Do you guys/gal(s) know your personality types?

You can take the test here if you have 15mins to kill

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

I'm http://keirsey.com/4temps/mastermind.asp INTJ

Introvert or Extrovert , it said I was introvert 67%
Sensing or initution , it said I used intuiton 50%
Thinking or feeling , it said I was a thinker 12%
Perception or Judging, it said I used judgment 56%

I wonder if us programmers will cluster to one spectrum of the personality scale or if it will be near random like the general population.

I've come across this test before, and taken it several times. I always get INTP.

The girl who first showed it to me (who is also a programmer) is INTJ, if that helps your statistics.

Also, the general population isn't near random. Some personality types are more common than others. And I don't think we'll get a fair sampling here, as some personality types will be more drawn to the logical, solitary life of programming than others.

I took that test awhile ago. I'm INFP. The description it gave of my personality was surprisingly accurate.

Wow yea me too, especially reading at the bottom about romance etc, I was like how did you know i was like that.

For mine it said
As a teen, he was slow to mature. He was interested in girls, but was very awkward around them. He also felt that most girls were just plain silly, so he did not date. By his senior year in college, he was actively looking for a mate but wasn't quite sure how to go about it. One day he happened to strike up a conversation with a young woman he'd known slightly. They immediately hit it off, covering topics ranging from the inane (comic strips) to the sublime (the origin of life). They married a year later. Hamid feels very relieved to have successfully cleared this life hurdle.

Very close, the general jist of it is right except i'm not married yet.

And I didnt mean near random I know some types occur more than others, like mine it said is like 2% of the population, what I meant to say was I wonder if it will mirror the same distribution found in the general public.

This is bogus because all 16 types are made out to sound like superheros. Where's the type for the average loser?

If I got any of the introverted, thinking types as a result, it would seem like it described me at some "shockingly" accurate level. That is, of course, because I am awesome, just like the text says.

Myers-Briggs? Seriously? Why not try a Rorschach test or phrenology while you're at it.
It's pseudoscientific, unreliable, and so ridiculously easily gamed that it's not even funny.

Hehe, that could be a good practical joke actually. "Thank you for completing this test! Your personality type is FAIL."

They do that with horoscopes, why not personality tests?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/536859/horrible_horoscopes_for_january.html?cat=72

It's one thing to tell someone they're going to have a bad week because of alignment of the starts, it's another thing to tell someone they're going to have a bad life because they have a shitty personality.

The test is relying on the Forer effect.

If the test was relying on the Forer effect, then explain to me how it could know I am good with kids?!

Gee whiz, I'm good with kids too! Gimme one, I'll squeeze him and pet him and feed him and I will call him George!

Seems many are taking the personality test very personal loll interesting.

Obviously the 5 plus billion of us on this planet are all individuals and no two people are exactly alike. Thus any attempt to generalize peoples personality types base on just 16 categories is obviously that, its generalizing which for me is obvious. That does not mean it lacks all validity in its generalizations if they are just seen as that. A board category shared with millions of others.

I'm not going to argue to defend it fully I didn't write the test, so its all good.
I think some person take certain things too personal, what are you afraid of? Do you feel uncomfortable that some test is telling you about yourself?

Obviously people can answer questions in weird ways and a lot of the questions depend on the context so it can be hard to pick a yes or no, but overall pretty straight for me.

Example

are you always early to events (yup thats me, click yes)
do you like to keep organize(yup thats me click yes)
etc,etc

I think it's fair to try to generalize people into 16 categories for fun. But such generalizations ultimately are useless at an individual level, as any single point could be completely erroneous.

I think a 70 question test is a waste of time, when you could just as easily ask four questions starting with: "Are you introverted or extroverted?"

And I think it's shallow to think a test accurately describes you, when I could pick any twenty vague complements and get you to think 90%+ of them described you.

Doesn't sound like you're very good with kids to me...

Not everyone is capable of accurate reflection.

Okay, I actually did consider that you could have been making a reference, but I when I Googled your sentence it didn't come up with any sources... I guess Google doesn't know everything.

Actually it comes from Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck.

