Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / MyersBriggs

Go To

Mar 23rd 2021 at 3:46:27 AM •••

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rewrite?, started by Vyctorian on Apr 28th 2011 at 11:00:16 PM

May 3rd 2015 at 12:32:51 AM •••

To call a bit more attention to what's sort of been the elephant in the forum, we should use Myers and Briggs' original temperament organization, rather than Keirsey's. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is really seen as its own offshoot of MBTI, and it has an unbalanced temperament scale that is not very efficient. Instead of the imbalanced scale of SP, SJ, NF, NT, we should use the original standard: SF, ST, NF, NT. I have studied this format for a while, and agree with its level of organization. What does everyone else think?

Hide/Show Replies
May 3rd 2015 at 2:33:48 AM •••

Well, do we have to change? Our Myers-Briggs system is a sort of fan game, not a serious psychiatric/personality evaluation.

May 7th 2015 at 5:40:09 AM •••

While this is true, it is still a model of a valid psychiatric test. Therefore, it is probably best to stick to the original model, rather than mixing it with Keirsey, which is often viewed as an entirely separate entity.

Jul 17th 2015 at 5:25:12 PM •••

If we had to mix it with another system, I'd argue that the Socionics quadras [1] would be the best candidate. However, ignoring that, I would also argue for discontinuing the use of Kiersey's system. It was based on what occupations Kiersey thought the types would be attracted to. It also carries some of Kiersey's Intuitive bias.

Overall, the descriptions of the types used, as well as the descriptions of characters and why they fit that particular type, reek of stereotypes. The use of Kiersey's system and teachings promotes those stereotypes.

Jan 22nd 2015 at 4:51:28 AM •••

I say we should remake the tropes for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instead of Keirsey Temperament Sorter because it's more efficient and also the pages are called Myers Briggs, not Keirsey

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 28th 2015 at 4:19:04 AM •••

I agree. Regardless of nomenclature, Keirsey's formula is unbalanced: SP-NF, SJ-NT is an unbalanced system. You have to measure the temperaments by the same functions. I suggest that we separate them into temperaments by one of two ways: FJ, TJ, TP, FP or NF, NT, ST, SF.

Apr 28th 2015 at 9:13:36 AM •••

Now that I think about it, another viable alternative in terms of organization would be NJ, NP, SJ, SP.

Jul 21st 2014 at 4:38:49 PM •••

The way the four groups are is confusing. Two in each group are introverted and two in each group are extroverted. I get that. There there are two sensing groups and two intuitive groups. The sensing groups are divided into Judging and Perceiving. But the two intuitive groups are divided into Thinking and Feeling. I don't understand why they're divided this way. Please help me understand the meaning to this all.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 19th 2014 at 12:02:13 PM •••

The division is mainly among people with similar characteristics, ways and means of thought, feeling, action, and so on. These particular dividing lines among the temperaments make more sense if you boil down the MBTI to the underlying Jungian cognitive functions for comparison.

Let's take my own type, INTJ, as our example of how the MBTI relates to Jungian cognition and how the person typed thinks, feels, acts, and interacts with both their own conscience and the outer world around them.

Intuition (second place, N) is the perceiving function, while the judging function (third letter, in this case T) is Thinking.

The fourth place (here it's J) means I extrovert the judging function, which as we previously established is Thinking. It also means I introvert my perceiving function of Intuition.

Finally, the first letter: I, for Introversion. It simply means my cognition is dominated by my introverted function, which for me is Intuition. Thinking plays a support role to this of course, handling the input/output between myself and the world.

So, my cognitive processes, in order of precedence, are Introverted Intuition (Ni), Extroverted Thinking (Te), Introverted Feeling (Fi), and Extroverted Sensation (Se).

If we apply this dissection to all 16 possible types, we discover that the Sensors are divided into the Guardians (who use Si), and the Artisans (who run on Se).

