# myers briggs - what are you ?



## Pingu (Oct 19, 2015)

although i am generally dismissive of the myers brings tests i do kinda of fall nicely into the ENTP classification as a general rule (ENTP Personality (“The Debater”)	| 16Personalities)

having just had to do a BM test at work i came out.. ENTP which i am glad to say has made a couple of people a bit nervous 

like i said though in the main i dont like these pidgeon holing exercises but as a bit of fun they are ok.

if you know your box what are you?

(i also came out Creator innovator on the Margerison-McCann test - so at least the bollocks is consistent)


----------



## Belushi (Oct 19, 2015)

depends what day of the week I take the test, and whether I've had breakfast that morning.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 19, 2015)

You aren't dismissive enough.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2015)

ENTP likewise. I got mine done "properly" (it was something all tutors on the course I teach got done). I'm just about off the scale on the E, with N and T being fairly equivocal, then a moderately massive P. Which figures.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2015)

INTP - Had it done 'properly' and done it myself online many times. Always INTP


Pingu said:


> Margerison-McCann test


Link?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 19, 2015)

Was going to ask what ENTP meant, but a quick browse answered = extroversion, intuition, thinking, perception. Can't these people spell?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2015)

I am not a number. I am a free man.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I am not a number. I am a free man.


 Myers-Briggs is ALL LETTERS!


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 19, 2015)

ENFP "The Campaigner"...for today anyway. I'm usually somewhere in that ball park.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 19, 2015)

XNXX


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Was going to ask what ENTP meant, but a quick browse answered = extroversion, intuition, thinking, perception. Can't these people spell?


 I've always wondered about the "extroversion" vs "extraversion" thing. The former is consistent with "introversion", so is probably more "correct", but most people seem to use the -a- variant. *shrug*

Just don't get me started on "empathetic"


----------



## Pingu (Oct 19, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> INTP - Had it done 'properly' and done it myself online many times. Always INTP
> 
> Link?



wil have to google it*. this was done at work by some people with beards and far too much energy - the session was conducted last month but we got the results through today. my line manager is looking at me nervously now cos he knows i disagree with some of the things he likes and invited me to the steering meeting to discuss how we should take teh results of our recent CMMI assessment forward

us ENTPs just throw the thoughts out ther its up to you to do something with them


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2015)

if you told a man in the 1950s that he would be pathologised for work purposes he'd have laughed. And got the union on you. Now its like they want a fucking voight-kampff before they'll let you empty the bins


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2015)

Pingu said:


> wil have to google it. this was done at work by some people with beards and far too much energy - the session was conducted last month but we got the results through today. my line manager is looking at me nervously now cos he knows i disagree with some of the things he likes and invited me to the steering meeting to discuss how we should take teh results of our recent CMMI assessment forward


Had a quick Google and it looks like it's only a paid thing (and very expensive!). Also it's business-focussed, rather than a general personality thing, so I'm less interested now


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2015)

Just done the test again seeing as I'm bored. INTP, again.


----------



## Supine (Oct 19, 2015)

From the first link, famous ENTP's includes Celine Dion!!!


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> if you told a man in the 1950s that he would be pathologised for work purposes he'd have laughed. And got the union on you. Now its like they want a fucking voight-kampff before they'll let you empty the bins


Like anything, this stuff can be used constructively, or not. And it's worth remembering that it's only a fairly broad-brush assessment in any case.

But people like these classifications, and they can be useful at least as indicators of what we might find easy or difficult. A lot of introverted types battle through life thinking there must be something wrong with them that they don't want to go out partying and being sociable all the time, like those noisy extrovert types, and it's only when they realise that it's an underlying trait that they are able to make sense of it, and work more within their own capabilities.

Where it is wrong is if such techniques start being used to screen people for jobs, promotions, etc - they're just not indicative of people's strengths and weakness - in my view - to be reliable enough for that. And so much depends on interpretation, too.

For that matter, pretty much any statistical abstraction is open to abuse: in a job I had, we were scoring clients on the CORE scale at the start and end of the work. Despite assurances that this was just a measure of "distance travelled", and that it was not being used in a comparative way (there's all kinds of good reasons why that would be problematic), yup, you guessed, within a year they were tabulating the results for the team and wondering out loud why X achieved a distance travelled of 3.4, while Y was only managing 2.1.

I'm slightly angsty about all this stuff, because I'm trying to develop a coaching business, and while I can see the merits, I don't think that barrelling into an organisation with an armful of personality typing tests, and scaling charts for everything from learning style to team-orientedness, is really the way to go...and it costs a fucking FORTUNE to get accredited/licenced for each of these various tricksy tools. I think a lot of what is done using them can be equally well achieved through some decent one-to-one stuff, even before you start doing 360 degree reviews, and all of the rest of the management-friendly bollocks that's out there.

But, so long as nobody's taking them *too* seriously, or making profound decisions on the strength of them, there's no harm in it.


----------



## Supine (Oct 19, 2015)

Just did the test, I am an ESTJ-A The Executive. Whatever bollox that means.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2015)

I just can't escape the feeling that these things are a load of bollocks, if they did have any efficiacy in the first place its surely negated when you use it in an employment setting because 90% of the people would just give the answers they think the employer wants to hear- I mean nobody takes tests like those in good faith.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 19, 2015)

Had it done in great detail when I was much younger and came out as INTP but, if I remember correctly, some of those measurements were really borderline and others were way off the scale...

So I suppose, it's not really much to be relied upon anyway given its intrinsic weaknesses.


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 19, 2015)

I am of the personality type Myers Briggs Sceptical Rejecter as I think it's a load of old mumbo jumbo invented to ease the tensions which will inevitably occur between unhappy minions and management who just want to be liked, when there's work to be done. And also to make pots of money out of the bogus testing / assessment / form-printing processes.

Just did the test again and came out ISFP (which I am sure I wasn't before, so ISFP WTF.)
This bit did ring a bell tho: "To manage ISFP personalities successfully, there need to be clearly set goals, and otherwise an open sandbox."
An open sandbox might be the key to a happy future. (what does this actually mean, anyway? they put you in a cupboard all alone? they trust you to bury your own poo? what?


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2015)

I'm usually INFP but came out as INFJ on this version


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I just can't escape the feeling that these things are a load of bollocks, if they did have any efficiacy in the first place its surely negated when you use it in an employment setting because 90% of the people would just give the answers they think the employer wants to hear- I mean nobody takes tests like those in good faith.


I think that's one of the reasons why being licenced to use them is expensive and requires a fair amount of training: the real Myers-Briggs test has *lots* of questions, and a certain amount of interpretation is required, too.

Most people probably don't take them as gospel, but I suspect there are managers around who'll go "Ah, yes, we just need an ISTJ to flesh out the team and help us keep on top of the paperwork", and actually hire on that basis.

ETA: MB is also about a million years old, and predates quite a lot of developments in the psychological field, which might call its relevance into question somewhat, too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2015)

trabuquera said:


> I am of the personality type Myers Briggs Sceptical Rejecter as I think it's a load of old mumbo jumbo invented to ease the tensions which will inevitably occur between unhappy minions and management who just want to be liked, when there's work to be done. And also to make pots of money out of the bogus testing / assessment / form-printing processes.
> 
> Just did the test again and came out ISFP (which I am sure I wasn't before, so ISFP WTF.)
> This bit did ring a bell tho: "To manage ISFP personalities successfully, there need to be clearly set goals, and otherwise an open sandbox."
> An open sandbox might be the key to a happy future. (what does this actually mean, anyway? they put you in a cupboard all alone? they trust you to bury your own poo? what?


Space to work within and a degree of autonomy, reacts poorly to micromanagment but performs well if given their head would be how I'd put it but that doesn't sound wanky enough. Sandbox  is a term I know from computer game reviews, it means you aren't 'on rails' in a straight story progression and if you want to spend your time picking flowers or sniping pedestrians in the head then you can.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 19, 2015)

> YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE IS:
> COMMANDER (ENTJ-A)



So, errrr, there you go.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 19, 2015)

Pingu said:


> us ENTPs just throw the thoughts out ther its up to you to do something with them



I'm ENTP.

What you say there is true and also my posting style on here. People accuse me of of having various opinions on topics but most of the time i'm making no conclusions, i'm just chucking stuff into the air and seeing what happens. Thinking stuff through is for others.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 19, 2015)

Apparently at the moment I am a ESFJ-A which is odd because I am pretty sure I have never been one of those when I took the tests before.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Apparently at the moment I am a ESFJ-A which is odd because I am pretty sure I have never been one of those when I took the tests before.


that's just what I got, too.  And, likewise, I don't think I've ever come close to that one before


----------



## weltweit (Oct 19, 2015)

belboid said:


> that's just what I got, too.  And, likewise, I don't think I've ever come close to that one before


There must be a glitch in the matrix!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2015)

INFP-T - apart from the last T bit (don't know what that means) I _always_ get INFP. I was wondering whether I would or not on this test, because the questions are quite different to tests I've taken before and - seeing as though I answered very honestly - I was certain it would skew me in other directions. But no. INFP, all the way.

Edit: okay so T means turbulent, this is a new one for me, I've not done one with a 5th category before. Yeah, it's pretty accurate.


----------



## pogofish (Oct 19, 2015)

Probably the same place as the last few times we had this thread.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2015)

Of all of them, I find the Thinking/Feeling one to be the most troubling. There are several contradictions in that spectrum. I think it's possible to be empathic _and_ competitive, for example. And I don't see empathy and the desire for harmony as being at all at odds with the drive for organisation or a focus on logic. The suggestion is that _caring_ isn't _logical_, but that doesn't make sense to me. Frankly, every single one of the thinking and feeling buzzword concepts work perfectly together. T/F is always the one I get angry about.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Probably the same place as the last few times we had this thread.


 Shut up


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2015)

Frankly, reading through them all again, the only two I'm happy with in terms of them being opposites of each other is E/I and A/T. The rest are big old muddled bags of crossover all over the shop.

That test can fuck off.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 19, 2015)

Is there any truth in it?
The descriptions at the end seem a little like the sort of waffle they trot out on star signs in the red tops!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 19, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Of all of them, I find the Thinking/Feeling one to be the most troubling. There are several contradictions in that spectrum. I think it's possible to be empathic _and_ competitive, for example. And I don't see empathy and the desire for harmony as being at all at odds with the drive for organisation or a focus on logic. The suggestion is that _caring_ isn't _logical_, but that doesn't make sense to me. Frankly, every single one of the thinking and feeling buzzword concepts work perfectly together. T/F is always the one I get angry about.



But even with the qualities which make sense as being on a spectrum, there's no evidence for a bimodal distribution.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 19, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Is there any truth in it?
> The descriptions at the end seem a little like the sort of waffle they trot out on star signs in the red tops!



1) No.

2) Quite.


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2015)

MBTI is Jung based. More here: The Myers & Briggs Foundation  - Understanding MBTI® Type Dynamics


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2015)

Last thread kabbes told me I was probably the same as Margaret Thatcher so I'm not taking it in case he's right.


----------



## Supine (Oct 19, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Probably the same place as the last few times we had this thread.



Your a boring git 100% of the time


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Of all of them, I find the Thinking/Feeling one to be the most troubling. There are several contradictions in that spectrum. I think it's possible to be empathic _and_ competitive, for example. And I don't see empathy and the desire for harmony as being at all at odds with the drive for organisation or a focus on logic. The suggestion is that _caring_ isn't _logical_, but that doesn't make sense to me. Frankly, every single one of the thinking and feeling buzzword concepts work perfectly together. T/F is always the one I get angry about.


