About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My fiancee is interested in the myers-briggs test and thinks I should try it too. At the moment I have reservations due to Jung's mysticism and many other issues. Would be interested in hearing other soloists experience and opinions on this personality test and its value (or not) in understanding behaviour.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David, my personal experience with the Myers-Briggs test is that it's pretty objective. As no need to be frightened of Jung's "mysticism," he has been wrongly co-opted by the new age movement, when his interest in religion and the occult is more an investigation into why people believe such things, in a manner similar to Rand's, though he was more sympathetic.

Are you familiar with Roger Bissell? He is an Objectivist with an interest in Jung and the Myers-Briggs test.

From his website:
"Keirsey's 'Mirror Temperaments' and the MBTI: a new bridge between type and temperament," shows how Keirsey's temperament-related ideas of role-directive, role-informative, cooperative, and utilitarian are most accurately captured by the four thinking and feeling attitudes of Myers-Briggs theory."
http://members.aol.com/AchillesRB/index.html

For more info on the link between the ideas of Rand and Jung, check out http://jungianobjectivism.tripod.com.

Hope this helps!

Joe


Post 2

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, thanks a lot. I am impressed with the speed with which you replied. I'll check it out now.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David, it only seems fast. I am the Spaceplayer. I bend time to my will. ;)

http://spaceplayer.tripod.com

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I took the Myers-Briggs test online a while back and it told me I was an architect like Howard Roark in the Fountainhead.  I forgot the link to the test.  I also took a DISC assessment at my previous job and it said I was a perfectionist.  I got a good laugh from that one.  Sure I get anal when people misuse hyphens, m-dashes and n-dashes....but a perfectionist?  I don't think so.

(Edited by katdaddy on 1/19, 12:30pm)


Post 5

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I actually rather enjoyed taking the Meyers-Briggs test. It offered interesting insights into my personality that I had not previously considered. I am an INTJ, or "Mastermind" I believe it was. According to the website I took the test on (www.keirsey.com), Ayn Rand was an INTJ as well. Now I have no idea how they know that, so I really can't consider that valid. But it was a neat little factoid anyway. My husband is INTP, and we discovered that many of our sources of marital conflict revolve around that difference in the last letter. He's more of a "winging it" sort of person with no sense of time, and I'm more of a list-maker/scheduler. Just knowing that has helped us during many a conflict. We are able to understand where the other person is coming from instead of (at least on my part) taking it personally or as if the other person is behaving a certain way just to get on the other's nerves.

Incidentally, I have also taken the test at each of my last two jobs and in grad school. I come out INTJ every time. In both of my jobs, my bosses tried to "use" this information by making everyone in the department try to tailor how we wrote and spoke to each other based on the other person's personality profile. Truly a waste of time and a misinterpretation of how this information should be used. But then again, I didn't work for very rational people at all.

I hope you get something out of taking the test. Enjoy!

~Jenn

Post 6

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenn Casey wrote:
I'm more of a list-maker/scheduler.
You might like the articles on the SOLO Florida Welcome page which integrate lists and schedules with the Objectivist ethics.


Luke Setzer


Post 7

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ENTJ. About 55/60 on the E side as well. I found Myers Briggs very interesting. I have certainly noticed how hard I find it to stay focused when I'm in an office by myself.

Now I better sink into a funk, as I'm stuck in a hotel room by myself.


Post 8

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, Fraser, that's why you are so chatty today.  :)

I took the test twice:  Once I had a result of ENTJ, the second time INTJ.  That would make me, if accurate, either a "Mastermind" or a "Field Marshal."

I actually find that interesting, as my introversion/extroversion largely depends on my mood and setting, so on a given day I could be either of those.  Someone has to create the plan, then marshal the troops.  I just approach it more efficiently -- saves on salaries.  ;) 


Post 9

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 1:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

I have done the test a number of times too, and came out as an INTJ (Mastermind) the first time, and an ENTJ (Fieldmarshal) the second.

I think i'll do a pic'n mix of the best qualities.


Post 10

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David you were right to have reservations about Myers-briggs, like Jung's mysticism it is junk. Jung knew how to "read people" because he just looked at people and "knew" (type watcher). Jung conducted only one statistical research study in his life, in astrology. Later in life he even questioned using his own work to read people.

The test was developed by Isabel briggs Myers who had no training in psychology and had no lab or university affiliation. She did her research in her dining room  She learned how to make a test from the local bank's personnel test. Then tested it on school children. Tests of the test show that if people take it again, 39 to 76 percent will be assigned to a different "type." The profiles sound like something from an astrologer, so general so they can fit most people. 


Post 11

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob, I would be most interested to know the sources for the information on which you based your comments, and how you came to learn this about Jung. Thanks, Joe.