  • Introverted Sensation (Si) is a "collection" or a "library" of sorts. It's an amalgamation of the various life experiences one has lived through. It's a construct of the world as the person sees its reality. This combined with an extroverted Judging function explains their similar attitudes to the world, and thus why they are their own temperament: Their judgment function projects what their internal preconception, their internal "normal" onto the world around them.
  • Extroverted Sensation (Se) is a desire to "take in" as many experiences as possible, to live in the moment and savor it as it happens around them. The introverted judgment function then takes on the role of internal processing based on a set of either analytical (Ti) or human/emotional (Fi) criterion. It's obvious that the irreplacibility of Artisans in emergency or crisis response teams arises from this, but also their artistic talents as they seek to experience and express their internal selves. a little different. With Ni and Ne, the judging function "shines through" more than it does with Sensation.

  • Introverted Intuition is an internal understanding of the world, its systems and processes, and a set of ideas derived from said. This function is a "fill in the blanks" method of understanding, it takes in a set of data and values (through the extroverted lens of either thought or feeling) and runs with it. "Eureka" moments are almost entirely Ni driven.
  • Extroverted Intuition wishes to impart this understanding upon the world in a "connect the dots" fashion. The introverted Thinking or Feeling merely serves as a set of guidelines for how to carry this function out. Truths and emotions are already known and "out there", Ne simply wants to connect them in new, unforseen ways, trying and experimenting to find new, possibly better ways of doing things. Conceptualization and "what-if" are two examples of this manifestation.

It makes sense, then, that these people would be divided according to whether this understanding and idea forming is more human and emotion oriented (as Idealists), or logical and reasoned and rational.

P.S. Did you know only 25% of the world's population have either form of Intuition as one of their superior (dominant or secondary) functions? And you thought Introverts (35% of the population) had it bad.

Dec 30th 2014 at 2:15:40 AM •••

Let's put these 4 cognitive functions in Layman's Terms:

  • Extroverted Sensing: Person becomes the experience as it happens, constantly adapting to change in reality in the present time. In-born need to stimulate bodily senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell). Show-offs.

  • Introverted Sensing: Experience becomes and forms the person. Constantly self-reflective in regards to reality. In-born need for stability and security.

  • Extroverted Intuition: Person wants to make his/her abstract imagination a reality or affect reality in some way. Openly creative in seeing things that could be.

  • Introverted Intuition: Abstract patterns form a line. Long-term system-builder (especially if NJ). Simplifier of odd, hard to express ideas (Kinda like what I'm doing now, my 3rd function as an ISTP). Insightful to nearly "psychic" degrees if function is well developed. Focused on 1-2 theories at a time.

Much of this can also be taken from the way people communicate, especially with the extroverted functions and even someone's choice of clothing. The introverted functions are harder to spot, but it can be done; just think about how and/or why they are saying the stuff they say.

  • Extroverted Sensing: will insist on using present tense to describe things as they currently are. Simple needs and desires. Direct language. Is usually aware of colors and texture. Art is focused on simple, realistic visual appeal. Dresses more for personal comfort and the weather. Here's a video describing this in greater detail.

  • Introverted Sensing: Deliberation. decisiveness. Rule/code checking. Formal. Proudly dresses according to the customs of the environment (think of uniforms and business suits). Art is done with traditional methods and is usually a representation of a personal memory (especially if SJ).

  • Extroverted Intuition: Speaks from the imagination. Complex needs and desires. Art has hidden meaning, an abstract theme (especially if NP). Use and interpretation of symbolism. Constantly sees the implied messages and meanings. Jumps among ideas often. Clothing may be creatively unusual in some way.

  • Introverted Intuition: Seeing ideas through to the end. Contingency planning. Future insight. Driven towards getting an advantageous endgame in whatever they do. Art makes small ideas come together as one.

If you still don't get all of these functions, then watch DaveSuperPowers since he explains them much more thoroughly in his many type comparisons and contrasts.

Edited by
Dec 30th 2014 at 5:10:45 AM •••

I am pretty sure that "introversion" have no relation with follow rules or not but yes with more reserved and solitary behavior. The opposite to extroversion.