What would be more interesting is if it also focused on the negatives of your personality type.

"You'll be great at data entry! But good luck finding a date!"

Good point Johnny about not everyone being good at self reflection I agree.

And shallow?
Maybe others do but I dont take a personality test looking for compliments, interesting that you perceive the test this way. Seems like you see it (correct me if i'm wrong) as people take these test to make them feel good about themselves. I guess some people do, I don't.

I already know i'm a cool guy, don't need a test to tell me that or go fishing for compliments, loll

{"name":"FreeCompliment.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/1\/814c2d61143e9f44cc6c37bc94bbde8e.jpg","w":400,"h":533,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/1\/814c2d61143e9f44cc6c37bc94bbde8e"}

Don't most data records have dates in them??!!?

You're joking right?

Touche, sir. I have been bested.

No, I think people take it because they are curious. Then they see the a bunch of positive statements about themselves, which dupes them into thinking it's accurate because it is somehow insightful.

Even a completely arbitrary response (same for everybody) could be written to sound very accurate. Ask people four questions (that's all the test really does, over and over again), and you can make it seem even better by adding something obvious about their personality.

thanks for clearing up your perspective,

yea its asking question one many times to see how consistent a person is with their response, i'm sure you already know that though.

Yea its just a test, kinda like you can take a test in a class on a fail the test but still have a strong concept of the class material.

I agree people respond differently to test and some test are better than others in actually testing for what they set out to set for(validity). How consistent a test is with itself, like if I take the test again will I score totally different (test reliability)

Yea with something so relative as personality it is hard to test it, but validity and reliability are what test makers look at in the scientific community and they do lots of research

but do you wonder why its used by so many professionals in the psychological and mental health fields? I think its likely because the test isn't just a load of crap.

You mean those professionals that have eleventeen kajillion different and conflicting theories about how people act?

Or because the field is full of quacks. Any "professionals in the psychological and mental health fields" using something as vastly discredited as Myers-Briggs for serious purposes should take up another vocation.

Blind leading the blind is a more reasonable answer.

Psychologists should be knowledgeable of the various types of common personalities and how people with certain traits (or disorders) tend to act. It can be a useful starting point in understanding an individual. But hopefully no psychologist would actually base any sort of judgment on the above mentioned test.

Yes those professionals,

are you in the mental health field? There are debates but assessments and such general profile test are used often. For example look at the dsm-iv. Obviously there are some that say people are more than just a diagnosis and I agree but it does give good insight into a persons nature.

Diagnosis and personality types are not the same but its the same concept about using general categories to describe people that share a collection of traits. Thats verry very common in the psychology/social work/ psychiatric fields. I speak as one who is in the field.

and no I dont use personality test in my professional work,
just thought it would be interesting to see what personality types we had on the site thats all

[edit]

Yea don't really want to take the personality test into the debate over their use in psychological areas because as I see by my post above thats not even something we use in my office to really assess a person. Then again everyone we work with has(is given)a mental health diagnosis (you know the insurance companies wont pay for treatment if you dont have a dsm-iv code). But anyways yea I dont want to head in that direction since as I said we dont use such test.

That test is not a clinical tool but lay people can use it to learn about their personalities hopefully

If you ask a question in a negative vs. positive sense you'll be more likely to cancel out some sort of bias towards agreeability or something.

shyster: "And did you not pick up the knife after he dropped it?"
innocent victim: "My answer is the same as five minutes ago, ask the court recorder."
Judge: "Counsel, stop badgering the witness!"

Arthur i agree with you fully.

I noticed that with some of the questions but knowing myself I answered how I knew myself to be regardless of its phrasing.

But I agree with you on that.

I know I'm an INTJ already, I've taken those tests before. I also bought the book Psychological Types by Carl Jung, which explains the types in far greater detail and not just the good things about them.

I know I am a human, and that my real name isn't GullRaDriel.

I don't care about those fscking tests.

Edited.

Another reason those tests are used in the mental health / psychiatry field might be that people tend to answer more honestly when it's a "scientific test" - present them with 70 questions, and they'll fill them out to their best judgement, because they think that somehow, somewhere, there is a hidden mechanism to detect dishonest answers, whereas if you just ask them "are you an introvert or extrovert person", they'll tell you what they think you want to hear, or what they would like it to be themselves.

