Yes, I agree that it is seriously flawed, like most other personality tests. However, I don't like the idea of "negative" and "positive" personality types - people cannot be judged on a black and white basis, and every type has its good and bad sides.
And, yes, there are forums reserved only for members of a single personality type - I find the idea ultra-dumb, and all of them tend to be smug about the general awesomeness of their type.
For the record, I'm an INTJ. It's cool to have a personality type nicknamed "The Mastermind", and I do find the type quite awesome, but there is absolutely no reason to be a smug jerk about that. I really enjoy the positive aspects of my personality, but there are many things that I hate about myself, and which make me feel quite uncomfortable with others.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.First off, what sites have you been looking at? I usually try to look at just sites that list both the pros and cons of a certain personality, like personality page.
Also what is wrong with giving a name for a certain personality type? Some people don't remember the four letter names, and doing so is more beneficial for them.
Is MBTI's problem with having 16 personality types, or is it because humans are complex? What do you propose in MBTI's place? How many personality types does it have? 48? 80? 144? 256? How do you achieve the accuracy needed to fit everyone exactly?
Also is it MBTI's problem that some types have a cult of superiority, or is that part of the human condition? Also what's wrong with hanging around people the same type as you, besides the whole cult of superiority schtick?
edited 29th Jun '11 7:50:23 AM by EldritchBlueRose
Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.OP, personality types have nothing to do with being good or evil. They are just... well, personality types - your temper, some basic values, your need for socialization or lack of it etc. You might be a loner that easily gets sad or angry and not be an evil person. It's kind of like saying that IQ is useless because it doesn't include physical abilities
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
It might be helpful. Similar personalities might face similar problems. Psychological typologies are pretty important
And using the fact that a criminal can come up as a "Healer" or "Guardian" as a reason that the test is bad is just like saying that naming people is bad because somebody named Chastity can be a nymphomaniac, or someone named Hope chronically depressed - e.g. completely dumb.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.![]()
While Freud and, to some extent, Jung, are not valid nowadays, you can't deny their influence on modern psychology. It's like saying that Newton is bullshit because Einstein proved him wrong
Forer effect in action.
Why don't you just accept that personality tests are bullshit and move on with our lives?
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?There's no problem with MBTI, I'd say - but really, when it comes down to it, its conclusions are pretty straightforward thinking as an analysis of the questions that make up the names of the types. Are you introverted or extroverted? Then you'll show some introverted or extroverted qualities. Do you tend to absorb information by experiencing it directly (sensing) or intuitively constructing things from other facts? And so on. The fact that you relate to, say, INTJ as a type is because you have told your test that you are introverted, intuitive, a thinker more than a feeler, and that you tend to judge things.
MBTI is just like all other personality tests: You pay money to fill out a sheet detailing your exact personality traits, and then you get back a sheet that makes broad generalizations about a group of people with similar personality traits.
In other words, it's a waste of time.
edited 1st Jul '11 4:40:18 PM by LilPaladinSuzy
Would you kindly click my dragons?Problems do abound (though not the ones you've mentioned), but you have to at least consider the accuracies. MBTI is sort of like a grand mirror of many subjective mirrors that have the possibility of being objective, even though objectivity isn't necessarily or always their main purpose. (That probably wasn't correct, but still.) Meaning, if we all are able to evaluate ourselves accurately, and there is a "perfect" (meaning overly generalized system, due to it always having an answer) evaluator of our evaluations, then of course we will fit somewhere.
That we are all unique in some way is true. That we are all unique in unique ways and ways independent of each others' "uniqueness" isn't false, but considerably more false than true.
There is an interesting "type" known as quad-x, meaning a perfectly balanced (or perfectly chaotic) "type". These people aren't necessarily "un-boxable", they are merely "un-boxable" by the current "boxer" boxing. For example, there's an "editing" (I apologize for the seemingly excessive quotations; I'm not good at explaining things in "non-quotationable" terms) group that uses a robot to recognize and correct and/or classify things, according to its programming. Lots of errors/"unclassifiables" occur, because it is not a perfect correcter or classifier. That's generally how it is with MBTI, except fitting into the "box" doesn't make one unoriginal. It makes on quantifiable, on a really basic level.
Oh, here's a better example (in my opinion): sonnets. There is a set standard that is applicable to anything that can be classified as a sonnet, but the content allowed or possible is unlimited. Types are really generalized, and our selves at our most general levels can be "fitted into" those types; types are like the wardrobe leading into Narnia.
Also, considering the fact that the theory is, well, half/three-fourths-theory and half/one-fourths-statistics, it has to be right sometimes, if not always for the right reasons.
