quote:

---

discover your spiritual IQ, political leanings and what level of hell you'll roast in (among many other things), and test each other's knowledge of obscure, irrelevant information

---

I thought discussing our personality types was part of that.

if not, feel free to whisk us away to some other place.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am INFJ. Software developer is also a good job for people like me, actually, because we bring a bit of humanity to it.

I have heard a lot of criticism of MBTI of late. I think it is fair to say that it isn't perfect or the whole story, but it helped me to see who I was. You should not stop there, but it is not a bad place to start.

I have taken the tests a few times, and most of the indicators are near the middle. The N indicator is 100%.
 

---

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
I usually tell people I'm an MYOB, but the last time I did that the response was 'Oh yes, a clear INFJ...' so I might as well come clean.
 

---

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
Keirsey sorts me as an INFJ. I match the description of INTP's, except for the "unethical" thing...which, I think, is Keirsey projecting his own ideas about ethics as feelings-based and anti-logical as a standard. Seriously, "justice" and "mercy" are opposed to one another? Only if you have certain conceptions of each of those concepts!

If INTP's are unethical, then I wonder why the **** the majority of moral philosophers (indeed, philosophers in general) have had that personality type. I doubt anyone would call Aristotle or Kant uninterested in ethics, or unethical, but if you want INTP poster children, there you go.

Plus, I tend to prefer the Big Five. It lets me grade exactly how neurotic I am.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also an INFJ. The F is fairly small, the N is enormous.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Arcane terms here. what do these initials mean?

In hope that this is not another Mornington ?Crescent.
 

---

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobsen:
Arcane terms here. what do these initials mean?

In hope that this is not another Mornington ?Crescent.

---

It's yet another Keirsey Temperament Sorter thread, a perennial favorite in Heaven and Purg. More than a party game, less than science, but with a pretty interesting history relating to the roots of the midcentury feminist movement. Some people find it to be a valuable tool in career counseling, others think Keirsey's Jung-inspired descriptions of the sixteen temperaments to be scarily accurate, and still others dismiss the whole thing as pseudoscientific nonsense, just another way to shove people in tiny little four-letter labeled boxes.

There. I just saved you all from having to start another "oh not this again" Purg thread. I hope the Phosts are happy.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's the Myers-Briggs system, jacobsen. It classifies people's personality (or really, their preferences) along 4 scales.

INFJ means:

1. being an Introvert (on the introvert/extrovert scale),
2. Intuitive (on the intuitive/sensing scale, which tends to mean preferring abstract information rather than concrete),
3. Feeling (on the thinking/feeling scale, which has to do with how one goes about making decisions), and
4. Judging (on the judging/perception scale, which tends to mean liking things to be settled, tidy and organised rather than being a spontaneous live-in-the-moment person)


INFJ is said to be the least common combination. I'm not sure if there's any theory as to why the distribution is not uniform across all 16 possible combinations.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I've just done the Keirsey sorter and since it reckons I'm an ISTJ, and includes " if there's a job to be done, they can be counted on to put their shoulder to the wheel. Guardians also believe in law and order, and sometimes worry that respect for authority, even a fundamental sense of right and wrong, is being lost. Perhaps this is why Guardians honor customs and traditions so strongly -- they are familiar patterns that help bring stability to our modern, fast-paced world.

Practical and down-to-earth, Guardians believe in following the rules and cooperating with others. They are not very comfortable winging it or blazing new trails; working steadily within the system is the Guardian way, for in the long run loyalty, discipline, and teamwork get the job done right. Guardians are meticulous about schedules and have a sharp eye for proper procedures."

Which is so utterly wrong about me that it's

No sensible person would put me in charge of the Splat the Rat stall at a church fete.

[ 26. April 2013, 08:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Well almost.

I/E gives your preferred mode of relating. I's prefer to go inwards, E prefer to go outwards.

The next two letters are preferences. The first is the way you prefer to handle knowledge
N are interested in thoughts and ideas
S are interested in experience and reality

The second is preferred mode of making judgement
T tend to use logical process to make decisions
F tend to use hunches and emotions.

Then there is final one, and this is according to Myers Briggs the style that you extrovert.
So those with P extrovert the first of the two styles and those with J extrovert the second of the two styles. The other style will be introverted.

The problem is that quite often the tests pick up not the extroverted style but the dominant style in this fourth category. This is the same for people who are Es but the other preference for people who are Is.

The other thing is to realise people can have preference in all of these to different strengths. A strong introvert is going to require more time out from partying than a mild one. A mild F may be quite proficient at making judgements using T.

I think I am technically a P but that means my dominant is my third one which is F but the one people normally encounter is N which is also a far stronger preference. However I suspect many of the tests pick out my dominant which "J". I am a strong "I".

That said everyone can act in every single mode and does to a certain extent. An introvert does behave as an extrovert when that is required. What is more there is both balance and development. The points are not polar opposites but like pans on a scale. Development is how strongly you score in any pan, balance is how evenly that is weighted against the other pan.

In Myers-Briggs thinking a perfectly developed person is not someone who scores 0 on all dimensions but someone who scores 100% on 8 scales.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:
More than a party game, less than science... others dismiss the whole thing as pseudoscientific nonsense, just another way to shove people in tiny little four-letter labeled boxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am INFJ. Software developer is also a good job for people like me, actually, because we bring a bit of humanity to it.

I have heard a lot of criticism of MBTI of late. I think it is fair to say that it isn't perfect or the whole story, but it helped me to see who I was. You should not stop there, but it is not a bad place to start.

I have taken the tests a few times, and most of the indicators are near the middle. The N indicator is 100%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:
More than a party game, less than science... others dismiss the whole thing as pseudoscientific nonsense, just another way to shove people in tiny little four-letter labeled boxes.

---

Yup its the pseudo-scientific nonsense that led my former employer to shuffle me into a role that I detested for six years until I resigned. The sooner this kind of guff is consigned to the bin the better.

I'm INTJ apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
The questions are very black-and-white – there are almost always "yes but.." or "sometimes" answers which can’t be allowed for

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
The MB system is rubbish. The questions are very black-and-white – there are almost always "yes but.." or "sometimes" answers which can’t be allowed for, so it's no wonder that I've come out with no less than 9 different results. There's more to someone than can just be accounted for in a quick 20- or even 40-question list – it's ridiculous to think that this is even taken seriously as part of an interview procedure. Give me astrology any day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's not so much the questions, but the fact that you answer the questions on your own terms. People will always have a much more flattering view of themselves and how they interact socially and in different situations than they actually do.

---

quote:

---

It's far better if it's thought of "I am an INFJ, meaning this is how I prefer to behave, meaning this is how I will tend to behave if the circumstances allow it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
I've found Myers-Briggs helpful as a language for talking about personality. Under that conception, no instrument can be 100% reliable in typing someone, but that doesn't make the types meaningless. The framework also makes some suggestions for what someone should look to work at to develop themselves which I've also found helpful.

I'm an INTP, by the way.

---

I would accept this position with a few reservations, despite being rather less than impressed with the whole Myers-Briggs industry.

