Yeah, personality typing tests aren't much good if you aren't honest with your answers. But then most people tend to either play up their strengths or harp on their weaknesses, so results can be skewed.
MBTI of Trekkies
- Thread starter estar9821
- Start date
Introverted (I) 53.13% Extroverted (E) 46.88%
Intuitive (N) 55.26% Sensing (S) 44.74%
Feeling (F) 66.67% Thinking (T) 33.33%
Perceiving (P) 60.61% Judging (J) 39.39%
Your type is: INFP
- "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.
Intuitive (N) 55.26% Sensing (S) 44.74%
Feeling (F) 66.67% Thinking (T) 33.33%
Perceiving (P) 60.61% Judging (J) 39.39%
Your type is: INFP
- "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.
The designers of the test were aware of this limitation, and so there is some internal correction for this in the test questions to some extent. Several questions check the same area in different ways from different angles, and no one answer can override others. Plus, some questions appear to test one area, but actually assess another.
Of course, fundamentally, the test stilll requires the participant to want an honest answer (which is why using something like MBTI as part of job application processes is of dubious value at best, although not uncommon in some fields). But good self-knowledge is not quite as required as it seems from some of the questions.
There is a deep conceptual debate to had about the constructs behind the MBTI, which Jadzia touched upon upthread (welcome back, BTW), but that's kind of tangential and way beyond the scope of this thread.
On a related note, there's a clear theoretical line of descent from the Ancient Greek theory of the four elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water right down to the MBTI, which I briefly outline here. It's quite striking and amusing to note the similarities (and the progress, or lack of it, we've made since Classical times)!
Introverted (I) 78.13% Extroverted (E) 21.88%
Intuitive (N) 51.35% Sensing (S) 48.65%
Thinking (T) 62.96% Feeling (F) 37.04%
Perceiving (P) 56.25% Judging (J) 43.75%
Intuitive (N) 51.35% Sensing (S) 48.65%
Thinking (T) 62.96% Feeling (F) 37.04%
Perceiving (P) 56.25% Judging (J) 43.75%
INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.
Edit: The INTP type description which was linked from the test result page contained a few things which made me chuckle.
I - Surak - find my test result of INTJ agreeable.
INFP (close to INFJ, but when I got older I realized I had to admit I was the "P" type).
I find I write a lot of NF-type characters in my fanfic, with the occasional NT, for my POV characters. Though the Cardassians tend to have what I would call an "SJ overlay" that skews their results a bit--which is why I didn't realize right away that one of the characters, Gul Berat, was in fact an ENFP (which I'm sure is FAR from the type most people think of when they think "Cardassian"!
)
I find I write a lot of NF-type characters in my fanfic, with the occasional NT, for my POV characters. Though the Cardassians tend to have what I would call an "SJ overlay" that skews their results a bit--which is why I didn't realize right away that one of the characters, Gul Berat, was in fact an ENFP (which I'm sure is FAR from the type most people think of when they think "Cardassian"!
)
I usually hover between INTJ (Mastermind) and INTP (Architect). The difference is quite small, I guess the result depends on my mood. But recently, I've got ISTJ (Inspector) a couple of times. I'm an handsome bundle of ever-evolving complexity.
Hi
I did come up with an idea a while ago to try to address the problems I see with MBTI, but I've never fleshed it out.
All atoms of thought consist of data input (perception) and data output (judgement). And this suggests to me that personality has a modular structure, and how our mental cursor get passed step by step through our own unique networks of these modules is what corresponds with our specific thought chains.
The outputs tend to be properties/features/sub-components of the inputs, so offering a way of reducing data down to what eventually becomes abstractions. The filter function in each module being like Jung's functions (extracting the logic with Ti, extracting the ethics with Fi, etc)
What we get from these modules are slights of feeling, on some sliding scale between strong attraction and strong repulsion. When we have complex thoughts, we feel pushed and pulled by these feelings onto different paths though the network.
Some things may repel us so strongly that they're deal breakers (totally illogical [Ti]/ completely unethical [Fi]), where we terminate our thought chain, and negatively evaluate the thing under consideration.
