Meyers-Briggs Personality Classifications (Jung Typology Test)

[Edward]

3 awesome! perhaps you can sleep better tonight now?

I will sleep very much better tonight, lol. It just didn't compute for a man to test out exactly like another woman. I was like

I've been playing with this test for years and testing lots of friends, and I've never seen that before. (Still haven't! Phew!)

 

[Nick]

INTJ

Introvert(89%) iNtuitive(50%) Thinking(75%) Judging(44%)

 

[Edward]

ENFP.
Last time I took the test, last year or so, I was INTP. So either I've changed, or the test has a lousy retest -reliability.

Claudya, I've been thinking about this (uh-oh) and I took the test several years ago and this time when I took it, it seemed the same. I got a slightly different result because I input slightly different answers. I was being honest and input what I now feel the particular answers were. My main goal in retaking it was to see if a discernible change had taken place in me and in what way since I had tested before. I went from thinking to feeling, and I understand why this is. When I had tested before, I was not walking with the Lord. I have been now since 2009. I do not look at things the way I used to. There is more to this world than meets the eye and it is of a spiritual nature. I have been trying to not lean upon my own understanding (because I know that means death) and to be more in tune with the unseen. So my different results make sense to me, and I will not blame the test's reliability. I can feel the spiritual forces at work in this world and within me because I am paying attention now. I suggest that (I merely gently suggest, I do not KNOW...) that perhaps you got different results because you input different answers, and not because the test has gone wrong somehow. Either/or, you should consider the possibility of changes within yourself, and not of the test. If this is so, it may provide insight into what is going on within you and may allow you to identify the whys of it. Then you can decide if you like the results or not, and perhaps...well, go from there in what you see and decide. This test has not changed. I remember many of the questions as having been asked them before.

INTJ

Introvert(89%) iNtuitive(50%) Thinking(75%) Judging(44%)

No surprise there. I like this test and think it may be the best test I have ever taken. I like it more than the IQ test even (Queendom.com) It provides insight in our own psyches, which can be a valuable tool in these spiritually troubling times...

 

[YosefHayim]

Took it maybe two years ago. There was an I in there. Something like infp but I forget. Maybe I should do it again, but personality tests seem like a horoscope without the new age nonsense.

 

[Edward]

Horoscope? I don't get that connection. Huh.

I thought ones IQ never changed but when I was in...8th grade (?) I took one and tested at 120, but a few years back I took one on www.queendon.com and tested at 136. ? I guess it can change.

 

[YosefHayim]

Horoscope? I don't get that connection. Huh.

I thought ones IQ never changed but when I was in...8th grade (?) I took one and tested at 120, but a few years back I took one on www.queendon.com and tested at 136. ? I guess it can change.

Horoscopes are those things that tell you about your personality through some astrological and psychic thing. Myers Briggs and other personality tests are just the same thing. Minus the astrology. Justly random questions with vague answer choices. The answer is never the same. One day I could be infp, a week later istp, a week later lmnopq. Then it comes with random book recomendations for self improvement books. The Bible is the only self improvement book I need.

I just don't get the point of them.

 

[Edward]

The answer is never the same.

Oh I don't believe that. Only if different answers are given. It's the same test, how could it be different results with the same answers?

 

[YosefHayim]

The answer is never the same.

Oh I don't believe that. Only if different answers are given. It's the same test, how could it be different results with the same answers?

Depending on how you're feeling when you answer an "it depends" question with only yes or no.

 

[Edward]

The answer is never the same.

Oh I don't believe that. Only if different answers are given. It's the same test, how could it be different results with the same answers?

Depending on how you're feeling when you answer an "it depends" question with only yes or no.

Right. But that would be different answers so different results. That and plus the percentage it gives could give an indicator of perhaps not all the time (low percentage) or most of the time (high percentage). But evenso, that's not a flaw in the test, but the indecisiveness of man.

 

[Nick]

IQ tests are best done on children, and not adults. They also have a pretty narrow scope of assessment, thereby making them almost useless to determine general intelligence for an adult.

 

[YosefHayim]

The answer is never the same.

Oh I don't believe that. Only if different answers are given. It's the same test, how could it be different results with the same answers?

Depending on how you're feeling when you answer an "it depends" question with only yes or no.

Right. But that would be different answers so different results. That and plus the percentage it gives could give an indicator of perhaps not all the time (low percentage) or most of the time (high percentage). But evenso, that's not a flaw in the test, but the indecisiveness of man.

Well what if I get like 12% thinking, yet the test is thinking of a different kind of thinking than I‘m thinking I am, and the thoughts thereof I think may be more about thoughts opposing to the thoughts thereof that they think I think less of. What do you think?

 

[Claudya]

Right. But that would be different answers so different results. That and plus the percentage it gives could give an indicator of perhaps not all the time (low percentage) or most of the time (high percentage). But evenso, that's not a flaw in the test, but the indecisiveness of man.