Aug 21st 2013 at 6:22:00 PM •••

I'm willing to say this:

Guardian: The Spock.

Idealist or Rational: The Kirk.

Artisan: The McCoy.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jun 19th 2014 at 4:45:24 PM •••

I disagree, and I'll explain why:

The Spock, Rational: They are the kind of characters that are the masters of information. They will archive, gather, and think their way though any logical question that has any depth and would demand an answer. Here's a few scenes of Spock himself displaying the hallmarks of being a Rational.

The Mccoy, Idealist: This is the character that "sees through" people, and immediately forms opinions based on their behavior. People of this temperament are experts in interpersonal matters on abstract and philosophical levels. They are the people's people. Telepaths typically belong in this temperament because the abstractness of the human mind actually is concrete to them. Here's a compilation of McCoy himself being a Most Triumphant Example of this temperament.

The Kirk: Either Guardian or Artisan. This character is the intermediary between logic and emotion, and these two temperaments have the greatest variance to show for that. How this character is this intermediary would determine which temperament (s)he belongs in. Let's throw in a few rhetorical questions to explain this a bit more simply:

  1. Is this character prone to reflect on past events? Does (s)he look to respect customs and traditions? Does (s)he value duty, security, and personal well-being? Will change likely upset them? Are they openly decisive in their actions? If so, this character is likely to be a Guardian. These scenes of Scotty display these characteristics quite nicely.

  2. Is this character resourceful or has moments of brilliance in just the nick of time? Do the ideas of action and adventure excite him/her? Is this character stimulated and/or energized by his/her environment? Is change fun for this character? Are they open-minded to the facts? If so, place your bets that (s)he is an Artisan. These clips of Kirk himself make these traits very open and blatant. The P.O.V. Cam loves these guys!

Bear in mind that there are outliers to these archetypes, so these aren't exactly definitive; just highly likely.

Sep 23rd 2012 at 12:53:32 PM •••

Just need to say: I love who's ever idea it was to ad the LOTR quotes.

May 6th 2012 at 1:58:41 AM •••

The big problem here is that people are mixing Myers's and Keirsey's systems.

Since I follow the latter, an "ESFP" isn't "Se + Fi + Te + Ni", it's "S -> P -> F -> E", and an INTP is "N -> T -> P -> I" (yes, the orders are different in the S and N paths).

MBTI considers I vs E to be fundamental, Keirsey thinks it's the least important, and as a result the types can have different meanings between the two systems (sometimes subtle, sometimes critical). All the pages around here need to choose which they're using, and re-evaluate everything from that lens.

Jan 27th 2012 at 4:55:37 PM •••

Why do we have this? It is nothing to do with tropes.

Jan 27th 2012 at 4:22:17 PM •••

Personally I don't like (each type is too stereotypical). I usually use or which links to it because they feel more comprehensive to me.

Sep 17th 2011 at 2:50:59 PM •••

This entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch.

The discussion of Myers-Briggs here gives the Theme Park Version of the theory but doesn't accurately represent the way the MBTI works. The four-letter types are not based on the "scales" described, and you will not understand the theory at all if you think that typing someone means choosing between "E/I", "N/S", and so on. The reason some of you have had trouble with online tests is that those online tests are bastardizations of the MBTI. You can't actually be "20% introverted" or any nonsense like that, and even if you could there's no way a short internet quiz would be able to measure it. Types in the Myers-Briggs are based on cognitive functions, not "scales", and there are 8 of them, not 4:

- Extroverted sensing (Se) - Introverted sensing (Si) - Extroverted intuition (Ne) - Introverted intuition (Ni) - Extroverted feeling (Fe) - Introverted feeling (Fi) - Extroverted thinking (Te) - Introverted thinking (Ti)

So, there are two distinct types of "T": Ti, which is about considering abstract concepts in a strict and logical way; and Te, which is about organizing, planning, and dominating in the real world. Ti is dominant in people like Albert Einstein and a lot of mathematicians, whereas Te is dominant in people like Napoleon Bonaparte and Judge Judy. But if you only go by the theme park version, you'd lump all of these people together as "T's". Then you'd run into the problem that people with strong Te can be shrill and irritable and passionate, which might lead you to mistakenly conclude that they were actually "F's" because you're expecting that "T's" are all emotionless logical robots, which isn't true. That's because a person who prefers Te also prefers Fi (concern for their own feelings and values). The same distinction is true for all the other things that get lumped together as "N" or "F" or "S".