Back when my resumé was so non-impressive that I applied for just about every job opening I could find, no matter what, there was one where they had invited about 30 candidates at once, and they had us all do a similar kind of "mental stability test". Question 5 or so was "Do you shit daily" (not in those exact words), at which point I decided they were way out of line, and I went with the "cab system" - "c, a, b, c, a, b, c, a, b...". The test result apparently said I was "neurotic and paranoid".

I'm incoherent or in despair, and nothing inbetween, and I didn't need a test to tell me that either.

Also, stop saying yea.

It would have been nice of course, if you mentioned that after filling in 60 odd questions you have to pay for the result...

I got INF (Idealist) with no last letter unless I pay then money.

I'm that INTJ as well, and the quoted is close to me as well.. Although it got derailed on that part of that continues relationship, I had been "planning" to "end up" somewhere around my thirties, but she has made me temporary change my mind, then everything collapsed and I'm back to my old aims.

You shouldn't be worrying about that, you're a Supreme one after all..

Aha, and..
@superstar & then these people go around giving that test to others

It doesn't purely rely on Forer's effect, but it rather takes a model of the kind and then uses your answers to bend it towards specific characteristics.

Append:

Ouch, that money part is evil. I hate getting caught in to such tests

P.S:
About that big bunch of y/n questions without everyone being able to answer every question correctly, but still giving the correct direction due to number of the questions, is rather a good practice giving a lot of advantages vs few questions..

Didn't do the test now but done in the past, INTJ over here.

hmm, so why are they charging me for the last letter. I suspect it's the usual rip-off Britian surcharge we get on everything

btw, the test, like all tests, is of course bollocks. I'm no where near an Idealist and it takes more than a few questions to determine a personality trait. Even using a Scientology machine takes over 100 questions.

No, I'm almost never...

cried over another superstar4410 thread

Yes, yes, and yes. I wonder if Penn and Teller did a show on these yet...

Hey Van thanks for sharing, good to see it made
u cry.

My goal before 2011 is to get 2 gallons of liquids to pour from your eyes before year ends, grab your hanky.

TROLLED. Allow me to introduce you to Yves. And this is why you fail at psychiatry.

You seem like somebody that is very physically healthy based on previous posts of your cycling and such. Since learning of your profession I can't help it, but to analyze your posts regarding psychiatry. Your repeated use of "loll" is especially troubling. I find it annoying to all ends when I meet people that say that in every message (i.e., Email, IM, etc.). "Laugh out loud" is not a fucking period. It should not end every sentence. And there's only two l's in "l0l". There's a good reason why ML filters it on this site.

Maybe I'm being too critical, but it seems like somebody in the psychiatric field should see through something like that and be above it. Then again, it seems fair also to say that the psychiatric field is entirely pseudoscience in practice. I'm sure there's a science to be had, but I'm not so sure that we're anywhere near attaining it. I'm damn sure that very few of the millions or hundreds of millions in the field aren't at all qualified to be, in the same way that I'm sure that the majority of people in software development aren't qualified either.

</drunken_rant>

Psychiatry, as a discipline, is relatively rigid in its scientific methodology, as compared to, say, psychology or sociology. That's not because sociologists and psychologists are idiots, it's because the human mind is hard to observe, especially on a statistically significant scale. When doing research about the human mind, you have two choices - a single-case study based on self-observation, or a larger study that measures what you hope to be more or less reliable indicators of the thing you're actually interested in. Another problem is that in those fields, a "lab situation" is a practical impossibility - you cannot have a human mind that's completely blank -, and so it is very hard to isolate factors and show causal relationships.

Psychiatry has similar problems, but because it deals with pathological deviations of the human mind, it is easier to define conditions and base research on those. Also, when researching the effects of medication, double-blind studies are possible, something sociologists can generally only dream of.