Oh you're definitely right. :yes
You're also right with your earlier statement that a change towards a closer walk with God may turn a T into an F (just like other life choice may at some point have an impact on your personality). And as for my change from I to E, well I can be extreme in either direction, but my average over time is probably just in the middle between both. So depending on the mood of the day I can turn out either. That's an expectable result, but a weakness of a typology type personality model, as I explained in that long post a few days ago.
Another reason why my results may have changed is that as far as I remember the last time I did the test and turned out INTP I did the test in German. This time it was English and while we can assume the whole thing is translated well doing tests in different languages can have different results in the same person, even though it shouldn't but it's a possible source of error.

Anyway.
There are various scientific reviews stating the test has a bad reliability, it's 4 scales aren't independent of each other, and if you run a factor analysis of the test it'll turn out with 6 instead of 4 factors. That's maybe why this test, although seemingly popular among many people, is not relevant in science.

Another point beside reliablity is validity. I'll try to make it short and without math this time, okay? :D
While reliability is an indicator for how precise a test is, validity is an indicator of whether a test measures the variables it claims to measure. That means how well the test or its underlying concepts match and correspond with reality. Personality traits are per definition stable over time. They are "accumulated/ average behaviour" just like climate is accumulated or average weather. So if "the indecisiveness of man" can change the results of a person every time the test is taken then one could worry if it's really a test for personality traits, or rather a test of situational mood.
So a low reliability is a sign for and a cause of a low validity, especially when considering a variable that is thought to be stable over time an over situations.

And someone here said their employer had them take the test. The employer probably didn't do that for giggles, but because they wanted to predict the employees behaviour or figure out what kind of work and working conditions would be best for that person. Now imagine they are making relevant and potentially costly decisions that can have great impact on a persons career based on a test that is not very exact, nor does it match reality very well.

Well the test is still fun and probably still tells us something about ourselves, but if a personality test is to be used in any serious context or for decision making then this test just isn't good enough.

 

[Edward]

Well what if I get like 12% thinking, yet the test is thinking of a different kind of thinking than I‘m thinking I am, and the thoughts thereof I think may be more about thoughts opposing to the thoughts thereof that they think I think less of. What do you think?

Hehe. I think I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle that one, lol. That sounds like a riddle this early.

They also have a pretty narrow scope of assessment, thereby making them almost useless to determine general intelligence for an adult.

...of which I am a prime example, That's a good one Nick. I find that pretty funny this morning. The great thinkers rise early I see. Even so, I think you might be right about this. I hadn't really considered this. I do know that when I found that IQ test this time and took it, I didn't remember it at all from the first one, and yet...I wasn't terribly impressed with it. I didn't know why and I never really did follow through the thought about it but I think that you just finished the thought for me and hit on it. I bet if I took it again today, I'd score even higher, and without really being any smarter now than when I took it. Yessiree, I think you've hit on it. Perhaps the IQ test is only good the first time anyone ever takes it. Mans brain has a way of...cheating so to speak, all on it's own. Interesting.

 

[Edward]

Claudya...I do believe you're right. I like how you think. You're def one of a kind. I don't think I've ever met a woman who thinks on the level that you do. You set the bar high for them, for men too for that matter, lol. It's little wonder you're frustration with a lot of men, you're scary smart. hehe. I can appreciate it myself but I can see where you might strike terror into a lot of men.

I jest, and then again...not.

 

[Claudya]

Thank you for your very kind words.
But I must inform you that I am not that unique. Maybe you haven't yet had many chances to meet academically trained people, especially women? Although I can't imagine you never met any, because you seem to be quite educated yourself. In my town there are plenty of scientists or scientifically trained people (we have big university here that is basically heart, soul and mind of the city) and there are many many people, male and female, that are "on my level" or above it (and that's probably what you'd find around any American college, too). Smartness isn't scary here, it's normal. So neither am I frustrated with the men around here, nor should they be frustrated (let alone terrified) with me. (Although I like the idea of striking terror into hearts... some day I'll take over the world and then I will.... oh well that's gonna be off topic now. Hehe. :D)

As for psychological tests, well I know that stuff because I studied it. I am *almost* a psychologist. I never wanted to be a therapist or any kind of mental health care professional, I always wanted to do science. So how to measure variables in such incredibly complex "objects" like humans are always interested me most. I was the only person among the students I knew during university who enjoyed statistics lectures. Unfortunately I couldn't graduate from university, because ironically my own mental health defeated me. So no idea if my own science carreer is ever going to happen.

Thanks again for your kind words, it's good and honestly heart warming to know I am respected even though we disagree on a number of things. :yes
It's also a display of your own intelligence and wisdom to be able show respect to someone despite disagreement. Discussing stuff with you is very enjoyable!