It's worth reading the explanations for the different preference axes, as they're not exactly what you'd assume just by reading the title:



			
				http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm said:
			
		

> This third preference pair describes how you like to make decisions. Do you like to put more weight on objective principles and impersonal facts (Thinking) or do you put more weight on personal concerns and the people involved (Feeling)?
> 
> Don't confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make. Also do not confuse Thinking with intelligence.
> 
> Everyone uses Thinking for some decisions and Feeling for others. In fact, a person can make a decision using his or her preference, then test the decision by using the other preference to see what might not have been taken into account.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 19, 2015)

I just did that test - not as much fun as the ones they used to do in the 'Jackie'.

It may be slightly more accurate than a horoscope but cant believe employers take this mumbo jumbo seriously! very american conclusions. I've only heard of one of the famous people it lists. Aparently I'm like Bill Clinton - but honestly I've never had sex with *that *woman.

*Famous ESFJs*
Bill Clinton
William McKinley
Jennifer Garner
Tyra Banks
Danny Glover
Nancy Kerrigan
Sally Field
“Dean Winchester” from Supernatural
“Monica” from Friends

but according to numerology I'm like Hilter and Mussolini.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 19, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I've always wondered about the "extroversion" vs "extraversion" thing. The former is consistent with "introversion", so is probably more "correct", but most people seem to use the -a- variant. *shrug*
> 
> Just don't get me started on "empathetic"


they spell it 'extraverted' when you get to results. So possibly its just a typo, but then again they are american. shrug.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 19, 2015)

INFJ -"the advocate"

this part rings to close for comfort...

"Really though, it is most important for INFJs to remember to take care of themselves. The passion of their convictions is perfectly capable of carrying them past their breaking point and if their zeal gets out of hand, they can find themselves exhausted, unhealthy and stressed. This becomes especially apparent when INFJs find themselves up against conflict and criticism – their sensitivity forces them to do everything they can to evade these seemingly personal attacks, but when the circumstances are unavoidable, they can fight back in highly irrational, unhelpful ways."


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 19, 2015)

It seems everyone on the internet is N, although apparently 75% of the population are S


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 19, 2015)

I'm an S.

ESFP-T The Entertainer.  Which I have always come out as.  It's quite accurate - though keeps banging on about energy in the analysis... I have no bloody energy, but it seems my personality does.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2015)

cesare posting the tests jungian links confirmed my archetypal fear that these tests are infact a big steaming pile of bollocks mounted on a silver platter.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 19, 2015)

ISFJ, I have always come out this whenever I've taken the tests and I certainly recognise a lot of myself in the description.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 19, 2015)

INFP - the introverted wannabe healer. I am a real textbook INFP too, I've done the test many times and always score same one. To be honest, the character profile of INFP is almost exactly like me, pretty bang on.


----------



## TikkiB (Oct 19, 2015)

I was an ENTP when I did it a couple of years ago as part of a training course at work.  Part of me thinks that these things do work like horoscopes - you recognise yourself in every thing but I did find it useful as a way of establishing a good working relationship with one of my colleagues.  Initially we didn't get on at all, I got really annoyed at her attitude to various things and found subsequently it was mutual.  Once we'd both been Myers-briggsed and our results established how different we were, we were able to discuss our (very) different ways of working objectively without either of us taking it personally.  It made a massive difference to the way we worked together because we could play to each other's strengths rather than feeling tacitly judged and criticised.

The best bit though was the fact that I was practically the only ENTP in the organisation, and only one of a handful of Ts - I felt like a unicorn.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I am not a number. I am a free man.



You'd be INTP, i think. You use logic over emotion but have your own internal value system not determined by outside influences, also crave solitude.  INFPs like me, bond with the INTPs - actually quite similar but less emotional - INTP is the brainiest of the scale.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 19, 2015)

INTJ - I think I did a fairly lengthy on-line test twice some years ago.

"The Vulcan" - super self-critical, expect everyone else to be rational in all things etc ...


----------



## harpo (Oct 19, 2015)

I had this done 'properly' at work 10 years ago and got ENTP.  I did it again recently and got ENTP again.


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 19, 2015)

ISFP, I'm always FP, sometimes INFP and very occasionally ESFP - it seems quite accurate for me


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2015)

INTP - i'm the logician. 




had these tests done as part of a grad training course a few years back and they used it to help us understand how we repeated to different people. and how we reacted differed to how we thought we reacted. i was a lot less sceptical when we worked through them as a group than I had been when we first got the tests and results.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 19, 2015)

existentialist said:


> A lot of introverted types battle through life thinking there must be something wrong with them that they don't want to go out partying and being sociable all the time, like those noisy extrovert types, and it's only when they realise that it's an underlying trait that they are able to make sense of it, and work more within their own capabilities.



Not true of all who score 'introvert' on Meyers Briggs. Many introverted types i know are fantastic company and highly intuitive with people (extroverts love them too cos they are so funny). 

Being introverted doesn't mean you are completely unsociable, but that you form your views based on an internal value system which is self-made and unaffected by outside influences (unlike the extroverted view which is more aware of the outside world and the opinions in it). Extraverted and introverted thinking are concerned with how you inform your ideas (not whether you like being at a party or not). Its more like whether you are better connected to your inner world or outer world (and whether you care what others think of that).


----------



## kalidarkone (Oct 19, 2015)

ENFJ


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2015)

INTP


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 20, 2015)

It says I'm Elvis reborn, which I already knew.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

just looked at the first questions - they're not fixed answers, are they? they are all answerable with 'it depends', so in certain situations the answer could be 'very yes' and in others it could be 'very no'. we can't be pinned down like this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

ENFP though


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2015)

I've done this thing so many times, including paid for by my companies a few times.  And it's different every time.  The one constant had previously been a very strong N, which is why I put XNXX.  But I just did it again because what the hell and lo and behold, it came out this time with a dominant trait of S and everything else being near the middle.

Every time I read a profile, I think "that's true, that isn't true, that applies to everyone".  

Truth is that I don't think the preferences are mutually opposite, which they would need to be to make this work.  I don't see that somebody couldn't be highly T and highly F at the same time, or low on both at the same time.  

And people are very adaptable; they will change considerably depending on circumstance and depending on the group they are in.  I don't think you can answer any of these questions universally for your life.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2015)

What is true, though, is that quimbly really would be the same as Thatcher.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 20, 2015)

IXXX like kabbes I vary every time I've taken the test, except for introvert.

 Had a margeson mcann test for my current job too and got a split wheel which is not usual, less than 5% of the population so the woman who analysed the tests told me. Non Neuro typical ftw!


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 20, 2015)

Famous INTJs :-

Vladimir Putin
Paul Krugman
Rudy Giuliani
Donald Rumsfeld
Colin Powell
Samantha Power
Lance Armstrong
Richard Gere
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Thomas Jefferson
John F. Kennedy
Woodrow Wilson
Augustus Caesar
Hannibal



Maybe time for a retest.

I always score way up the aspie scale on tests, but I've met quite a few aspies and don't recognise myself.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

I'm prepared to accept that lengthy, professional versions of the test might be more likely to return consistent findings over time for the same person than noddy free Internet ones. So if the test was always done "properly" you might perhaps settle on whichever flattering character sketch best fits the way you answer the questions.

But it's still pseudoscientific claptrap of no use to man nor HR beast.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'm prepared to accept that lengthy, professional versions of the test might be more likely to return consistent findings over time for the same person than noddy free Internet ones. So if the test was always done "properly" you might perhaps settle on whichever flattering character sketch best fits the way you answer the questions.
> 
> But it's still pseudoscientific claptrap of no use to man nor HR beast.


Aw.  Are you really telling me that humanity can't be usefully divided into 16 buckets in which identical profiles are shared by approximately 500,000,000 people each?  Next you'll be questioning star signs as a valid character profiling device.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Aw.  Are you really telling me that humanity can't be usefully divided into 16 buckets in which identical profiles are shared by approximately 500,000,000 people each?  Next you'll be questioning star signs as a valid character profiling device.



It's a matter of what you grow up with. The HR team where I cut my teeth had an in-house haruspex and I'm deeply suspicious of any human capital segmentation tool which doesn't involve the entrails of cattle.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's a matter of what you grow up with. The HR team where I cut my teeth had an in-house haruspex and I'm deeply suspicious of any human capital segmentation tool which doesn't involve the entrails of cattle.


"This one talks a lot of tripe"


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 20, 2015)

I was kicked off of eHarmony for being untestable.
More likely because I'm atheist and left wing.
Their interminable questionnaire looks like Scientology - the people in their adverts seem full-on psycho.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 20, 2015)

Last time I did it I was a typical Sagittarian.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You aren't dismissive enough.


This.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 20, 2015)

I started reading the thread, but it turns out I can't be bothered. I'm hoping we're all agreed that it's a load of bollocks and that anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous charlatan of the kind that deserves fury rather than ridicule.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

TikkiB said:


> I was an ENTP when I did it a couple of years ago as part of a training course at work.  Part of me thinks that these things do work like horoscopes - you recognise yourself in every thing but I did find it useful as a way of establishing a good working relationship with one of my colleagues.  Initially we didn't get on at all, I got really annoyed at her attitude to various things and found subsequently it was mutual.  Once we'd both been Myers-briggsed and our results established how different we were, we were able to discuss our (very) different ways of working objectively without either of us taking it personally.  It made a massive difference to the way we worked together because we could play to each other's strengths rather than feeling tacitly judged and criticised.
> 
> The best bit though was the fact that I was practically the only ENTP in the organisation, and only one of a handful of Ts - I felt like a unicorn.




I think this was the purpose of the tests we did. we have several people who conflict and this way it removes some of the personal aspect from the confrontations.

similarly with the CMMI assessment it was used to highlight the stuff we already knew wasnt working well in a ay that didnt single out areas or individuals


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Pingu, is the CMMI freely available online, or are there elements of the model that are proprietary? I'm trying to build a maturity model for something and I gather that the CMMI is the daddy in this regard.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Pingu, is the CMMI freely available online, or are there elements of the model that are proprietary? I'm trying to build a maturity model for something and I gather that the CMMI is the daddy in this regard.



i am sure elements are available online for free - i just provided input to our assesment. 
I am not a fan of CMMI. i find organisations that look at CMMI "seriously" tend to process themselves int a corner and become unweildy and process bound (IBM being a case in point). however if its used with a dollop of common sense and treated as a framework rather than a mantra I am sure it can be beneficial


----------



## existentialist (Oct 20, 2015)

I think that the "framework rather than mantra" thing should apply to all of these tools. And astrology


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

i concur.

another one is ITIL. too many organisation try to implement ITIL in an inappropriate way for their organisation.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 20, 2015)

My organisation is in the process of shoehorning dozens of current staff into the SFIA framework.
Quite a few higher-ups chose to leave, some at the bottom are getting seriously pissed off as they've messed around to make sure no one needs re-grading ...

I have managed in over 30 years to only have a few appraisal interviews because I always struggled to detail my roles and responsibilities.

My new SFIA job description is so abstract, all I recognise is "manual handling" and "working at heights" - the "VDU" bit is as comical as ever ...

I'm very relieved that I only have about another 5 years to go.

Responsibilities and skills — SFIA


To provide generic levels of responsibility, with descriptions at each of the seven levels for the following attributes: AUTONOMY · INFLUENCE · COMPLEXITY · BUSINESS SKILLS
To reflect experience and competency levels within SFIA. The definitions describe the behaviours, values, knowledge and characteristics that an individual should have in order to be identified as competent at that level. Each level has a guiding word or phrase that acts as a brief indicator: FOLLOW · ASSIST · APPLY · ENABLE · ENSURE, ADVISE · INITIATE, INFLUENCE · SET STRATEGY, INSPIRE, MOBILISE


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

yeah that one, to me, is one of the more "super mega bollocks" ones


----------



## cesare (Oct 20, 2015)

That's just a competency framework


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> That's just a competency framework



but a shite one (IMVHO)


----------



## cesare (Oct 20, 2015)

Pingu said:


> but a shite one (IMVHO)


what dont you like about it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

The first question in the test posted in the OP annoyed me so fucking much, I'm still stewing on it the next day. These questions are so presumptious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The first question in the test posted in the OP annoyed me so fucking much, I'm still stewing on it the next day. These questions are so presumptious.



you found that annoying? why?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 78314
> you found that annoying? why?


