So you object to my discussion with Daniel re the validity of Myers-Briggs Personality Types? You don't think that is included in a discussion of this theory?
@GingerCoffee: It's not irrational for people to think they got sick from a flu shot. I have had health problems, with asthma and propensity for chest infections. So far every year I got a flu shot, I got a chest infection ten days later. It's because my immunity is weakened and the the vaccine drops it further as antibodies develop. But I don't get the flu (which I get if I don't have the shot, and it results in months of post-viral fatigue which I aim to avoid) so I keep having the shots. The contents of the vaccine didn't infect me, that's true, but I got sick partly due to the flu jab. Nothing in medicine is absolute, and people shouldn't be easily dismissed just because what they are experiencing doesn't make obvious sense to someone.
I'm an INFJ too ...but I wasn't terribly impressed with the test. I would say I struggled with almost a third of the questions, because a yes/no choice wasn't always appropriate. So often my preferred answer would have been 'depends on circumstances' - and a few would have been 'does not apply at all.' I read the description of my character at the end of it, and I did not feel it was really me, nor did most of the career choices appeal to me. For example, there were a couple of questions relating to discussing feelings. Well, I don't discuss them freely with just anybody, but with the right person I have no trouble. For accuracy, I needed the question to be more specific. It would have been more interesting to take a test that gave more choices for the answers.
The difference is that some people will take the test, and answer as best as they can and others will argue the validity of the questions or results. The bottom line is how do you find out about peoples personalities? Ask them questions and if they answer truthfully, you will know.
I thought you (or perhaps it was someone else) were objecting to this specific test. I guess not. I'm using my phone to post and read through this thread, so I might have missed a few posts. Sorry.
You mean this question? You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions. If you frequently and easily share your feelings with anyone, even one particular person, the answer is 'Yes.' If you don't share your feelings with anyone or very rarely, or prefer to keep your feelings to yourself, then the answer is 'No.'
Would you like to join the PM discussion? I'm trying not to derail this thread. So far I posted a PM to Slamdunk but haven't gotten a reply yet. Or I could just send you what I said. Or we could start a new thread. Or, I can just say there's no need to discuss this any further but I don't see things your way at all. There is no evidence vaccines weaken one's immune system with the exception of reaction like what happens with the second strain of dengue, a complex topic. Your choice.
Well that was one of the questions, although I think there were a couple more in the same vein. But you see ...frequently and easily express feelings and emotions means what, exactly? 1)You tell everybody you talk to about your feelings all the time? 2)You express feelings and emotions only in appropriate situations and to close friends, but then you do so easily? I swithered back and forth on this one, and quite honestly can't remember how I answered on the test. If you'd asked me question one, I'd have said no. If you'd asked me question two, I'd have said yes.
Sorry Ginger I most definitely don't have time for a PM discussion, or any separate discussion for that matter. I just find it annoying when someone makes sweeping statements about medical issues. In medicine, words 'always and never' are inapplicable. The most important thing I learned as a doctor is that I don't know everything, that nothing is absolute and that patients shouldn't be dismissed based on research or papers. Because they only look at issues in isolated manner and are only too easily applied to situations which aren't as relevant as it may seem. They're certainly not a substitute for a holistic approach and relevant clinical experience.
The actual test, as does this one, has redundant questions worded differently. This is so that if you don't understand one question, they assume you will understand the other twelve that ask the same thing. Are you someone who is open with their emotions or not? Answer yes or no. Move on.
Oh, fear not. I've moved on. I always seem to fall between the cracks on yes/no tests. Probably because I think about words, and try to figure out exactly what they mean in each context. Trips me up a lot. I was interested that while I was taking the test I found I went 'yes' or 'no' really quickly on some of them, and then others I took a long time trying to decide. This tells me that some of the questions were appropriate for me and others weren't so much. If I had to think and weigh and swither the answer, it probably means neither answer was actually very accurate. Which is probably why I don't feel the end result was really me. In fact, not much at all. Ach well, what else is new?
Kind of like I find it annoying when people add things they think they read in my posts but which aren't there, such as the expansion of an illustrative example into something akin to a dogmatic declaration of facts without exceptions. For the record, scientific evidence based medicine does take a holistic approach. Doctors of naturopathy don't have a monopoly in that respect. In fact, it's the main focus of the science of nursing which my practice combines with the science of medicine. I'd have a lot more to say but the science of immunology is definitely off topic.
I'm NOYB. Which of the sixteen pigeonholes do YOU reside in? At least it offers four more buckets than "What's your sign?"
This is quite typical of psych tests, you are supposed to be ambivalent about some answers. It's the nature of the game because most people are ambivalent about certain things, so it's reflected in the tests. Also, those questions you mention are usually coupled with others, which can help differentiate truthful answers form those that might have been answered in error or even deliberately misleading. Hence asking the same thing in a few different ways etc.
One of my thoughts on seeing the test was, which marketers were collecting this information on people.
@GingerCoffee: I have no idea what naturopathy you are referring to, I am a medical doctor educated in Australia, which promotes holistic approach, and I am really irked when I see a nurse with rudimentary knowledge of medicine (if you want comprehensive knowledge go to medical school) dish out medical opinions which aren't accurate. I'll leave it at that, I am not looking for a fight, you are just annoying me.
I get that, but it seems to me a more accurate result would come from allowing a person to say 'sometimes yes, sometimes no,' etc. As I said earlier, I don't feel my test 'result' was accurate for me, and I did try my best to be honest with my answers. But there were just too many questions that didn't offer any gradations between black and white, or were too ambiguously worded for me to be sure what they were actually asking. I feel these kinds of tests are trying to over-simplify personality, rather than 'measure' it. And personality is never simple, is it?
I do find it interesting that not only am I off the trend, but I am extraordinarily so. 13 people have taken the test and I am the only extrovert. Are most writers introverted?
@jannert: This type of test is called 'forced choice' and uses 'item response theory' technique. Participants can skip questions if they can't choose. At least they should be able to, I'm not sure if this online test will let you, though. The aim in this test, in any case, is to identify preferences, and clarity of preferences. Original Myers Briggs test had over 200 questions, most of them these days have between 80 and 90. The reason for fewer questions is statistical. It's been shown that certain questions are more capable of moving individual score away from the midpoint, and as such, can produce equally statistically relevant results as tests with more questions. Personally, I don't think these tests are a substitute for getting to know a person, but that's a labour-intensive and expensive approach considering that this has certain validity. But it's not really used in clinical practice, because the data aren't robust enough.
Just did a quick test, came out as INTP which I felt to be accurate, yet at the same time I can't help but be reminded of: In other words, people can identify with almost anything that is being said about them.