Better Than Wolves Forum

Hey, so I've not seen one of these threads on here before. How many of you are familiar with MBTI? What's your type? I wonder what types tend to congregate more in this community. It is a pretty rare gem of civility and reason, by the internet's standards. Personally I type as an INTP. What are your thoughts on Myers Briggs in general? Discuss?

I test as an INTP also. I think meyers briggs has some but limited value. In dividing all of humanity into 16 categories there's really not that much you can say about those categories and further more people change over time.

I was an INTJ when I was younger, but I took that test again a couple years ago and got ISTJ. I honestly for the life of me can't even remember what that means though.

Meaningful thread titles please. Acronyms don't count.

Just took a look at the website for MBTI.

ISFP is what I think I am, or what I like to think I am? That being said, all four identifier pairs had something I do on both sides, and I ended up just picking the one I had the most check marks in.

Reading through the descriptions of the personality types gave me a strong 'horoscope' vibe. Capricorn by the way. *wink*

So I personally wouldn't put much weight behind any catagorizing this test created.

EDIT: For anyone that read this far even with all the acronyms. MBTI= Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ®

In the interest of your poll, I tend to test out at ENTP or ENTJ depending on the year I'm forced to take it. I work for one of those corporations that places some value in this and modified versions. They even give us oversized LEGO blocks of the attributes that we're supposed to put on our desks so others know how to treat you... I grabbed extras and built things with 'em. I personally think these types of things are a novelty with limited real world value but at least they sometimes come with toys.

hawk wrote:In the interest of your poll, I tend to test out at ENTP or ENTJ depending on the year I'm forced to take it. I work for one of those corporations that places some value in this and modified versions. They even give us oversized LEGO blocks of the attributes that we're supposed to put on our desks so others know how to treat you... I grabbed extras and built things with 'em. I personally think these types of things are a novelty with limited real world value but at least they sometimes come with toys.

Yikes. I could see myself raising a very big stink if a company required me to do something like that.

Personally I find these kinds of labels dangerous and highly distasteful.

FlowerChild wrote: Personally I find these kinds of labels dangerous and highly distasteful.

My wife absolutely hates the idea of anyone trying to 'classify' her and then make judgements about how she must be based on some book. :)

I hear ya Flower and agree in principle. In practice they sell it as a method of teaching tolerance and understanding of other peoples styles in the interest of being productive in a diverse team. Basically they've turned it into a half day of mini-lectures telling guys like me to be nice to the quiet emotional types. Luckily no one has attempted to expand upon that to the degree of Germany circa 1939.

Sarudak wrote: My wife absolutely hates the idea of anyone trying to 'classify' her and then make judgements about how she must be based on some book. :)

I'm exactly the same way. If people want to deal with me, they can deal with me as an individual and not try to dismiss my behavior or arguments based on some generic classification that helps them conveniently pigeon hole my identity for the sake of their narrow minded convenience.

I also think that such classifications are dangerous to the individual that self-applies them as well, as it can basically act as a justification for behavior and a counter-motivation against personal change and development.

It amazes me that in a culture where we apparently strive towards greater acceptance of different kinds of people we simultaneously attempt to apply an ever increasing number of labels to them to emphasize those differences and stick people into defined roles. As far as I am concerned, "Bob" is the only label a person needs.

hawk wrote:Luckily no one has attempted to expand upon that to the degree of Germany circa 1939.

Lol. Well put.

The above is exactly the kind of comment I'd be tempted to make at such a meeting :)

Yeah I actually used to be quite into doing personality tests myself when I was in my late teens/early twenties but I realized over time that you really can't fit people into categories like that and trying to do so will be detrimental to both you and them. On the other hand I think they do teach one important lesson. Which is that people can be and are different in truly fundamental ways. It's not always just a misunderstanding people value different things and some people experience emotions more strongly than other people and some people really are energized by being around lots of people while others really do need time alone or they can't function.

I am normally ENTJ. I work in a HR field so this program has popped up several times.

I am highly skeptical of testing aimed at classifying people as we fluctuate situationally/day to day. I have seen that the format, questions and classifications of the test tend to show the perspective people view things.

I am pretty sure most people have a system of classifying personalities, even if very general. Before I had seen this system I was aware there were a few common personaillities, how they played off each other and myself.

The greatest benefit of the program IMO is in identifying the major conflict points in opposing personalities and understanding the angle they are comming from; sometimes difficult when it is 180 degrees from yours.

Not to mention that even if it was possible to classify people this way, using a matrix of only 16 types is incredibly limiting and would be general to the point of uselessness

BinoAl wrote:I was an INTJ when I was younger, but I took that test again a couple years ago and got ISTJ. I honestly for the life of me can't even remember what that means though.

Are you me? Because, yeah exactly the same. Used to be intj, tested as istj more recently.

I did some personality and aptitude tests when I was trying to decide what degree I wanted. I leaned those tests are worthless and only tell someone what they already know. Plus totally ineffective on me since I can usually determine what outcome certain answers will drive so I was able to always choose whatever personality I desired the test to show.

SterlingRed wrote:
Are you me? Because, yeah exactly the same. Used to be intj, tested as istj more recently.

I did some personality and aptitude tests when I was trying to decide what degree I wanted. I leaned those tests are worthless and only tell someone what they already know. Plus totally ineffective on me since I can usually determine what outcome certain answers will drive so I was able to always choose whatever personality I desired the test to show.

Hah. Yep, we might be the same person. I think that was why I always got INTJ as a teen, I idolized the sarcastic asshole geniuses, and sorta answered the way that would get me INTJ. As you can imagine, I use to LOVE the show House. Lol.

Overall classification's translated to absolutes are at best over simplistic and at worst... apocalyptic. I think the "absolute" is the major evil here and not the archetypes/stereotypes. These generalizations do have some use but it's really the overuse we all (rightfully) fear. We are all snowflakes: unique in our own perfect fucked up way but like it or not we all use generalizations as a way of understanding novelty. Is sixteen a good number? Is 500? At some point precision gives way to accessibility. I don't think there is a good answer here but as long you leave out the absolutes (here and everywhere) mistakes can be mitigated, genocide avoided, and we can all live to learn another day.

Thought I'd double the point that most tests I've taken are usually very clear in what each question is accessing (especially if you know how the characteristics are separated), meaning that one's own self-image is going to affect the result more than actual behavior of the person, not to mention that there's only so many ways to say the same thing twice. A test-maker might be able to get better results by trying to create questions and situations that can asses multiple and interacting behavioral types, but I haven't seen anything that does that, and I doubt any 50 question web test is going to go into that much detail for something that's basically trying to peddle advertisements.

I guess this also goes along with general misunderstandings about the MBTI dimensions, too. I doubt most people who see their chart really understand the difference between "judging" and "perceiving" as Meyers and Briggs did--with the same going for the rest of the types. Even "extroverted" and "introverted" aren't as simple as the common definitions; they refer to how people get energy--either from time alone or with others (and I might not be complete with that definition.)

While these sort of tests aren't brilliantly useful (and could be harmful), I think they still have value when applied in reverse. Starting with broad outlines of behavior and interaction in a situation must help in creating deep, consistent characters. Too, we often have to design things on the levels that MBTI works on. Look at Planetside 2's factions, or MTG's color wheel: both of those divide not only along gameplay, but on what players find interesting (Dimir is cool, but usually not a great pick). I know I picked the Engineer first in TF2, not because I knew how to play him, but because I liked the concept of being an engineer (who I'd say is some form of I*TJ). Even if labeling people is dangerous, building fictional factions or societies around similar behavior patterns is probably a good idea, especially if you can exploit that in play (in the case of games) or in advertising for other media. (Would Harry Potter have done so well if she hadn't made the houses easy for most to associate with?)