Because it so massively depends on the situation. I can be horribly shy or horribly bumptious. Depends on who I'm dealing with, how I'm feeling, what sort of pressures I'm under etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Because it so massively depends on the situation. I can be horribly shy or horribly bumptious. Depends on who I'm dealing with, how I'm feeling, what sort of pressures I'm under etc


then leave it in the middle.

next.

still not sure why you found it so annoying but never mind.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The first question in the test posted in the OP annoyed me so fucking much, I'm still stewing on it the next day. These questions are so presumptious.


the fact that you find it annoying probably says more about you than any answer to  the question would


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 20, 2015)

ENTP. Although I originally came out as I something but the woman doing said it was wrong and I didn't especially agree with it either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

belboid said:


> the fact that you find it annoying probably says more about you than any answer to  the question would


Sure, but invidual responses like that are not quantifiable!


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> what dont you like about it?



tbh i hate the whole "break down a job into competencies" thing and this is the main one i have come across.

i really dont give a toss if a role requires a level 5 competency in "gets on with people in situations involving an element of conflict over a goat that ate someones lunch" i want to know:

Do you know SQL?
How Well?
are you a dick?


----------



## cesare (Oct 20, 2015)

Pingu said:


> tbh i hate the whole "break down a job into competencies" thing and this is the main one i have come across.
> 
> i really dont give a toss if a role requires a level 5 competency in "gets on with people in situations involving an element of conflict over a goat that ate someones lunch" i want to know:
> 
> ...


So it's competencies in general then not just this methodology.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> So it's competencies in general then not just this methodology.



competencies in general and this method in particular


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2015)

Pingu said:


> are you a dick?


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 20, 2015)

....anyone done that Insights one.....?

...that makes you a mix of 4 colours...same idea - based on Jung's 4 basic types - personally I found it spookily accurate for me based on a quite innocuous seeming questionnaire...( I'm very blue )


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> ....anyone done that Insights one.....?
> 
> ...that makes you a mix of 4 colours...same idea - based on Jung's 4 basic types - personally I found it spookily accurate for me based on a quite innocuous seeming questionnaire...( I'm very blue )


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Sure, but invidual responses like that are not quantifiable!


you either pick an 'average' of your feelings on the particular question, or you go with an answer relevant to the situation you are in. If you find it easy to introduce yourself to people at work, but not in social situations, then you answer positibely if you are taking the test for work, or negatively if you are taking it for other reasons. If it's always sometimes yes, sometimes no, you go in the middle


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> personally I found it spookily accurate for me



Try this one:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

Any good?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

belboid said:


> you either pick an 'average' of your feelings on the particular question, or you go with an answer relevant to the situation you are in. If you find it easy to introduce yourself to people at work, but not in social situations, then you answer positibely if you are taking the test for work, or negatively if you are taking it for other reasons. If it's always sometimes yes, sometimes no, you go in the middle


So a middle answer isn't very helpful to those seeking to know your personality. Most of us are a seething neurotic mess of contradictory emotions that a test like this cannot discover. I wouldn't want work to know too much anyway!


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> So a middle answer isn't very helpful to those seeking to know your personality.


Yes it is.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Because it so massively depends on the situation. I can be horribly shy or horribly bumptious. Depends on who I'm dealing with, how I'm feeling, what sort of pressures I'm under etc


Well, yes, I think any situation can vary, and I think that's recognised in the design of these frameworks. And some will actually make questions optional to cover the eventuality that someone simply can't answer them.

But maybe you getting annoyed by a question like that is itself some kind of flag. Personally, although I could answer that question fairly definitively, there might be other ones that I would be more ambivalent on, at which point I'd probably think about context and try to answer it within what I thought was the most appropriate context for the question.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 78314
> you found that annoying? why?


Well, having the Central Line join end-on to the Bakerloo Line is just stupid!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yes it is.


How? There's a wide range of answers in that middle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> just looked at the first questions - they're not fixed answers, are they? they are all answerable with 'it depends', so in certain situations the answer could be 'very yes' and in others it could be 'very no'. we can't be pinned down like this.



It all smacks of a 'cold reading' type excercise to me, like a horoscope or some shit. It describes people in such broad strokes that most people will identify at least partly with the category they're placed in. I expect the human habits of self-categorisation and a desire to be included and understood will also make people more likely to give credence to stuff like this. 

It's like an observational comedian. Do you ever wait ages for the bus and then it arrives just as you light a cigarette? Haha, yeah! You laugh, not because it's funny but because he's given you the opportunity to identify with other people who share some kind of feeling or experience with you. Also other people in the room are laughing, so you can join in with the laughing people and the bus-stop-smoking people at the same time. But is the joke funny? No, in fact it's not even a joke. It's a trick. That's what these personality tests are. A trick. Even the hyphenated sciencey-sounding name is part of the scam.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How? There's a wide range of answers in that middle.


As there are to any of the answers.  But they're still answers.  And yours would be in the middle.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

belboid said:


> As there are to any of the answers.  But they're still answers.  And yours would be in the middle.


Are these answers used in recruitment much? Or are they for other purposes?


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Any good?



....not bad actually ...!

...but srsly it was quite a long report and definitely more than just boiler-plate .......someone else reading it would get quite alot of things about me that I might not necessarily advertise about myself or want people knowing....that's the slightly spooky aspect to it....


----------



## existentialist (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Are these answers used in recruitment much? Or are they for other purposes?


The obvious use case is where you have a large operation and you are seeking to either deploy staff within it to maximum effectiveness, or attempting to understand and resolve conflict.

It's not at all unusual, for example (I'll use IT as a specific example) to end up with someone whose technical strengths are great, but whose ability to identify a strategic direction is weak, operating beyond their competence in some areas. That can result in problems, as the individual themselves can struggle to perform, despite their undoubted strengths in some areas, which results in them feeling crap about themselves/the job, and quite possibly annoys the hell out of those they are directing, not to mention those who they report to.

Tests like these are a useful screening tool to be able to identify traits which might present problems, and which can therefore be addressed through training, coaching, or redeployment. Ideally, it's done as a collaborative process, so the metrics are discussed with the staff member, and some kind of agreement reached on the best way forward.

As ever, the art is in how they are used - getting a MBTI classification for someone and then simply deciding what they will do purely on the strength of that is, not to put too fine a point on it, just shit management.

Personally, I see these things as handy shortcuts, with all the limitations that implies. You can get a far richer sense of someone's capabilities by having a series of conversations with them (although even there such frameworks offer a useful way of structuring the information gained from those conversations), but that can often take resources that a company is unwilling to devote: getting an executive coach in at £300/hour, for 3 hours each, in a department of 30 senior managers is £27,000, which could well be value for money in terms of the business's bottom line, but might be a scary amount of money to spend for what might be an intangible result, for example. And that'd be a comparatively cheap coach.

And the other thing is what you do with the results - it's one thing being able to say to a staff member, "you're an ISFJ" and read the blurb at them, but actually working out with the person what that means in terms of their work role is a much more nuanced business.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Are these answers used in recruitment much? Or are they for other purposes?


Both.  'It depends' is a perfectly reasonable answer


----------



## kebabking (Oct 20, 2015)

ISTP - Assertive Explorer. A _virtuoso_ apparently...

i think it means i have a personality that roams the net looking for shit quizzes in order to avoid doing any actual work.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 20, 2015)

Every single time I do this I always come out INTP. And reading up on the INTP type has been useful, particularly getting my partner to read some of it so he could understand why sometimes I just need to be on my own and that I find endless socialising utterly fucking exhausting (while he thrives on it). I hope I'm a bit less of a Mr Logic than the picture usually painted of an INTP though.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 20, 2015)

*INFP Personality (“The Mediator”)*


OMG!! I'm a hippy?


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 20, 2015)

This one pegs me as an ESTP.  Never had an S before, always been an ENTP until now.  Perhaps I've changed.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've done this thing so many times, including paid for by my companies a few times.  And it's different every time.  The one constant had previously been a very strong N, which is why I put XNXX.  But I just did it again because what the hell and lo and behold, it came out this time with a dominant trait of S and everything else being near the middle.
> 
> Every time I read a profile, I think "that's true, that isn't true, that applies to everyone".
> 
> ...



You to with the S then.  It's the test.

If I could be arsed I'd compare the N-S questions on this test to see how they differ from other tests.  But I can't be bothered.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 20, 2015)

Ha, this is a different test from the one floating around my facebook friends.  I'm talking more bollocks than usual.  this one has me as ESFP which is well odd.

I think I'm getting S and F on these since I learned to stop blurting out the truth in peoples faces and hold my tongue a bit.  That's 'sensitive' and 'feeling'.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2015)

re: the discussion here about the efficacy of the test I understand a lot of the criticisms and I don't think that it is necessarily particularly useful in the ways in which it is used for example I have lied on variations of the test used by HR departments to recruit for customer service roles and having spoken to other people about these tests I know that plenty of others have done the same.

However, the INTP description has really helped me to understand myself. It has been particularly useful for me in allowing myself to find out why I am so fucking weird to be honest. It has allowed me to harness that weirdness in some ways that are beneficial to me and suppress it in others. I don't agree that these are the psychology equivalent of horoscopes, I have looked at INTP community forums and forums of other personality types and there is a real difference there. I am really similar to the people who post on INTP forums, a lot of them have had similar experiences of life and what they write tells me that they have similar thought processes.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 20, 2015)

We did this test on a poker forum once.  Every single profitable player that took it was either ENTP or INTP.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 21, 2015)

Myers-brigg was the first time I came across introvert/extrovert descriptions etc in any real way and it really helped me understand myself.

 Reading the descriptions I recognised more or less everything on the introvert and nothing on the extrovert, you couldn't give me a description for an extrovert and have me think the test had worked, so I think it's got more to it than horoscopes too, but they definitely do that thing of being vague and universalish statements.

But really I just enjoy taking these kind of tests cos they struggle to categorise me.


----------



## Mation (Oct 21, 2015)

My ENFP-A personality leads me to believe that I, like everyone else, sees horoscope guff in this (apart from the flattering bits, which are all true). Not done it for years so I can't remember how it came out before.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 21, 2015)

ENFP but only extraverted by 3% 
most of the questions in that area (extroversion / introversion) are like a pendulum for me that generally swings back to right in the middle. I'm pretty introverted naturally, but I also like attention and will become very social/extroverted if it gets me stuff I want/need


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 21, 2015)

The last time I took it I got Twilight Sparkle.

 

It was the full scientific version I did, not one of those knock-off internet ones.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 21, 2015)

ISTP OTOH that's while still returning to full lucidity, so it's maybe not an indication of normal personality.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 21, 2015)

ISFJ (defender). I think that's actually quite accurate.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 21, 2015)

Mation said:


> My ENFP-A personality leads me to believe that I, like everyone else, sees horoscope guff in this (apart from the flattering bits, which are all true). Not done it for years so I can't remember how it came out before.


My Scorpio birthsign leads me, similarly, to be sceptical of horoscopes.


----------



## Supine (Oct 22, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> ....anyone done that Insights one.....?
> 
> ...that makes you a mix of 4 colours...same idea - based on Jung's 4 basic types - personally I found it spookily accurate for me based on a quite innocuous seeming questionnaire...( I'm very blue )




I have a set of those feckin bricks. I'm predominantly blue but my previouse company wanted red in senior job positions. Even though your taught that the best teams are made from a mixture of colour personalities.

