Personality Tests...are they useful?

[~InHisHands~]

I have a lot of ISTJs in my life.

My sister's husband: he's a pharmacist. (ISTJs generally have a great memory.) Faithful husband, great father.

My former prayer partner of 4 years. She's a mom and home-schools her kids. (Teaching runs in her family.) Always a source of sound wisdom.

My mom: she was too much of a dictator, and I never did anything "right" (her way).

ISTJs are the stalwarts of society, going about quietly doing their duty. They are practical and usually good with money.

Want to know their possible blind spots?

1- tendency to lose themselves in the details of a project. Once immersed, they can be rigid and inflexible even when others see a need to adjust the plan. They need to gather a wider range of information trying to anticipate future problems, so they can be more effective.

2- can sometimes have trouble understanding other people's needs. They can be perceived as cold and unfeeling. They need to learn to express appreciation for others directly, rather than keeping it to themselves.

3- they tend to expect others to be logical- like them. They can demand conformity to their way of doing things and discourage creativity. They need to learn to stay open to other or unconventional methods and develop tolerance for differences in other people.

Paraphrased from the book "Do What You Are" by
Paul D. Tieger & Barbara Barron-Tieger.
http://www.personalitytype.com/

I'm well aware of all this. But, thank you.

 

[~InHisHands~]

Sorry, Menno. I actually think these tests are rather silly & only did it for fun - as an introvert I spend a lot of time contemplating my belly-button anyhow. It hasn't talked back yet...

*LOL*

 

[ACADEMIC]

I wanted to add that nearly all of the Internet tests and explanations for the Jungian types we have been talking about are of considerable less quality than those in the Kierssey-Bates books and Myers-Briggs.

All of the one's on the Internet I have seen, except from those two sources, are written by relative novices who have had little choice but to write their own tests and descriptions due to copyright restrictions on the Kierssey-Bates books and Myers-Briggs.

The other Internet ones certainly have some value, but I just do not think they are as accurate, at least the ones I have seen.

Cool! Gobs of used copies of the Kierssey-Bates book are available for as cheap as $1 here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0960695400/ref=dp_olp_2/104-3312500-8301522?ie=UTF8

 

[artrx]

After reading all the comments about this test, I had to take it. It turns out that I am an INFP. As I read further about this personality type, I am surprised at how well it describes me. If not totally accurate at describing who I am it definately describes how I see myself or better stated who I long to be. I am encouraged that I share this personality type with Princess Diana. Even though she made some pretty poor decisions in her life, she was passionate about helping people.

It is interesting that this is such a rare personality type and there are two of us on this forum.

I am also an INFP. There is a similar thread in the anglican forum and it is surprising how many INFP's have been there as well. According to Myer's-Briggs we're only 1% of the population. Except that our and other NP types may be attracted to these types of forum discussions with multiple viewpoints. It has also been noted that there are a high percentage of NF's as priests.

 

[Jehane]

Really? This is bizarre. My maths is bad but doesn't that add up to more than 1 percent?

 

[FallingWaters]

Really? This is bizarre. My maths is bad but doesn't that add up to more than 1 percent?

I'm pretty sure the statistic is that one percent of all Americans are INFPs.

 

[Jehane]

Ok, then we just have more than our fair share in here?

 

[FallingWaters]

Yeah... I just wonder what percentage of each type spend time on line. Generally speaking, I have a feeling there are more Ns than Ss. S is a hands-on preference. The computer lacks the right kind of thrill for an S.

I once saw a web site that was taking a poll of the types visiting his page, but those are just the folks who happen across his page, not the whole internet.

Hey I wonder if I could get a government grant for hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a study?!

 

[~InHisHands~]

An S being the Sensing one?

 

[FallingWaters]

yes

 

[~InHisHands~]

The computer is a thrill for me. My thing is the issue of monotony. I like variety in my life with certain things.

 

[artrx]

I'm pretty sure the statistic is that one percent of all Americans are INFPs.

Yes, and the NF's who are priests can be either J or P. In fact many are J, not P. INFJ's make up about 5% of the total population. BUT this is all in statistical generalities, interesting but not absolute. In fact there is still a great deal of difference between people of the same personality type anyway. Life experiences have a huge impact.

 

[Joykins]

I am either an INTJ or ISTJ. I wobble

 

[ACADEMIC]

Kierssey-Bates argue that their percentages are regarding the total of human populatons, not just Americans. The 16 types they describe are universal among all humans, in their view (and mine).

At the same time, both they and Miers-Briggs (and me, he-he) recognize their descriptions of the types as strongly biased toward exhibitions of the types among Westerners.

Kierssey-Bates' Please Understand Me has been translated into a scad of European languages.

 

[FallingWaters]

The computer is a thrill for me. My thing is the issue of monotony. I like variety in my life with certain things.

I guess "thrill" wasn't the perfect word to use. There probably is no one word that would describe it. I only meant that a computer provides less "sensory" activity such as an "S" usually prefers.

Not that "S" people never use a computer- though I know many "S" people who "hate" them. I just think that out of all the people who enjoy using the internet, who use it not because their job forces them to, but because they choose to, I think the percentage of "N" people online is higher than that of the general population.

According to Keirsey, 75% of the population is "S" and 25% is "N". My point is that if there was a way to find out, we might discover that the online population might be more like 50-50. And who knows what the specific population here on CF might look like?!

 

[FallingWaters]

Kierssey-Bates argue that their percentages are regarding the total of human populatons, not just Americans. The 16 types they describe are universal among all humans, in their view (and mine).

At the same time, both they and Miers-Briggs (and me, he-he) recognize their descriptions of the types as strongly biased toward exhibitions of the types among Westerners.

Kierssey-Bates' Please Understand Me has been translated into a scad of European languages.

Thanks for that clarification. I agree with the Keirsey-Bates premise. And the Myers-Briggs premise, too.

Hey! I guess that means that I agree with you!