It could, with proper emphasis and less outrageous claims, become a useful exercise - one of many - in thinking about how different people have their own quirks and preferences. But too often, partly because that's how it tends to be sold, it's used as a deterministic tool, despite having little more rigour than a horoscope.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's often badly taught. As a value-free way of looking at preferences and human diversity, I think it's got some value; providing some helpful language and models.

However, when used as some kind of deterministic straight-jacket, it's a lot more dangerous than astrology. And I've seen it (or a variant of it) used that way by HR "professionals" (who didn't strike me as very professional at all). That's certainly the bullshit end of the Myers Briggs "industry". It's just not all bullshit.

But then I would say things like that. I come out as ENFJ - which actually feels like a comfortable fit. Classic explorer/developer type who likes change, new ideas etc ..

So if the questionnaire classified me as I or S or T anything else I'd know something was wrong. Doesn't fit my natural preferences. Marginal J however. I prefer order to flexibility, but nobbut just.

You can do that by the way; say the questionnaire hasn't got a hold of my real preferences. That's part of the methodology. Nothing magic or decisive about the long questionnaire (and don't use the short one anyway). Like all such questionnaires a lot depends on the mood anyone is in when they fill it in. Plus the usual fact that lots of people second-guess all such questionnaires; particularly if they prefer introversion.

When it comes to Myers Briggs, a little learning is a dangerous thing. But then I'd say that as well. Coming out as ENFJ ..

Unless my shadow side was in play on the day. Then I might say something completely different.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Orfeo:

quote:

---

It's far better if it's thought of "I am an INFJ, meaning this is how I prefer to behave, meaning this is how I will tend to behave if the circumstances allow it".

---

I don't think you've understood the point I was making. What it actually does is reflect back how you conceive of yourself. This can be an utterly delusional activity, because almost everyone will have a more flattering view of themselves and how they act than how they actually act or what they really do. It is essentially a test that reveals how you think about yourself, and as such can be really quite dangerous and even totally false. So you could effectively do the test and find out , 'Oh, I am INFJ', but in fact you could be something quite, quite different in reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
I was on a training course where we did bible studies according to the MBTI tests we had just done. My fellow Ns and I had a wonderful time on the great themes of Isaiah, busked through Brueggmann and when we had stopped talking over each other (all extroverts) we finally drilled down into the text. When we came back into the group the S group opened with the spelling mistake in the passage....

I've found the whole MBTI thing most helpful when trying to understand people who react very differently to the way I do and as the lone extrovert in a mostly introverted congregation I really do need to get a handle on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
I've found the whole MBTI thing most helpful when trying to understand people who react very differently to the way I do and as the lone extrovert in a mostly introverted congregation I really do need to get a handle on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not an S (apparently) but the first thing I'd have noticed would have been the spelling mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not an S (apparently) but the first thing I'd have noticed would have been the spelling mistake.

---

But how much would you have cared about it? Would you think it was important in the scheme of things?

---

No, but it would have bugged the hell out of me.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I remain undecided about it. After two properly administered tests and one from a book, only on the I/E scale do i show a secure preference (towards I) and even then it's not a strong preference. On all the other scales N/S F/T and P/J my level of preference for one 'end' over the other is barely enough to register a score. This meant that although I could appreciate there might be things about it which could be helpful, it didn't generate much insight in me into my own character and preferences.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
When I read a summary of a 'typical' INFJ I nearly fell off my chair because it described me so accurately.

I no longer felt I was alone and I almost felt i was 'allowed' to be like this!

One (rather trivial) characteristic of an INFJ is a messy desk.
You should see my desk - actually you can't - it's covered in stuff!! LOL
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I did the Myers Briggs questionnaire once, but can't remember what score they gave; only that it was difficult to fit myself into the categories they seemed to want.

More scary was the Asperger's questionnaire, which seemed to want to put me so far into one corner that I ended up almost subhuman. I gave up doing questionnaires after that.

I am what I am. Thank God there's only one of me.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

It's incredibly helpful in a workplace to understand that the people around you aren't like you.

---

The one useful instance of this kind of thing that I have come across is Belbin Team Roles - because it clarified what it is people do in the specific situation of the workplace. Given the degree to which we operate though different persona, depending on where and with whom we are, it strikes me as a much better approach than typing.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I liked Belbin. Came out as a Plant. Which was no surprise to anyone I worked with (or as one put it, "sometimes against".)

There is a variant on MBTI called Margerison-McCann. Similar to Belbin and also helpful for team-building and understanding.

It (ahem) uses a questionnaire as well ...
 

---

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
I think through questions by talking (orfeo = extrovert)...even though I have an extremely messy mind and desk (mudfrog=introvert) even though I would be immediately aware of spelling mistakes but not care (?)

Yep, give me taurus any day..
 

---

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Me! Weirdos unite
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Orfeo:

quote:

---

But it's when you say 'a more flattering view' that you lose me. How can it be more flattering unless you think that one end of the scale is 'better' than the other? And if you do indeed value one end of the scale better than the other, that is a perfect demonstration of your preference.

It's simply not the case that everyone thinks, say, extroversion is better and will therefore attempt to score themselves as an extrovert. People with a preference for introvert behaviour don't LIKE the way that extroverts behave. They're not going to aspire to it. I mean, I quite like hanging around extroverts in certain situations and they can be great, fun people, but the thought of behaving like that all the time is exhausting.

I think I would have to be engaging in some really serious delusions to persuade myself that extroversion is 'better' and that I should therefore be trying to score myself as an extrovert despite the fact that extroverts wear me out after a couple of hours. There's real work involved in convincing yourself that what you actually DISLIKE ought to be the flattering view you're trying to construct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:
... If INTP's are unethical, then I wonder why the **** the majority of moral philosophers (indeed, philosophers in general) have had that personality type. I doubt anyone would call Aristotle or Kant uninterested in ethics, or unethical, but if you want INTP poster children, there you go. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I think through questions by talking (orfeo = extrovert)...even though I have an extremely messy mind and desk (mudfrog=introvert) even though I would be immediately aware of spelling mistakes but not care (?)

Yep, give me taurus any day..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I liked Belbin. Came out as a Plant. Which was no surprise to anyone I worked with (or as one put it, "sometimes against".)

There is a variant on MBTI called Margerison-McCann. Similar to Belbin and also helpful for team-building and understanding.