When things were going well at work the colour thing was used to compliment me. When going badly they were used against me.

Glad I left the company.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2015)

8115 said:


> ISFJ (defender). I think that's actually quite accurate.


ISWYDT


----------



## NoXion (Oct 22, 2015)

I consistently come up as INTP on these kind of tests.


----------



## N_igma (Oct 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Apparently at the moment I am a ESFJ-A which is odd because I am pretty sure I have never been one of those when I took the tests before.



This test is bollocks because I got the same and I'm certain that you and I are two very different people.


----------



## Winot (Oct 22, 2015)

CONSUL (ESFJ-A)

Anyone tried the Enneagram?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 22, 2015)

N_igma said:


> This test is bollocks because I got the same and I'm certain that you and I are two very different people.


hmm.. not sure what to make of that 
If we both don't think we are ESFJ-A .. what do you think you are / I am?


----------



## N_igma (Oct 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> hmm.. not sure what to make of that
> If we both don't think we are ESFJ-A .. what do you think you are / I am?



I am me and you are you


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 22, 2015)

Being INFP, i enjoy the company of other humans but it's nicer being alone.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Myers-brigg was the first time I came across introvert/extrovert descriptions etc in any real way and it really helped me understand myself.
> 
> Reading the descriptions I recognised more or less everything on the introvert and nothing on the extrovert, you couldn't give me a description for an extrovert and have me think the test had worked, so I think it's got more to it than horoscopes too, but they definitely do that thing of being vague and universalish statements.
> 
> But really I just enjoy taking these kind of tests cos they struggle to categorise me.



But half the questions are basically just, 'are you an introvert or an extrovert' so it's not really that impressive that they manage to put most people at the right end of that (imaginary) dichotomy.

The trick is not describing who you are. Nobody wants to know that. The trick is describing you _as you see yourself_. Hence shy people are told that it's in their nature to be shy and they should stay that way, while look-at-me types are told that it's entirely right and natural that they keep making themselves the centre of attention. It's fine if you don't want to let other people express themselves, because they don't want to anyway. And it's fine if you want to curl up in your shell and stay there, because that's where you fucking belong.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

Incidentally, my personality type is STFU.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

And why is there no personality type called 'the arsehole' ?

I expect we've all met quite a few of them, more than enough to identify certain common personality traits which many of them share. But no, everyone is a 'mediator' or a 'protector' or a 'unicorn whisperer' or some shit. We're all just different kinds of wonderful. Especially our bosses who make us take these tests and then demand to know what sort of people we are because when you buy someone's time, you're entitled to know in the innermost workings of their soul.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> But half the questions are basically just, 'are you an introvert or an extrovert' so it's not really that impressive that they manage to put most people at the right end of that (imaginary) dichotomy.
> 
> The trick is not describing who you are. Nobody wants to know that. The trick is describing you _as you see yourself_. Hence shy people are told that it's in their nature to be shy and they should stay that way, while look-at-me types are told that it's entirely right and natural that they keep making themselves the centre of attention. It's fine if you don't want to let other people express themselves, because they don't want to anyway. And it's fine if you want to curl up in your shell and stay there, because that's where you fucking belong.


I agree that no-one should be put in a box if they don't want to be there but I think you're misunderstanding the nature of introversion / extraversion within Jungian psychology. It's not about being shy / being loud (not all introverts are shy) - it's about how your brain works, what type of activity gratifies you. 

It made me realise I've spent a lot of time in my life trying to be something I'm not, trying to behave in ways that I find quite exhausting, and that there's nothing wrong with being the type of person I am. Our society tends to reward and champion extraverts and have an expectation of that type of behaviour. 

Myers Briggs can be surprisingly useful in analysing, for instance, why you struggle to work with a certain person or why some particular problems are happening in your relationship. And it can be abused - I know of a case in an organisation where I used to work where HR people were adamant that a person should not be appointed Director on the basis of her Myers Brigg type. And she got the job and was extremely successful at it.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> But half the questions are basically just, 'are you an introvert or an extrovert' so it's not really that impressive that they manage to put most people at the right end of that (imaginary) dichotomy.
> 
> The trick is not describing who you are. Nobody wants to know that. The trick is describing you _as you see yourself_. Hence shy people are told that it's in their nature to be shy and they should stay that way, while look-at-me types are told that it's entirely right and natural that they keep making themselves the centre of attention. It's fine if you don't want to let other people express themselves, because they don't want to anyway. And it's fine if you want to curl up in your shell and stay there, because that's where you fucking belong.



I'm not saying it's impressive that it pigeon holes me correctly, it's not, they are input->output tests. I was saying that it's not quite like horoscopes, where you could pick a description of any star sign and find it matches you, because there's no way an extrovert description would give me something I recognise as myself.
If you don't know what introvert/extrovert is then asking indirect questions is good to find out, no point in asking if someone is an introvert or an extrovert if they don't know what those terms mean. I don't think the dichotomy is imaginary but the other scales I don't get the difference really, I think being at an extreme end of the scale makes you see it differently than if you're towards the middle.

My experience is basically the opposite of your second paragraph, it gave me a lot more confidence to be out in social situations and not worry that I wasn't being hugely social, which in turn has meant I'm much more able to be social because I am at least in situations where socialising is possible. Also has meant that I'm now less introverted than I was because I could identify the behaviours I wanted to change more easily and understand more about where they come from in my mind.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2015)

you might as well appoint people to roles based on the I Ching, or a reading from a tarot deck


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> It made me realise I've spent a lot of time in my life trying to be something I'm not, trying to behave in ways that I find quite exhausting, and that there's nothing wrong with being the type of person I am. Our society tends to reward and champion extraverts and have an expectation of that type of behaviour.
> 
> Myers Briggs can be surprisingly useful in analysing, for instance, why you struggle to work with a certain person or why some particular problems are happening in your relationship. And it can be abused - I know of a case in an organisation where I used to work where HR people were adamant that a person should not be appointed Director on the basis of her Myers Brigg type. And she got the job and was extremely successful at it.



Now that you mention it I have noticed that all human conflict has pretty much ceased since these tests came along.

Sometimes I struggle to work with certain people because they're aresholes. Self-serving fucking arseholes. But there's no Meyers-Briggs type for that, there'll be a box they can put themselves in which makes them feel better about being an arsehole, but there's no box labelled 'arsehole'. Because all this stuff is about the individual, it's about reinforcing the illusion of the isolated self. So there's nothing in it which critiques selfishness or exploitation or anything like that. And why would there be, this shit was invented for managers after all.


----------



## Supine (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> And why is there no personality type called 'the arsehole' ?
> 
> I expect we've all met quite a few of them, more than enough to identify certain common personality traits which many of them share. But no, everyone is a 'mediator' or a 'protector' or a 'unicorn whisperer' or some shit. We're all just different kinds of wonderful. Especially our bosses who make us take these tests and then demand to know what sort of people we are because when you buy someone's time, you're entitled to know in the innermost workings of their soul.



The beauty of human variation is that you can be an arsehole wherever you end up on the myers briggs spectrum.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now that you mention it I have noticed that all human conflict has pretty much ceased since these tests came along.
> 
> Sometimes I struggle to work with certain people because they're aresholes. Self-serving fucking arseholes. But there's no Meyers-Briggs type for that, there'll be a box they can put themselves in which makes them feel better about being an arsehole, but there's no box labelled 'arsehole'. *Because all this stuff is about the individual*, it's about reinforcing the illusion of the isolated self. So there's nothing in it which critiques selfishness or exploitation or anything like that. And why would there be, this shit was invented for managers after all.



Nah, the Margeson-Mcann test I did for my current job is explicitly about teams, individuals do the test obviously but then they are put together to see what the spread of personality types is like in the team, it's not meant to be used to consider individuals, except in the context of whether a group of individuals will work as a team and what areas are lacking/need closer attention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

Supine said:


> The beauty of human variation is that you can be an arsehole wherever you end up on the myers briggs spectrum.



Which is why that spectrum is a crock of shit. There's no 'human decency' metric in it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Nah, the Margeson-Mcann test I did for my current job is explicitly about teams, individuals do the test obviously but then they are put together to see what the spread of personality types is like in the team, it's not meant to be used to consider individuals, except in the context of whether a group of individuals will work as a team and what areas are lacking/need closer attention.



That sounds incredibly fucking sinister to me.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now that you mention it I have noticed that all human conflict has pretty much ceased since these tests came along.
> 
> Sometimes I struggle to work with certain people because they're aresholes. Self-serving fucking arseholes. But there's no Meyers-Briggs type for that, there'll be a box they can put themselves in which makes them feel better about being an arsehole, but there's no box labelled 'arsehole'. Because all this stuff is about the individual, it's about reinforcing the illusion of the isolated self. So there's nothing in it which critiques selfishness or exploitation or anything like that. And why would there be, this shit was invented for managers after all.


Oh this is bollocks - you can believe in class exploitation and that people fall into different psychological types at the same time. You can be any one of the Myers Brigg types and still be an arsehole. I think you're viewing this entirely through the prism of how some companies use these tests rather than looking at whether they have anything useful to tell us outside of that context.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That sounds incredibly fucking sinister to me.


why?

Margerison-McCann Team Performance Wheel

This is the list of personality types - the test is basically a myers-brigg test overlaid with something else, I can't remember exactly what, it takes the 4 scales which are bascially myers-briggs and then does something like if you're strong I and strong T or strong E and weak F then you become type A or something like that.

So one of the things it is supposed to do is to show you who is the kind of person that is good at getting new ideas & starting new things, and who is good at making sure things get finished. If you only have people in the team who are good at starting new things then they need to be aware that there's no-one around to keep them on track and they need to work on ensuring they keep going on a task or project or whatever until it's done rather than getting distracted by new things, and/or you may need to hire someone who does fit that personality type.

You can reject the personality type stuff as bollocks but I don't see how it's sinister?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

BigTom said:


> You can reject the personality type stuff as bollocks but I don't see how it's sinister?



Because first they put you in a box then they decide what to do with you based on the colour of the box. Human lego. A fucking plague on that.


----------



## Supine (Oct 23, 2015)

The personality type stuff is valid I think. If used well by companies it can help people understand themselves and their colleagues better.

I have no doubt that it can be misused and for sinister purposes if a company needs a stick to beat you with.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 23, 2015)

Wankers scale!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

Supine said:


> The personality type stuff is valid I think. If used well by companies it can help people understand themselves and their colleagues better.
> 
> I have no doubt that it can be misused and for sinister purposes if a company needs a stick to beat you with.



That's just it isn't it. It's all about describing people in terms of where they should be in the context of 9-5 drudgery, not who they are as actual human beings. Whatever box they put you in, there's a place for you in the post-industrial service economy somewhere. Nobody need be excluded. Except for the poor and all those other people upon whose permanent exclusion from the Big Wheel Of Teamwork the whole fucking system is predicated.

What personality types are best suited to working ten hour shifts in a petrol station kiosk six days a week? What personal qualities best protect workers against hallucinating from sheer boredom, or developing chronic muscle pain from spending every day sat in the poor-quality chair that the well-oiled ideas machine of the human resources department chose because it was the second least-expensive option? Are introverts or extroverts better suited to getting kicked off their zero-hour contracts after six months so that the spokes of the McGillicuddy-Macclesfield Merry-Go-Round of Synergy don't have to give them any sick pay?

It's a legitimisation of a fundamentally shit lifestyle. A reinforcement of the idea that the place you are assigned by your betters is the place where the laws of nature always intended you to be. The content is irrelevant, the use to which that content is put is everything. It is always a stick to beat people with, that's all it fucking is. That's all any of this managment-theory shit ever is. Another rusty nail driven through the same old beating stick.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's just it isn't it. It's all about describing people in terms of where they should be in the context of 9-5 drudgery, not who they are as actual human beings.