Bob wrote:

"David you were right to have reservations about Myers-briggs, like Jung's mysticism it is junk. Jung knew how to "read people" because he just looked at people and "knew" (type watcher). Jung conducted only one statistical research study in his life, in astrology. Later in life he even questioned using his own work to read people.

The test was developed by Isabel briggs Myers who had no training in psychology and had no lab or university affiliation. She did her research in her dining room She learned how to make a test from the local bank's personnel test. Then tested it on school children. Tests of the test show that if people take it again, 39 to 76 percent will be assigned to a different "type." The profiles sound like something from an astrologer, so general so they can fit most people."



Post 12

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob, this sounds similar to something we are discussing on the other thread.

Post 13

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
See: "C.G. Jung Speaking" by (eds) William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull, Princeton University Press, 1977.

1)"Jung's mysticism is junk." Read Jung.

2)"Jung...read people....knew" Start around page 300 and read.

3)"Jung...one...study...astrology" Page 315.

4)"...questioned using his work to read people." Page 305. --Jung quote: "My scheme of typology is only a scheme of orientation. There is such a factor as introversion, there is such a factor as extraversion. The classification of individuals means nothing,"


Info on Myers-Briggs and Isabel briggs Myers see: "The cult of personality: How personality tests are leading us to miseducate our children, mismanage our companies, and misunderstand ourselves. Annie Murphy Paul. Free Press, 2004. 


Post 14

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Bob.

Post 15

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 10:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My own take on the use of these and similar tests is that it feeds into a kind of social metaphysics whereby people who take them can have something to talk about with others who have also taken the test. Just another variation of "Cool, I'm American too" (so we must have a ton in common).

Post 16

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, to your point, I have also seen the M-B type included quite often as a method of screening for dating.  It is essentially the new version of "What's your sign?"

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob wrote: "David you were right to have reservations about Myers-briggs, like Jung's mysticism it is junk...The test was developed by Isabel briggs Myers...Tests of the test show that if people take it again, 39 to 76 percent will be assigned to a different 'type.' The profiles sound like something from an astrologer, so general so they can fit most people." 

The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is to identify current experienced preferences and, based on that, one's most likely personality type. Also, it indicates one's likely type, it does not infallibly identify it.

One source of discrepancy between the indicator results and one's "best fit" (the one of the 16 profiles one feels best described by) is that one or more of one's preferences may be on or near the mid-point of the scale. For instance, I have often shown a close balance between extraversion and introversion. This suggests several possibilities: there may be aspects to my personality that are more extraverted and aspects that are more introverted. Indeed, when I took a more complex version of the MBTI a few years ago, I came out introverted on 3 facets of the E-I scale and extraverted on 2 of them. It so happens that INTP is my "best fit" type, even though I have "tested" also as an ENTJ and an INTJ. (More on this below.)

Another source of discrepancy (see Jennifer's and Jordan's INTJ and ENTJ results above) is that one's relative energy level can influence how one tests on the E-I scale. David Keirsey (Please Understand Me) claims that the E-I scale is the least basic of the four preference scales for this very reason. During the late 1980s, when I was at my highest level of fitness and emotional health, I was much more comfortably outgoing than I am at present, and at that time, I tested as an ENTJ. I was also much more focused, by necessity rather than inclination, on being organized and pro-active in my dealings with the world, and I tested J for that reason. Even when I became less outgoing later on, I still tested as an INTJ, because of the organizing and pro-active focus. Since then, I have relaxed into my natural introverted, flow-seeking state, for better or worse. :-) 

So, type preferences are not necessarily stable in a given person. My intuition (N) and thinking (T) preferences have been very stable, while my introversion (I) and perceiving (P) preferences much less so. There are various reasons why this is so, including personal physical and emotional health, stress in personal life and workplace, pressures to conform or camouflage oneself at work, etc. That is why it is very important to be healthy and to be in the right relationships and job, so that one is most comfortable being one's true self!

These 16 types are first approximation pigeon-holes. They miss a lot of detail and nuance. Even if one of them is one's "best fit," it is still the case that one is sharing this slot with tens of millions (or more) of other people. Still, they are not a horoscope. They are based on preferences for using one's awareness and energy in relating to the world. Those with consistent high preferences for one end of each scale will fit the profiles to an eerily high degree -- those with more mixed preferences will have a harder time settling on one profile or the other (assuming they are trying to be objective and not just picking a profile they would like to be). And that is as it should be with these kinds of instruments.

I'll have something to say about Annie Murphy Paul's critique of the MBTI at a later time.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell, INTP


Post 18

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rather hate pigeonholes - to me, they belong only on a roll-top desk...

Post 19

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Concepts are pigeonholes.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.