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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No Roger, I'm better than you all!

ha Ha HA

That's  my high humor score showing :-)


Post 21

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm open, agreeable, stable and extroverted. Pity my room's such a damned mess...!

Extraversion 93
Agreeableness 90
Conscientiousness 42
Emotional Stability 92
Openness 99

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan Dawes wrote:
No Roger, I'm better than you all!

ha Ha HA

That's  my high humor score showing :-)
No argument, Ethan. ENFJ is my favorite MBTI type. My very closest friend (other than my wife) is an ENFJ, and I often think that he is "better than" anybody I've ever met (again, other than my wife).  :-)   I have another friend, a musical colleague, who is also an ENFJ (he knocks the top off the scales, as you do), and while he may not actually be better than the rest of us, he certainly seems to believe that he is. :-)

In Jungian terms, for an INTP (introverted thinking type) like myself, the E-FJs are supposed to represent my anima, and thus to be a source of deep inspiration and rapport. My closest friend certainly functions in that way, but as for you, you are still "under moderation." hahaha.

Best regards,
REB


Post 23

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I score 99 on openness, 90 on agreeableness, 4-5% on the others. Funny I don't feel particularly agreeable.

Post 24

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just answered as honestly as I could.

Ethan,

You misunderstood me. How can you answer the question posed by the poll? It asks for which one you scored highest.

Nothing to do with honsety.

My very closest friend (other than my wife) is an ENFJ, and I often think that he is "better than" anybody I've ever met (again, other than my wife).  :-) 

Just admit it Roger, you're just dying to say that you would get your leg over if Ethan was a woman ;-)

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/02, 12:49pm)


Post 25

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus, I randomly picked Extraversion.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I previously wrote:
My very closest friend (other than my wife) is an ENFJ, and I often think that he is "better than" anybody I've ever met (again, other than my wife).  :-) 
Marcus Bachler (henceforth, Bachler #1 :-) wrote:
Just admit it Roger, you're just dying to say that you would get your leg over if Ethan was a woman ;-)
Ethan Dawe commented:
Marcus, I randomly picked Extraversion.
Ooooh, randomly. That is soooo hot! <pant-pant>

Tongue in (my own) cheek,
REB


Post 27

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, that explains it. Thanks Ethan.

This type of personailty test is rubbish if you ask me - because you are asked to judge yourself with respect to questions such as:

"Are you the life of the party?"

You might answer - agree strongly. Ask someone at the party that and they may say you were the "death of the party".

It is hard to be objective when you can see straight away why they are asking you are specific question.

If you answer strongly disagree for being "life of the party" obviously you are going to score low for extraversion.

This sort of test is part "self-fufilling prophesy" and part scratching your head guesswork. If you need a test to tell you who you are, then you are pretty screwed anyway.


Post 28

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You got that right - "I yam wat I yam, an dats wat I yam", and that's all that matters. Even Popeye knew that.

Post 29

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Marcus,

Lots of people have inflated or just plain erroneous views about themselves. I try to be very honest with myself, but who knows. I noted the use of questions with essentially the same meaning worded in different ways. Perhaps trying to catch how honest people are, or see how wording affect self-judgment.

I found the Myers-Briggs assement to be quite accurate, even though I was on a borderline between two types. It even caught my negative tendacies quite well.

Ethan


Post 30

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Extraversion                       42   Avr 3.7
Agreeableness                    66  Avr 4.1
Conscientiousness              69   Avr 4.3
Emotional Stability              86   Avr  4.6
Openness                           97   Avr.   5.4


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the problems with personality-sorting tests like the Big 5 (NEO-PI) or Myers-Briggs is that relatively smart people who hold a bias toward one of the preference poles (e.g., Agreeable in Big 5 or Feeling in MBTI) will figure out which items relate to that bias and deliberately skew their answers so as to make the test come out with them exemplifying what they think is a virtue.

But neither Thinking nor Feeling (in MBTI) is a virtue or a vice, nor one to be valued above the other. (The same is true for Extraversion vs. Introversion, etc.) We just are what we are, and we all bring strengths and weaknesses to the table that relate to our preferences. That is why I have abandoned my earlier attempts to have Feeling types purged from the Objectivist movement. [joke]

Marcus Bachler wrote:
If you need a test to tell you who you are, then you are pretty screwed anyway.
The main value of this kind of test is not just to know who you are, but who you are in nuance and detail. The expanded versions of the tests are very illuminating in that regard. Another value of these tests is to know and understand and accept others, whose preferences might be quite different from ours. It helps in relationships, in team-building, and in communication, to name but three areas.

