identify WHO we are... rather it would, at best, give us a snapshot of how we perceived ourselves to be... lots of snapshots that correlate might give us a better, though not complete, view of what our personality type might be ordered/modeled/labeled as.

Yeah, I just see it as a rough guide to the likely and general personal traits one may have, to be taken how you see fit best to use it.

And if you're like Roger, not use it and bag out everyone else that does.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I too have some gripes with the actual test questions and answers, but I feel that it's a reasonably accurate system of personality types, personally anyway, since I've tried it on a few other people and have had results that were pretty much spot on.

The main problem with the system though is that its quite possible to fall into 2-4 different catagories, depending on how strong your percentage for a particular personality indicator is.

For example, my girlfriend, who got me to do the test the other day, is very familiar with it herself and before I did it, claimed that she was sure that I'd be an EN*P, because she couldn't work out if I was more F or T. Turned out when I did the test she was spot on- I ended up classified literally as a ENTP, but my % for T was extremely low, at about 5%, and so it can be taken that really, I could be either, and so both personality types have to be taken into consideration, and not surprisingly, both described me very well for the most part. Rather then have contradiction information, it turned out both seemed to compliment each other quite well, which I personally feel makes sense.

But you know, whatever.

It's a model and as such its not gonna perfectly represent the territory

However, I've taken the test several times in multiple forms (both administered by a psychologist and online). My personality has always shown up as *NFP, with the E or I varying by less than 10%. The first time I took the test was about 8 years ago I think.

Mosbunal of my friends who have looked at the description of an ENFP (or INFP), think it matches me to a 'T'.

However, I doubt Jung would argue that any variation of these sorts of tests would identify WHO we are... rather it would, at best, give us a snapshot of how we perceived ourselves to be... lots of snapshots that correlate might give us a better, though not complete, view of what our personality type might be ordered/modeled/labeled as.

Yeah, I just see it as a rough guide to the likely and general personal traits one may have, to be taken how you see fit best to use it.

And if you're like Roger, not use it and bag out everyone else that does.

Yeah, but that's Roger's gift.... he can turn anything into a hammer to hit us on the head with.