Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator

[central]

I found it extremely valuable when dating.  I found that my best dates were INF* and ENF* types, so I worked to attract that type.  My worst dates/matches were *S** types, so I revised my profile to not appeal to them.  Thereafter, 9 out of 10 contacts and dates were *NF* types, which were ideal for me.  My wife is one of them.  Having very compatible communication style and outlook has greatly helped us have a wonderful marriage, IMO.  Personally, as an I***, other I*** were much easier to live with than E*** types - although the latter could be a lot of fun and make for great friends, but not so great to live with.

[Emilie Jolie]

4 hours ago, salparadise said:

I prefer the humanmentrics (dot com) site to the ones that try to add additional axes. 

I've tried it out of curiosity and have landed on a slightly different result - still INFJ but with 6%F and 1%J. I'm not entirely sure what any of this means but this thread has spurred me into reading a bit more on it. From what I've read, I fit the 'idealist' part and having trouble either expressing or making sense of emotions. I didn't realise the background and research behind this test; I just assumed it to be another 'pop personality' test. Clearly, I was wrong.

[Cookiesandough]

5 hours ago, salparadise said:

The 16-personalities website adds A or T. This is their gimmick, it's not part of the MBTI. The MBTI is based on Jung's four-axis theory of personalities, and Myers/Briggs were faithful to his work in developing their assessment. @Shortskirtslonglashes - the test is not accurate for adolescents, so if you're now in your 20s your type should be stable now. Of course it is dependent upon you answering the questions accurately and consistently.

I sometimes hear people say they don't believe in it for various reasons. It's not a matter of believing... it exists. It merely categorizes personalities based on how one intakes and processes data... like grouping marbles by size or color. Jung was a genius, and Myers/Briggs were no slouches either... but all of these websites that have popped up to capitalize on it, well, we should be skeptical. 

I prefer the humanmentrics (dot com) site to the ones that try to add additional axes. 

I am INTJ. The first time I took the test it was administered by a certified Myers-Briggs practitioner (around 1995). Subsequently, my results have been the same every time I've taken it. I have no doubt whatsoever that this system provides great insight for those who take the time to become familiar with it, their own type, and how various types interact and get along.

There is quite a bit of theory on type matching for dating and relationships. There are charts you can download that show the [probable] quality of any given pairing. There are also a lot of articles on the best matched types. My best match, theoretically, is ENFP, although I've never had the pleasure of dating one. The fundamental thing to know is that the perceiving function should match, that is N's should date N's, and S's should date S's. The other axes can be opposite without it being an issue. But N's and S's view the world quite differently. That's not to say it cannot work, just that its less likely. Ideal matches are when the two have the same dominant function, but one is extroverted and the other introverted (the function, not the firs axis).

Not sure how I missed this post at first, as in-depth as it, but thank you for the information. The problem is not categorizing people into 16 broad types. The problem for me is how is it it is done. Our own bias and all other problems aside, questions that are asked seem very vague/relative. I can answer just about all the questions with “it depends“ if I’m being completely honest with myself. Although humanmetrics was not the site that was recommended to me, I did take the test on that one as well. I did find that site to be a bit better as it does give the option of “uncertain“, but then I just end up answering the majority of the questions that way.  This is one of the questions:

 

“You like to be engaged in an active and fast-paced job”

The answer is sometimes. Depends on the job. Depends on the mood. Etc. 

Another:

” Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent attaining a good outcome”

Again, is this a work environment? Or just life in general?...different situations would be vastly different. 
 

I feel like very few people taking the test are giving the questions that much thought. 
 

Also, I think it is very hard if not impossible to extricate emotion from reasoning Or emotion from a human being, actually. There are people who are more emotional but there are not people who only use pure logic in their decisions and that is the what  some of these questions imply. 

Anyway, I get even Jung himself said these are more of rough estimate then anything that should be given too much stock. But I actually have a psychotherapist friend who is using this in his therapy. WTF is all I have to say about that

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[salparadise]

1 hour ago, central said:

I found it extremely valuable when dating.  I found that my best dates were INF* and ENF* types, so I worked to attract that type.  My worst dates/matches were *S** types, so I revised my profile to not appeal to them.  Thereafter, 9 out of 10 contacts and dates were *NF* types, which were ideal for me.  My wife is one of them.  Having very compatible communication style and outlook has greatly helped us have a wonderful marriage, IMO.  Personally, as an I***, other I*** were much easier to live with than E*** types - although the latter could be a lot of fun and make for great friends, but not so great to live with.