And by "acceptance," I don't mean toleration of immorality. I mean allowing others to be different in their personalities, without having to engage in what David Keirsey (in Please Understand Me) calls a "Pygmalion Project." E.g., I have noticed some on SOLO trying to criticize others who have admitted to being introverted, as if that were some sort of moral or character failing. That should be verboten here.

Remember, these various tests identify four or five basic dimensions of personality, and they utilize items that attempt to measure where a given individual is on those dimensions. The items were arrived at by statistical analysis, seeing which items (of a much larger group, most not used in the tests) clustered most highly with a given personality characteristic. Those items were used in formulating the descriptive profiles of each personality type. The huge variation in actual personality types, and the fact that some people have uncertainty over their actual personality type, is merely a reflection of the fact that most people do not score consistently from one item to the next for a given dimension.

Suppose we dispensed with the items and simply examined the preference descriptions, in order to tell whether we were Thinking vs. Feeling, Extraversion vs. Introversion, etc. No test, just see whether a label or paragraph "sounded like you" or not. No muss, no fuss, eh? But it is simply less accurate than plowing through a 50 or 100 item test. There is more room for misinterpretation. Uncertainties sort out more thoroughly in a test with items than by just reading a description. That's the science of personality psychology, such as it is at present.

By the way, Ayn Rand had a very interesting theory of her own about "basic character," as she wrote in her journal years ago. (See Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 669.) In regard to existence, there are facts (reality) and people (other people's views of reality). In regard to consciousness, there are mind (thinking) and emotions (feeling). If you're consistently rational, you hold mind above emotions and reality above people. But as we know, some folks are oriented differently. The worst ones for Rand would seem to be whim-worshipping Social Metaphysicians. Yuk. But what about the mixed premise people -- whim-worshippers who put reality first, and Social metaphysicians who put thinking first?  

Obviously, this model of character is not simply a personality sorting matrix, but a moral sorter. You can imagine, however, the difficulty in getting people to be objective about where they fit into this model, especially if they are striving to be (and/or to be seen) as rational Objectivists! The problems of objectivity in the Big 5 or MBTI pale by comparison.

Best to all,
REB


Post 32

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoa, am I one fucked-up individual:

Extraversion: Very low
Agreeableness: Very high
Conscientiousness: Very low
Emotional Stability: Low
Openness: Very high

I guess I'm a really nice, open, emotionally unstable person who acts on impulse when he's not hiding in a closet and wiping up all the shit that he's flung everywhere.
Hmmm. I always considered serial killing as a career.

Post 33

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
extraversion 10
Agreeableness 58
Conscientiousness 84
Emotional Stability 1
Openness 93

yeah I might want to consider therapy.

---Landon


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Extraversion            93
Agreeableness         86
Conscientiousness   46
Emotional Stability   79 
Openness                82

Your score on Conscientiousness is average. This means you are reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled.

Since I am new,  I thought I'd do this poll, not sure what to make of Reasonably reliable ? 

Post 35

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Extraversion:             98
Agreeable:                36
Conscientiousness:    99
Emotional Stability:   98
Openness:                99


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Extraversion               3
Agreeableness          62
Conscientiousness      7 (according to the East German judge...)
Emotional Stability   54
Openness                  90

I pretty much agree with the test's assessment, although I think I might have short-changed myself with regard to the Conscientiousness rating.    Macht nichts, I suppose.


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger Bissell wrote: "I have noticed some on SOLO trying to criticize others who have admitted to being introverted, as if that were some sort of moral or character failing. That should be verboten here."


Thank you, Roger. It's not just Objectivists, unfortunately...extraverts seem to think the answer is "Oh, you're introverted? We can fix that, you just need a night out on the town with ME!"

You never see an introvert say, "Oh, you're an extrovert? We can fix that...sit here with this book and read quietly to yourself for a few hours!"

Ok, maybe I've tried that once or twice...
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 8/02, 7:35pm)


Post 38

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 6:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Extraversion:             21
Agreeable:                98
Conscientiousness:    99
Emotional Stability:   98
Openness:                92


Post 39

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 6:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe Maurone:

> Thank you, Robert. It's not just Objectivists,
> unfortunately...extraverts seem to think the answer is "Oh,
> you're introverted? We can fix that, you just need a night
> out on the town with ME!"

No, it's not just the extroverted Objectivists. Though I daresay I wouldn't be surprised if I punched up solohq.com one day and found an article in the Dissent section suggesting that a tendency towards introversion was a sign of a poor sense of life.

Even though most of these personality tests make a three card monte dealer's deck look straight, I tend to pull an INTJ result from MBTI-type tests, and I scored extremely low on Extroversion and Agreeableness, and extremely high on Openness. I suppose that makes me a loner one can reason with, if such tests are to be taken seriously.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.