In practice, the problem is similar to that of the medical profession as a whole - one the one hand, there's researchers who deal with theoretical concepts, numbers, and statistical significance; on the other hand, there are the practitioners, basically acting as craftspeople with an enormous amount of domain knowledge. Regardless of all the theory they have learned and absorbed, much of what they do is based on personal professional experience rather than cold scientific fact.

{"name":"603087","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a524767772c3c1feb0df171c32d473a8.png","w":376,"h":287,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a524767772c3c1feb0df171c32d473a8"}

Good point Tobias.
The extra L on is for emphasis BaM. Plus I prefer seeing the letters than the smiley face.

I'm not in the psychiatry field Bam though I work with psychiatrist.
I'm in the mental health therapy field, with a background in social work
(Bachelors & Masters specialization in mental health).
Our psychiatrist deals mostly with medications while the therapist do
the therapy. There are psychiatrist in private practice that do both, but nowadays most private mental health agencies separate the meds and therapy(USA).

First we start off with the question about a personality test.

Then we talked about how some feel the test is not valid and why

Then the connection was made by someone between these test and the
mental health field.

Like I stated, we don't use this at my office. So those seeing the test as a FAIL and thus seeing the mental health field as a FAIL should not make that logical leap.

I would be the first to admit Bam that my field is a soft science. Its still a science but very soft compare to math fields. That is not to say that it is useless or does not have its place.

I think some of you heard about the shooting in Tuscon Arizona in the USA. This is my boss here that I work for, they got her expert opinion on CNN from the
mental health perspective.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2011/01/12/griffin.descent.into.madness.cnn?iref=allsearch (Dr kathy Siefret, My Boss) As in the video a professional would not label(I know labels are imperfect)the guy mentally ill by doing some personality test but by a through mental health assessment.

So with looking at someone's state of being and general functioning we use diagnosis not personality test. Yes, everyone does not have a mental health diagnosis and yes some people are falsely diagnosed.

Here's my score!

Your Type is
ISTJ
Introverted Sensing Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
89 75 38 11

Good see to we at back to the OP.

Wow my friend u got an extremely high score on the introverted part.
Do you think that accurately reflects you?

Your sensing score was pretty high too.

A detailed expliantion for those looking at their scores (source wikipedia)
*************************************************
*************************************************
Attitudes: Extroversion (E)/Introversion (I)
Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extroversion and introversion as Jung first used them, and preserves the original spelling of extroversion. Extroversion means "outward-turning" and introversion means "inward-turning."[17] These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.
The preferences for extroversion and introversion are often called as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extroverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference for one or the other.
People who prefer extroversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extroverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.
The extrovert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extroverts and introverts include the following:
Extroverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.
Extroverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.
Extroverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.
Extroverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.[18]

Functions: Sensing (S)/Intuition (N) and Thinking (T)/Feeling (F)

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:
The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition
The two judging functions, thinking and feeling
According to the Myers-Briggs typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere."[1]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant Function

According to Myers and Briggs, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior function the shadow.[1]:84

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

Lifestyle: Judgment (J)/Perception (P)
Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).

Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judgment show the world their preferred judging function (thinking or feeling). So TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical, and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers,[1]:75 judging types like to "have matters settled." Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). So SP types tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP types as abstract. According to Myers,[1]:75 perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open."
For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function. Introverts tend to show their dominant function outwardly only in matters "important to their inner worlds."[1]:13 For example:
Because ENTJ types are extraverts, the J indicates that their dominant function is their preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). ENTJ types introvert their auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling. Because INTJ types are introverts, the J indicates that their auxiliary function is their preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). INTJ types introvert their dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is feeling, and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.

*************************************************
*************************************************

Your Type is
ENTJ
Extraverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
17 19 25 1

Thanks for sharing Van, your numbers are pretty low which seems to be very good.
I guess that means you are a fairly balanced individual.

I'm not sensitive! ML, Superstar4410 is making fun of me! Make him stop. The introverted part is what I expected, maybe a little low, but the sensitivity part is a surprise.

Making fun of you??

Nah, ask Bam, if I was you would see the L , O, Lss

I'd love if the test page would try to guess my astrologic sign, too. According to modern astrology, I'm a Scorpio, but I feel more like a Libra. And Libra I would be, if the astrologists really care where on the sky Sun actually were when I was born. But they don't. But that's off topic.