 

[Nick]

...of which I am a prime example, That's a good one Nick. I find that pretty funny this morning. The great thinkers rise early I see. Even so, I think you might be right about this. I hadn't really considered this. I do know that when I found that IQ test this time and took it, I didn't remember it at all from the first one, and yet...I wasn't terribly impressed with it. I didn't know why and I never really did follow through the thought about it but I think that you just finished the thought for me and hit on it. I bet if I took it again today, I'd score even higher, and without really being any smarter now than when I took it. Yessiree, I think you've hit on it. Perhaps the IQ test is only good the first time anyone ever takes it. Mans brain has a way of...cheating so to speak, all on it's own. Interesting.

Wasn't early for me, lol. More like midday

It's not really about how many times you take an IQ test, it's that by it's design it's just not a great measure. Times have changed.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, I messed up by not going to college. So I am basically self-taught. Psychology was my hobby when I was was young. Weird perhaps but beneficial indeed. A nine year old boy reading psychology books is out of the norm here. Sadly, it would seem that I was born in the wrong country., and have hung with the wrong crowd my whole life. I am a product of my environment, it's not my fault, it's not my fault! Lol.

Somehow I seem to have been blessed with being able to appreciate and respect intelligence without interference from my ego. To me, when someone is right, they're right. Regardless of anything. I'm sure this had benefited me in my self education. I look around me now and see so many ego problems in people that I have to wonder how they were even able to learn to tie their own shoes. I wish that was a joke also.

Internet and a lack of ego is a great boon to self education. Get back in college if you can, you would go far I think. Even with your so called mental health issues, you easily make American women look bad. At least, the ones I have known. Thank you for your kind words.

 

[Edward]

It's not really about how many times you take an IQ test, it's that by it's design it's just not a great measure.

You don't think so? Wouldn't test familiarity increase ones score? I think it might. I've always been a good test taker and developed strategies for test taking early on. Not cheating, just consciously taking a good or certain approach to them. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong and am just under estimating myself?

 

[Claudya]

You don't think so? Wouldn't test familiarity increase ones score? I think it might. I've always been a good test taker and developed strategies for test taking early on. Not cheating, just consciously taking a good or certain approach to them. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong and am just under estimating myself?

There is a repetition effect in IQ tests. You get more experienced. It's like if you solve sudoku puzzles every day you'll get faster and better at it because you recognise certain patterns and practise strategies of solving those kinds of puzzles. If you solve "what's the next number in the sequence" or "which one of those five words doesn't fit in with the rest" type of tasks repeatedly you will train you brain in doing that sort of work. And many of us have done IQ tests, or have solved similar tasks at school or our work, so we do have practice and our score in those tests will at some point say more about how much practice we have rather than how intelligent we are (unless you consider practice and experience a part of a person's global intelligence; some theories of intelligence do that). Thus IQ tests of this kind are more valid in kids than in adults.
So while familiarity with IQ tests will not make a super dumb person have an above average score it may still get you a few points.

One thing Nick is totally right about though is that the concept about what intelligence is has changed over the years. Intelligence has never been a very well defined concept, so there are various theories about what a person's mental capability is and what it includes. Those classical IQ tests aren't a good measure any more because our idea of intelligence has developed from How good is a person at solving logical and verbal puzzles? towards some more complex ideas that include those thinking and problem solving skills, but also things like experience, process knowledge, ability to learn, ability to stay focused, mental flexibility and adaptability, creativity, emotional intelligence, general knowledge about the world, and others. We need new kinds of tests.

Somehow I seem to have been blessed with being able to appreciate and respect intelligence without interference from my ego.

That's actually a sign of being intelligent yourself. The real dumb people don't recognise intelligence, or they don't want to. But there are also people that are intelligent, they just don't have a higher education, but you can still tell they are intelligent because they enjoy doing intelligent stuff, like teaching themselves or joining debate on the internet. So if you can recognise and enjoy intelligence in others chances are you aren't quite the dumbest person yourself.

 

[Nick]

It's not really about how many times you take an IQ test, it's that by it's design it's just not a great measure.

You don't think so? Wouldn't test familiarity increase ones score? I think it might. I've always been a good test taker and developed strategies for test taking early on. Not cheating, just consciously taking a good or certain approach to them. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong and am just under estimating myself?

I'm in agreement with Claudya, while there is certainly a repetition effect with any test, it doesn't necessarily mean an increase of intelligence - whatever that is. That's one of the problems with IQ tests. I'm glad we're in part moving away from this kind of rigorous testing, because a lot of it means nothing or it simply isn't comprehensive. Many things that matter cannot be easily tested. This obsession with testing that developed in the early and mid 20th century had a major fault - that everything that really mattered could be easily tested and measured, and everything would be in good order.

As I said, IQ tests suffer the problem of being too narrow, but also too broad. Most of the IQ tests used to be very universal, and didn't take into account the demographics of the participants, such as age, gender, social class and culture. Many of the tests are way too Americanised also.

There's a lot to be said and debated over intelligence and testing ,and what specifically intelligence is. It's all quite interesting, thus why I've chosen the psychology stream of my education studies at uni over policy and curriculum. I was going to paste a whole section of one of my educational psychology textbooks, but realised it would a lot of work to do so, but maybe I'll get around to it later. It's about 12:30am here, lol.