So, when you look at a typing like ESFP, it's not "E + S + F + P". It's "Se + Fi + Te + Ni" (in that order. And there are no "percentages" anywhere in this and there are no "middle" types—there are eight distinct functions, not four muddled spectra. Also, there is no such thing as "changing" your type. Your use of the different functions will become more developed (or not) over time as you mature, but the typing remains the same—an INTJ who has mellowed out a bit in later life is simply an older and mellower INTJ, not an ENFP or anything else.

As it stands, the first half of the article is completely useless. I'll do a rewrite when I get the time in the next few days, and perhaps add in a somewhat broader list of "characteristic tropes" for each type to help link this all back to the site's purpose.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 1st 2013 at 3:42:05 PM •••

I know I'm posting two years later, but I wholeheartedly agree. Did you forget about the rewrite, or did you already do it only to have it changed back?

Oct 25th 2010 at 9:19:07 AM •••

It seems like not only is the page severely biased, but it can't decide which way it's biased. It goes straight from talking about how useless the test is to proclaiming its great accuracy and utility.

For my two cents, the test only gives someone the same result twice about 50% of the time if they take it twice about a week apart.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 23rd 2011 at 10:33:09 PM •••

But many people, this troper for one, have taken the test many times over the years and gotten the same thing each time.

Feb 28th 2011 at 6:17:31 AM •••

So has this troper. Perhaps our mental image is unchanging? Or perhaps we're really like that. Perhaps both.

Apr 28th 2011 at 1:51:00 PM •••

If someone answers truthfully (and not delusional) they will get the same result (for me that's INFP). Using a fiction example from a cynical shows does not prove anything, the main issue that (most) modern psychologist have with the myers brigges is that it's not a diagnosis and treatment system.

The person who wrote this also clearly only had passing knowledge of the myers briges and it is very biased more so in against than for.

Apr 28th 2011 at 5:25:45 PM •••

Also this is now in the repair shop and looking like it might get Cut D:

Jul 29th 2011 at 6:20:32 AM •••

I took a test like this some years ago, online. The result of that test was that you could get from -10 to +10 point on each of four axes, like on Introversion you could get -10 points and be super-Extroverted (super-non-Introverted) or +10 points and be super-Introverted, or anywhere in between.

The problem is, for two of these axes I got very close to zero. For one axis I was perhaps 1 point towards one side, and for another axis I was something like 1 or 2 points towards one side.

This means that if I retook the test a few days later, or if I took a differently crafted test based on the same concept (i.e. one with differently phrased questions, or one asking about slightly different things), I might well score 1 or 2 points over on the other side of one of those two axes, or on both of them. So one day I'm an "ABCD" and a week later I'm an "AFGD or "ABGD" or "AFCD".

For another axis on the test I got like 4 or 6 points to one side, so one would except me to score consistently there (my "D" above), and on the first axis, Extrovert/Introvert, I'm very clearly I (my "A" above).

So really, if one is close to average on one or two of those axes, it gets arbitrary where one lands on any given test taking, and it's silly to classfy a 10% J person as a J-person because he's so slightly J that it doesn't *matter*. It has always seemed to me that the only rational "fix" of the Myers-Briggs is to introduce a third possibility for each axis: "Middle".

So, to take I/E, if you score 40% I or more then you're I. If you score -40% I or less, then you're E. Otherwise you're *neither*.

This means 3 possible outcomes for each axis, and so instead of 16 (2^4) personality types we have to deal with 81 (3^4) personality types.

Sep 9th 2011 at 6:04:35 PM •••

Well, for the record, I've taken the test many times and consistently turned out as INTP.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: