#53928 The correlation of MBTI scores and position on the PC

[Marduk]

Vorpal's answers that surprised me:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Strongly Disagree

I suppose there's no reason why this should've surprised me. It simply seems you've been silent on discussing when military subterfuge has come back to bite us in the butt. But I guess you recognize that it often does.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. Agree

As someone who has lambasted 'progressives' as destructive, it surprises me that you agree with some of what has been done. Certainly the steps that have been taken (and agreeing to even take any steps in the first place, at least on a governmental level) have been part of the 'liberal agenda'.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Agree

You've always argued from a 'laissez-faire' standpoint, so suggesting that government impinge on that surprises me.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Strongly Disagree

This perhaps surprised me the most. Strongly? Really? From the arguments you've made, you've suggested that it is entirely the responsibility of the people to use their money to support companies that use means they agree with. Ergo, a profitable company would be one that most clearly represents the methodology of the people it serves. So from your arguments, a profitable company is a socially responsible company.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . Agree

Not much to say here, except that I thought you would've agreed "strongly". This seems to be a severe thorn in the side of the right at the moment.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Strongly Agree

Like I said, misleading companies will eventually be forced unprofitable. People vote with their feet (or dollars) as the case may be.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Strongly Agree

At odds with your belief in the necessity of protectionism on occasion.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. Disagree

I'll admit this is my own bias here, but people who believe so exclusively in capitalism can't really support this belief, since capitalism applied to schooling leaves no room for non-vocational education. It simply isn't profitable.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support. Strongly Agree

Ok, this one actually doesn't surprise me in the least. I just thought I'd point out that I also responded the same way.

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. Disagree

Again, with the fervor you've argued for pure capitalism, it surprises me. This is Reaganomics at its finest, which I assumed you agreed with. Probably an unfair assumption on my part.

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. Disagree

I found this surprising, since this is one of the mantras of Glenn Beck. (Well, when he isn't calling Barack Obama a communist Nazi.) I'll probably have more to say on this later.

You cannot be moral without being religious. Disagree

This surprises me, but again, most likely for no good reason. I don't think you've really said anything on this, at least since I've been here.

Some people are naturally unlucky. Agree

This flies in the face of the generally accepted capitalist narrative that individuals are responsible for their own circumstances. It surprises me that you'd agree with this.

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral. Strongly Agree

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Disagree

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population. Disagree

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. Disagree

No one can feel naturally homosexual. Disagree

These days openness about sex has gone too far. Agree

I expected some stronger opinions here.

[Tao]

Quick two cents: The enemy of my enemy is a tool that may benefit you for the duration of your current altercation. If you think a common enemy is sufficient to ensure friendship, your definition of 'friend' is either extremely manipulative or shallow, in my eyes.

I think that is one reason I am doomed to always fall near the origin of these graphs. The questions all too often seem to demand extremism bordering on blindness. At least this one gave degrees of agree responses.

[NerdGirl]

Okay, these were the two statements that made me wonder what they were trying to get at:

-Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
-Astrology accurately explains many things.

I'm just not sure what those particular things have to do with where someone is on the political spectrum.

[vorpal blade]

NerdGirl,

Those two questions are trying to determine how you feel about authority. I changed my answer from "agree" that schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory to "strongly disagree" and my position on the libertarian/authoritarian went from 0.26 to 0.67. Making it mandatory is seen as authoritarian. There was no change in my left/right score of 1.25.

On the question about astrology I changed my answer from "disagree" to "strongly agree." My score on the libertarian/authoritarian went from 0.26 to 0.62. There was no change on the left/right score. So thinking astrology accurately explains many things makes you accept authority more readily - more authoritarian. Or so the creators of the test believe.

[Marduk]

The creators of the test have also suggested that some questions are merely because certain behaviors are seen as corollary, not that there is a causal relationship.

For example, the question on abstract art, it has been noted that individuals more liberal in their concept of "what is art?" tend to be more liberal overall, and vice versa.