INTJ, like most im guessing?

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/01/15/1623259/Stars-Remain-In-Their-Usual-Places-People-Panic

Astrology is never modern. It is (or was) a branch of science made obsolete by the lack of evidence for its very basis, the assumption that the movements of the "stars" somehow affects our personal fates in any meaningful way. What's sold as "astrology" today is a mixture of outdated (and I'm talking outdated by centuries) results of semi-scientific research, fantasy, wishful thinking, and clever use of psycho-engineering.

Pfft - such hogwash! We Pisces don't believe in astrology!

There are people who believe it's right, thus acting accordingly and making it at least partially right(the idea is open for corrections and extensions).

1) Didn't the astrology change only effect people who were born after 2009?

2) Why do I keep end up explaining this when I don't even believe in astrology?

3) Purple monkey dishwasher (points for getting the reference)

1) It really doesn't affect anyone, but lets keep that a secret. I sure hope people born after 2009 aren't affected by it!
I've read about Sidereal Astrology before.

2) I'll answer your question with another question: What does global warming, gay marriage and Tiger Woods have in common?

3) ... The Simpsons. Which probably also answers my question

wrong, astrology is relevant and it does affect people who believe in it

Of course it is. Stupid people do what the charlatans want them to do.

stupid people just make too many babies

I said it was obsolete. Not irrelevant. Obviously, anything you believe in will affect your behaviour (unless it's a very trivial thing, in which case the word "believe" probably wouldn't be appropriate in the first place). It's still obsolete and wrong, along with homeopathy and all the other looks-like-science-but-definitely-isn't BS.

I tried to find references on who ever invented the 30 degrees sectors defining the exact times for the 12 antique zodiac signs. I couldn't find any. Somehow I remember it was done in modern time, in a time when the zodiac had already turned some 30 degrees from what it was 3000 years ago. Somewhere I have a chart of all constellations on the sky, not only the 12 zodiac signs. And each constellation has a "right angle"^[1] polygon boundary around itself. In that chart one can see how the ecliptica crosses the 13 constellations. Could it be that same astronomers who defined the boundaries, also defined that the zodiac be divided into 12 equal sectors? And they just named them beginning with Aries, where the ecliptica crosses the equator to enter the Northern hemisphere.

@van_houtte:

The signs are opportune for you to buy one of these

I just took two of these tests in the last couple of days... I got INTP and INFP. I forget the exact percentages but one test had me close the middle between T/F and the other had me much closer to F than T. So I'm thinking I'm most likely an INFP.

When I was reading the statements about each personality, I was distinctly reminded of horoscopes, and thinking "but isn't this accepted science? why does it sound like a horoscope?" but then I remembered, oh right, it's part of psychology -- which isn't really science, it's more like an approximation of science, it's VERY subjective.

(From wikipedia: "Psychology is the science of mind and behavior.", "For many practitioners, one goal of applied psychology is to benefit society." -- I think a big part of being able to make something subjective into something that works and is repeatable is being able to establish reliable grounds for categorization.)

There are probably well on a million different continuums on which you can judge a personality and some might even overlap each other or contradict one another... and others might only be valid when we are in a certain state (primary strengths mean nothing, when your internal state machine does not permit you to use them) but 4 might be good enough to give meaningful and usable results for a practicing psychologist... which is all their supposed to be... keep in mind though that these are 4 weighted continuums, so two INTPs for example may have vastly different distributions, but they're close enough and have the same primary traits that for some categorization purposes, this might be useful.

Now, some people have claimed in this thread the system can be gamed... honestly the questions on the service that said I was an INFP, I thought some of the questions were amazing -- simply because BOTH answers looked "right". You really had to weight "Which do you value more here?", and all it does is on four continuums say "Okay start in the middle and move it left or right based on each answer." It seems perfectly acceptable to me to say that when I statistically chose emotions over thinking that I'm more likely to make a decision in emotion than in thinking -- I don't see what's bogus about that.