Personally, I'm INTP. A "brief" of our personalities is we like fantasy and science-fiction. So far, everybody here on this thread is an N, if I've read correctly (the function most strongly related to theorizing, and fantasy). "Circular", yes, unfortunately, but we have to distinguish, as I've said earlier, between faulty means, and faulty ends.
That doesn't mean S's are not present at all, it just means that that behavior isn't SUPPOSED to be found within their personality spheres, or that their personality spheres don't "make any laws concerning it".
Addressing a completely different problem, people seem to think intelligence is related to type, and dictated to type. The first is somewhat true, circumstantially (if one is an introvert and a thinker *, one is more likely to engage in solitary efforts and intellectual efforts, which generally cultivate the intellect, regardless of its "original" value), the second isn't.
Edit *: That's, of course, not the only winning intellectual-combo; Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins are generally believed to be ENTJ. Mozart is supposedly ESFP (a type that gets a lot of flak for being stupid).
Though INT Js are statistically proven to have the highest intellect, correlation doesn't equal causation. Also, they are an extremely small percentage of the population (meaning there's a "higher density of intellect" than would be perceived in larger groups), with habits that generally should coalesce into making them intellectual powerhouses (interest in abstract concepts, yet the will and drive to implement them in the real world), again, regardless of "original" aptitude. Remember, Stephen Hawking's IQ is estimated at, I think, 160, and Richard Feynman's at 125.
One last, completely unrelated point that I just want to posit, is how closely mere preference is related to actuality of self. ENFP (almost complete opposites of INT Js) have an observed pattern (and thus having no particular reasoning behind it) of mistyping as INT Js, because of their preference for said type.
I have zero idea of what weight this may carry with you, or what weight this reasoning carries with myself, but Misa Amane and Light Yagami are typed as ENFP and INTJ (unhealthy INTJ, of course), respectively. I think it's somewhat interesting that some of the same patterns that occur in real-life, also occur in simulated reality.
In closing, while type isn't conclusive or in any way definitive of a person's personality, it's a stretch to say it is false and always will be false.
I think all of that was at least somewhat reasoned (though it be unreasonable)....
I apologize for any logical and/or grammatical errors in the above text; please notify me if you notice any.
edited 12th Jul '11 7:51:18 PM by mightyleaf
I have zero idea of what weight this may carry with you, or what weight this reasoning carries with myself, but Misa Amane and Light Yagami are typed as ENFP and INTJ (unhealthy INTJ, of course), respectively. I think it's somewhat interesting that some of the same patterns that occur in real-life, also occur in simulated reality.
Actually, yes, it seems that there is some sort of a strange connection between INT Js and ENF Ps. I, as an INTJ, know people that fit the ENFP archetype and, while in contact with them, I feel annoyed by some of their characteristics, yet am somehow strangely attracted to them. This typology does have some actual ground.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.I don't want to be mean but no one here seems to have real knowledge of the theory. Try to read about functions rather than taking tests and read vague descriptions.
The MBTI, as well as many typology systems are flawed. There is no way to deny that as they are just an attempt at conceptualizing various behavioural patterns when it comes to human beings. There are prone to cultural bias and are mostly theorical. There is still an interest in learning about the systems :
1- Introspection. You may find ideas you never found before or at least find good advice. Plus, combining various systems to define HOW you work (rather than WHO you are since this is completely different) or just to learn more about human behaviours and the way they are perceived can be extremely interesting when seeking knowledge about yourself and the world.
2- The MBTI system is an indicator and it is not really about "personality". The system only describes functions, what will be more visible in your behaviour and seems inherent to the base of your personality. Reading about the system, you should learn that it does not deny individuality at all or personality changes. The MBTI system describe main trends but everyone is different and the way people evolve depends on their background and personal history. It does not deny this fact. Descriptions, at best, are examples. At worse, a way to oversimplify the system to make profit on the Internet through innacurate testing.
Needless to say, people who make researches and theories on psychology and human being's first motive is not to create tests and use the Forer Effect to make profit, it is to UNDERSTAND the human being.
There will always be a subjective part in : -the system, -introspection.
This is why the system is not entirely flawless and is not supposed to.
It is a just a tool and the definitions given to the dichotomies or the descriptions are just useless stereotypes used inaccurately by people who make tests based on black & white thinking and strong bias.
Basically, there are 4 "S" types, 4 "N" types, 4 "T" types and 4 "F" types depending on the functions.
ITP and ETJ are Ti/Te dominant. INJ and ENP are Ni/Ne dominant. ISJ and ESP are Si/Se dominant. IFP and EFJ are Fi/Fe dominant.