If you look on the thousands of websites devoted to Myers Brigg I think you'll find far more of it is about who you might be compatible with sexually as how you should be manipulated in the workplace. 

It _can_ be used in the way you describe, yes. But certainly that's not the only way it's used organisationally. And you can also use it to help understand what makes you tick and that can be quite empowering on a personal level, free from the context of being a wage slave. 

And I'm sure you could use it as a tool to operate more effectively as a revolutionary cell as well as a customer services department.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2015)

I can usually figure out what sort of people my partners are by spending time with them and talking to them and stuff.

And I can scarcely avoid spending time with myself, so I've been able to build up a pretty good idea of what I'm like as well.

There's also a really good way of finding out if you're sexually compatible with someone. It's called shagging them and seeing if you enjoy it or not.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's just it isn't it. It's all about describing people in terms of where they should be in the context of 9-5 drudgery, not who they are as actual human beings. Whatever box they put you in, there's a place for you in the post-industrial service economy somewhere. Nobody need be excluded. Except for the poor and all those other people upon whose permanent exclusion from the Big Wheel Of Teamwork the whole fucking system is predicated.
> 
> What personality types are best suited to working ten hour shifts in a petrol station kiosk six days a week? What personal qualities best protect workers against hallucinating from sheer boredom, or developing chronic muscle pain from spending every day sat in the poor-quality chair that the well-oiled ideas machine of the human resources department chose because it was the second least-expensive option? Are introverts or extroverts better suited to getting kicked off their zero-hour contracts after six months so that the spokes of the McGillicuddy-Macclesfield Merry-Go-Round of Synergy don't have to give them any sick pay?
> 
> It's a legitimisation of a fundamentally shit lifestyle. A reinforcement of the idea that the place you are assigned by your betters is the place where the laws of nature always intended you to be. The content is irrelevant, the use to which that content is put is everything. It is always a stick to beat people with, that's all it fucking is. That's all any of this managment-theory shit ever is. Another rusty nail driven through the same old beating stick.



It's only in my current job that I've experienced these kind of tests in a work context and it wasn't used like that at all, before that it was all about things that helped me understand myself (not other people as your next post is about) so I'm not surprised we've got very different views on it tbh.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 10, 2018)

Bet you're all feeling pretty silly right now...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 10, 2018)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Bet you're all feeling pretty silly right now...


Why? Is Polaris in line with the Sun?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 10, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Why? Is Polaris in line with the Sun?



Just thinking of the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal and people who do online personality tests.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 10, 2018)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Just thinking of the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal and people who do online personality tests.


Did anyone here actually do this one? I doubt it. Most people were slagging Myers Briggs.

I'm not on Facebook myself, and never have been.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 10, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The last time I took it I got Twilight Sparkle.
> 
> View attachment 78388
> 
> It was the full scientific version I did, not one of those knock-off internet ones.





Jon-of-arc said:


> Bet you're all feeling pretty silly right now...



not in the slightest


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 10, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Did anyone here actually do this one? I doubt it. Most people were slagging Myers Briggs.
> 
> I'm not on Facebook myself, and never have been.



I have just skimmed the thread.  In amongst the slaggings were a bunch of people posting their "types".  

Anyway, my remark was tongue in cheek.  I've done a couple of silly FB quizzes in my time, and did an online mb a couple of weeks ago, just for shits and giggles.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 10, 2018)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I have just skimmed the thread.  In amongst the slaggings were a bunch of people posting their "types".
> 
> Anyway, my remark was tongue in cheek.  I've done a couple of silly FB quizzes in my time, and did an online mb a couple of weeks ago, just for shits and giggles.


I posted my type here:  myers briggs - what are you ?

OK, some people do seem to have done the test.  Probably they were made to vote Trump.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 25, 2021)

I just did this shortened Myers Briggs test and it came out with the same result as the long one, so thought I'd post it here to save anyone from wasting 20 minutes of their life:


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I just did this shortened Myers Briggs test and it came out with the same result as the long one, so thought I'd post it here to save anyone from wasting 20 minutes of their life:



Nah.  I’ve never had an “i” result in Myers Briggs. Always an “e” by a huge margin, and I was enormously unpopular at school. The maths one is wrong too, but my T/F score is less clear cut.  
I mean, I know it’s not entirely serious, and it’s not like I set a great store by M-B as having anything meaningful to say about what jobs people should do or whatever, but the longer test is fairly accurate about some elements of personality.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 25, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> the longer test is fairly accurate about some elements of personality.



So are star signs.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So are star signs.


While any typology scheme needs to come with a side-order of scepticism, MBTI has rather more to it than astrology


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2021)

I can't be arsed to read this thread but MBTI has _some_ use: as a means of encouraging thought about and empathy for different personality traits. As a means of self-definition it's a lot more questionable, astrology in a suit, and IME these characteristics are often highly contextual.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

INFP. I think it's most likely bollocks but it feels very true for me


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 25, 2021)

existentialist said:


> While any typology scheme needs to come with a side-order of scepticism, MBTI has rather more to it than astrology



Isn't it all made up? What evidence is there that people fall into distinct E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P groups? Don't most people have some aspects of one group and some aspects of another, thus falling in the middle? So the results on tests like this depend on the exact wording of the questions and what side they got out of bed that morning?


----------



## blairsh (Feb 25, 2021)

LMNOP


----------



## wayward bob (Feb 25, 2021)

intj iirc - whichever is the serial killer one?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 25, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> INFP. I think it's most likely bollocks but it feels very true for me


Exactly the same. The mediator.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Isn't it all made up? What evidence is there that people fall into distinct E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P groups? Don't most people have some aspects of one group and some aspects of another, thus falling in the middle? So the results on tests like this depend on the exact wording of the questions and what side they got out of bed that morning?


Try taking the test multiple times over 10 years and see if your theory holds true. That's what I did.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Isn't it all made up? What evidence is there that people fall into distinct E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P groups? Don't most people have some aspects of one group and some aspects of another, thus falling in the middle? So the results on tests like this depend on the exact wording of the questions and what side they got out of bed that morning?


The actual, full MBTI test has four scales, and you score a number on each scale, so it's not quite as "binary" as it seems.

For example (well, anecdote), I score 51/60 on the E scale,which fits quite accurately. For F/T, I score somewhere in the middle, and exhibit some mild T traits alongside mild F ones...in fact, I've moved from T to F over the last 20 years or so, but only quite mildly.


----------



## wayward bob (Feb 25, 2021)

i've only taken it once tbf, about 20(!) years ago.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 25, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Try taking the test multiple times over 10 years and see if your theory holds true. That's what I did.


Yep. I died one early on in my counselling degree, and came out as ENTP, but have become progressively more F as my training continued, which maps very neatly on to what I see in my self-development. Amusingly, TEFKAME always would insist that I was still a T, because she was rather keen to keep her F a monopoly (she's INFP).

I always seem to go for introverts, but am curious to find out how I'd function in a relationship with another E.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

Teenagers scores change as they develop but adults personality types are more fixed. My eldest changed from an I to an E in the last few years which was no surprise given what I know about him, how his confidence has grown and how involved in debates and societies he's become.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Isn't it all made up? What evidence is there that people fall into distinct E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P groups? Don't most people have some aspects of one group and some aspects of another, thus falling in the middle? So the results on tests like this depend on the exact wording of the questions and what side they got out of bed that morning?


Very much this.  Also, there are differing cultural awarenesses of what tests are and what the purpose of this test is that also systematically affect the responses.

The idea that we have stable, context-free attributes and attitudes is highly dubious as at best and serves unpleasant ideological purposes at its worst


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 25, 2021)

It’s still a load of absolutely meaningless pseudoscientific twaddle.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 25, 2021)

existentialist said:


> Yep. I died one early on in my counselling degree, and came out as ENTP, but have become progressively more F as my training continued, which maps very neatly on to what I see in my self-development. Amusingly, TEFKAME always would insist that I was still a T, because she was rather keen to keep her F a monopoly (she's INFP).



As far as I can tell, all the research shows that F and T are entirely separate - i.e. you can be lots of both or not much of either. There's no evidence that it's an either/or thing as this test asserts.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Try taking the test multiple times over 10 years and see if your theory holds true. That's what I did.


It has varied wildly for me when I did this.

If it has remained stable for you, that says as much about the stable context within which you took the test and stability of the culture that has formed your understanding of what the questions mean as it says about any existence of essential underlying personal attitudes.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s still a load of absolutely meaningless pseudoscientific twaddle.


See..fixed


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It has varied wildly for me when I did this.
> 
> If it has remained stable for you, that says as much about the stable context within which you took the test and stability of the culture that has formed your understanding of what the questions mean as it says about any existence of essential underlying personal attitudes.


What do you mean by stable context? 
It is interesting that yours have changed, do you recall which ones changed?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> As far as I can tell, all the research shows that F and T are entirely separate - i.e. you can be lots of both or not much of either. There's no evidence that it's an either/or thing as this test asserts.


Like I said, it needs to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt, but I don't think it's completely useless. Having said that, it's not something I'd ever use in my therapeutic practice, although I do sometimes explore the introvert/extrovert thing with clients.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> What do you mean by stable context?



To answer this, it's probably best to start by describing why the underlying conceptualisation of MBTI is flawed.  Its model is of humans is as contained, self-sufficient, individual "monads", entire unto themselves, who come complete with stable attitudes that they then then _bring to_ each context.  It thus imagines social contexts as a collection of these pre-formed monads, who play out interactions driven by the stable attributes they have brought.

There are a lot of reasons why this kind of model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I'm going to illustrate in a minute one of these ways using the way MBTI works.

An alternative view of humanity is that the fundamental unit is not the _individual _but the_ relationship_.  You are born into a system of relationships and from that moment on, you are never not in some kind of relationship.  You rely on these relationships to survive and to thrive.  It's the primary evolutionary characteristic of the human -- no other animal, for example could coordinate to carry a wardrobe between them around a corner but humans can do this kind of thing without even speaking.  We understand the world _through_ our relationships, they are not layered on top.  It isn't that _we bring_ ourselves as individuals to a context, it is the context _that determines_ who we are.

There are a lot of ways in which this understanding of humanity has been interpreted.  One is the idea that we have common-sense, shared notions of complex social concepts in terms things like the values and behaviours that underlie them; the sharing of these common-sense notions is what allows coherence within a society (and vice versa where those notions are not shared).  Another is that we have multiple social identities in terms of the groups we self-categorise as belonging to, and those social identities come with understandings of how somebody in a group like that would behave and think.  The way we behave will depend on which social identity is salient at a given time.  Another related interpretation is that society contains roles that we perform, such as the role of "woman".

So let's look at MBTI.  A typical question might be something like "I enjoy parties", rated on a scale of 1 to 5.  The higher the score, the higher the E rating.

But what is actually happening when you read that question?  the first thing is that you have to interpret "parties".  This has various cultural implications.  The question setter had one thing in mind but you bring your own interpretation when you read that question.  Maybe to you, "parties" are massive raves.  Maybe they are dinner parties.  This will affect how you interpret the question.  This is why the culture through which you understand the test will affect the result.

But something more fundamental is happening too.  As you read "parties", this triggers the salience of some social identity, and which identity is triggered will depend on your recent experience, the context within which you are answering the test and so on.  It may be that your recent context is having been to dinner parties and so when you read "parties", that's what you think.  But did you put it on or attend?  If you put it on, was it within the context of a heterosexual relationship in which you were the woman and thus ended up doing a lot of the work?  If so, reading the question may trigger the memory of performing "woman" in the context of the setting of a dinner party and maybe this is _not_ something you enjoyed.  But this had nothing to do with the stable attribute of "extraversion", it was all to do with the labour expected of women in entertaining at home.