Conversely, some things may attract us so strongly that they're deal makers (I know it works [Si], we need it [Fe]), where we terminate our thought chain, and positively evaluate the thing under consideration.
Last edited:
INTP.
Hi
I did come up with an idea a while ago to try to address the problems I see with MBTI, but I've never fleshed it out.
All atoms of thought consist of data input (perception) and data output (judgement). And this suggests to me that personality has a modular structure, and how our mental cursor get passed step by step through our own unique networks of these modules is what corresponds with our specific thought chains.
The outputs tend to be properties/features/sub-components of the inputs, so offering a way of reducing data down to what eventually becomes abstractions. The filter function in each module being like Jung's functions (extracting the logic with Ti, extracting the ethics with Fi, etc)
What we get from these modules are slights of feeling, on some sliding scale between strong attraction and strong repulsion. When we have complex thoughts, we feel pushed and pulled by these feelings onto different paths though the network.
Some things may repel us so strongly that they're deal breakers (totally illogical [Ti]/ completely unethical [Fi]), where we terminate our thought chain, and negatively evaluate the thing under consideration.
Conversely, some things may attract us so strongly that they're deal makers (I know it works [Si], we need it [Fe]), where we terminate our thought chain, and positively evaluate the thing under consideration.
While I certainly think that most decisions do result from the successful resolution of an underlying creative tension, I tend to be suspicious of quasi-engineering solutions to modelling it because I can't see a way of generating a verifiable result given the data we have.
I prefer to conceptualise personality typing as an occasionally useful construct rather than revealing of real underlying truth. The various different models have different utility dependent on the question actually being asked.
Is there are underlying personality structure that could be revealed by modelling? In theory, yes, but I don't think we have anywhere near the level of understanding required to try it at present. Instead, I prefer thinking of all the models we have as just occasionally useful tools rather than ways of approaching a truth.
^I just read all that back, and if anyone needed more proof that I tend to have INTJ ruthless intellectual pragmatism rather than your fervent INTP curiosity, there it bloody well is!
^I just read all that back, and if anyone needed more proof that I tend to have INTJ ruthless intellectual pragmatism rather than your fervent INTP curiosity, there it bloody well is!
INTP you say...
Reading through that profile, it feels about 75% of it is applicable to me, but places too much emphasis on
- absolutes+precision (I talk in relatives+approximates just as much)
- logic (I'm pretty good at using it but it doesn't define me),
- their ideas not being made understandable. (Lots of people tell me that I'm good at explaining things in a way that they can understand, and that I'd have made an excellent teacher. Communication is about working with the mind of the listener, which is something I'm naturally conscious of.)
But even so it only describes about 40% of my personality. There's a large part of me it doesn't acknowledge.
According to Jung, it would mean I'd be [Ti] dominant, with [Ne] as my auxiliary.
I've always considered [Ne] to be my dominant function, because it's the one that never switches off.
I don't use [Ti] all of the time, so I don't believe that it is dominant. It's in use mostly when I'm on the computer, in rational discussions, or otherwise engaged with searching through/manipulating data. So it shows in my posts here.
But most of my decisions are made through [Fi] being based on my personal values and my subjective sense of what should or shouldn't be, and that function will certainly usurp anything from [Ti].
So I feel I use [Ti] and [Fi] about equally, and if I order the remainder of the functions I get this:
Ne > [Fi = Ti] > [Si = Ni] > [Fe = Te] > Se
Last edited:
Well, yes, exactly. That's the point I was getting at with my post. Whichever system is used, these are merely arbitrary frameworks with varying applicability rather than truths. I think of them as not too dissimilar to the demographic groupings used in segmentation marketing systems like MOSAIC. Useful and relevant for some purposes, less so for others.
Getting too involved in which exact functions are strongest (in whatever construct we discuss) I think is less useful than making a qualitative judgement call about whether the information yielded helps the development of better insight into one's thoughts and behaviours.
INTP you say...
Reading through that profile, it feels about 75% of it is applicable to me, but places too much emphasis...
But even so it only describes about 40% of my personality. There's a large part of me it doesn't acknowledge.
It sounds to me like you're asking too much of the MBTI (or Jung's theory that it's based on, for that matter). No system explains everything about everybody, or even about one individual.
