Meyers-Briggs

[cjsmith]

A few people have been posting Meyers-Briggs test results, presumably snarfed from some automated testing/scoring site on the web.

I just got to go through the personal hell that, for me, is the Meyers-Briggs test, for the fourth time in my life. All of these have actually been on paper, scored by the nice official folks at CPP in Palo Alto... only because if I don't have to take it I won't, so that lets a web-based test right out!

1st time: INTJ, very strong.
2nd: INFP, with the I strong and the rest weak.
3rd: IN-P, with the P even weaker than before.
4th: ---- (rated INTJ again, each by ONE POINT; every one of them considered inconclusive by professionals.)

Probably score number four gives some insight into why taking this test is hell for me. The answer to EVERY SINGLE DAMNED "would you rather X or Y" question is "Yes".

(To paraphrase a well-known tennis player, about being pigeonholed: I'm bisexual. I'm even ambidextrous. Just call me CJ.)

The first time I ever took it I was in the Army, and as the results were explained I learned I was the rarest type in the armed services. I was unsurprised. Hard to think of a place less well-suited for an INTJ. (Hard to think of a place that needs them more.)

I think today I'm actually driven by an inner need to do and be everything. I think I'm semi-consciously forcing myself to be centrist. I want to see both sides of a question. I want to be adept at as many different ways of moving through the world as possible. I want to have a plan AND be flexible about it, think AND feel, see the big picture AND the details, recharge with social time AND through alone time.

On the S/N scale, I think I've succeeded. I am sooooo both. I bet that's what makes me a good pilot, good Challenge square dancer/caller, good computer programmer.

Still can't stand people who keep me waiting. Maybe that's my one J point. :)

Comments

[tytso.livejournal.com]

There are more sophisticated scoring systems for the Meyers Briggs type instrument, which give much more interesting results. For example, instead of just pigeon-holing you into "E" vs. "I", the test can break down the score into five subscales:

• Initiating (Congenial, Active, Introduce People) vs. Receiving (Reserved, Low-Key, Are Introduced),
  
• Expressive (Demonstrative, Easier to know, Self-revealing) vs. Contained (Controlled, Harder to know, Private)
  
• Gregarious (Seek popularity, Broad Circle, Join Groups) vs. Intimate (Seek Intimacy, One-on-one, Find individuals)
  
• Participative (Interactor, Enjoy Contact, Listen and Speak) vs. Reflective (Onlooker, Prefer space, Read and Write)
  
• Enthusiastic (Lively, Energetic, Seek spotlight) vs. Quiet (Calm, Enjoy Solitude, Seek background)
  

And each of the other MBTI scales can also be broken down into five subscales each. For some stupid reasons, though, you have to be a trained psychologist in order to get the "advanced" Step II version of the scoring. It seems to be part of the whole guild system, since apparently the same test is used for both scoring systems; they just give you more of the intermediate results with the Step II report.

When I took it (as part of career counseling class which Nancy recommended a long time ago), it was very interesting, because I could see why I was borderline on a few of the scales; it turns out that I was an "E" for some of the subscales and an "I" for some the other subscales. With the additional level of detail found by looking at the subscales, I was able to learn a few interesting things about myself. It's a pity the more detailed scoring isnn't made available to more people, instead of pigeonholing everyone into 16 gigantic buckets.

Re:

[katestine.livejournal.com]

Glancing even quickly at the subscales you list - so that's why some people call me an extrovert even though my mother would look at you in shock!

wow--where do I get the subscales?

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

This is very interesting information. I've never seen this anywhere. Where do I access the subscales? I didn't even learn about this lo these many years ago when I did take it on paper, in a career counseling class. This could explain a lot about me, too. I have always been near to dead center on the E/I scale. Being E on some subscales (I'm definitely Participative, for instance), and I on others (though I can't see a clear one for that) might explain some things.

Cool!

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I've heard tell of these subscales before, but so far none of my testers (three of them trained psychologists) has offered me that information. Maybe next time somebody hands me this test, I'll tell them I refuse to take it unless I'm going to get the subscale reports. After all, it's SO. VERY. PAINFUL. to take the test at all. If they're gonna pigeonhole me, they may as well do it accurately!

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Yep. I'm not surprised. You do strike me as very much of a generalist, even more than me, which is kind of hard to do! ;^) I type out as an XNTJ, with the E/I scale fluctuating depending on a lot of circumstances in my life. I just can't imagine voluntarily putting myself into the military--as you say, not a very good place for an INTJ Scientist type! Especially surrounded by all those S's. *shudder*

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Especially surrounded by all those S's. *shudder*

No KIDDING. I don't know how any N types survive long enough to become high-ranking strategists. They're actively ridiculed.

Then there's the overwhelming E types, who cannot @#$!ing understand that if they don't leave an I alone some of the time, then pretty soon he better not be trusted with live ammo.