It (ahem) uses a questionnaire as well ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think you're still missing the point. It's not about having preferences within the Myers Briggs format, it's about the whole function and result of a test; the result of which is simply to hold up a mirror to your own opinions about yourself, and you will almost always interpret them in a flattering way. As an example, you might discover that your personality is highly influenced by your leanings towards introversion (which you will have already had some idea of) and most people will understand this as 'I need time to recharge my batteries', 'It's good for me to spend time alone during my day' or 'I prefer small groups of select friends'. Now in real life, and in the view of all my peers, I could be a selfish, lazy, unsociable, unhelpful, uncommunicative bastard; but I won't learn that hard truth through Myers Briggs because the whole focus of the test sets up an illusion. You could read it the other way to as an extrovert and in real life be a loud mouthed, opinionated prat; but Myers Briggs allows you to be at peace with the reflection of yourself it presents, precisely because it does nothing other than present you with your own flattering opinion of yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was evidently INFJ

It's just so right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was evidently INFJ

It's just so right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Nobody has any idea what Aristotle or Kant's MBTI profiles were, nor Julius Caesar's, nor Shakespeare's nor that of any other famous person from history. Those books or websites that purport to list 'famous people who were XXXXs' merely reveal that their writers are facile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By far the best book on the Enneagram I ever saw was persuasive precisely because the detailed description of a personality type encompassed not only all the best things about myself, but also the worst things about myself, and made clear that I was capable of both.

---

I've done the Enneagram test two or three times over the years and recognized very little of the "description" of myself it came out with.

What worries me is that these things are sometimes used as part of the criteria for job applications. There's no substitute for seeing and assessing a person in real life, even if it is usually necessarily based on half an hour's conversation where they're trying to impress and have the glowing endorsements of a couple of people you've never met or heard of.
 

---

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
As an INTJ I would apparently be a good military leader... I remember a career test I did at school (20 years ago now ) suggested a career as a fish farmer

But I have to say the description of INTJ fits me better than any other, and my line of work (organisational development) is also one of the suggestions!
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Orfeo:

quote:

---

I simply don't agree with this idea that everyone walks around interpreting themselves in the most flattering possible way to begin with. I sure as hell don't. Most people I know don't. I only know one or two people that arguably DO go around flattering themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was evidently INFJ

It's just so right.

---

Comments like this aren't exactly helping me in my quest to say that Myers-Briggs doesn't inevitably end up in self-flattery...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
you both tiggered in ..

---

I love that expession!

I am E X100000000 and find social interaction very tiring. Reigning myself in and allowing others to speak is a constant, exhausting challenge. Meeting new people is easy though - I can ask just the right question to get them talking.

But if you need someone to lighten proceedings and get the group belly laughing, I'm your woman.


 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I think I was an INFJ last time I was tested. I think I am nobody's boss: the grammar school pupils I teach are not employees, though they usually follow my orders!
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
IIRC I'm INFJ.

I am also a Leo, and my special Tarot card is the Star. I reckon those last two bits of information say more about me than Myers-Briggs.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I think astrology and tarot cards are malarkey.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What worries me is that these things are sometimes used as part of the criteria for job applications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is terrible! The best of tests are merely part of a set of tools. Overly rely on them and you become a tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
you both tiggered in ..

---

I love that expession!

I am E X100000000 and find social interaction very tiring...
But if you need someone to lighten proceedings and get the group belly laughing, I'm your woman.

---

You say that as if it's a good thing, it may be for some - but not all.

You may find that strong introverts do not need someone to lighten the proceedings.

When someone wants to be life and soul of the party I want to be at a different party.
 

---

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
Same here.

There is a tendency in extroverts to assume that introverts need to have their (perceived) deficiencies remedied one way or another.

Conversely, the introvert's reaction to the extrovert being very extrovert-y is generally more along the lines of 'they should leave me alone'.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It turns out that if you do a Google search for 'INFJ' images you get a ridiculous amount of poster art.

Some of which I find more personally appropriate than others.

I assume the same applies to other types.

I also came across this which I enjoyed immensely, especially point 4 which says that INFJs are the kind of people that really like knowing their Myers-Briggs type. Ahoy, Mudfrog!
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I think I was an INTJ who has developed into an INFJ.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was evidently INFJ

It's just so right.

---

Comments like this aren't exactly helping me in my quest to say that Myers-Briggs doesn't inevitably end up in self-flattery...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What worries me is that these things are sometimes used as part of the criteria for job applications.

---

Oh God, really? That's pathetic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It turns out that if you do a Google search for 'INFJ' images you get a ridiculous amount of poster art.

Some of which I find more personally appropriate than others.

I assume the same applies to other types.

I also came across this which I enjoyed immensely, especially point 4 which says that INFJs are the kind of people that really like knowing their Myers-Briggs type. Ahoy, Mudfrog!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think I was an INTJ who has developed into an INFJ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I think astrology and tarot cards are malarkey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that because of the sense of exclusivity and superiority that being one of only 2% and not just one of the hoi polloi gives one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I think astrology and tarot cards are malarkey.

---

So's MB - modern superstition with a thin veneer of pseudo-science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because if you spend large parts of your life feeling like you're weird and unusual, it's quite nice to have it suggested that this is because you really ARE unusual and not because you really ought to fit in better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
rather than descend to a purgatorial debate about why MBTI is crap from those who don;'t understand either themselves or MBTI.

---

quote:

---

The following precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

Type not trait
The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both.
Own best judge
Individuals are considered the best judge of their own type. While the MBTI questionnaire provides a Reported Type, this is considered only an indication of their probable overall Type. A Best Fit Process is usually used to allow respondents to develop their understanding of the four dichotomies, to form their own hypothesis as to their overall Type, and to compare this against the Reported Type. In more than 20% of cases, the hypothesis and the Reported Type differ in one or more dichotomies. Using the clarity of each preference, any potential for bias in the report, and often, a comparison of two or more whole Types may then help respondents determine their own Best Fit.
No right or wrong
No preference or total type is considered better or worse than another. They are all Gifts Differing, as emphasized by the title of Isabel Briggs Myers' book on this subject.
Voluntary
It is considered unethical to compel anyone to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It should always be taken voluntarily.
Confidentiality
The result of the MBTI Reported and Best Fit type are confidential between the individual and administrator and, ethically, not for disclosure without permission.
Not for selection
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way" (emphasis original). Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain highly competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences.
Importance of proper feedback
Individuals should always be given detailed feedback from a trained administrator and an opportunity to undertake a Best Fit exercise to check against their Reported Type. This feedback can be given in person or, where this is not practical, by telephone or electronically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is terrible! The best of tests are merely part of a set of tools. Overly rely on them and you become a tool.

---

That link is slightly surprising. Shipmates, being good churchgoers of course would not do such a thing, but over here, it's not unusual to liken someone idiomatically, invariably in an uncomplimentary way, to a specifically male part of the body. That certainly applies to describing someone as a 'tool'. It's sufficiently odd that an urban dictionary doesn't refer to this, that it suggests it doesn't carry that overtone in North America.

---

For edification purpose, the Urban Dictionary is international. What it is not is peer reviewed, complete, consistent, etc. Indeed, it makes the most aggrandising, self-published articles on Wikipedia seem the epitome of rigor.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@lilBuddha

We're all our Own Best Judge of the value of psychometric tests?

Or does reliance on one's own best judgment make one a different type of tool?

