Jung's-Myers-Brigg's Typology

[remember_Cedric]

Jadey, just wanted to know, when you mentioned 'outdated crappy test', do you mean that particular test which MW posted, or the structure of such tests? What is it about these test that put you disagree with? I'm asking because I'm interested to know as I value your opinion.

The accuracy of the tests interest me as I'd like to know the behaviour/thinking of these people under different personality types and make comparison. Nothing serious, just merely for the fun of it.

[xJadedx]

The entire MBTI-type tests. The test gives results that are way too broad, so that really it applies to pretty much anyone (anyone can find something in each "personality type" that matches with their ideals of themselves). The test is a poor predictor of behaviour, which essentially makes it useless in many settings, since theoretically, people's personalities should predict how they would behave. There are more psychometric and statistical problems with it - the Wikipedia link for this test outlines a lot of the problems, so that's a good start. But plenty of personality psychologists have conducted studies and shown that this test lacks validity and reliability (which are two of the most important things any test should have).

[jotaro]

The test is a poor predictor of behaviour, which essentially makes it useless in many settings,

I did the mbti years ago because two of my clinical supervisors had Jungian backgrounds with their doctorates. It shouldn't be used to preselect a candidate for a workplace because any personality can function within the parameters of a workplace policy and proceedures guidelines. My understanding, according to my clinical supervisors, is that it is a measurement for personal preference in the present moment. In other words, the mbti tells you something about who you are right now. And that is with the proviso that you do the test honestly. In the wikipedia article this latter fact is made abundantly clear.

[jotaro]

I need to make one more point about the wikipedia article on the mbti. The article is flawed only because of its weak critique of Carl Jung. It describes Jung's categories as "anecdotal, introspective and only based on clinical observation." This critique comes from only one sited internet source. Carl Jung was a prolific writer, well aware of how the unconscious mind functions both as a psychologist and as a neurologist. That part of the wikipedia article needs to be expanded. To rely on one source as a basis for criticism for a scientist is not only "bad science" it is also what scientists euphemistically call "methodolatry". As far as I am concerned his personality categories carry too much weight and sophistication.

[remember_Cedric]

I did the mbti years ago because two of my clinical supervisors had Jungian backgrounds with their doctorates. It shouldn't be used to preselect a candidate for a workplace because any personality can function within the parameters of a workplace policy and proceedures guidelines. My understanding, according to my clinical supervisors, is that it is a measurement for personal preference in the present moment. In other words, the mbti tells you something about who you are right now. And that is with the proviso that you do the test honestly. In the wikipedia article this latter fact is made abundantly clear.

I kinda agree on that. I usually take different test to ensure to see if the result is the same or when I feel some changes/growth to my personality I'll take the test again, well out of curiosity and how accurate it may be despite not 100% accurate.

Check this link out http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/

It gives the percentage of where u are instead of nailing u down to one type.

I revolve around ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ.

[Guo Xiang]

I revolve around ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ.

Personality crisis, dear?

[remember_Cedric]

Personality crisis, dear?

Nope. The test result gives a percentage of the personality type you are closest.

Give it a try on the test and you should get the picture. Also look at the next closest of your type. Of course, those are references of personalities you can explore into and have fun exploring yourself.

[kidd]

I kinda agree on that. I usually take different test to ensure to see if the result is the same or when I feel some changes/growth to my personality I'll take the test again, well out of curiosity and how accurate it may be despite not 100% accurate.

Check this link out http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/

It gives the percentage of where u are instead of nailing u down to one type.

I revolve around ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ.

I'm trying this test. Some questions are really hard to choose. Like this one

I really like building better relationships between people vs I really like finding logical flaws in theories or explanations

I don't really like the latter, but, I will somehow naturally do it. Talking about preference, I prefer the former.

[kidd]

Here's my result

"The MMDI thinks your personality is closest to ISFP, and 2nd closest to INFP."

I don't know why the MMDI chose ISFP over INFP since both % are the same according to the % table.

So, I've kinda shifted a bit from INFP to ISFP.

Actually, all the types are above 40% for me. So, I've some of all the types. ISFP and INFP are the highest, but, ISFJ, INFJ, ESFJ and ENFJ also pretty close.