What is your Myers-Briggs type?

[barden]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I was just walking down the street a few minutes ago. Some chubby guy that looks like a troll ran up to me and kicked me in the dick.

wtf?

He is part off my gang. I will reward eduardo well tomorrow.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I was just walking down the street a few minutes ago. Some chubby guy that looks like a troll ran up to me and kicked me in the dick.

wtf?

did you ask him what his myers-briggs type was

[Future Boy]

where do you live and what street, someone needs to thank this guy.

[dudehitscar]

Extroverted (E) 63.33% Introverted (I) 36.67%
Intuitive (N) 54.29% Sensing (S) 45.71%
Thinking (T) 62.16% Feeling (F) 37.84%
Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%

Your type is: ENTJ

ENTJ - "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 1.8% of total population.

[slunken]

hate tests like these

INTJ - "Mastermind". Introverted intellectual with a preference for finding certainty. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 2.1% of total population.

Take Free Jung Personality Test
Personality Test by SimilarMinds.com

[cocksure]

cool i think we're the only INTJs here

(this test is ridiculously stupid)

[cork_soaker]

are you Absolutely Sure?

[cork_soaker]

would you say it is Completely, Ridiculously Stupid, or Moderately Completely Ridiculously Stupid?

[cork_soaker]

on a scale of 4, with two tigers at each end

[Luke de Spa]

Extroverted (E) 51.61% Introverted (I) 48.39%
Intuitive (N) 55.88% Sensing (S) 44.12%
Thinking (T) 75.86% Feeling (F) 24.14%
Judging (J) 57.58% Perceiving (P) 42.42%

Your type is: ENTJ

ENTJ - "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 1.8% of total population.

[Luke de Spa]

how the fuck does it make sense to have binary states for each measure when one can easily score around the 50% mark

what a crock of bullshit

[28if]

Myers bRiggs theory and the tests are not the same. Myers and Briggs never wrote a test because they knew that it could never be accurate.

Luke, the binaries exist on a continuum. Most people are actually around the middle. A lot of time, an "x" will be used in to indicate this. Or uppercase and lowercase letters depending on strength of each characteristic.

For example, I would call myself an iNFx.

Myers Briggs as a theory of personality I find interesting and even mildly useful at times as a framework for discussing the personalities of various individuals. But the tests are bunk.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by 28if

Myers bRiggs theory and the tests are not the same. Myers and Briggs never wrote a test because they knew that it could never be accurate.

Luke, the binaries exist on a continuum. Most people are actually around the middle. A lot of time, an "x" will be used in to indicate this. Or uppercase and lowercase letters depending on strength of each characteristic.

For example, I would call myself an iNFx..

what's the point of having a theory if it can't be tested?

besides, if you add weak and centrist divisions to each type, you've gone from 16 types to 625 types, which would surely make the whole thing a lot less useful as a quick method of personality sorting. i mean, you can see how a four-attribute personality matrix seems a bit absurd once you allow 'xxxx' into the mix, right?

[28if]

*shrug* lots of theories can't be tested. shit it took them decades to figure out a way to test einstein's theories conclusively (which they still haven't done). what literary theory can be tested? etc.

also, there are obviously 625+ different types of personalities. i mean, an argument could be made that there are 7 billion. the mbti system is just that, a system, which must be a simplification. it's a balancing act and i think, personally, that it does an O.k. job.

but i understand you thinking it's absurd. there are lots of ways in which it is.

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by 28if

*shrug* lots of theories can't be tested. shit it took them decades to figure out a way to test einstein's theories conclusively (which they still haven't done).

are you sure about this?

[28if]

not about einstein, yes about literary theories?

[mxzombie]

ok i was just referring to the bit about einstein. thanks

[Eulogy]

SHRUG

oh my god

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by 28if

*shrug* lots of theories can't be tested. shit it took them decades to figure out a way to test einstein's theories conclusively (which they still haven't done). what literary theory can be tested? etc.

einstein's theories are falsifiable and can be tested at the theoretical level (i.e., by attempting to refute the mathematics) or at the physical level (i.e., by comparing predicted phenomena against observed). the only way they "can't be tested" is where there is a technological limitation, in which case it is merely a matter of time and/or resources. i'm assuming this is not the case with myers-briggs.

"what literary theory can be tested?" is a fantastic question. "exactly!" he retorted

something i just read: http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/specul...causa-suicide/

have fun

[Geek USA]

Extroverted (E) 55.88% Introverted (I) 44.12%
Intuitive (N) 55% Sensing (S) 45%
Thinking (T) 57.89% Feeling (F) 42.11%
Perceiving (P) 55.88% Judging (J) 44.12%

Your type is: ENTP

ENTP - "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative. 3.2% of the total population.

[cocksure]

lots of philosophical theories cannot be "tested". and obviously no theory could ever be tested conclusively.

however, that doesn't mean that myer-briggs' theory isn't bullshit.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by cocksure

lots of philosophical theories cannot be "tested".

they can be tested for internal consistency and logic, right? (if they can't, surely they're useless)

if they make claims or predictions about the world, they can be tested against observation (if they can't, the first will have to do. and they'll probably turn out to be useless anyway)

i look forward to the day when we know enough about the brain to dismiss philosophy entirely. but more to the point anything like myers-briggs – i.e. anything that demands that the world to conform to the theory, rather than the other way around – can go die in a fire

[myosis]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

i look forward to the day when we know enough about the brain to dismiss philosophy entirely.

oh the scientific mind

[myosis]

psychological profiles are mostly statistical

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by myosis

oh the scientific mind

buncha up themselves dead assholes if you ask me

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

they can be tested for internal consistency and logic, right? (if they can't, surely they're useless)

if they make claims or predictions about the world, they can be tested against observation (if they can't, the first will have to do. and they'll probably turn out to be useless anyway)

i look forward to the day when we know enough about the brain to dismiss philosophy entirely. but more to the point anything like myers-briggs – i.e. anything that demands that the world to conform to the theory, rather than the other way around – can go die in a fire

Suppose humans fully and thoroughly understand the brain. It's completely understood, and human understanding of physics has exceeded what we know now by leaps and bounds. Why would philosophizing be irrelevant to every day life? Self analysis and critique is philosophy. Cost/benefit analysis is philosophy. Or have you made philosophy this thing that is the vaporware stage of thought before it becomes science and action?

[duovamp]

Or perhaps my definition of philosophy is too broad.

[Luke de Spa]

i don't think of those things as philosophy, but if the brain is understood all actions of the brain become explicable by science as mere physical phenomena, like the rest of existence, with philosophy becoming a redundant etiological dead end

[Luke de Spa]

i mean i don't actually want that to come about – the consequences would be pretty awful, probably – but i suspect it will happen eventually

[duovamp]

So then what is philosophy? What about thinking about something before doing it? Even with knowledge of a situation, your brain still has to access that information, measure it, and translate it. I can't get a grasp on what you're making it, so I can't understand when it's pre-science or when it's thought or when it's rationalization or what.

I mean I wouldn't ever argue for meaningfulness, nor would I argue against causation, but I just want to know how you define the term so I can understand your thought process here.