MBTI

[gusl]

Consistent with the other takes:

Your Type is
INTP
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
22 56 44 22

I think the 56-44 makes me a rather extreme "NT". Which makes sense, since I have difficulty interacting with people because I am too "logical" (don't make common-sense assumptions, etc).

While these tests seem very meaningful, the theory behind the Jungian types sounds like folk psychology to me ("energy"). Is there any science behind it?
How do they write type descriptions, for example about INTPs? Are they based on theory or on empirical observations of INTPs (or both)?

Comments

[rdore.livejournal.com]

You're misinterpretting it I think. Closer to 50 is more balanced. towards 0 or 100 is high.

Anyway I'm also and INTP. My NT are much stronger.
On this particular test I got 44 78 33 56. That the T score wasn't stronger actually surprised me.

I can definitely jive the "too logical" thing. I think I've gotten a lot better at interpersonal interaction than I was say 8 or 10 years ago (I was pretty awful back then) at least partly because I have a better logical grasp of how a lot of emotions and people work.

I'm also strongly tempted to get up and preach about the enneagram (another personality typing system), but the problem is that any test you find online will be pretty inaccurate for it - none of them are very good. I find the enneagram a lot more interesting because it tends to look at what motivates people and how people work more deeply than MTBI, which seems to measure more superficial things IMO. The actual best way to figure out what you are is just to read descriptions of the various types and figure out which one fits best. If I had to guess, I would say you're a 5, but I'm far from sure.

geekier than thou

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

well, I don't know how these numbers interact towards an "NT score", but (78 + 33) / 2 = 55.5 whereas (44 + 56) / 2 = 50, so I wouldn't say "My NT are much stronger", since this comes down to just one answer on the 72 question. However, since it's grammatically incorrect, I imagine that you were going to edit and finish the sentence, but forgot to. (I often do that). Am I right? (a J probably wouldn't be giving you the benefit of the doubt ;-) )

About the logical thing, what you are describing sounds like this stuff:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/gustavolacerda/111933.html

and this is, btw, also how I cope.

People say "dude, you think too much." "just stop thinking: it's not so complex", and I wonder if they could be right: that I try too hard to understand things, and would do better trying "feel" them. But perhaps I lack what it takes to "feel" them, so I think in order to compensate.

Anyway, this is all obviously related to Asperger's Syndrome.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

btw, I said 44/56 was high because, not one but BOTH are in the 50 range... assuming a symmetric distribution centered around 0, this seems rather high. Of course that will depend on the spread, but anyway.

[rdore.livejournal.com]

No no no. N and T are on different axises so to speak.
For the N/S axis, closer to 100 = strongly N, closer to 0 = strongly S.
Similarly, for T/F, closer to 100 = strongly F, closer to 0 = strongly T.

Anyway it's not really that I *can't* work on an emotional level, just that I default to not doing so.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I know they are on different axes, but I guess I was thinking of the distribution as a 4D Gaussian on the distance from the origin, which is not really justified.

Anyway, I would like to see some data instead of speculating.

[rdore.livejournal.com]

hmm. maybe you are right. I tried putting in all yes's. It gave me 1,1,1,1 and described all the preferences as "slightly expressed X".
If so then it really surprises me that my thinking score was as low as it was.

[jbouwens.livejournal.com]

While it is debatable to what extent ANYTHING in psychology is based on facts and empirical observations, the Myers-Briggs personality types (This is the first time I've seen anyone add "Jung" to that) are pretty well established, and are not "folk" psychology.

Not sure how reliable this particular test is though. Any test that's online and free is ultimately intended to make you cough up some money for "premium" results (Online IQ tests for instance).

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

whoa... GMail put your comment next to another old comment thread, so I never saw it. Dang!

Anyway, I think this online free test is somewhat reliable though, since it agrees with all my previous tests, and INTP really matches me well.