[vorpal blade]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I agree with what Tao said. Also, sometimes the enemy of our enemy is just another one of our enemies. I’m not sure it was wise to treat Stalin as our friend just because he was opposed to Hitler. Stalin was even more evil than Hitler.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. I believe corporations were regulated long before the “progressives” arrived on the political scene. Every government has to pass laws or regulations to prevent individuals and corporations from destroying property that does not belong to them. Conserving the environment is an essential element in the conservative agenda. The infringement of private property rights that progressives and liberals sponsor to “protect the environment” is usually in error, in my opinion.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. To disagree is to lack the ability to see any possible reason to protect the trade of a nation. I might conceivable be in favor of a law which prevented a hostile nation attempting to deliberately destroy an industry by flooding the market with products subsidized by the foreign nation. Of course, some industries might want protectionism in order to avoid fair and open competition, having a monopoly in the home country. You have to walk a fine line here.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. I think a company has many social responsibilities. It has a responsibility to produce a product that does not harm the users when used in the recommended way. It has a responsibility to give fair value for the money it receives in payment. It has a responsibility to see that the product does not promote crime, immorality, sickness, poverty, gamboling, drunkenness, addiction, decrease in family responsibility, or any other social ill. It has a social responsibility to advertize and promote the product in a truthful and honest manner, and without undermining positive social virtues or values.

Surely it was irresponsible for some companies to capture and sell slaves. The fact that this delivered a profit to its shareholders is irrelevant. If a product, such as cigarettes, only hurts others than the company has a social responsibility to go out of business.

People do have a responsibility to only support companies with social responsibility. But an important responsibility lies with the company, not with its victims, er customers. Exactly what role government should play in the case of socially irresponsible companies is a complex issue. At times the government should step in. At other times it should be left up to the customers to determine the success or failure of the company. I think the way professional athletics operate is socially irresponsible, causing some to not keep the Sabbath holy, and promoting an unhealthy amount of time, money, and concern to what should be a simple pastime. But I’m not sure I want the government to step in and correct this social injustice.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care. This is sort of a loaded question. Everyone should be treated with respect, dignity, loving kindness, concern, timely attention, and a desire to see a positive outcome. These standards of medical care should not depend on your ability to pay. But those who can afford to pay more for a private room, rather than sharing with another patient, do have some right to this higher standard of care. You might get a better doctor if you paid an emergency helicopter to transport you to a special hospital in another state where medical advances improve the care you get, but I don’t think everyone, regardless of ability to pay, deserves this special treatment as a matter of right. So, while I generally agree, I do not agree strongly, as it depends on what “rights” we are talking about, and what “standards” we are talking about.

Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public. I think false and misleading statements made by businesses should be against the law. It should be a crime to lie. There is no excuse for it. True, eventually businesses that mislead may be punished by their customers, but I still strongly agree they should be punished by the law.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. The point of capitalism is foster freedom and economic growth and prosperity. It is not a religion to dictate moral values. In capitalism economic gain is a means to an end, not an end moral value. Capitalism is the best economic engine, but the direction we take is determined by our moral values.

The prime function of schooling is to equip students to think, to understand the world around them, and to prepare them to be successful, knowledgeable, and productive. The value of education is not determined on a cost/benefit analysis of return on investment solely in the job market, but in all aspects of a person’s life.

Marduk, you have funny ideas about capitalism.

What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. I do agree with Reaganomics, but this is not Reaganomics. What is good for the most successful corporations has little or nothing to do with what is good for the rest of us. Massive failures in software may be good for Microsoft’s business, which causes us to buy even more products from Microsoft, but will not be good for the rest of us. The oil spill in the gulf may be good for the oil cleanup business, but be harmful to the scrimp or fishing businesses. Reaganomics focused “on barriers to higher productivity— identifying ways in which the government can promote faster economic growth over the long haul by removing impediments to the supply of, and efficient use of, the factors of production.”

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. I believe Glenn Beck would disagree with this. I was concerned after 9/11 that Bush was going to hurt our civil liberties trying to get the terrorists. Sort of like the way I resent all the hassle I go through at airports with procedures I don’t think would stop any terrorist. But other than the airports I haven’t seen much curbing of liberties. What I have seen is a bunch of whining about invasion of privacy when calls are monitored going out of the country to known terrorist organizations. Any police activity curbs our liberties to some extent, but some of it is necessary.

Some people are naturally unlucky. In my mind there is no question that luck plays a part in our successes or failures in life. It isn’t all the result of our own actions. There is also no doubt that people will blame luck on their lack of initiative, lack of preparedness, lack of skill, lack of knowledge, lack of determination. Sure some actors “luck” into a good role, after serving in the business for many years honing their skills and preparing for the break, while others would fail even with that luck. Luck is a factor, but losers blame luck on a lot that isn’t luck.

Like Tao, I find that it is hard to have strong opinions about something when you know there is another side to the story and there are legitimate exceptions.

[mic0]

Ah, resurrecting an ooooold thread!