Contrary to what have been said earlier, I am pretty sure some people on here are sensors and I can assure you that sensors are not unimaginative, they can also be nerds and enjoy science-fiction/fantasy. They may enjoy theories less but they can theorise (using the system, my brother would be an ISTP, Ti is very abstract and IST Ps often mistype themselves as INT Ps of INT Js for this reason).
Please, read about the functions here: http://www.erictb.info/temperament2.html
before talking about a system you know nothing about.
Its accuracy is surely debatable and it should be taken with a pinch of salt but it is not so bad.
However, I do agree that websites specialised in making positive descriptions of each types are just rubbish and do no good to the theory.
(EDIT: And don't get me started with IQ, types and intelligence. We have yet to define properly intelligence, people with no critical thinking but high IQ will always appear dumb to me and you can find them among any type.)
edited 27th Aug '11 6:34:18 AM by StrixAluco
EDIT : Actually, I can't find Light Yagami on that page at all, though he does remind me of an INTJ I used to know.
(seriously, MBTI typology is too handy from a character design POV, for writers to not use it.)
I don't recommend MBTI, or even typologies in general, to people, even though I got a grip on some of my motivations through it.. because it's extremely prone to the operation of cognitive biases (confirmation/positive bias, for example — looking for what you want to see.. another example is the temptation to identify with the type, rather than consider it a good description of a number of aspects of you). If you seem to have a good grip on countering your own cognitive biases, I might suggest it to you — in practice that means there are very few I would suggest it to.
edited 27th Aug '11 7:26:45 AM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'However, the worst problem with the system IMHO is that it provides a mere 4 bits of data about something highly complex. You could misinterpret the test as suggesting that there are actually exactly 16 personality types when as far as I know, there's no concrete evidence supporting that. Another factor I think might be important is how far from the centerline of each of the four continuums you are. For example, IIRC, I am pretty far from the centerline on the E/I scale, much less so for the N/S scale.
EDIT: spelling.
EDIT 2: Also, I'm not much of an artist, but I do live in my own world.
edited 27th Aug '11 7:53:05 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
I guess it hinges on how much you depend on it. Just because you get the test results doesn't mean you're set. But I don't see why it gets so much bashing, when all it takes is for you to get the proper use of it.
The assignment of 16 types is just for convenience. Any kind of research is going to lead to categorization for convenience. The research has done work to identify its personality types based on typical traits. The test itself clearly states that there are variations within types, so it's not liable when people still claim "There are variations".
Now using Trivialis handle.In my humble opinion, I put more faith in pseudosciences(?) like MBTI than pseudosciences like astrology, but that probably has more to do with my love of squared numbers than anything scientific.
While it's a cool way to analyze and diversify a fictional ensemble, it's a tool like all tropes. It's an attempt to squeeze in the incredible variety of human personalities into merely 16 squares, and not all personalities are going to fit nicely or superficially share anything in common with the personalities in the same square. As however fun it is to use in character concepts, any good author should make sure it's not stifling their creativity, as conflict means things should never be neat-and-tidy for protagonists.
So be weary when taking MBTI tests. I "confirmed" my type through reading a career book, and you all could probably find similar library books with self-guided tests. Don't spend money unless you're sure you need some sort of official test, and by "need," I mean "if it will actually better your life." The "recommended careers" for your personality type may not be your cup of tea at all. It's a tool, not a crutch.
Edit: I really need to look at the dates of previous posts in a thread. Sorry guys! Did not mean to necropost.
edited 26th Nov '11 1:56:10 PM by romanticaveman
Admittedly about fifty percent enlightenmentCaveman too.That's because MBTI is guily only of overextrapolation from reasonable premises (that people tend to fall into certain personality types), while astrology is based on unsupported supernatural assertions.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Just a rant about what makes the myer-briggs type indicator so overrated and ineffective.
Firstly, as with most personality tests, it claims to have something for everyone.
Everyone seems like a winner, it sugar coats their personality type. I don't believe that everyone has a good personality, not in the slightest.
When you get criminals and all sorts of overtly nasty people turning up as "The Healer" or "The Guardian", it's hard to take its accuracy seriously. It should have some negative personality types too, surely? But it doesn't, because it's designed to appease.
The MBTI presents idealised personalities. Never mind that no-one really acts that way in reality. It attributes certain patterns of behaviour based on a set of imperfect questions. You could get different answers if you rephrased "you are never late for an appointment" differently. People don't work that way in reality.
Also, to emphasise the problems with idealised personality types, some MBTI types have a cult of superiority. There is an INTJ forum
for those narcissists so obsessed with feeling like a "mastermind" that they only want to hang around with their own personality type.
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]