I agree with every word. I am INTJ as well, and I naturally attract and am attracted to N's, and NF's particularly. I test drove a nice NT  once but we were too much alike, too analytical and rational. Foe me the contrasting T/F definitely work best because it's complimentary rather than similar. I would surely love to date a ENFP. I'm not too worried about the E being too much unless they can't sit still or be quiet  at all. I like E's because they like to lead conversations, allowing me to sit back, throw in a comment here and there, and not have to do all of that hard work keeping it going. But yea, I would not want to date or live with the Energizer bunny. I like people who are attuned to being, as opposed to doing. When I see a dating profile that says "looking for someone who can keep up with my energy," I think "what a shame."

[Cookiesandough]

I guess on the plus, that same psychotherapist said that the more “balanced” you seem on the in MBTI ie how difficult it is for you to pick a side means that you are more “stable“...The therapy he is developing aims to help people work on making the opposite side stronger therefore bring balance . K

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[salparadise]

23 minutes ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

Not sure how I missed this post at first, as in-depth as it, but thank you for the information. The problem is not categorizing people into 16 broad types. The problem for me is how is it it is done. Our own bias and all other problems aside, questions that are asked seem very vague/relative. I can answer just about all the questions with “it depends“ if I’m being completely honest with myself. Although humanmetrics was not the site that was recommended to me, I did take the test on that one as well. I did find that site to be a bit better as it does give the option of “uncertain“, but then I just end up answering the majority of the questions that way.  This is one of the questions:

 

“You like to be engaged in an active and fast-paced job”

The answer is sometimes. Depends on the job. Depends on the mood. Etc. 

Another:

” Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent attaining a good outcome”

Again, is this a work environment? Or just life in general?...different situations would be vastly different. 
 

I feel like very few people taking the test are giving the questions that much thought. 
 

 

Anyway, I get even Jung himself said these are more of rough estimate then anything that should be given too much stock. But I actually have a psychotherapist friend who is using this in his therapy. WTF is all I have to say about that

 

 

 

I get what you're saying, but... these are inherently nuanced distinctions, so the questions are naturally going to make you work. Sometimes you just need to go with your first intuition and not overthink. Other times you might need to think twice. I've taken the test a dozen times (at least) and always have the same result. You need to reserve "uncertain" responses for a few that you really can't discern. 

If you have a therapist friend who is using this with patients, don't you think that would lend credibility. The fact that it's not that easy (or fun for some people) doesn't mean it's not valuable. When you have a PhD in psychotherapy and still can't figure it out, then say WTF. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by salparadise

[lana-banana]

MBTI is 100% astrology for MBAs. It has zero validity and is not going to be used by any reputable psychologist or in any clinical setting. You can read plenty of research about why it's a crock, but here's a good overview.

It's not that all tests are like that. The MMPI-2 is shockingly accurate.  The MBTI does not offer anything except what people want to get out of it, so I suppose it can be useful in the same way as an origami fortune teller can make you think different things about yourself. Have fun if you want. But don't mistake it for anything like science.

[salparadise]

2 hours ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

So what I am reading is that I people are supposed to match up with E people.

No I don't think that's a rule. Any combination of E/I can work. The only real assumption is that people with the same perceiving function (N/S) will tend to be more compatible. For example, my ideal match, theoretically, is ENFP.  That's opposite on three axes, but the same perceiving function. I get along quite well with any NF type, and the F is my personal preference as oppose to a rule. Ideal matches are when the dominant function (iNtuition-i for me) is pared with the same dominant function with the opposite expression (iNtuition-e for her). If you're interested in matching, download one of the charts. I would link to one but it might be a few days before it would post.

[salparadise]

8 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

MBTI is 100% astrology for MBAs. It has zero validity...

I wonder how Entertainment Weekly or the National Enquirer feel about it. Should we should declare martial law and overthrow it?

[salparadise]

1 minute ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

By that logic if I have a friend who is a vet and also a racist, I have to get a vet degree before I can refute their beliefs ...

Absolutely. 🤣 You might want to employ the word logic sparingly.

[Cookiesandough]

 

21 minutes ago, salparadise said:

Absolutely. 🤣 You might want to employ the word logic sparingly.