So I was thinking about these personality tests the other day and saw that I had scored as INTJ a few years ago when I took it. I retook it today and my personality is apparently now INFJ. My results changed from "Thinking" biased to "Feeling" biased. I do actually think this is more accurate, and it makes me wonder - did my personality change, or did my perception of myself change? I have lately been more accepting of my emotions being a part of my personality. It is entirely possible that when I took the test a few years ago I was thinking of my "ideal" self whereas now I recognize that my intuitions and feelings and whatnot are natural and it is OK.

Have any of you retaken this test (or any personality test) and found that your results had changed in some significant way? Just curious. Obviously these tests are flawed (on the internet especially), but they can still tell us some things about ourselves.

[vorpal blade]

I think it is an odd coincidence, but I noticed looking over the chart I made years ago that you, Mic0, were at the intersection of the graphs for INTJ and INFJ.

I just retook the test and again it showed that I was an INTJ (seems like a lot more of us are INTJ than statistics would indicate should be the case.) I think the first time I took this test it said I was ISTJ, but after more thought I consistently came out INTJ.

I also wonder about these self-administered tests. People tell me that you just need to be honest, and what is the point of not being honest? To me there is more to it than just being honest. Take the statement "You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options." There are times when I prefer to act immediately rather than hesitate while speculating about various options. If someone is drowning you can speculate about various options so long that they drown before you decide on the best course of action. Sometimes I just want to get it over with; the agony of indecision while speculating about various options can be painful. At other times impetuously jumping in to act without considering the various options seems rash and foolish. Experience has taught me to look before I leap. I have also learned that once I begin a course of action I'm more likely to stubbornly continue in that path, even if additional information suggests that another option would be quicker, easier, safer, or more effective. Spending some time considering the options whenever reasonable before taking action seems like wisdom. So it isn't always clear what the truth about me is. I have a mental picture of the ideal me, and I have a pessimistic view of the worst me. Which is the true me? Perhaps they both are to some extent.

Anyway, it turns out that by changing my response for this one statement from “No” to “Yes, I prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options” is enough to change me from being an INTJ to an INSJ.

Consider the statement “You trust reason rather than feelings.” I put “yes” which make me an INTJ. If I put “no” I am an INFJ. The answer might depend on how I’m feeling that day. I see so many people using erroneous reasoning that it makes me doubt the wisdom of trusting in reason alone. But then I also see people relying on unrighteous feelings and making bad decisions. If the feelings come from the Holy Ghost you are better off using feelings. There is a relevant scripture: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind [reason]; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”(D&C 9:8) So, which is it, reason or feelings? You can only trust a combination of the two.

Thanks for bringing this up again to see if we have changed.

[S.A.M.]

Thanks for bringing this up again to see if we have changed.

Has the overall composition of the board really changed as well? Where do the newer members score?

I scored a fairly typical INTJ - 89/25/50/22

Was surprised by my L/R -4.00 L/A -2.62

Geek - 25.83026

Links:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.innergeek.us/geek-test.html

[mic0]

~23% geek. I think I'm more... of not a computer geek, I guess.

Vorpal, how did you find out that changing just those specific answer(s) would change everything? I definitely agree that the questions are often dependent on other things, too. The "reason over feelings" question, especially, depends on the situation. I think it is very interesting that we can even consider "who we are." You say you have an idea of the ideal you and the pessimistic view of the worst you; I do, too, of course and most people do. It is such a strange disconnect to be able to think about our selves almost as people we just know VERY WELL but as if we weren't that person.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

ISTJ 56/38/1/33

L/R -2.50 L/A 1.08

Geek: 36.34686%

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I change literally every time I take this test.

And I'm literally using literally correctly. (Although I'm always I).

[Whistler]

One technique psychology research uses to get around the unreliability of self-reported data is to have other people take the test about that person. It's still subject to a lot of warping, but if two or three people describe someone in the same way, you can believe that person has at least a consistent outward personality.

[mic0]

One technique psychology research uses to get around the unreliability of self-reported data is to have other people take the test about that person. It's still subject to a lot of warping, but if two or three people describe someone in the same way, you can believe that person has at least a consistent outward personality.

That is so interesting! I saw a flier the other day for psychology research where they wanted people who were close friends to come together, I wonder if that is why.

[vorpal blade]

~23% geek. I think I'm more... of not a computer geek, I guess.

Vorpal, how did you find out that changing just those specific answer(s) would change everything? I definitely agree that the questions are often dependent on other things, too. The "reason over feelings" question, especially, depends on the situation. I think it is very interesting that we can even consider "who we are." You say you have an idea of the ideal you and the pessimistic view of the worst you; I do, too, of course and most people do. It is such a strange disconnect to be able to think about our selves almost as people we just know VERY WELL but as if we weren't that person.

