Myers-Briggs Test: Is it Informative or Garbage?

[Anticitizen]

19 of the three rarest personality types (INTP, INTJ, INFJ)
13 of the other personality types
0 of the three most common personality types

What strange results.

Not that strange, really. Read up on the traits of those three rare types and you'd pretty much expect PhysicsForums to represent them.

/INTP

 

[nismaratwork]

Plus, this test is a load of horse**** that just happens to be fun.

 

[wild999711]

INTJ
11 50 62 33

First time I've taken one and it was like reading a very accurate horoscope. Explanation of other types was enlightening, didn't know just how differently I tend to think. Apparently the forum is a good representation of INTP and INTJ types.

 

[Phyisab****]

Apparently I'm INTJ, rational mastermind.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm NKVD... apparently former Soviet secret police. Weird, I didn't know that was an option.

 

[Ms Music]

INTJ.

You are:

* slightly expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* moderately expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed judging personality

Strength of the preferences %
22 50 25 56

Often times when I take this test I will actually come up as ENTJ, it seems that normally there is just one question that flips me back and forth from I to E. But lately, I have been feeling extremely overworked, so came out stronger on the I than normal. (but I expected that)

I frigging LOVE these personality tests, and I agree that we should make a poll. I also like the color test, (someone else mentioned that) and find it very useful. But I have never been able to determine my "core" color. Every time I take the test, I come up equally red/yellow dominant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Plus, this test is a load of horse**** ...

Why do you think so?


Do you think the test is flawed, or do you think humans are somehow fundamentally uncategorizable?

 

[nismaratwork]

Why do you think so?Do you think the test is flawed, or do you think humans are somehow fundamentally uncategorizable?

I think that the test is too simplistic in some ways, and moreover that in a simple "1-5" test people often test for the qualities they WANT, not the ones they have. I do believe that most people can be categorized given enough time and the proper testing, up to and including tests under an fMRI. The flaw lies more in the claims the test makes... that it can quantify the personality in a relatively few ways in a brief, self administered test. If you say instead that it can be one of many tools used for that end, then it's not so flawed... sort of the way that string theory claims to eliminate "quantum fluctuations" by 'smearing' things over 1 dimensional strings instead of point particles.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that the test is too simplistic in some ways, and moreover that in a simple "1-5" test people often test for the qualities they WANT, not the ones they have. I do believe that most people can be categorized given enough time and the proper testing, up to and including tests under an fMRI. The flaw lies more in the claims the test makes... that it can quantify the personality in a relatively few ways in a brief, self administered test. If you say instead that it can be one of many tools used for that end, then it's not so flawed... sort of the way that string theory claims to eliminate "quantum fluctuations" by 'smearing' things over 1 dimensional strings instead of point particles.

It has limited application and accuracy as does every form of polling; no rational person disputes that.

A far cry from horse**** though, wouldn't you say?

 

[nismaratwork]

It has limited application and accuracy as does every form of polling; no rational person disputes that.

A far cry from horse**** though, wouldn't you say?

Good polling makes less extravagant claims, AFAIK seeks the answers to simpler conundrums than the human psyche, and isn't given in the form: 'here's a test that tells you the 'shape' of your personality, please try not to skew it with your desire for a given outcome'. In addition, a poll is based upon a large sample, but the MBPT is always a sample size of one. In short, I don't dispute your point, but it's not relevant. I still cry, "Neeeeiiiiigggghhh"... and then horse****.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good polling makes less extravagant claims, AFAIK seeks the answers to simpler conundrums than the human psyche, and isn't given in the form: 'here's a test that tells you the 'shape' of your personality, please try not to skew it with your desire for a given outcome'. In addition, a poll is based upon a large sample, but the MBPT is always a sample size of one. In short, I don't dispute your point, but it's not relevant. I still cry, "Neeeeiiiiigggghhh"... and then horse****.

MB was meant to be issued in a controlled situation, where the results can be kept in-context and agglomerated with other methods.

You can see this intent by browsing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_briggs#Precepts_and_ethics", whcih make it pretty clear that the test needs context and trained guidance - and a grain of salt.


MB is one tool in a toolbox.


The horse**** you speak is of is not the test itself, but of its misuse, by unqualfied individuals, in a contextual vacuum.

Agreed?

 

[nismaratwork]

MB was meant to be issued in a controlled situation, where the results can be kept in-context and agglomerated with other methods.

MB is one tool in a toolbox.

The horse**** you speak is of is not the test itself, but of its misuse, by unqualfied individuals, in a contextual vacuum.

Agreed?

Mostly yes, much as with the Rorschach Inkblots or the Rey-Osterrieth CFT. They are fine tools in their proper administration and context, but note that the MBPT claims to measure a LOT more than other personality tests or neurological tests. Even in context, I don't believe it is accurate in its conclusions given that the goal is too broad, but properly administered as a single tool... no, I would rescind the horse**** for that. I'm still no fan of it, but it's not crap in that setting.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, I think the test is flawed, but not as much as people might think.

Psychology tests and trends measure general and perhaps more apt guidelines of one's personal expression. They're not tell-tales, and they are by no means anywhere close to pipe lining people into a profession which in these times is anywhere close to generating success, much less satisfaction.

They're a guide, nothing more. Based on personal experience, I think they're a fairly good guide. As a manager, however, I contended with folks from widely varying backgrounds, many of them struggling to keep pace in their primary duties while learning their ancillary skills who were often rather phenomenal in totally unidentified skills! I was very frustrated at times by not being able to place employee x in slot x when he would have been a star performer in slot x.

Ugh.

And I myself felt rather hampered by a machine which strove to rather unintelligenty "round out" it's employees with little regard to either the employee's strengths or the company's needs.

So, in my mind, it's a guide, and a good one at that. If anything, it helps weed out the obviously ridiculous professions for which the individual has no business pursuing. But it's by no means a panacea, pigeon-holing people into occupations in which they really don't belong.

In my opinion and expertise, an individual's life-long "best fit" involves all of three things: innate competence/experience, education, and desire. Lacking one of these two they'll make do, but it won't be a best fit, by any means. Lacking two of the three, they my yet be the most competent, but it'll be a disaster because it's just not where they belong.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I think the test is flawed, but not as much as people might think.

Psychology tests and trends measure general and perhaps more apt guidelines of one's personal expression. They're not tell-tales, and they are by no means anywhere close to pipe lining people into a profession which in these times is anywhere close to generating success, much less satisfaction.

They're a guide, nothing more. Based on personal experience, I think they're a fairly good guide. As a manager, however, I contended with folks from widely varying backgrounds, many of them struggling to keep pace in their primary duties while learning their ancillary skills who were often rather phenomenal in totally unidentified skills! I was very frustrated at times by not being able to place employee x in slot x when he would have been a star performer in slot x.

Ugh.

And I myself felt rather hampered by a machine which strove to rather unintelligenty "round out" it's employees with little regard to either the employee's strengths or the company's needs.

So, in my mind, it's a guide, and a good one at that. If anything, it helps weed out the obviously ridiculous professions for which the individual has no business pursuing. But it's by no means a panacea, pigeon-holing people into occupations in which they really don't belong.

In my opinion and expertise, an individual's life-long "best fit" involves all of three things: innate competence/experience, education, and desire. Lacking one of these two they'll make do, but it won't be a best fit, by any means. Lacking two of the three, they my yet be the most competent, but it'll be a disaster because it's just not where they belong.

If more people thought as you did, then I'd probably be much more relaxed about this test, and some others. DaveC as usual, got to the heart of the issue when he isolated the human misuse element as the source of the horse stercore.

 

[Mekanpreth]

hullo I am new to this site , could anyone guide me on how to go about using this site

 

[Andre]

Here is another one found via this. Any comments?

Extroversion results were medium which suggests you are moderately talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting.

Neuroticism results were low which suggests you are very relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.

Psychoticism results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense of your own individual development (martyr complex).

 

[nismaratwork]

Here is another one found via this. Any comments?

It's making my head hurt... a lot, and I think I taste blood.

 

[Andre]

It's making my head heard... a lot, and I think I taste blood.

heard? hurt?

Anyway I knew that couldn't be me, could it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah yeah. But we're getting off-topic.

More about this:

DaveC as usual, got to the heart of the issue...

 

[nismaratwork]

heard? hurt?

Anyway I knew that couldn't be me, could it?

Not you, the test, I enjoy your posts and respect your views.


DaveC: The image of you blushing is going to stay with me for a long time.