Personality type test.

[karrie]

My latest essay for school is on personality trait theory. So, I've been busy looking into these theories and how they apply, and I thought it would be a neat diversion for anyone who hasn't taken it before and doesn't know their type.


http://humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm


I'm an ENFP (extraverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving) type, with an emphasis on 'feeling'. What type are you, and which is your dominant trait (highest percentage)?


***Oh, and BTW, anyone wishing to toss the Forer effect into the discussion, feel free to open a new thread for it. lol.***

 

[Tonington]

I'm an ENTJ, extroverted, intuitive, thinking, judging. My dominant trait is intuitive, 75%.

 

[karrie]

My dominant trait is intuitive, 75%.

Well, the next time someone calls me irrational, I'll consider myself in good company. lol. I was surprised actually, since my 'intuitive' score was a mere 25%. I would have guessed it much higher, but, I guess that's why it's low. lol.

 

[darkbeaver]

infj counselor idealist

 

[L Gilbert]

[SIZE=+1]Your Type is [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+2]INTJ[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Introverted 67% Intuitive 50% Thinking 50% Judging 30% [/SIZE]

 

[karrie]

[SIZE=+1]Introverted 67% Intuitive 50% Thinking 50% Judging 30%[/SIZE]

I wouldn't have pegged you as so highly introverted. Learn something new everyday.

 

[selfactivated]

Ive administered that test at Bi Polar meetings.....Its very accurate for the day........In BiPolars it changes by the minute.2 years ago I tested as ESFJ and last year
I tested ENFJ I test on my birthday so its an accurate year testing. I have about 30 copies sitting on my desk lol

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You might want to read this too, karrie. There are lots of grounds on which to criticise such personality typology theories. That particular one gives you one of 16 personality types based on your score on four scales, and it's far from clear to me that it has any more merit than the 12 types described by astrology.

 

[L Gilbert]

I wouldn't have pegged you as so highly introverted. Learn something new everyday.

lol
What can I say? I think a lot and keep my trap shut.

 

[L Gilbert]

You might want to read this too, karrie. There are lots of grounds on which to criticise such personality typology theories. That particular one gives you one of 16 personality types based on your score on four scales, and it's far from clear to me that it has any more merit than the 12 types described by astrology.

Yeah, but it's fun, Dex.

Good analysis, IMO. Thanks.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Agreed, but a lot of people use them for much less sound purposes than just having fun.

 

[karrie]

You might want to read this too, karrie. There are lots of grounds on which to criticise such personality typology theories. That particular one gives you one of 16 personality types based on your score on four scales, and it's far from clear to me that it has any more merit than the 12 types described by astrology.

Yeah, I've read that before. Along with all the information pertaining to the Forer effect and these tests. I've also read various journals showing that, while they can be helpful, these are far from scientifically proven, and are not useful for diagnostic purposes or for clinical evaluations. Like I said, it's a diversion. lol.

 

[selfactivated]

If it no good why does tghe entire Psycological profession use it? Including the government for new employees?

 

[karrie]

If it no good why does tghe entire Psycological profession use it? Including the government for new employees?

Because it's the best we have, and it can be helpful in situations such as job placement, personal planning, and interpersonal counselling (such as teaching couples why they can't expect their spouse to think like them). But, if trying to use it in a clinical setting, they are useless. You can't say "Self is an INFJ, so I will follow this course of action with her." They aren't concrete, since people are not concrete. Also, they rely on self-report data (what you say you're like), and all too often we have skewed ideas of how we behave. We may report what we WANT to be, or, we may report what we don't like, essentially being too hard on ourselves.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Popularity is no indicator of correctness. Governments routinely use lie detectors too, despite their proven unreliability. I don't think anybody said they're no good, unless I missed a post somewhere, all I said was that there are good grounds for criticising them, and karrie indicated they're not useful for diagnostic purposes or clinical evaluations. They might promote a little more self-analysis, and a little more sensitivity to other people's styles of thinking and behaving, but I strongly doubt you can find out anything useful about yourself or anyone else from them that any reasonably intelligent and honest friend couldn't have told you in a lot less time. My personal opinion is that people continue to use them because they have a veneer of scientific respectability, but there's really not much substance there. And as karrie also indicated, self reporting is always suspect.

 

[selfactivated]

I'll make sure I tell my shrink "they're not useful for diagnostic purposes or clinical evaluations."

 

[s243a]

Here is what I got:

[SIZE=+1]Your Type is
[SIZE=+2] INTP
Introverted 44
Intuitive 74
Thinking 12
Perceiving 11[/SIZE][/SIZE]

http://typelogic.com/intp.html
http://keirsey.com/personality/ntip.html


I think the above link describes me pretty good. Not a bad test.

 

[karrie]

I'll make sure I tell my shrink "they're not useful for diagnostic purposes or clinical evaluations."

I'm pretty sure that as a mere psych student, if I'm aware of the debates, criticisms, and limitations regarding them, your shrink is fully aware too.

 

[selfactivated]

Im sure........

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'll make sure I tell my shrink "they're not useful for diagnostic purposes or clinical evaluations."

Read the disclaimer at the site linked in the OP. Even the people who offer these tests explicitly refuse to say that they're actually good for anything, and pretty much admit they might be good for nothing. It includes this, for instance: [SIZE=-0]no guarantee, representation, assurance or warranty, express or implied, as to, and assumes no responsiblity for the correctness, sufficiency or completeness of such information or answers or of the scoring of tests contained herein. ALL TESTS ARE PRESENTED IN AN "AS IS" CONDITION AND ANY WARRANTIES FOR FITNESS OF PURPOSE OF MERCHANTABILITY ARE HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. Their emphasis. Try attaching a disclaimer like that to a job application, denying all responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of your resume and your real ability to do what you say you can do, and see how far it gets you. I have a hard time taking people like that seriously. The site gave me a completely inaccurate reading on two of the four measurement scales, totally opposite to how I really operate, unreasonably high on intuition and unreasonably low on thinking. I also noted that for most of the questions, neither yes nor no is an accurate answer, and there are important dimensions of personality missing from the analysis. There's no scale that measures meekness-aggression, for instance, which seems pretty important in a lot of people I know.

But at least the personality types are mostly positive, in contrast to Freud's categorizations, which were entirely negative: anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive... "Normal' didn't seem to be in his lexicon.
[/SIZE]