Mind you the tests did say I put more weight on average to my emotions than I do into thinking about things, so maybe I'm not a very hard person to convince.

Also, in closing, wikipedia was quick to point out (with both personality types I looked at) the strengths AND weaknesses of each (I thought it outlined my internal frustrations about working in a team VERY well, better than I could have.) And I feel that the INTP did NOT fit me very well, INFP was a fairly good match, but it still did feel reminicisint of a horoscope, which honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the bad rep. is coming from.

There are scientific disciplines within psychology. This isn't one of them. This is pure pseudoscience.

Questions like this are bad: "You trust reason rather than feelings." How I answer the question is how I perceive myself to be. Thus of course the result on the test is what I expect.

You might as well get to the point: "Sensing or intuition?"

However, questions like this are potentially good: "You feel involved when watching TV soaps". You can easily answer the question honestly without thinking about the end result. Of course, this question is actually bad because it assumes you watch soaps. i.e., Maybe you answered "no" because you don't watch them, but you would feel involved if you watched them.

This particular test had far more bad questions than good ones. So the result is hardly interesting.

@ML I agree. The first test I took, the one that gave me INFP, I was very impressed by the way it asked most of the questions (sorry, no link, I just randomly googled for personality test the other day and found two of them), though each question only had 2 answers, both answers sounded like they were better than the other, so you really had to choose which one you identified with most -- edit: and I wonder if each question wasn't weighted differently.

The second test I took, however, (which put me as an INTP) some of the questions were kind of bad -- to the point where the answers actually didn't even make sense in regards to the question, and others were yes/no.

Like anything, with an internet test, you should just plain be suspicious of it's accuracy. For practical usage, I wouldn't trust either test I took any more than an online IQ test, though I think for the most part, I have a good feeling for what I might be.

Edit: For both tests though, it did take quite a bit of exercise to make sure I was being honest in my answers and not just picking what I wanted to be labeled as.

You mean I shouldn't be showing people the screenshot I took saying I have an I.Q. of 165?

@Arthur Kalliokoski, no way man, you should pimp that shit all over your myspace. People there are likely to even believe it... smart ass.

Myspace? Not me! I'm an Official Smart Person! <wink> don't tell people the truth plz.

Guess what, another INTP.
11 38 12 11

Doesn't mean anything to me really, though I was curious.

Just another Einstein.. I've heard of smarter guys.

ISTJ
67 12 100 56

It looks like I win the T category.

I got a 100 also, but was too embarrassed to say so til now.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-78&SN=0.6&TF=100&JP=-33

I personally find that the questions in these tests are highly biased.

INTJ

100	25	12	33

I do not fully agree with my results.

These tests are definitely more of an "Oh neat!" thing. A practical analysis isn't cheap.

I've worked with personality types in workshops a few times now under the "True Colors" program. It's useful to be able to peg people as one of the personality types because you can change your communication with them. Sometimes things I don't consider to be a big deal at all as a "green person" are extremely important to a "blue person".

100 on Introvert,

I dont believe that Bam, or at least you dont seem that way in your personality (that of which I can infer from your postings)

I don't care if this is pseudoscience or real, it's fun either way. I took this test some time ago (I think a couple of years) and got INTP. Taking it again in a minute.

EDIT: Yay, I got INTP again. Looks like I haven't changed much in the last two years or so. My scores: 89, 62, 75, 44.

I usually fail on these tests because I refuse to answer "yes" to questions like "You always ..." or "X is never good / bad / ..."

@Tobias you FAILED a personality test? Wow, that says some deep shit about you right there!

Maybe I worded that wrong... what I meant to say was, those tests typically fail me. That sounds wrong somehow, so...

There is no pass or fail, its just telling you about your personality.

Perhaps you mean "fail you" in the sense that they let you down and are not accurately reflecting your personality. For example as in example B below.

Example A: Class do your homework or I will "fail you" all in this class.
Example B: Don't wear you seatbelt like that, it makes the fabric weaker and it will cause it to "fail you" in the event of a crash.

I don't think Michael was absolutely serious.

INTJ, I know it because I read the books.

You sure other personalities do not?