 

Ok I won’t call it logical, but that is what you said. You said I shouldn’t try to refute the validity of the MBTI without being a psychotherapist. That’s silly. Similar to how you dismissed Lana’s argument  because of source, but that source has citations from other more reputable places, if you bothered to read it. Obviously you are intent on believing this stuff though. That’s great. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[salparadise]

18 minutes ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

That was what you said, though. I

 

Ok I won’t call it logic, but that is what you said. You said I can’t refute the validity of the MBTI without having a psychotherapy degree. That’s silly. Similar to how you dismissed Lana’s argument  because of source, but that source has citations from other more reputable places, if you bothered to read it. Obviously you are intent on believing this though. 

I did not say that exactly, but yea, you're making judgements based on not understanding, and presuming your feelings to supersede the judgement of a qualified therapist. Then you missed on the analogy by connecting unrelated things.

Vox is entertainment posing as journalism. They love to use shocking headlines that go against the grain to get page views. The fact that they referenced someone in the field, well, they're cherry picking a naysayer, intentional confirmation bias. You can always find one or two people with the opposite view. Psychology is soft-science. You can't prove any of it to the satisfaction of people who are predisposed against it. It's not a fair assessment, and it's not intended to be balanced. It's clickbait. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by salparadise

[Cookiesandough]

I took and passed psych 101 where the bulk of the MBTI is explained in formal psych training.  MBTI practitioners are different than clinical psychologists or even therapists even if there is overlap. Very rarely used in a clinical setting. My friend is ‘fringe’ in that he is using it. Go to a psych evaluation and like Lana said, you will most likely take the MMPI-2. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[Fletch Lives]

Quote

What do you mean by 'sanity'? Mental health problems are part of life. Just a matter of managing them

A part of life for some people........perhaps a lot of people. But not everybody. 

Quote

As for life problems...good grief, how many people are totally unaffected by the pandemic/sickness/bereavement/unemployment/poverty this year?

Everybody has problems...... some have more/bigger problems, some have less. The less the better.

 

Quote

If people wait for their life or their potential partner to be perfect a lot of alone years are going to go by...

Nobody is perfect but there are people who are poor, better, and best choices for a partner. I suggest steering toward the best people. 

Find a partner who is better than you and the relationship will be easier and smoother sailing.

Choose your friends and your lover wisely.

[Ellener]

@Fletch Lives I think you must have had a fabulous life to never have had any problems and only been involved with someone 'better than you'! 😄

[Mrin]

Ya, a little more experience and thoughts to share on this:

@Shortskirtslonglashes: My pleasure.  So, in my experience the E vs. I thing isn't all that important in terms of compatibility. Lifestyle - yes. Attraction - perhaps. But not fundamental compatibility. Google "MBTI compatibility chart" and take a look.

More on that - as others have said, the second two indicators (N/S and F/T) play a much bigger role in terms of compatibility.

Some of my experiences:

Like I said above, I'm an ENTJ. Looking back at all the women i've dated, I'm normally drawn to *NFP types. I've been in a long relationship with a INFP (borderline I/E). I've also dated a fair number of ENFP's. There is something there that catches my "eye" with that combination. Those relationships have all been good but definitely had some level of "static" or "packet loss" when working through issues mainly due to the thinking/feeling mismatch. T types can work through the logic and facts of a charged situation and emerge fine and dandy on the other side. F types don't work that way. It can take days/weeks for the emotions to settle down for an F type. This is especially perplexing and ya, frustrating to an ENTJ. And of course, the F type sees this reaction as really unfeeling. 

Recently, I've had the opportunity to date a woman who is also an ENTJ (very rare for find female ENTJ's) and it has been incredibly interesting. There is no "packet loss" per se. This has been great because it dramatically raises the efficiency of our communication. We speak the same language. But - that can also be a double edge sword as there is no "benefit of the doubt". She knows exactly what I am saying and vice versa. Issues that come up with are dealt with quickly and completely. That's not to say she devoid of emotions by any stretch of the imagination. She's still human. But, once emotions are back safely under control (as we ENTJ's are wont to do) whatever event that gave rise to the elevated emotions can be efficiently addressed and resolved. That's awesome! However, if there is a difference in underlying values or viewpoints ,then it stands out clear as day. There is no "I just don't see it that way" benefit of the doubt because we both experience the world the same way. Those differences in values or viewpoints would normally be paved over by the general mismatch I'd have with someone not of the same type as me. Does that make sense?

