I've always considered myself to be an introvert, but now when you put it that way... It is quite possible that I am actually an extrovert. I like siting at home, reading a good book, or watching a movie, but I never actually liked to be completely alone. Also, seeing my friends and being with a group of people really does energize me. I can spend whole day together with people I like without feeling bored. But again, that's maybe just me being Serbian and all. That's how we are, always spending time with family and friends. Maybe your surroundings and culture actually have more influence on that part of becoming extrovert/introvert.
I got INFJ-A. Advocate. I think I gave contradicting answers and too many neutrals so with so few questions, it just couldn't have given an accurate result. Although, I do admit I'm in many respects pragmatic and rational. I like to think things through and make predictions, I like to have plans A, B and C. I take responsibility seriously in many aspects of life. But the test doesn't allow much variation or take into account many variable. When I work, I play by the rules, I respect the employer and the community, because my actions may affect other people negatively if I improvise without understanding or seeing the full picture. But when I'm out of work, I often do things impulsively and my own way. If I make big decisions, I think them through. If it's about nothing life-changing, I go by my emotions. If I'm given the responsibility to e.g. exercise an expensive dressage horse, I will definitely play by the rules, but if I'm riding my own bike to the grocery store, I can relax and be careless. I didn't understand why people who prefer clear rules and respect deadlines and who are decisive are "judging."
A lot of the words aren't used in the ways that we use them in normal conversation. The introvert/extrovert definitions have already been discussed, but the judging/perceiving words are used differently as well. In this context "judging" means that when new information/stimuli is presented, you want to categorize, classify, understand it. If you're more "perceiving" you're more will to let the new information/stimuli just sit there and be, if that makes sense? You stay open to new information longer, because you haven't already decided what's what, but you may take longer to make decisions.
Yes. This is exactly why I think these tests are not very accurate. They don't take circumstances into account. Might as well go with Astrology.
I thought if you're in the judging end of the spectrum, you'd also be more pragmatic... so you'd take longer to make decisions instead of improvising or impulsively doing something. So basically, you'd need to judge first to know what you're getting into, analyze the problem, and then make an educated guess or an informed decision -- which also takes longer. So judgers and perceivers both take long to arrive at the decision, they just go about it differently? Or something. To be honest, I don't even care that much. The word just jumped out 'cause it's got fairly negative connotations, and I never thought I was particularly judgy. But in this sense I think I am. I do like to think things through and from different viewpoints, and that'd require categorizing, evaluating, prioritizing, predicting, etc.
I think the idea is that judgers judge more-or-less as they go, while perceivers wait until the last possible minute. Or, in cases where no decision is required, perceivers may never really judge, just absorb.
I think you are missing the point. People believe their horoscopes fit them even when everyone in the class is secretly told the same one. Measuring the MBTI... And Coming Up Short
Great, let's start a thread to see if people believe their horoscope fits their personality. I find it useful to point out the mythology here. If people want to play games, more power to them. But if they think this kind of thing is valid, it's better to point out the fallacious thinking rather than having them pass on the false conclusions about the validity of this fad to another unsuspecting individual.
Do you honestly think there's a useful comparison between personality predictions based on when you're born and personality predictions based on a bunch of questions about your personality? I mean, no one here is saying that they're going to change careers or anything based on their results. It's just interesting.
See, your post shows you don't get it. Subjective validation is the basis for people believing their horoscopes fit them, for people convinced the psychic using cold reading techniques really is psychic and for people thinking the M-B personality test reveals their personalities accurately. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Forer Effect Edited to add: there is also the effect of putting the white coat on, a lot of people think that must add validity to the claim.
And it might, if the test were designed by an actual psychologist, instead of some lady and her mother screwing about.
@GingerCoffee "Each MBTI profile has some points that describe most people well. Each horoscope has some points that describe most people well. The Forer effect is that people think statements about them are more specific than they really are. Therefore, MBTI relies as much on the Forer effect as horoscopes do." Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
Why, is it because you don't feel good about yourself? I read it and it's not even close to pretentious. Not as accurate as it states, but definitely not pretentious.
Some people want space, others to interact; ambiguous matters need closure fast for some, whereas others tolerate uncertainty indefinitely. In combination, especially where the tendency to one alternative is strong, the four variables can tell us a lot -- even if the characterization of 16 crystalized entities is somewhat overstated. People are always going to want to learn about themselves, so where are the legitimate tests?
What part of my post shows I don't get "it"? Actually, nevermind. I remembered I have a better solution!
Why do people on forums keep sharing this personality test every few years? It's known to be a heap of shit.
Hmm. That is a difficult one. Let me think about it for a bit. Well, I have thought about it, and after some deep contemplation, I think I might have an answer. It is a complicated answer, difficult to explain. Let me know if I need to simplify it for you. The answer is this: It is not a heap of shit.
Show me the psychological basis for this test, and the benefits gained by knowing this sort of thing. So it suggests some people can easily sympathize with others, or are more withdrawn, or whatever - that's not a personality type, that's just degrees of good social skills. And it suggests you have only one face, when most people react differently and show different traits of their personality in different situations. Reducing a human being down to a type is reductive, pointless, and naive. I've seen this before, many times, and not found either problem I have with this test satisfied. So in my experience it is a heap of shit.
Because it's fucking fun. Jesus Christ, do you people get that? Fun? Can you turn off your analytic and negative brains longer enough to understand the concept? Does everything have to have a purpose, a meaning, a reason to exist, in order for you to want anything to do with it? And if it does, can't you move on and let those of us who enjoy it actually fucking enjoy it without your party-pooper mentalities ruining it? Do you feel that it's your job to come here and tell us that we're all ridiculous for taking a test with zero purpose? And continue to rub it in, hijacking what was supposed to be a fun thread discussing our similar personalities based on questions we answered and NOT a random horoscope given to us at birth? Two words for y'all: Fun suckers. Also: In case it wasn't clear, "you" is referring to everyone who has come here to discuss how stupid or pointless this test is, not just Lemex alone.