I wouldn't expect it to explain everything. But I do think that if things are worth doing, they're worth doing well.
See there are two figures which are important for reader satisfaction:
(1) How applicable is the portrait to the reader. (Some things it's telling me are completely wrong!)
(2) How complete is the portrait of the reader. (Some important things about my personality it doesn't even acknowledge!)
The higher each of those figures are, the higher reader satisfaction.
By adding greater detail to the portraits, we can increase the value of #2, but risk decreasing the value of #1. By adding more portraits, we can compensate for that loss to #1.
A realistic goal I feel, is to devise a personality classification system that yield portraits that are at least 75% applicable and at least 75% complete.
MBTI just isn't giving me that satisfaction. The 75% applicability I can live with, but the 40% completeness just feels too low to be of value.
See there are two figures which are important for reader satisfaction:
(1) How applicable is the portrait to the reader. (Some things it's telling me are completely wrong!)
(2) How complete is the portrait of the reader. (Some important things about my personality it doesn't even acknowledge!)
The higher each of those figures are, the higher reader satisfaction.
By adding greater detail to the portraits, we can increase the value of #2, but risk decreasing the value of #1. By adding more portraits, we can compensate for that loss to #1.
A realistic goal I feel, is to devise a personality classification system that yield portraits that are at least 75% applicable and at least 75% complete.
MBTI just isn't giving me that satisfaction. The 75% applicability I can live with, but the 40% completeness just feels too low to be of value.
Hi
I did come up with an idea a while ago to try to address the problems I see with MBTI, but I've never fleshed it out.
All atoms of thought consist of data input (perception) and data output (judgement). And this suggests to me that personality has a modular structure, and how our mental cursor get passed step by step through our own unique networks of these modules is what corresponds with our specific thought chains.
The outputs tend to be properties/features/sub-components of the inputs, so offering a way of reducing data down to what eventually becomes abstractions. The filter function in each module being like Jung's functions (extracting the logic with Ti, extracting the ethics with Fi, etc)
What we get from these modules are slights of feeling, on some sliding scale between strong attraction and strong repulsion. When we have complex thoughts, we feel pushed and pulled by these feelings onto different paths though the network.
Some things may repel us so strongly that they're deal breakers (totally illogical [Ti]/ completely unethical [Fi]), where we terminate our thought chain, and negatively evaluate the thing under consideration.
Conversely, some things may attract us so strongly that they're deal makers (I know it works [Si], we need it [Fe]), where we terminate our thought chain, and positively evaluate the thing under consideration.
While I certainly think that most decisions do result from the successful resolution of an underlying creative tension, I tend to be suspicious of quasi-engineering solutions to modelling it because I can't see a way of generating a verifiable result given the data we have.
I prefer to conceptualise personality typing as an occasionally useful construct rather than revealing of real underlying truth. The various different models have different utility dependent on the question actually being asked.
Is there are underlying personality structure that could be revealed by modelling? In theory, yes, but I don't think we have anywhere near the level of understanding required to try it at present. Instead, I prefer thinking of all the models we have as just occasionally useful tools rather than ways of approaching a truth.
^I just read all that back, and if anyone needed more proof that I tend to have INTJ ruthless intellectual pragmatism rather than your fervent INTP curiosity, there it bloody well is!
I find that I'm always just this side of INTJ, with strong P tendencies that sometimes override the J. I see personality types as useful abstractions rather than ironclad absolutes. I'm perfectly willing to accept things that are "close enough," too, unless circumstances unequivocally dictate exacting precision. Personality is fluid enough that "close enough" abstractions are sufficient for my purposes.
If I interact with someone often enough, I can usually guess with high accuracy what their MBTI type will be.
I know INTJs are described as "ruthless" but I've never seen myself that way. I must be defective.
Having a further read, and taking the test again, I seem to be hovering between INFP (Healer) and ENFP (Champion), which is what I got first time round. Well, they both fit me, and the test tells me, I'm closer to T than J or S. So I'm an Idealist with some rational tendencies.
Fascinating, but there's inconsistencies everywhere.
Fascinating, but there's inconsistencies everywhere.
INTJ
Similar threads