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Mrin

[central]

3 hours ago, lana-banana said:

MBTI is 100% astrology for MBAs. It has zero validity and is not going to be used by any reputable psychologist or in any clinical setting. You can read plenty of research about why it's a crock, but here's a good overview.

It's not that all tests are like that. The MMPI-2 is shockingly accurate.  The MBTI does not offer anything except what people want to get out of it, so I suppose it can be useful in the same way as an origami fortune teller can make you think different things about yourself. Have fun if you want. But don't mistake it for anything like science.

It doesn't have much scientific validity; you are right about that.  However, it's still very useful in certain contexts if you can accept that accuracy isn't high.  It worked for my dating purposes, so I am satisfied with what I got from it.  And in general, most people gain some insight from it and reading about their type, even if there are discrepancies.

[Wiseman2]

11 hours ago, lana-banana said:

.The MMPI-2 is shockingly accurate.  

Yes, that's what organizations use to accurately weed out pathological personality traits.

If you want a profession/position with a lot of security involved, this is what you will have to take 

The MBTI was not develop by scientists, so it's more of a fun self assessment, very loosely based on Jungian arch-types.

 

[Fletch Lives]

10 hours ago, Ellener said:

@Fletch Lives I think you must have had a fabulous life to never have had any problems and only been involved with someone 'better than you'! 😄

Nobody said zero problems, now stop that.

[salparadise]

10 hours ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

I took and passed psych 101 where the bulk of the MBTI is explained in formal psych training.  MBTI practitioners are different than clinical psychologists or even therapists even if there is overlap. Very rarely used in a clinical setting. My friend is ‘fringe’ in that he is using it. Go to a psych evaluation and like Lana said, you will most likely take the MMPI-2. 

Congrats on passing, you must be gifted! Yes, I realize that clinical psychology and MBTI certification are not one in the same, and that MBTI not the preferred tool for research. That's mostly because of it's nonjudgmental and non-quantifiable nature. The big five is both, so they can use a number that plugs into an equation that assesses the individual qualitatively. The MMPI-2 is completely different––like apples and oranges, since you seem to relate to analogies. It's used to identify personality disorders as opposed to being a tool general classification. As human beings, we categorize and classify everything, it's our nature. I don't understand why so many neophytes people pick classification of personality as their hill to die on. Perhaps we should have a category and label for that!

I think it's funny that people who are not aficionados due to taking offense at being categorized, get so invested in trying to discredit the method as having no value... or saying they don't believe, as if that's a choice like whether or not to believe in God, Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. It's actually more akin to dinosaurs, wherein it doesn't matter what anyone believes because we have bones and fossils, and you just come across as ignorant if you deny their existence. But I shouldn't be amazed at anything anymore, not since we now know that we have 74 million personalities  on an entirely different spectrum, qualitatively.

[Wiseman2]

10 hours ago, Ellener said:

@Fletch Lives I think you must have had a fabulous life to never have had any problems and only been involved with someone 'better than you'! 😄

You'll get used to enjoying it.😂

Edited December 21, 2020 by Wiseman2

[Emilie Jolie]

24 minutes ago, salparadise said:

Perhaps we should have a category and label for that!

I've never understood this compulsion people have with labelling themselves or others, especially when you make no effort to understand what's behind the label beyond confirmation bias.

To me, what matters is how people live their lives and how they treat the people around them, whether they are labelled or not. You're going to read whatever you want to read from these profiles anyway - generally you'll pick the stuff that feeds your own ego for yourself obviously, and validate the negative feelings or thoughts you have of others when you read others' profile.

You can have the best profile you have created in your head about yourself - it's worth nothing if you treat the people around you like dirt. 

Who you are as a person matters a million times more than what label or 'letters' you choose to categorise yourself  (or others) with, ultimately. 

 

 

[Taramere]

13 hours ago, lana-banana said:

MBTI is 100% astrology for MBAs. It has zero validity and is not going to be used by any reputable psychologist or in any clinical setting. You can read plenty of research about why it's a crock, but here's a good overview.

It's not that all tests are like that. The MMPI-2 is shockingly accurate.  The MBTI does not offer anything except what people want to get out of it, so I suppose it can be useful in the same way as an origami fortune teller can make you think different things about yourself. Have fun if you want. But don't mistake it for anything like science.

I wouldn't agree that it's entirely useless, but I think there are clear problems with using something like the MBTI as part of recruitment exercises.  Not least that people are generally going to predict with some accuracy what qualities an employer is looking for, and if they really want that job then they're going to answer the questions in a way that's geared towards presenting themselves as the perfect candidate.   I sometimes feel as though the people delivering tests like this in an HR context insult candidates' intelligence in that they have this belief that "you can't manipulate these test results."  When in reality, I don't think it's likely to be that hard for people to guess what the questions are geared towards exploring - and providing answers that will present them in a positive (but not necessarily reliable) light.

A former friend of mine worked in HR and was very attached to a test that placed people into a particular "colour" category.  It seemed a bit simplistic, but she loved it and - as so often seems to be the case - was convinced that people couldn't manipulate their own results.  She told me I would be "blue".  This seemed very unlikely to me, but it did tie in with the impression I sensed she'd formed of me.  I said I would almost certainly be "green".  I did the test, and came out green.  She then accused me of manipulating the test in order to get the result I preferred (although actually, if I were going to choose the colour I'd like to have been it would probably have been yellow).  That must have been quite a conflict for her.  She had to choose between "I formed an inaccurate impression of this person" and "the test isn't as reliable as I thought."  In the end,  she opted for "this test is normally reliable, but Taramere is manipulative enough to get around it."  Which probably felt like a good compromise for her, but didn't do much for our friendship.

I kind of use the MBTI on a strictly social level.  I'll guess a category for friends, and usually if they take the test they end up being what I thought they would be.  But if you know somebody well, of course you're going to have a good sense of their strengths and weaknesses - whether they're i rather than e, s rather than n etc.  I guessed HR friend as ESFJ.  E because she was undoubtedly very extrovert, S because she had a lovely home...strong eye for beauty, love of colour, very food orientated etc.  F because she was emotional to the point where she would often lash out inappropriately at other people and J because she liked to form quick conclusions often based on very scanty information and instead of using questions to find out more about people she would to tend to tell them how she perceived them.  That's not to say being J is a bad thing.  Some people will be J in a very positive sort of way - but in her case, it tended to be negative and resulted in her often getting into conflicts with people.

Another friend also seems very clearly ESFJ (they both took the test and came out as ESFJ) and there are some similarities between the two...but friend 2 is far less controlling in terms of being the kind of  "here's how I perceive you, and if you say or do anything that conflicts with my impression of you I'm going to get quite angry" person that ESFJ friend 1 was.  She's J in a far more positive sort of way (organised, decisive, successful in business etc).  If a friend surprises her by, for example, having a talent she wouldn't have expected them to have or being more prepared to stand up for themselves than she anticipated, she might be slightly resistant to the idea - but then she'll embrace that new information and add it to her body of knowledge about the friend.  Whereas ESFJ friend 1 loved art and music, there was no indication of her having any gift in terms of painting pictures, playing an instrument or anything like that.  She seemed to lack reliable intuition and wasn't very perceptive.  ESFJ friend 2 is a gifted artist and often very shrewd in her perceptions of others.  I think in her case it's not so much that she lacks perception and intuition - but more that she's so dominant in S and, to a lesser extent, J that she's bound to come out as ESFJ....even though she's also pretty intuitive and perceptive.

So I don't think it's possible to just neatly categorise a person as ESFJ or whatever else.  You have to know the person quite well in order to get a sense of (for example)  whether they're likely to come out as "F" because they're a very illogical thinker/too lazy to apply themselves to the business of thinking, or if they're F despite being a logical thinker.  There's a complexity to people that isn't going to be covered by a test like that, even if they've been very honest and consistent in their answers.  An ENFP might seriously clash with one ISTJ and enjoy a very close and positive friendship with another.  There's a lot more to people than these labels, but personally I do think they provide some helpful guidance in our everyday relationships and in understanding why people react to certain things, in ways we find a bit unreasonable or irrational....or why, conversely, they react calmly to things that would make us furious.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Taramere

[Wiseman2]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I've never understood this compulsion people have with labelling themselves or others

 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Wiseman2

[introverted1]

Lifelong INTJ here. And I took the actual Myers-Briggs test at one point (employer paid), along with the various knock-offs.