[ENFJ = Every New Fad Junkie?]
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
My biggest qualm with the way the MBTI is commonly used is that the four-letter codes as such do not express the degree of a trait. So, if for example the I/E scale is of 200 points (from 100 I to 100 E), someone who scores only 15 on I would be "I" and equally someone who scores 15 on E as "E", but they are only 30 units apart, whereas a "fellow" I who's scoring 95 on I is really very much a different kind of animal, something that does not come out in the "standard" code.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
My biggest qualm with the way the MBTI is commonly used is that the four-letter codes as such do not express the degree of a trait. So, if for example the I/E scale is of 200 points (from 100 I to 100 E), someone who scores only 15 on I would be "I" and equally someone who scores 15 on E as "E", but they are only 30 units apart, whereas a "fellow" I who's scoring 95 on I is really very much a different kind of animal, something that does not come out in the "standard" code.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, Ariston and MSHB, if Kant was famous for the regularity of his habits, he's very unlikely to have been intP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@lilBuddha

We're all our Own Best Judge of the value of psychometric tests?

Or does reliance on one's own best judgment make one a different type of tool?

[ENFJ = Every New Fad Junkie?]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm wondering ken hasn't seen this yet. He's usually all over this sort of - ahem - disputably based quasi-science like a cheap suit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I am just so surprised that you (Mudfrog) are prepared to consider something like mb which has roots in (non Christian) Jungian neo philosophy. Is it standard SA practice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
My biggest qualm with the way the MBTI is commonly used is that the four-letter codes as such do not express the degree of a trait.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
rather than descend to a purgatorial debate about why MBTI is crap from those who don;'t understand either themselves or MBTI.

---

The prejudice of the position indicated by this statement is exactly equal to the position it criticises.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I am just so surprised that you (Mudfrog) are prepared to consider something like mb which has roots in (non Christian) Jungian neo philosophy. Is it standard SA practice?

---

It was started by two Roman Catholics.

It is used in mainline denominations.

---

quote:

---

Why do we want to define and others and put them in litle boxes?

---

quote:

---

The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amika:
I'm quite reluctant to bring up my interest in the MBTI with non INFP/INFJ/ENFJ friends, as I can be pretty sure most of them will either dismiss it outright or have no interest. This thread is in itself an interesting example of our differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

So why is it used in that way in appointments and assessments for posts?

---

quote:

---

Not for selection
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way" (emphasis original). Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Anyway, if that isn't its purpose, why waste time and money on it at all?

What is the purpose then?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

So why is it used in that way in appointments and assessments for posts?

---

Because unethical people use the MBTI unethically. Is it really news that people on this planet do things that are unethical? The MBTI is a tool; so is a knife. People use knives unethically to hurt people. So knives should be banned? Hardly. Just used responsibly.

quote:

---

What is the purpose then?

---

quote:

---

I am just so surprised that you (Mudfrog) are prepared to consider something like mb which has roots in (non Christian) Jungian neo philosophy.

---

quote:

---

It was started by a mother and daughter who relied on another's work - he (Jung) was a convinced and vocal atheist.

---

So because Jung was an atheist he was mentally incapable of developing any valid understanding of the world or people in it? I’m sure that all our atheist shipmates would wish to disagree very indignantly.

quote:

---

Why do we want to define and others and put them in little boxes? I'm not defined by that stuff but by what I am in God.

---

quote:

---

...the discovery that they're not total failures of human beings but just 'members' of a less common type is both freeing and rewarding. I attribute my escape from a lifetime of despair to discovering the MBTI and my 'type'.

---

Perhaps I should disclose an interest in that subsequently I trained to be a Myers-Briggs practitioner. So I am aware of the ethical considerations for its use.

Angus (INTP, BTW)
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
A big thank-you to B62 for posting the information about ethical use of the MBTI – an important reminder in any discussion of this subject.

To reply to several comments by Exclamation Mark;

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

So why is it used in that way in appointments and assessments for posts?

---

Because unethical people use the MBTI unethically. Is it really news that people on this planet do things that are unethical? The MBTI is a tool; so is a knife. People use knives unethically to hurt people. So knives should be banned? Hardly. Just used responsibly.

quote:

---

What is the purpose then?

---

Self-awareness, of one’s instinctive tendencies and biases, of one’s similarities to and differences from other people. One thing that varies greatly between Myers-Briggs types is how much the people of those different types are interested in self-awareness.

quote:

---

I am just so surprised that you (Mudfrog) are prepared to consider something like mb which has roots in (non Christian) Jungian neo philosophy.

---

quote:

---

It was started by a mother and daughter who relied on another's work - he (Jung) was a convinced and vocal atheist.

---

So because Jung was an atheist he was mentally incapable of developing any valid understanding of the world or people in it? I’m sure that all our atheist shipmates would wish to disagree very indignantly.

quote:

---

Why do we want to define and others and put them in little boxes? I'm not defined by that stuff but by what I am in God.

---

Well, I found that discovering my MB type was very affirming of who I am – another positive value in its use. It explained why I felt out-of-place in the churches I’d been involved in, and a misfit with the model of Christian spirituality with which I had been presented. My God-created nature was far more affirmed by the process of MB Type discovery than had ever been affirmed by other Christians. So I can completely identify with Amika:

quote:

---

...the discovery that they're not total failures of human beings but just 'members' of a less common type is both freeing and rewarding. I attribute my escape from a lifetime of despair to discovering the MBTI and my 'type'.

---

Perhaps I should disclose an interest in that subsequently I trained to be a Myers-Briggs practitioner. So I am aware of the ethical considerations for its use.

Angus (INTP, BTW)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

So why is it used in that way in appointments and assessments for posts?

---

It should not be used that way. Back to the list of Precepts and Ethics. Here's the direct quote in full

quote:

---

Not for selection
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way" (emphasis original). Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection.

---

It is a specific misuse of MBTI to use it in job selection processes. That's been said earlier in the thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Anyway, if that isn't its purpose, why waste time and money on it at all?

What is the purpose then?

---

In the commercial world it is quite often used, like Belbin, in exploring issues of group dynamics. Why do some people get on more easily than others in teams? (I know a professional HR trainer who uses it in this context and who has spoken out strongly in her own organisation against any use in job selection or assessment. Preferences are not aptitudes.)

Similar arguments apply to voluntary organisations (e.g. churches). The MBTI can help people explore the effects of human diversity and preferences with a view to promoting a better, less judgmental, understanding of differences.

Some counsellors have also made use of it in marriage counselling, to help couples understand their differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...God doesn't pigeon hole humanity in this way, so why do we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
God doesn't pigeon hole humanity in this way, so why do we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... I also question the fundamental basis of it too as you'll see above: God doesn't pigeon hole humanity in this way, so why do we?

---

There are lots of examples of humanity being sorted into pigeon-holes in the Bible: sheep and goats, wise and foolish virgins, tares / chaff vs. wheat, etc. God seems to really like having just two categories, and the supposed consequences of being in the wrong category are far worse than not getting a job.
 

---

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
God doesn't pigeon hole humanity in this way, so why do we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
My biggest qualm with the way the MBTI is commonly used is that the four-letter codes as such do not express the degree of a trait.

---

May be 'commonly' used that way but that is to use it wrongly.