Or maybe you play in a band and the "musician" identity has been made salient by reading "parties", because you tend to play at parties.  When you perform "musician", it involves playing the part of somebody having fun and so this is what is salient for your positioning with respect to parties.  This doesn't give you a stable "extraversion", however, it just means that you are thinking about performing that role.

Now it gets worse, because these identities have been made salient are still salient as you read the next question.  Plus, of course, whatever the situation is under which you are performing the test provides in itself the salience of a particular identity.

So you end up with ISTJ, for example, and what does this actually tell you?  It tells you that the situation under which you performed the test plus your current social contexts that mediate how you interpret questions result in the salience of various social identities under which you will perform roles consistent with the ISTJ rating.  What it _doesn't _tell you is that there is some kind of essential, stable attiribute external to your relationship systems that will somehow be ISTJ regardless of context.


----------



## Chilli.s (Feb 25, 2021)

If you are special then you don't have to do any tests anymore.


----------



## muscovyduck (Feb 25, 2021)

I like the idea it gets people reflecting on themselves (same reason I like horoscopes and tarot) but don't like the idea that most people have static personalities in any way. I'm more likely to push back against this sort of thing because due to a mix of being a woman, a bit foreign, disabled and from a 'rough' background, I'm constantly getting pigeonholed and labelled into certain roles and personality traits. They don't have to be offensive or even false for it to be damaging.


----------



## Elpenor (Feb 25, 2021)

I have done the online test for fun a few times. ISTJ till I die it seems


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 25, 2021)

The particular problem with the Myers Briggs test is that unlike typical metrics used by clinicians to e.g. diagnose personality disorders, the MBTI is a registered trade mark of the Myers & Briggs Foundation whose sole purpose is to produce propaganda to promote the use of the test. There's also the Center for Application of Psychological Type and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Research Awards both funded for the same purpose.

Regardless of the fact the scientific basis of the test is flawed, its creators have ensured that it's not going to die easily.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 25, 2021)

muscovyduck said:


> I like the idea it gets people reflecting on themselves (same reason I like horoscopes and tarot) but don't like the idea that most people have static personalities in any way. I'm more likely to push back against this sort of thing because due to a mix of being a woman, a bit foreign, disabled and from a 'rough' background, I'm constantly getting pigeonholed and labelled into certain roles and personality traits. They don't have to be offensive or even false for it to be damaging.


Exactly this - I've found it helpful for reflecting on what I am good / bad at (or perhaps rather what I find difficult and easy) - and actually when done in a work context it gives you permission to be different to each other and have different strengths without any one categorisation being seen as bad or weaker than the others. This contrasts with a more usual HR approach to forcing round pegs into square holes through trying to get you to 'work on' your weaknesses.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 25, 2021)

Every time I've done one of those tests, I got INTP.



kabbes said:


> To answer this, it's probably best to start by describing why the underlying conceptualisation of MBTI is flawed.  Its model is of humans is as contained, self-sufficient, individual "monads", entire unto themselves, who come complete with stable attitudes that they then then _bring to_ each context.  It thus imagines social contexts as a collection of these pre-formed monads, who play out interactions driven by the stable attributes they have brought.



Who says the described attributes are stable? No MBTI test that I've ever taken has made the claim that its results are unchanging over the life time of every individual who takes it. Because that's obviously not true.



kabbes said:


> An alternative view of humanity is that the fundamental unit is not the _individual _but the_ relationship_. You are born into a system of relationships and from that moment on, you are never not in some kind of relationship. You rely on these relationships to survive and to thrive. It's the primary evolutionary characteristic of the human -- no other animal, for example could coordinate to carry a wardrobe between them around a corner but humans can do this kind of thing without even speaking. We understand the world _through_ our relationships, they are not layered on top. It isn't that _we bring_ ourselves as individuals to a context, it is the context _that determines_ who we are.



Why not _both?_ Different individuals in the same kind of relationship will behave differently, for various reasons. Humans are not interchangeable in the same way that nuts and bolts are.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> To answer this, it's probably best to start by describing why the underlying conceptualisation of MBTI is flawed.  Its model is of humans is as contained, self-sufficient, individual "monads", entire unto themselves, who come complete with stable attitudes that they then then _bring to_ each context.  It thus imagines social contexts as a collection of these pre-formed monads, who play out interactions driven by the stable attributes they have brought.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why this kind of model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I'm going to illustrate in a minute one of these ways using the way MBTI works.
> 
> ...


Hmm interesting, thanks for taking the time to explain that. But why then would some people's interpretation of the questions change over time  and some remain the same?...or similar enough to get the same result each time they take the test? It feels like everyone's results should change over time  I definitely thought when I first took the test - that if I were to take it again, it would change. So I'm curious as to why it hasn't.

Fwiw I love parties, especially ones where we get to talk about things like this   If my love of parties made me an extrovert on this test I'd be even more dubious as my understanding is that it's less about what you do and more about how you feel and recharge after. I can love a social event but afterwards I'm wiped, whereas my extrovert friends are positively recharged by the event itself.

As existentialist said, these tests should of course be taken with a pinch of salt but they can be fun and interesting imo.


----------



## maomao (Feb 25, 2021)

I took it (and am apparently a _mediator_) but reading the results felt like reading a horoscope. Same kind of 'part of this sentence will make make you feel happy about yourself' language.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Who says the described attributes are stable? No MBTI test that I've ever taken has made the claim that its results are unchanging over the life time of every individual who takes it. Because that's obviously not true.


 They may admit that there is a gradual shift in attributes but the whole basis of its use is that there is stability within a short-term time-frame.  What I'm saying is that the results are dependent on context and cultural interpretation, and that this means there is no stability of attributes even within a single day.  Note that this doesn't mean you won't get the same results from the test every time you take it (i.e. the test is reliable) -- every time you take the test, you may well have stability of the context through which you are mediating the questions.  However, reliablilty is not the same as ecological validity -- you may get the same result but that doesn't make the result _useful and applicable_. 



> Why not _both?_ Different individuals in the same kind of relationship will behave differently, for various reasons. Humans are not interchangeable in the same way that nuts and bolts are.


First, let me say that of course different individuals behave differently.  They bring with them a vast variety of past experiences that have forged different understandings, different identities, different interpretations.  None of this essentialises the attributes, however, or even suggests that attitudes would be stable in different contexts.  And that's the basis of the "monad" approach to individuals that underlies the model of MBTI.  So no, you can't have both -- you can't on the one hand postulate stable attitudes and on the other say that there is cultural mediation of how events are interpreted.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Hmm interesting, thanks for taking the time to explain that. But why then would some people's interpretation of the questions change over time  and some remain the same?...or similar enough to get the same result each time they take the test? It feels like everyone's results should change over time  I definitely thought when I first took the test - that if I were to take it again, it would change. So I'm curious as to why it hasn't.


Every time you take the test, for a start it is in the context of you taking a test.  This not only makes salient a particular type of identity (you could call it a "studious" identity, I suppose) but also provides a cultural touchstone, because you have a lifetime of understanding what it means to do a test, which will influence how you interpret each question.   Most people are doing it at work too, in which their worker identity is the most salient.  These factors in themselves will provide stabiity in the result.  It's not stability of result that matters, though, if that result isn't useful in the real world..



> Fwiw I love parties, especially ones where we get to talk about things like this   If my love of parties made me an extrovert on this test I'd be even more dubious as my understanding is that it's less about what you do and more about how you feel and recharge after. I can love a social event but afterwards I'm wiped, whereas my extrovert friends are positively recharged by the event itself.


 Well, it was just an example but my recall is that they do have a question along the lines of "I love going to parties" and that does feed their extroversion score.  But the accuracy of the example isn't really the point -- it's the nature of how context and salience of identity and the performance of roles has more of an impact on how you answer these questions than does some idea of stable attitude or personality type.

And when you say "you love parties", I'm pretty sure you have in mind what a "party" is that is not necessarily the same thing as what everybody else will think when they read that word.  In some cases, it might even be wildly different.  



> As existentialist said, these tests should of course be taken with a pinch of salt but they can be fun and interesting imo.


Things can be interesting and they can be dangerous depending on whose hands they are in and what they are being used for.  For example, MBTI is commonly used in recruitment, regardless of whether or not the company promotes such use -- that's dangerous.  And this happens because of the promotion of a narrative of isolated, separated individuals who are entire unto themselves and can be understood in that way isolated from context.  I think that's a dangerous ideology that needs to be recognised and challenged, not matter how much fun it can be to be given a horoscope MBTI score.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 25, 2021)

i did the test and it says i am TWAT. dunno what that means. havent seen anyone else get those letters.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> They may admit that there is a gradual shift in attributes but the whole basis of its use is that there is stability within a short-term time-frame.  What I'm saying is that the results are dependent on context and cultural interpretation, and that this means there is no stability of attributes even within a single day.  Note that this doesn't mean you won't get the same results from the test every time you take it (i.e. the test is reliable) -- every time you take the test, you may well have stability of the context through which you are mediating the questions.  However, reliablilty is not the same as eceological validity -- you may get the same result but that doesn't make the result _useful and applicable_.



I agree that consistency of results is not sufficient to establish the effectiveness of MBTI. I do think that the reliability of results _does_ blow a massive hole in the notion that the "context" changes so radically within a short time frame.

As for cultural interpretations, I'm pretty sure that both the folks formulating and answering the questions overwhelmingly tend to be Westerners, so I don't think such differences apply in most cases.



> First, let me say that of course different individuals behave differently.  They bring with them a vast variety of past experiences that have forged different understandings, different identities, different interpretations.  None of this essentialises the attributes, however, or even suggests that attitudes would be stable in different contexts.  And that's the basis of the "monad" approach to individuals that underlies the model of MBTI.  So no, you can't have both -- you can't on the one hand postulate stable attitudes and on the other say that there is cultural mediation of how events are interpreted.



If people can shift from INTP to something else then that's not essentialised, is it? People fall into and out of ways of thinking and doing things in the long term.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 25, 2021)

NoXion -- I've laid out the theoretical underpinnings of my thinking on this and I'm not sure there is much more for me to usefully add without turning it into a full series of academic references, which doesn't sound fun.  However, it strikes me that it might be helpful to illustrate what I mean when I say that context can be crucial to the salience of identity and thus the way the answers will be given.  Imagine somebody answering the MBTI questions under three different scenarios:

As part of a recruitment process, knowing that the results will be scrutinized by a recruitment psychologist.  The individual has been sent into an empty room with a booklet containing the questions and an answer sheet to complete by filling in the blobs with an HB pencil.  They will speak to nobody until they have finished.
Completing a test online because they have an interest in what this test says about their personality.  They've heard that it has some science behind it but nothing more than that and it's not for any particular purpose.  They are completing it by ticking boxes on a phone whilst sitting in the living room with family around, but not directly interacting.  The TV is on in the background.
Sitting/lying with their partner whilst in bed on a Sunday morning.  Their partner is reading the questions out from "Hiya!" magazine.  Both are discussing the answers and laughing about them as they do it.  The couple have been together for six months.
I suggest to you that the answers the individual will give in each case are likely to be different and, in many cases, materially so.  You could interpret that as intentionally lying, which may play a part.  But aside from any deception, they will give different answers in any case because different elements of their identity are salient in each case, and the cultural interpretation of the scenarios presented are affected by the environment within which they are answering.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 26, 2021)

In 2016 I was amazed when a senior manager actually *asked *me my MB score and then questioned that I actually *was *INTJ.
I wonder why he assumed I might have done the test ...
(he was from NZ, had worked for the UN and was some sort of Christian ...)

Randomly the other day I again tested over 60 percent Aspie..
I've worked with *engineers *so have an idea of what _*that *_looks like ...

WALOB

Given my problems answering psych test questions it might as well be astrology.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Feb 26, 2021)

INFP-T FWIW


----------



## Argonia (Feb 27, 2021)

INTJ


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 27, 2021)

Can't remember what mine was - have completed it a couple of times I think.  It's all bollocks anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2021)

discokermit said:


> i did the test and it says i am TWAT.



Even a stopped clock and all that.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Can't remember what mine was - have completed it a couple of times I think.  It's all bollocks anyway.


I think there's a special scale for people who like seagulls


----------



## magneze (Feb 27, 2021)

Near to Ghandi or something?


----------



## Doodler (Feb 27, 2021)

All the 16 categories have very flattering names: the Architect, the Commander, the Thinker etc. Everyone's a winner! You're amazing! Yeah right.

At least the Big 5/OCEAN model of personality allows you to be disagreeable, neurotic and closed-minded.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 28, 2021)

I hate the Myers Briggs test. You put in what you feel about yourself and gives you exactly what you put in with fancy labels. If you think of yourself as a rational/logical no nonsense type then it tells you are. If you think of yourself as a touchy feely people person it tells you you are. It offers no insight and flatters your own self perception which was probably just your ego speaking anyway.

Contra to what Kabbes is saying above, I think it's reasonable to assume that there are fairly stable personality traites a person may have and if they are context sensitive that's a caveat that can be discussed. The problem with Myers Briggs is really basic - it has no empirical basis (except perhaps for the introvert/extrovert axis which is considered to be the least important one anyway). It's Jungian deep insights into the workings of the human brain. Or in other words it's just made up stuff. And the outcome of the test with its simple block categories with no spectrums or subcategories are a symptom of the fact that it is not empirically based. Real people are obviously more complex than this, they aren't just one of 16 "types".

The reason that is looks like complete bollocks is that it is complete bollocks.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Contra to what Kabbes is saying above, I think it's reasonable to assume that there are fairly stable personality traites a person may have


You can’t say this and then say they are context dependent, because that’s not what “stable” means.  They are either stable from context to context or they are mediated by that context.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 28, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The reason that is looks like complete bollocks is that it is complete bollocks.


Absolutely this. They have no merit or basis in any kind of proven science. An utter waste of time.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 28, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You can’t say this and then say they are context dependent, because that’s not what “stable” means.  They are either stable from context to context or they are mediated by that context.



Stable is a relative not an absolute. Looking at the OCEAN model, you might say someone is open minded about eg. their food choices in general and I think that's valid even if in certain contexts they might not be - perhaps after a particularly bad allergic reaction. I don't think we're looking at a fundamental flaw, just something that needs a more nuanced consideration.

Obviously Briggs Myers doesn't allow for nuanced considerations as it's about finding a box for you to fit into.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 28, 2021)

KNOB


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2021)

I totally agree with you about Myers Briggs.  Whichever angle you come at it from, it has serious conceptual problems.

The problem with the idea of things like OCEAN, though (and even more with MBTI) is that it places ideas like "preference" and "attitudes" entirely within the individual rather than in the situation, the relationships within the system containing that situation and the nature of the cultural tools that individual has absorbed in order to interpret a given situation.  Even to say that somebody is "open minded about food" makes a whole host of assumptions about common-sense and cultural notions of what food is, the context food is eaten in, who food is eaten with, how it is cooked and so on.  "Open-minded" is almost certainly bounded within those notions, so it isn't really about the individual being "open-minded" as a static property of that individual, it's about what the range of cultural contexts are that contain the pre-requisite level of contextual affinity for that individual.


----------



## Edie (Feb 28, 2021)

Great posts kabbes


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2021)

Edie said:


> Great posts kabbes


Thank you!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 28, 2021)

weltweit said:


> Apparently at the moment I am a ESFJ-A which is odd because I am pretty sure I have never been one of those when I took the tests before.


Just looked at their summary of ESFJ-A, a "Consul" apparently. It definitely isn't me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 28, 2021)

RIP Myers Briggs. He was one of the great characters in Coronation Street, during what I thought of as its golden age.  I watched for decades, but when he and the Duckworths were gone, they took a turn towards Eastenders type sensationalism and I lost interest.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2021)

I liked the Duckworths crossover with Lewis in which they had to come up with a way to settle rain-affected cricket matches


----------



## Doodler (Feb 28, 2021)

Briggs Myers is probably slightly more informative than asking someone what their star sign is. Hans Eysenck believed there was something to the former, but then again he  thought people who were cancer-prone were more likely to become smokers.

Big 5's traits at least seem clearly defined and therefore should be falsifiable. If archivists score low on conscientiousness and high on extraversion and timeshare sales reptiles show the opposite pattern, something's up.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 28, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I totally agree with you about Myers Briggs.  Whichever angle you come at it from, it has serious conceptual problems.
> 
> The problem with the idea of things like OCEAN, though (and even more with MBTI) is that it places ideas like "preference" and "attitudes" entirely within the individual rather than in the situation, the relationships within the system containing that situation and the nature of the cultural tools that individual has absorbed in order to interpret a given situation.  Even to say that somebody is "open minded about food" makes a whole host of assumptions about common-sense and cultural notions of what food is, the context food is eaten in, who food is eaten with, how it is cooked and so on.  "Open-minded" is almost certainly bounded within those notions, so it isn't really about the individual being "open-minded" as a static property of that individual, it's about what the range of cultural contexts are that contain the pre-requisite level of contextual affinity for that individual.



I don't see OCEAN as placing preferences and attitudes entirely within the individual, and if it does it's a quick fix to change it. You can view it as how the individual tends to act in a world in its various contexts. In answering a question about how open minded about food you are, you could compare yourself with others of similar background in similar cooking contexts and make some reasonable sense of the question.


----------



## campanula (Feb 28, 2021)

I am a logician (apparently) which qualifies me to call bullshit...or at best, a very blunt instrument to batter at the conceptual walls of our desire to name and categorise.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Absolutely this. They have no merit or basis in any kind of proven science. An utter waste of time.


I said it was complete bollocks (or words to that effect) in front of a training bod at work.  Don't think it went down too well.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I don't see OCEAN as placing preferences and attitudes entirely within the individual, and if it does it's a quick fix to change it. You can view it as how the individual tends to act in a world in its various contexts. In answering a question about how open minded about food you are, you could compare yourself with others of similar background in similar cooking contexts and make some reasonable sense of the question.


I’m alright with that, actually.  I’ll buy the idea that within a given context, people will have had different past  experiences that could (if you had perfect information) provide a level of predictability as to how they would then individually react to a novel situation.  I think that the label of “personality” is unhelpful for this predictability, not least because it implies common-sense characteristics for the way it works that I don’t see any reason to think are true (such as innateness or essentialism or being static or context-free).  However, there is not nothing.


----------



## savoloysam (Feb 28, 2021)

INFJ - (same result after doing the test twice, months apart)

Apparently we are only supossed to make 1% but  when I was on twitter all i saw was INFJ so fuck knows what is going down there.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 4, 2021)

This looks interesting - a film about the dodgy nature of this shite.









						'They become dangerous tools': the dark side of personality tests
					

In the documentary Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests, the discriminatory nature of a widely used tool is put under the microscope




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> INFP. I think it's most likely bollocks but it feels very true for me


You, me and Mation have the same four letters, what other four letters do we have in common? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2021)

Apparently I'm a diplomat.

Something I'm sure every fucking cunt on these boards will agree with.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> You, me and Mation have the same four letters, what other four letters do we have in common? 🤷‍♂️


Dick


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Dick


? Was just thinking that there may be something in it after all, but that it also may be a stick to beat us with too.
ETA - d’oh you were just answering my question


----------



## Mation (Mar 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> You, me and Mation have the same four letters, what other four letters do we have in common? 🤷‍♂️


Am relieved to see that my previous post on this thread reflected my feeling that this is a horoscope, in which we see lots of generic things and thence recognise them.

However. Yeah


----------



## Mation (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Dick


Wrong thread/post?

e2a: like them/have one?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2021)

Mation said:


> Wrong thread/post?


Four letters innit


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Yeah sorry...was just joking...should have written D I C K


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 4, 2021)

Mine always used to come out as ENTJ  . Most assessment centres I've gone through have mix and matched M-B,   Belbin , WAVE or OCEAN with observed role play things like negotiations, project planning or simulations. One of the things that I did change on over the years was sensing/intuition


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Mation said:


> Am relieved to see that my previous post on this thread reflected my feeling that this is a horoscope, in which we see lots of generic things and thence recognise them.
> 
> However. Yeah


I agree mostly with this TBF...but I will say that I've correctly predicted friends having the same outcome to this as I have. Infp's I get on v well with. 
Meh who knows.


----------



## Mation (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Yeah sorry...was just joking...should have written D I C K


Stop embarrassing me by leaving off the very potentially correct related-to-sex options


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Mation said:


> Stop embarrassing me by leaving off the very potentially correct not-related-to-sex options


Ok ok we all like dicks


----------



## Mation (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Ok ok we all like dicks


'scuse my erroneous 'not'. 

I think. Confused now.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Mation said:


> 'scuse my erroneous 'not'.
> 
> I think. Confused now.


Me too   (((cwtch)))


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2021)

Clair De Lune said:


> Ok ok we all like dicks


I only like one!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> I only like one!


It's the only one you've tried though I'm guessing


----------



## Mation (Mar 4, 2021)

Myers Briggs ADHD Takeover Massive! (Or the other way round!)

(And other things young people [used to?] say!)


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> You, me and Mation have the same four letters, what other four letters do we have in common? 🤷‍♂️



When I did it at school I came out as INFP as well.

[I would expect to find patterns in this sort of test even if it is reflecting self image rather than anything deep.]


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

The annoying thing is is that I've remembered that from three decades ago. It's like it's imprinted a stamp on me that I can't remove.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The annoying thing is is that I've remembered that from three decades ago. It's like it's imprinted a stamp on me that I can't remove.


There is a strand of social psychology that argues we now understand who we are through the lens of psychological academic frameworks.  In this way, psychology has _created_ the contemporary human rather than described it.  What you mention here would be a good example -- you experienced a self-definition that created a way of understanding yourself that then left an imprint.  It's hard to know to what extent that then created who you are now.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

kabbes said:


> There is a strand of social psychology that argues we now understand who we are through the lens of psychological academic frameworks.  In this way, psychology has _created_ the contemporary human rather than described it.  What you mention here would be a good example -- you experienced a self-definition that created a way of understanding yourself that then left an imprint.  It's hard to know to what extent that then created who you are now.



I think that's exactly what has happened. It's exactly what Myers Briggs is designed to do with it's iconic descriptions for each of its categories.

I'm really sceptical about people's self-reported descriptions of themselves. There's all sorts of social pressures to see yourself in a certain way. My old boss once described herself as a very human touchy/feely type who was bad with facts and figures. This was after she had antagonised everybody but got all her team stats right and had analysed them sensibly. I think gender stereotypes play a role in these biases.


----------



## Dandred (Mar 5, 2021)

Commander, bollocks.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

weepiper said:


> ISFJ, I have always come out this whenever I've taken the tests and I certainly recognise a lot of myself in the description.





8115 said:


> ISFJ (defender). I think that's actually quite accurate.



#MeToo

Out of curiousity weepiper & 8115 did you find yourself thinking 'it depends' or 'I don't give a fuck' for quite a few of these questions and answering neutrally?   



platinumsage said:


> I just did this shortened Myers Briggs test and it came out with the same result as the long one, so thought I'd post it here to save anyone from wasting 20 minutes of their life:




Yep still ISFJ


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

I got ENFP - - " idealist in the workplace ...free spirit on the dance floor " supposedly.  Fist bump  Orang Utan Mation and Miss Caphat


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> ISFJ




Many ISFJs channel their caring nature through religious organizations.


*St. Teresa* of Avila. source
*Pope Francis*. source
*Mother Teresa*, Catholic nun and missionary. source
*Clara Barton*, U.S. nurse and founder of American Red Cross. source
*Rosa Parks*, U.S. civil rights activist. source




Some ISFJs find it easiest to express their devotion to others and their community through music.


*Aretha Franklin*, U.S. singer. source
*Barbra Streisand*, U.S. singer and actress. source
*Beyonce*, U.S. singer and dancer. source
*Kenny Chesney*, U.S. country musician. source
*Brian May*, English guitarist and astrophysicist. source
*Selena Gomez*, U.S. singer and actor. source
*Sarah Brightman*, English singer. source
*Dr. Dre*, U.S. rapper and producer. source
*Michael Grimm*, U.S. blues musician. source
*50 Cent*, U.S. rapper. source
*Jessica Simpson*, U.S. singer and actress. source
*Kendrick Lamar*, U.S. rapper. source





*William Howard Taft*, U.S. President and Supreme Court Justice. source
*Jimmy Carter*, U.S. President. source
*Bess Truman*, U.S. First Lady. source
*Barbara Bush*, U.S. First Lady. source
*Laura Bush*, U.S. First Lady. source
*George Marshall*, U.S. general and Secretary of State and Defense. source
*Mary I*, Queen of England. source
*Prince Charles* of Great Britain. source
*Kate Middleton*, Duchess of Cambridge. source
*Gordon Brown*, Prime Minister of Great Britain. source
*Mary*, Princess of Denmark. source
*Rand Paul*, U.S. senator and presidential candidate. source
*Heinrich Himmler*, Nazi minister of the interior. source


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

ska invita said:


> I got ENFP - - " idealist in the workplace ...free spirit on the dance floor " supposedly.  Fist bump  Orang Utan Mation and Miss Caphat



ENFPs in politics tend to be idealists, and it can be a struggle for them to make their ideas work through traditional politics.


*Fidel Castro*, Cuban revolutionary. source
*Che Guevara*, Cuban revolutionary. source
*James Dobson*, U.S. evangelical leader. source
*Rachel Maddow*, U.S. talk show host and author. source
*Mahmoud Ahmadinejad*, Iranian president. source
*Julian Assange*, Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder. source
*Katie Couric*, U.S. journalist and talk show host. source
*Muammar Gaddafi*, Libyan revolutionary. source





ENFP musicians have a strong lyrical, creative strain in their work.


*John Lennon,*, English musician. source
*Bob Dylan*, U.S. musician. source


*Bruce Springsteen*, U.S. rocker. source
*Gwen Stefani*, U.S. singer and designer. source
*Cher*, U.S. singer and actress. source
*Ozzy Osbourne*, English heavy metal musician. source
*Janis Joplin*, U.S. musician. source
*Justin Timberlake*, U.S. singer and actor. source
*Franz Joseph Haydn*, Austrian composer. source
*Joan Jett*, U.S. musician. source
*Jewel*, U.S. singer-songwriter. source
*Melissa Etheridge*, U.S. musician. source



ENFP authors are some of the most wildly creative, one-of-a-kind voices in literature.


*Charles Dickens*, English author. source
*Hunter S. Thompson*, U.S. gonzo journalist. source
*Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss)*, U.S. children’s book author. source
*Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)*, U.S. journalist and author. source
*Anne Frank*, German-Jewish diarist. source
*Anais Nin*, French diarist and author. source
*Kurt Vonnegut*, U.S. novelist. source
*Bill Bryson*, U.S. author. source


----------



## kabbes (Mar 5, 2021)

You know  that they have just made up a preference type for those people, right?  They never actually did a test. It’s confirmation bias and begging the question at its finest.  Mother Theresa must have been an ISFJ because of being caring. Look, ISFJs are caring just like Mother Theresa.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You know  that they have just made up a preference type for those people, right?  It’s confirmation bias and being the question at its finest.  Mother Theresa must have been an ISFJ because of being caring. Look, ISFJs are caring just like Mother Theresa.


 You mean I am really not NEARLY worse than Hitler?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> ENFPs in politics tend to be idealists, and it can be a struggle for them to make their ideas work through traditional politics.
> 
> 
> *Fidel Castro*, Cuban revolutionary. source
> ...


yes my people!
come in Justin timberlake


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You know  that they have just made up a preference type for those people, right?  They never actually did a test. It’s confirmation bias and begging the question at its finest.  Mother Theresa must have been an ISFJ because of being caring. Look, ISFJs are caring just like Mother Theresa.


errrr, no
according to 16 Personality Types website Spider Man is ENFP - they couldnt make that one up, so nice try

Indisputable picture evidence


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Many ISFJs channel their caring nature through religious organizations.
> 
> 
> *St. Teresa* of Avila. source
> ...


*50 Cent* lol


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

ska invita said:


> yes my people!
> come in Justin timberlake




 Uncanny


----------



## 8ball (Mar 5, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You know  that they have just made up a preference type for those people, right?  They never actually did a test. It’s confirmation bias and begging the question at its finest.  Mother Theresa must have been an ISFJ because of being caring. Look, ISFJs are caring just like Mother Theresa.



That’s the sort of thing I’d expect an INTJ to say.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Uncanny


i feel both understood and validated


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> ENFPs in politics tend to be idealists, and it can be a struggle for them to make their ideas work through traditional politics.
> 
> 
> *Fidel Castro*, Cuban revolutionary. source
> ...


You’re better than all of those dickheads, Rutita1


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> You’re better than all of those dickheads, Rutita1



That's not me babes that's you, mation, & ska 

I got Heinrich Himmler and Mother Teresa.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Many ISFJs channel their caring nature through religious organizations.
> 
> 
> *St. Teresa* of Avila. source
> ...


oh gosh that list  Heidrich Himmler ffs!  As if Barbara Bush wasnt bad enough they put Laura Bush on there for good measure  who came up with that!! The ISFJ write up sounds amazing though - a defender of the people.
Fuck that list!!


( *Sarah Brightman* )


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> That's not me babes that's you, mation, & ska
> 
> I got Heinrich Himmler and Mother Teresa.


That’s what I meant!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

ska invita said:


> oh gosh that list  Heidrich Himmler ffs!  As if Barbara Bush wasnt bad enough they put Laura Bush on there for good measure  who came up with that!! The ISFJ write up sounds amazing though - a defender of the people.
> Fuck that list!!
> 
> 
> ( *Sarah Brightman*,   )


It's all cool...I will channel Rosa and Aretha


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 5, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That’s what I meant!



Oh.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 5, 2021)

ENTJs
 Cersei Lannister 
Maximus Decimus Meridius
Cristiano Ronaldo
George Clooney
Nick Nolte
Veronica Mars

I might have handpicked a few but I think they sum me up adequately


----------



## Knotted (Mar 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You know  that they have just made up a preference type for those people, right?  They never actually did a test. It’s confirmation bias and begging the question at its finest.  Mother Theresa must have been an ISFJ because of being caring. Look, ISFJs are caring just like Mother Theresa.



At least with astrology you can't just make up someone's star sign to fit the character type.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 24, 2021)

Apparently I’m a lover not a fighter


----------



## Knotted (Mar 24, 2021)

Nevermind doing the tests, let's just work it out by the descriptions - which are just elaborations on the questions anyway. We're not measuring personality, we're working out what job market D&D character we are.

The introverted/extroverted axis, I think is a real thing. Personally I'm definitely an I not an E.

The intuiting/sensing thing is basically asking whether you fit in with the stereotype of daydreaming thinker, or hands dirty practical type. You might well find yourself fitting one of these stereotypes but
1) Society tends to pressurise you in to seeing yourself as one of the above because it relates to division of labour.
2) In practice you will find yourself being one or the other depending on the situation and there's no actual contradiction between the two stereotypes.

The thinking/feeling thing is just this stupid argument between Spock and Bones on Star Trek that I always hated. Again two stereotypes. Same trouble as N/S (you can be sentimental and apply cold hard thinking depending) with the additional problem that being governed by your feelings and being governed by rationality appear subjectively to be exactly the same thing. The difference between post rationalisation and careful examination of the facts is a matter of discipline not personality.

I maintain that the N/S and the F/T axes are pernicious and pure bullshit.

The Judging/Perceiving axis is curious because it in part overlaps with diagnostic criteria for ADHD. So in some cases it may flag up a real disorder. But even if you are ADHD you might _value_ getting things done and completed while struggling to do so. It's not necessarily the case that you _prefer_ to have several projects running at once and if you do it doesn't mean that you have this wonderfully flexible, open mind.

I maintain that the P/J axis is pernicious and largely bullshit.

Even when I was 14 and doing this test at school I knew it was bullshit. I ended up refusing to answer a proportion of the questions. Are you are feeling or a thinking type? Oh fuck off. And I say that with total feeling backed by impeccable logic. So fuck off again.

I suppose I'm the archetypal INTP - logical scientific sort. But that's largely how I see myself, that's just my ego saying it. In my actual job I'm something closer to being the ESTJ - almost the opposite. I have to organise, I have to be precise, I have to be a bit aggressive and I have to make sure nothing slips through the cracks. The exact thing I never thought I would be able to do, but I'm even good at it. The only bit I struggle with is dealing with people which comes down to the I/E thing. Whereas I'm a useless academic because I don't have the ability to maintain focus week in week out on abstract matters.

Also it's all so middle class career orientated.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 24, 2021)

the job aspects of it are irrelevant to me -what some HR chump thinks about it luckily doesn't affect me.
i don't really go along with your dismissal of the other opposites beyond I and E.
It is possible to be balanced on both, just as it is possible to be balanced I and E.
But there are cold calculating unfeeling bastards out there. Just as there are people who seem to make life decisions based on emotion above all else.
And so on, through the other lettered spectrums.
And these things are just spectrums, not a binary choice.
I dont see the problem (outside of bosses pschoanalysing you )


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 24, 2021)

Yep I see it as 'are you more like this than that on the whole' 

TJ's are more likely to fight online I reckon


----------



## kabbes (Mar 24, 2021)

ska invita said:


> the job aspects of it are irrelevant to me -what some HR chump thinks about it luckily doesn't affect me.
> i don't really go along with your dismissal of the other opposites beyond I and E.
> It is possible to be balanced on both, just as it is possible to be balanced I and E.
> But there are cold calculating unfeeling bastards out there. Just as there are people who seem to make life decisions based on emotion above all else.
> ...


To the extent it’s based on anything at all, it’s based on data from a work based context.  The job aspects are precisely what its purpose is by design.

Knotted is quite right about the false dichotomies,  the thinking/feeling one is particularly poor.  In practice, you can’t easily draw boundaries around these things because emotions derive from an interpretation of feelings, which means they are not distinct.  It isn’t a spectrum.  You don’t have less of one the more you have of the other.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It isn’t a spectrum.  You don’t have less of one the more you have of the other.


I think thats a limited way of thinking of a  spectrum - sexuality is a spectrum


----------



## Knotted (Mar 24, 2021)

Yeah, the thinking/feeling one is the worst IMO. There are indeed some heartless bastards out there, but that doesn't make them super logical. They might still be guided by their emotions or short term interests. Also it should be said that T types are not heartless bastards in MB, they're scientific, logical. Every trait is a positive one. In the OCEAN scheme you have a degree of agreeableness and low agreeableness maps onto "heartless bastard", but that's not what this is.

I think there _are_ people who fit on these axes quite comfortably, but I think most people not only just somewhere in the middle but also a bit both/neither. False dichotomies.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 24, 2021)

ska invita said:


> I think thats a limited way of thinking of a  spectrum - sexuality is a spectrum


In Myers Briggs you are literally placed on a scale where you can only be more of one by being less of the other.


----------