I don't think I mentioned it, but I was taking the test at http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm I took the test, which is all on one page, and copied and pasted it to be sure to have a record of what I said. But I found that after the test results were given I could use the back arrow button on my browser and my test answers were still there. I made a guess as to what would change my result. I was not strongly "N" or "T" so I thought it might not take a lot to push me over. I made a single change and then hit the "Score it!" button. I was surprised how much a single answer out of 72 answers made a difference. After I saw the result of that change I hit the back arrow, returned the answer to the original, and then made another single change. I figured it wouldn't be too hard to guess which questions would make a difference. I repeated this for a few questions until the website stopped giving me test results for a while.

I'm kind of use to thinking about myself objectively, but I know I can fool myself.

I found that people were not interested in taking the test as though they were me to see if we agreed. I think they viewed it as a test of how well they knew me, and they didn't want to look like they didn't know me.

[UffishThought]

It also seems fraught with social danger, like trying to guess someone's age. You might be spot on, or come up with something flattering, but you might guess something they find insulting, too. Better just to stay out of that one, I'd think.

[vorpal blade]

I was thinking about this some more, and I decided that it doesn't work if you are the one asking your friends to take the test, and you are going to compare their results with your own. However, if you and your friends take the test and only a third party sees the results, and that person gives you nothing or only gives you vague general comments about the comparison, it could work. Otherwise it could lead to unpleasant conversations afterwards, or as UffishThought says, social danger.

I think that if I were taking the test as though I were another person, I would be strongly tempted to put down what I think they believe about themselves, rather than what I think is really the case. That way I'd be more "right." It would be hard, and a little unfriendly, to say to yourself, "My friend prides himself on his ability to make decisions solely on the facts and leave feelings out of it. But I know he often makes decisions based on feelings and then tries to find rational explanations to justify his already predetermined emotional response. So, I'm going to put down 'feelings'."

I've also noticed that when people try to take the MBTI test as though they were Jesus Christ they end up reflecting their ideal image of themselves. Such scores for Jesus end up all over the place. And they all think they know Jesus pretty well.

[Whistler]

yeah, and I think when it comes to personality tests, research favors the Big 5 personality test (it looks at introversion/extroversion, agreeableness, openness, neuroticism... and I've forgotten the rest. http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ is one version).

[vorpal blade]

That was an interesting personality test, Whistler. Outside of this forum I rarely think about personality types. I've known some people, however, that type everyone they meet within the first two minutes of talking to them. And once they type them they never change their opinion.

One of the differences I see between the Big 5 personality test and the MBTI is, it seems to me, that most people are satisfied with what the MBTI says about them. Sometimes the NT types act superior to the SJ types, but I could see any type thinking they were just as good a person, if not better, than any other type. With the Big 5 test I don't see this for several of the personality factors. Who would feel happy being characterized as "conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative," when instead you could be "original, creative, curious, complex?"

Or, which would you rather be, "reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful," or disorganized, undependable, negligent?" How about Agreeableness? Would you rather be "good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous," or "critical, rude, harsh, callous?" Wouldn't you rather be "calm, relaxed, secure, hardy" rather than "nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying?"

In the MBTI, which I'm not saying I really agree with, you are supposedly born with a certain personality type and it remains with you throughout your life. It seems like you ought to try to change your personality if the Big Five says you are disorganized, undependable, negligent, critical, rude, harsh, and callous. I'm not sure how much you could change being uncreative with narrow interests and are too nervous, high-strung, insecure and worrying, but at least you could try to do better. With MBTI it isn't clear there is a best type, but it seems to me that the Big 5 says in some areas you may have a personality fault. Which I guess could be a good thing to know.

I tried to see what difference it made how you answered the question, ”is politically liberal?” I took the test both ways and got exactly the same result. The second time I took the test I did say that this was not the first time I took the test, and I did admit that I wasn’t being truthful in all of my answers the second time, and the test does tend to keep track of your data and answers, so maybe the test was hiding from me the significance of this question. But apparently the creator of the test thinks that how politically liberal you claim to be is not correlated with any personality factor, which was my primary interest in the first place.

[Whistler]

being politically liberal is associated with openness. I agree though, when I took the test I ended up with being anxious, a little negligent, and rude, but I think I was also feeling kind of down on myself, which is always going to affect things. Also, I tend to think rude things, but not say them, so while I don't come across as judgmental and rude to most people... maybe that's my TRUE personality?? D-: