Myers-Briggs Personality Types

[JaggedJimmyJay]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

[Tangrowth]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

That is amazing.

[TonyStarkPrime]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

I’ve never met psych people who are fans. I can get them behind big 5 trait tests though and there are strong correlations, so, I don’t know.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

I’ve never met psych people who are fans. I can get them behind big 5 trait tests though and there are strong correlations, so, I don’t know.

I'm not a fan of Big 5 either, though I dwell in the arena of cognitive science and am more psychology-adjacent. I view the entire field of personality psychology with a little derision. These kinds of things can still be fun though and that's what's most important. Folks don't often go around touting Myers-Briggs as science anyway.

[TonyStarkPrime]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

I’ve never met psych people who are fans. I can get them behind big 5 trait tests though and there are strong correlations, so, I don’t know.

I'm not a fan of Big 5 either, though I dwell in the arena of cognitive science and am more psychology-adjacent. I view the entire field of personality psychology with a little derision. These kinds of things can still be fun though and that's what's most important. Folks don't often go around touting Myers-Briggs as science anyway.

Most psych academics I’ve talked to deride the field, but I’ve seen what therapists and clinical psychologists can do with very simple personality profiles so I’m hesitant to judge.

[TonyStarkPrime]

And I’m just here for fun. And as a math kid, to examine strange data distributions. Like the “why are there so many INFPs”

[Turnip Head]

I feel like the test doesn't go in depth, it's not specific enough to give any sort of useful info. It mainly tells you if you're introvrrted or extraverted which is like base level info. I wonder why a more refined test hasn't been developed yet. Probably because it's more fun to explore your identity without a big ol test

[juliets]

I feel like the test doesn't go in depth, it's not specific enough to give any sort of useful info. It mainly tells you if you're introvrrted or extraverted which is like base level info. I wonder why a more refined test hasn't been developed yet. Probably because it's more fun to explore your identity without a big ol test

There are a lot more tests out there that are more refined than Myers-Briggs. And there's also a lot of junk out there which is what I think of Myers-Briggs, though it's certainly a fun exercise. Here is a short article without a lot of scientific jargon and math that asks the question "How Accurate Are Personality Tests"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ity-tests/

[MacDougall]

I used to fluctuate between campaigner and debater but for many years I have been firmly campaigner on every test I've done.

[TonyStarkPrime]

I used to fluctuate between campaigner and debater but for many years I have been firmly campaigner on every test I've done.

I think I'm shifting that direction. Was solidly debater a few years ago, but on a few personality checks in the past eighteen months the F has been increasing. It gave me campaigner for the first time a few weeks back.

[MacDougall]

The ego death of the teenage male extrovert

[Dyslexicon]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

I’ve never met psych people who are fans. I can get them behind big 5 trait tests though and there are strong correlations, so, I don’t know.

A lot pf psych people will learn that "MBTI bad" and "Big 5 good". It's very puzzling to me as I see them as being extremely similar systems, though MBTI gives the (somewhat false) impression of being more confined. I can see it from the perspective that MBTI in itself was developed for very practical reasons (sorting different types of women into fitting jobs during WW2), and so it had (and can have) a more generalised and practical use. However, the Jungian psychology the MBTI builds on is very rich, and Jung is one of the greater figures in the whole field of psychology. I think many people dismiss the ideas before they really get to the juicy stuff of what it's about. Which can probably be said about a lot of things in life. =p

No personality or typology system is something concrete that exists in life. I view it as a sort of language. Some of these languages are very useful in describing and making sense of personality, which is often otherwise very hard to describe and discuss with a shared understanding without having anything to grab on to.

Also, I think it's important to be clear about what a specific personality system does and does not account for. MBTI is about cognitive preferences. So it's all about how you gather and sort through information. Which is a pretty limited part of what one can call personality. So it doesn't say anything about what a person does, what motivates them or what drives them. But it can describe, fairly well imo, how a person prefers to perceive and judge information.

But the Enneagram is the real shit for those who want to go to the dark depths of ego and illusions.

[TonyStarkPrime]

There's a member of the faculty in our psych department that absolutely loathes Myers-Briggs and shuns its very mention in his presence (which is understandable, to be fair, given that it's not at all scientific). Still, since he likes to be a party pooper my peers and I have made a tradition of gushing enthusiastically over what our types are whenever he is nearby.

I’ve never met psych people who are fans. I can get them behind big 5 trait tests though and there are strong correlations, so, I don’t know.

A lot pf psych people will learn that "MBTI bad" and "Big 5 good". It's very puzzling to me as I see them as being extremely similar systems, though MBTI gives the (somewhat false) impression of being more confined. I can see it from the perspective that MBTI in itself was developed for very practical reasons (sorting different types of women into fitting jobs during WW2), and so it had (and can have) a more generalised and practical use. However, the Jungian psychology the MBTI builds on is very rich, and Jung is one of the greater figures in the whole field of psychology. I think many people dismiss the ideas before they really get to the juicy stuff of what it's about. Which can probably be said about a lot of things in life. =p

No personality or typology system is something concrete that exists in life. I view it as a sort of language. Some of these languages are very useful in describing and making sense of personality, which is often otherwise very hard to describe and discuss with a shared understanding without having anything to grab on to.

Also, I think it's important to be clear about what a specific personality system does and does not account for. MBTI is about cognitive preferences. So it's all about how you gather and sort through information. Which is a pretty limited part of what one can call personality. So it doesn't say anything about what a person does, what motivates them or what drives them. But it can describe, fairly well imo, how a person prefers to perceive and judge information.

But the Enneagram is the real shit for those who want to go to the dark depths of ego and illusions.

I had some friends read all of the enneagram books and then all the books told me I was different numbers so we gave up on that one really fast

[Dyslexicon]

I had some friends read all of the enneagram books and then all the books told me I was different numbers so we gave up on that one really fast

Definitely harder to get into, I think. Exponentially more rewarding for me, personally. It also took me some time to find my type and type variant. It's tricky, cause it's about the way our ego tricks us. I was like "I can't be a body type relating to anger, cause I've never been angry my whole life!" Because I'm fucking angry all the time and have built a defence of sleep around it lol. There's a few reasons one can have trouble finding ones type. One being that you're a 3, 6 or 9, who all have a built in motivation to change a lot depending on circumstances. Another being you're a so called countertype - your instinctual variant (self preservation, sexual or social) combining with your type to be reactive to it, which generic type description sometimes doesn't account for. Like social 9s often being workaholics trying to rub off their sluggish indolence, self pref 4s being mild and friendly holding in their sadness, social 7s being sacrificial and guilty about gluttony etc.

Uh. I could talk a lot about this. Especially when I should be doing work (Type 9 power weeeeeee)

[cayvie]

I - 53%
N - 64%
F - 81%
P - 63%

Assertiveness - 69%, nice

[reywaS]

INFP

[Tangrowth]

That's awesome, I should take it again too! I used to get INTJ all the time, including here when I took it 3 years ago, but the last couple times it's been INFJ now.

Yep, INFJ.

[Timsup2nothin]

ENFP, but very close to ESFP. This was newly taken test, but nothing has really changed on this for a long time.

[Hally]

That's awesome, I should take it again too! I used to get INTJ all the time, including here when I took it 3 years ago, but the last couple times it's been INFJ now.

Yep, INFJ.

infj hype!!!!!!!!!

[cat]

very strong virtuoso, everything over 80%

[Herm]

I'm an ENFP, recently did the test like 1-2 months ago.

I have been INFP as well, but lately my extrovert points are a bit higher right now.

[Herm]

ENFPs ASSEMBLE!