The results of the 'test' give percentages and detailed analysis differentiates in some detail the meaning of these percentages.

---

quote:

---

Type not trait
The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both. (italics by me)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm not at all convinced that Jesus categorises people by these kind of behavioural or character types so I'm not going to start, not even on myself.

---

How did you manage to post this without a computer?

To explain, Jesus didn't use a computer, so I'm not at all convinced that he would use such a device, and seeing that you consider his direct example to be the only thing worth considering, I'm assuming you wouldn't consider using a computer, phone or any other device that was unknown in his time. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion about what Jesus would or wouldn't do.

And to lighten the mood, here's a funnier description of what the types really mean, and here's how they pray.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
That's about right. For what it's worth, I generally test out as INTP. So for me, the MBTI "helps" me in the following manner:

1. Help! I'm a nerd!
2. Ooo! MBTI tells me I'm an INTP
3. INTP types are nerds. I'm a nerd because I'm INTP
4. Help! I'm an INTP!
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I'm (IIRC)an INTJ. Can I be a 'nerd' too? (At least let me be a geek, if full nerdhood is not permitted!)
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Oh, I've just read the link 'what the types really mean' and see that I'm a 'Crackpot'. Fine.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I'm (IIRC)an INTJ. Can I be a 'nerd' too? (At least let me be a geek, if full nerdhood is not permitted!)

---

"INTJ: "Crackpot"
All facts which don't fit their theories are just wrong. The more all-encompassing and less applicable to reality the theories, the better."

I'm not saying whether this is evidence for or against the efficacy of the MBTI.

Wouldn't dare.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
You know, deep down, that I AM RIGHT.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Messiah. We win.

(I've seen the prayer one before.)
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
without wanting to spoil the fun of surfing around online personality tests, may I suggest reading the Original (i.e., what Jung himself had to say especially on Introverts and Extroverts in his "Typology"). I found it eye-opening, spot-on and very amusing. I am an extreme Introvert and reading Jung almost made me feel good about it...

At least now I know what's wrong with the rest of the world
 

---

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
I'm not surprised to find that as a couple we're a Crackpot and a Messiah. I'm just surprised to find who's who.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
We're Busybody and Sidekick (spot on about her prayers ...).

Busybody? Moi? That made "She Who Must Be Obeyed" laugh.

"You! Have a plan for everyone else's life? "

So now, thanks to Gumby, this reminder list of overdue duties has suddenly appeared. "You might get busy with that lot..." Signing off before I die ...
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Happy to help, Barney!

I like the more negative, bitchy descriptions of the types, because they provide a motivation for quibbling and critical thinking that doesn't really exist when it's all nice, fluffy and positive. If you're pegged as INTJ, you wouldn't object to being called a Mastermind, but Crackpot is another matter. ENFP - Champion, or Muckraker? It makes people think a bit more carefully, which is a good thing.

In fact, if in some cruel alternative universe I was forced to run MBTI courses to pay for sins far more heinous than anything I can remember getting up to, I'd make those descriptions a central part of the course. The take-home message would be not just to take it all with a huuuuuge helping of salt, but to remember that these types are never a promise or a threat, and they're not even an excuse. But knowing ourselves (as much as is possible with MBTI) can help to work to our strengths, be aware of our weaknesses, and appreciate that there's no right way of thinking.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

So why is it used in that way in appointments and assessments for posts?

Anyway, if that isn't its purpose, why waste time and money on it at all?

What is the purpose then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
My biggest qualm with the way the MBTI is commonly used is that the four-letter codes as such do not express the degree of a trait.

---

May be 'commonly' used that way but that is to use it wrongly.

The results of the 'test' give percentages and detailed analysis differentiates in some detail the meaning of these percentages.

---

Just picked this up. I'm not a trained administrator of MBTI so I'm not 100% sure of this, but I don't think leo is completely right here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I am right, at least in as far as the version that I am trained to use. Percentages are very important for its interpretation - a 4 letter descriptor is not much use otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Type not trait
The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both. (key words and phrases emboldened by B62)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But knowing ourselves (as much as is possible with MBTI) can help to work to our strengths, be aware of our weaknesses, and appreciate that there's no right way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I am right, at least in as far as the version that I am trained to use. Percentages are very important for its interpretation - a 4 letter descriptor is not much use otherwise.

---

Curiouser and curiouser, leo. Your further clarification is a flat contradiction of the Wiki article.

Here's the quote again.

quote:

---

Type not trait
The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both. (key words and phrases emboldened by B62)

---

The percentage scores are not supposed to be used to determine the degree of a preference. At least, not in the standard MBTI model, according to Wiki.

So if your training taught you otherwise, maybe your training was in some variant of the standard model? Anyway, I remain puzzled.

The irony of this is that I rather wish the standard model did allow for (and attempt to measure) degrees of preferences, but the Wiki article is quite clear that it does not do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]For self-knowledge as part of spiritual direction. Life is more than work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But knowing ourselves (as much as is possible with MBTI) can help to work to our strengths, be aware of our weaknesses, and appreciate that there's no right way of thinking.

---

Isn't this what the MBTI fans have been saying all along?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But even if it isn't explicitly taught as such, it's clear that lots of people take it as a fixed diagnosis, or even permission to be an arsehole. That's the most egregious practical problem

---

I agree entirely. I think in many ways that's a bigger issue than its Jungian origins or its binary structure. The precepts and ethics are all very well, but somehow, for far too many people, they get lost or left behind.

Human beings have quite sufficient propensities for labelling without any inadvertent help.

(Tasks got done, TGG, my lady sends her thanks.)
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
On the dialogue with leo.

My wife and I have a good friend who works as a professional trainer and one of the strings to her bow is Myers Briggs. She has taken approved training courses for trainers. She rang tonight on a personal matter and in the course of the conversation, I discussed the dialogue with leo. Basically she confirmed the Wiki article summary on precepts and ethics as accurate, observed that the questionnaire is not accurate enough to determine type in about a quarter of cases which is why the ethics require an effective briefing enabling people to self-select the Best Fit for them.

Allowing for inaccuracies however, she did observe that the percentage scores might give some initial indication about how easily people might be able to exercise the opposite (shadow) preference. If for example the questionnaire shows a close call between, for example, T and F, but the indication is a T preference, that person may be able to make a switch to values-based (rather than logic-based) judgment relatively easily. But because the preference is T, the person will still need to make more effort to process choices the values-based way. (Rather in the same way that a person who is naturally right handed but has some ambidexterity will be able to catch more easily with the left hand than someone who has little ambidexterity.)

Whether that is true or not will not however depend on the questionnaire result, but on the individual's innate preferences (which the questionnaire may not have captured accurately). At best the percentages are only a rough guide; the briefing for Best Fit will reveal just how rough.

That made sense to me at any rate. In practice, all of us can choose to exercise any of the preferences and some of us may be able to do this with more facility than others. But for each of us, and for each of the four pairs, one preference comes more naturally than the other. That's the theory.

[ 01. May 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
That sounds accurate to my experience. The test only got me half right actually: it got the IN right (which is pretty obvious) but had me as an FJ when I'm actually a TP. The things that the test is really trying to measure are things that people aren't generally that self-aware of (that self-awareness is actually what we're generally trying to increase), so it asks about lots of things which are strongly linked with what it's trying to measure but people are more aware of. For instance, who knows how strong their need for closure is (JP scale)? Most people know how tidy their desk is, though (J trait).

However, for various reasons, not every P has all the P traits and none of the J traits. (My desk is actually pretty neat, but that's because I've learnt that that's helpful, not because I naturally value it).
 

---

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
Another INFJ here and an INFJ clergyman (so true to form then.) Aren't we meant to be the rarest and most beautiful of types in MB?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
My desk is a complete tip, and I see with horror a "clear desk policy" coming my way.

It could lead to a standoff. Seriously. They might as well ask me to grow an extra ear.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Explore your shadow side, Karl. You know it makes sense ..
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Explore your shadow side, Karl. You know it makes sense ..

---

My shadow hates tidiness as well. We've chatted about it and he agrees with me. A tidy desk is the sign of a sick mind.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 


Now that's a proper use of MBTI. "Know thyself". Nice one, Karl. You should become a trainer ...
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My desk is a complete tip, and I see with horror a "clear desk policy" coming my way.

It could lead to a standoff. Seriously. They might as well ask me to grow an extra ear.

---

quote:

---

posted by KLB:

I live in constant bewilderment that there are people who take notes during sermons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that's an MBTI thing Orfeo; it's the reason mine is a mess. It's not something I care about enough to resolve, but it is the underlying reason.

It's also why I'm shite at tidying up generally. I pick something up and I'm utterly stalled if I don't know where it should live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Explore your shadow side, Karl. You know it makes sense ..

---

My shadow hates tidiness as well. We've chatted about it and he agrees with me. A tidy desk is the sign of a sick mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I am right, at least in as far as the version that I am trained to use. Percentages are very important for its interpretation - a 4 letter descriptor is not much use otherwise.

---

Curiouser and curiouser, leo. Your further clarification is a flat contradiction of the Wiki article.

Here's the quote again.

quote:

---

Type not trait
The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both. (key words and phrases emboldened by B62)

---

The percentage scores are not supposed to be used to determine the degree of a preference. At least, not in the standard MBTI model, according to Wiki.

So if your training taught you otherwise, maybe your training was in some variant of the standard model? Anyway, I remain puzzled. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]For self-knowledge as part of spiritual direction. Life is more than work.

---

Self knowledge is ok but beware of crossing the line to self absorption and narcisscism. Mb is not alone but like all analysis, if misused (as it seems it can be - as even our 2 course leaders on here, barnabas and leo can't agree), then it can lead to the idea that the world revolves you ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you don't know - bonfire or bin it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My desk is a complete tip, and I see with horror a "clear desk policy" coming my way.

It could lead to a standoff. Seriously. They might as well ask me to grow an extra ear.

---

Indeed.

Another horror scenario is time management!
Nooooooo.

People who benefit from a time management course are already good at it.
To send me on a time management course would kill me.
 

---

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
I find it interesting that lots of people who have identified their type on here identify as IN-- . Perhaps the nature of this discussion board tends to appeal most strongly to a particular MB personality type?

Me? I come out as an ISFP when I've done this as a formal test. When we did this and the meaning of the different letters was being read out we got to the description of P and my husband (J type) was looking at me in astonishment saying "THAT'S YOU!".

I would echo what others said of it being a helpful tool to understand my differences from others (Yes my hyper J mother in law really does need to have some idea three months ahead what our plans are as it reduces her stress) and also to be more understanding of myself. As a mega P type I am not organised, tidy or a good time keeper (lets not get into a discussion of time keeping again please!). I lived with a sense of guilt that somehow I just couldn't seem to manage these things. The way I found MB helpful is to recognise that yes, these are recognised weaknesses and I therefore will need to work on these, but there are also strengths to being P, namely flexibility and being comfortable when things can't be nailed down in advance as to what is going to happen and good at getting things done in short space of time once they really do need to be done! Last minute changes of plan do not particularly stress me. Living now in a culture where advanced planning is much less of a value has allowed me to appreciate my strengths as well as recognise my weaknesses.

Being the only S in a family of creative N types is interesting at times. Still, someone has to be the one to see the holes in the plan and to know where things actually are in the house. Yes being 'untidy' does not equal 'doesn't know where things are'. BUT DON'T YOU DARE MESS UP MY HEAPS! I know what's in them!
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
Me? I come out as an ISFP when I've done this as a formal test. When we did this and the meaning of the different letters was being read out we got to the description of P and my husband (J type) was looking at me in astonishment saying "THAT'S YOU!".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you don't know - bonfire or bin it!

---

More proof of the existence of different personalities. Just reading that made me tense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]For self-knowledge as part of spiritual direction. Life is more than work.

---

Self knowledge is ok but beware of crossing the line to self absorption and narcisscism. Mb is not alone but like all analysis, if misused (as it seems it can be - as even our 2 course leaders on here, barnabas and leo can't agree), then it can lead to the idea that the world revolves you ...

---

Agree. But MBTI helps cure self-absorbion because it helps us understand our colleagues and work better as a team.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
I find it interesting that lots of people who have identified their type on here identify as IN-- . Perhaps the nature of this discussion board tends to appeal most strongly to a particular MB personality type?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
I think the descriptions and his reaction were before we had actually been given back our test results.

---

In which case you didn't need to do the test or get the results to understand your preferences

 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
I think I only did the MB test once and ages ago, and remember feeling "yes, BUT" at many of the questions, as has been said....

As has also been said, I think the difference between extrovert and introvert preferences is perhaps the most useful.

I am an extrovert when I'm with other people (have to rein self in from taking over conversations--thanks, Boogie! great that you expressed this so well; have to allow what seem to me enormous long spaces so more introverted people can gather and express their--usually very valuable--thoughts; enjoy social occasions; like meeting new people) BUT also need my quiet time.

As a writer, I need to alternate between creative free-wheelingness and persnickety detail-oriented editing, which involves two opposing bits of personality.

The post by Orfeo near the beginning of this conversation, describing a work-related exercise where the introverts and the extroverts told each other what would help them, was eye-opening! It showed how an understanding of the other type's needs can hugely improve communication and working together.

As well as living together. I am married to someone with much more introvert tendencies than me. When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!!

I am one of those who thoroughly approves the modern psychotherapeutic dictum that in a serious conversation or argument you should from time to time feed back to the other person what you think they are saying. This SO helps me. Since I am working out what I feel by talking it through (as orfeo said, extroverts solve BY talking), how can I know if the person I'm talking to has followed along, has accompanied me on the path--how can I know whether I have communicated effectively, unless at some point the other person says, "Ah, I get it. You feel that ...." and etc, giving in their words the essence of what I've been trying to say.
As I've been thinking aloud, I know it has been a bit jumbled and maybe incoherent--but I did get somewhere, I did say something important--did you hear it? Is anything happening???!!!

Is this a thing that extroverts need/want more than introverts?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Wow. I can just feel the breathless delivery in that post.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
I find it interesting that lots of people who have identified their type on here identify as IN-- . Perhaps the nature of this discussion board tends to appeal most strongly to a particular MB personality type?

---

At the very least, I would expect message boards are very attractive to introverts because you get to compose your idea and THEN press 'send'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
I think I only did the MB test once and ages ago, and remember feeling "yes, BUT" at many of the questions, as has been said....

As has also been said, I think the difference between extrovert and introvert preferences is perhaps the most useful.

I am an extrovert when I'm with other people (have to rein self in from taking over conversations--thanks, Boogie! great that you expressed this so well; have to allow what seem to me enormous long spaces so more introverted people can gather and express their--usually very valuable--thoughts; enjoy social occasions; like meeting new people) BUT also need my quiet time.

As a writer, I need to alternate between creative free-wheelingness and persnickety detail-oriented editing, which involves two opposing bits of personality.

The post by Orfeo near the beginning of this conversation, describing a work-related exercise where the introverts and the extroverts told each other what would help them, was eye-opening! It showed how an understanding of the other type's needs can hugely improve communication and working together.

As well as living together. I am married to someone with much more introvert tendencies than me. When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!!

I am one of those who thoroughly approves the modern psychotherapeutic dictum that in a serious conversation or argument you should from time to time feed back to the other person what you think they are saying. This SO helps me. Since I am working out what I feel by talking it through (as orfeo said, extroverts solve BY talking), how can I know if the person I'm talking to has followed along, has accompanied me on the path--how can I know whether I have communicated effectively, unless at some point the other person says, "Ah, I get it. You feel that ...." and etc, giving in their words the essence of what I've been trying to say.
As I've been thinking aloud, I know it has been a bit jumbled and maybe incoherent--but I did get somewhere, I did say something important--did you hear it? Is anything happening???!!!

Is this a thing that extroverts need/want more than introverts?

---

I'm glad you found that bit helpful.

I also have to admit that I had been thinking about 'how do extroverts post on message boards'... and this is a fairly good example.
That's not a criticism by any means. But when I think about it, I can see that some people tend to supply posts that read like they're having a conversation with someone. Whereas introverts are more likely to write self-contained monologues.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Very interesting, Orfeo, though I should clarify that in that bit at the end there I was consciously giving an example of what I might say in a conversation.

I think my posts can be just as self-contained and monologuing as any introvert's...but that's just off the top of my head, not having gathered my thoughts much, of course!

It's an interesting way to look at people's posts....
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It'd be interesting to correlate exclamation mark use against position on the I-E spectrum.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It'd be interesting to correlate exclamation mark use against position on the I-E spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It'd be interesting to correlate exclamation mark use against position on the I-E spectrum.

---

I don't mind being used but I do like being asked

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:
Message boards are also very attractive to people on the autism spectrum because we don't have to contend with non-verbal communication - something many of us find difficult to understand. On the web, we are more equal - we just have the other people's words without any gestures or looks, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:

And many of us are also INxx, so we often prefer to think (and re-think) before we post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A fact which probably explains the high percentage of my posts which get edited. And then re-edited! An "E" tendency, no doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

I don't believe that's a difference between Extroverts and Introverts. I think it's an almost universal. Indeed, it might be an illustration of the Forer principle.
'When you are talking to someone, you feel you need them to show they've heard and taken in what you've said. Otherwise, you suspect they haven't and aren't listening.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

I don't believe that's a difference between Extroverts and Introverts. I think it's an almost universal. Indeed, it might be an illustration of the Forer principle.
'When you are talking to someone, you feel you need them to show they've heard and taken in what you've said. Otherwise, you suspect they haven't and aren't listening.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

I don't believe that's a difference between Extroverts and Introverts. I think it's an almost universal. Indeed, it might be an illustration of the Forer principle.
'When you are talking to someone, you feel you need them to show they've heard and taken in what you've said. Otherwise, you suspect they haven't and aren't listening.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

I don't believe that's a difference between Extroverts and Introverts. I think it's an almost universal. Indeed, it might be an illustration of the Forer principle.
'When you are talking to someone, you feel you need them to show they've heard and taken in what you've said. Otherwise, you suspect they haven't and aren't listening.'

---

But the gap between when someone stops speaking and when the acknowledgement comes might be much longer from an introvert who is carefully thinking out their response before replying! But the extrovert speaker might be expecting a much quicker response and hence interprets the waiting interval as a lack of response. This was expressed by a very extrovert friend of mine who is married to a very introvert husband. She said that when they were first married she thought he was ignoring her because he took so long to reply when she was talking with him!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
... When Orfeo said the extroverts really needed to have an external acknowledgement from the introverts that they had heard a conversation or they--extroverts-- get worried that nothing is happening --wow, HOW that resonated with me!! ...

---

I don't believe that's a difference between Extroverts and Introverts. I think it's an almost universal. Indeed, it might be an illustration of the Forer principle.
'When you are talking to someone, you feel you need them to show they've heard and taken in what you've said. Otherwise, you suspect they haven't and aren't listening.'

---

No, it's not about feeling the need to RECEIVE the signal. I can assure you, many introverts don't feel the need to GIVE the signal. Certainly not, as Lucia has mentioned, to give the signal quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I thought that was just because we actually shut up for ten seconds and listened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
[edited to add, Oops! I got blocked by flood control while trying to send this....I guess that only happens to extroverts?!! ]

---

More to fast typists.

 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well here's interesting!

My youngest son has Asbergers and he went yesterday with his mother to be reassessed in advance of him going to university in September - support programmes and all that.

Anyway, in the consultation my wife mentioned that he and I are very similar and, to be honest, I have displayed a lot of the tendencies that he does. I have never been diagnosed as having Asbergers but the consultant said that it's hereditary.

Then I found this

So there you go.
I've been undiagnosed all along and like this all my life.

It explains so much!
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well here's interesting!

My youngest son has Asbergers and he went yesterday with his mother to be reassessed in advance of him going to university in September - support programmes and all that.

Anyway, in the consultation my wife mentioned that he and I are very similar and, to be honest, I have displayed a lot of the tendencies that he does. I have never been diagnosed as having Asbergers but the consultant said that it's hereditary.

Then I found this

So there you go.
I've been undiagnosed all along and like this all my life.

It explains so much!

---

quote:

---

"I'd have said INTJ is associated with Asperger's but not INFJ - because people with Asperger's tend to not understand people's unkind intentions - which would be the opposite of the INFJ who tends to be suspicious of the intentions of others.

I've only known for a week or so that I'm INFJ and since then I've become obsessed with typing."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You know I've been saying about Myers-Briggs being roundly abused and the moderate kernel of truth being extended waaaaay beyond its natural scope to the point where it becomes pure pseudoscience?

Well this sort of thing just makes it too easy.

---

quote:

---

The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
Me? I come out as an ISFP when I've done this as a formal test. When we did this and the meaning of the different letters was being read out we got to the description of P and my husband (J type) was looking at me in astonishment saying "THAT'S YOU!".

---

Have you heard of the Forer Effect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
I think the descriptions and his reaction were before we had actually been given back our test results.

---

In which case you didn't need to do the test or get the results to understand your preferences

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My desk is a complete tip, and I see with horror a "clear desk policy" coming my way.

It could lead to a standoff. Seriously. They might as well ask me to grow an extra ear.

---

Karl, I’m pleased to find something on which we agree 100%. If this policy does get imposed, I suggest consulting with your manager and asking if they really want to implement a policy that will destroy your ability to function effectively in your job. This is an instance where you could use M-B theory to your advantage, and explain that imposing a stereotyping, strait-jacket policy might suit some types of people, but is a disaster for other types, such as yourself. If they go-ahead and your performance drops, tell them they’ve only got themselves to blame, and if they then start murmuring about letting you go, you might have a good case for constructive dismissal.

Alternatively, put a big piece of cardboard on your desk, and every night put the cardboard with all the papers on it on the floor. Voila! Clear desk. Did they say anything about the floor? No. (Impose a stupid bureaucratic rule on an INTP, and boy, can we think of ways round it.)

On the wider subject of why some people operate in organised, tidy environments (e.g. desks) and others don’t, one has to go into what is called Type Dynamics. This basically goes back to Jung’s original formulation, which was extended and developed by Briggs and Myers. I find that type dynamics is by far the most revealing and useful part of M-B theory, but it is too complex to explain in detail here. I will just have to say that for any Type, one of the functions (Intuition, Sensing, Thinking, Feeling) is used to interact with the world outside the person (extraverted attitude) and the other function is used to interact with the inner world of the person (introverted attitude). (It is possible to work out what they are from the four-letter Type, but the process is a bit convoluted.)

So to cut the story short, people who particularly create and function well in organised, tidy environments have a Type where the Thinking function is extraverted. They are: ESTJ, ENTJ, (where Thinking is the dominant function); ISTJ, INTJ (where Thinking is the Auxiliary function). Because people of these types are good at organising, they often end up in management, and tend to think that the world would be a better place if everyone behaved exactly like themselves. However, this brings them into severe conflict with people whose type preference is extraverted Intuition (ENTP, ENFP, INTP, INFP), for whom the prospect of having to maintain a tidy, neat, organised, uncluttered world around them is as likely as hell freezing over. (Hello Karl, you and me both... )

This links into the comment that orfeo made:

quote:

---

I've occasionally tried to form theories about just why it is that INFJs are known for having a messy desk despite being 'J'.

---

The answer is that the extraverted function of INFJs, while being a Judging function, is F, not T. The tidy/messy desk diagnostic indicator needs to be analysed with caution for each extraverted function. As I’ve explained above, extraverted T types will strongly prefer and like to have a tidy desk. Extraverted N types will find having a tidy desk pretty much impossible. For extraverted F types the tidy/untidy desk question is less important to them either way, and as we’ve seen there is something of a variation in opinion, with Graven Image (post #49) being INFJ with a tidy desk.

For me, the point that most enhances the credibility of M-B types is their value in conflict resolution, particularly between couples with different extraverted functions, and therefore different preferences for the environments around them that they like to create to live in.
-----------------------------------------------------
Finally (thank God! ) I’m in complete agreement with everything that Barnabas62 posted here, and I think his comments are spot-on. The preferences are binary, and the percentage scores give an indication of the clarity of the preference as determined by the questionnaire and are therefore not a measure of the strength of the preference as practised by the person in their everyday life. There might be some correlation between the two, but it is not reliable. So I believe that it is unethical to use the percentage scores for any other purpose. On the debate between B62 and Leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I am right, at least in as far as the version that I am trained to use. Percentages are very important for its interpretation - a 4 letter descriptor is not much use otherwise.

---

Curiouser and curiouser, leo. Your further clarification is a flat contradiction of the Wiki article. The percentage scores are not supposed to be used to determine the degree of a preference. At least, not in the standard MBTI model, according to Wiki. [Wiki quote deleted for brevity.]
So if your training taught you otherwise, maybe your training was in some variant of the standard model? Anyway, I remain puzzled. .

---

Yes - trained specifically in using it in spiritual direction and we use the percentages.
...

---

quote:

---

Even the "trained" can't agree!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
..... then Exclamation Mark’s rather snide criticism:

quote:

---

Even the "trained" can't agree!

---

fails to distinguish between different sources of training – between authorised training in ethical usage, and unauthorised training in unethical usage. And disagreement between the two is entirely to be expected. Angus

---

Well it was intended as an observation of a discussion on the board and actually not as a snide remark.

In addition, there was/is no indication of whether Leo's training was authorised or unauthorised and whether it was any different in any marked respect from that offered elsewhere.

My comment was predicated on the information provided which I took on trust and as truth.

Let's hope that Leo - if his training is unorthodox - isn't using mb explicityly or advertising himself as such!
 

---

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :
 
@ hanginginthere

I agree with you.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
@Exclamation Mark: Your response is entirely justifiable, and I withdraw my description of your response as 'snide' and apologise for it. A case of reading into written text something that wasn't intended - a common error in message boards such as this one. Perhaps I was influenced to read it that way by the tone of your previous posts in which you trenchantly criticised M-B theory.

I accept that your 'Comment [was] predicated on the information provided which [you] took on trust and as truth' and I can now see, following your clarification, how the discussion would have looked from your POV. My fault for failing to fully appreciate different backgrounds of knowledge for assessing information presented. Hope that smooths things over.
Angus

[ 11. May 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Hope that smooths things over.
Angus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Hope that smooths things over.
Angus

---

Angus
Sure does. I'm pleased and happy we've set the record straight. Mark

---

Good. Me too.

I’m always saddened to hear of people who’ve had a bad experience of M-B typing, as you have posted: “I’ve seen it abused (and have been on the receiving end of this personally)”. And I think it’s a pity that this led you to the action you reported: “I’ve argued (pretty successfully I may add) for it to be removed from use in one major denomination.”

I suppose this means that people in that denomination who might find considerable benefit from understanding the M-B Type of themselves and others will not be able to do so, if they wished. I agree that any coercion in the use of M-B typing is unethical, and I would entirely support the eradication of any compulsion to take part, but I think it a shame that the optional use of M-B typing should be removed as well.

As I said before, it’s a great pity that unethical and not-entirely-competent use of M-B typing can bring the whole business into disrepute. Karl:LB mentioned that Ken is normally all over any thread on this subject, and from Ken’s comments on a previous thread some while ago, I think that he was on the receiving end of some very inept analysis of his M-B type.

So, Ken, if you’re reading this, I’d like to offer you some (hopefully!) more expert analysis of the characteristics of your Type, and discussion of how well it fits you. I could make some observations straight away, but I think that an ethical approach requires me to ask for your explicit consent before doing so. (Alternatively, we could interact by PM, and you could decide whether or not to make the results public.)

Angus
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0