This INTJ thing is getting to me. I took one of the online tests posted in an earlier thread and it ID'd me as such. Being skeptical, I thought maybe my answers were swayed by reading the blog for a half hour prior to the test, etc. Any rate, additional reading online lead to buying a used copy off Amazon of David Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me II. My apologies if it's not the best book on the topic, it's just what I have to work with for now. I'll probably pass on buying a copy of DSM IV, I really don't want to go that far.
If this topic truly is attractive to INTJs though, it's curious. I realize temperaments aren't absolute and no one can type cast that simply... but it's odd. I'm really starting to wonder if my view of the world really is that different than those around me.
I've always stayed away from the nature vs nurture debate, but this topic is heavily weighted towards nature. Though if nature skews the appeal towards INTJs, the non-INTJs here represent nurture to an extent.
Either way, it's interesting and I still have a quarter of the book left to read. My end goal with the book is to hopefully find some ways to deal with some problem individuals (for me). I'm sure they mean well but they only complicate everything they're involved in and maybe I encourage this in some regards.
Please Understand Me II
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
FI/RE seems to appeal to ISTJ and INTJ. I suspect it appeals to NFs as well but with the risk of starting a personality war, I don't think NFs like to think about money---they may even consider it too evil for their refined sensibilities :O)
[I sometimes wonder whether the reason that INTJs tend to concentrate so strongly on ERE (the blog) is due to the way I communicate and if so whether it's possible to reach other types by changing things up.]
I think Please Understand Me I is better than II.
In terms of disorders, INTJs are most likely to be schizoids. If independent thinking qualifies as a personality disorder as well these days, we may fall under that as well.
Just for fun, consider the normal personality disorder. Seriously, though, if the world is insane, isn't it crazy to be normal?
[I sometimes wonder whether the reason that INTJs tend to concentrate so strongly on ERE (the blog) is due to the way I communicate and if so whether it's possible to reach other types by changing things up.]
I think Please Understand Me I is better than II.
In terms of disorders, INTJs are most likely to be schizoids. If independent thinking qualifies as a personality disorder as well these days, we may fall under that as well.
Just for fun, consider the normal personality disorder. Seriously, though, if the world is insane, isn't it crazy to be normal?
Thanks, I totally missed that post(2nd link) or just wasn't ready for the topic when it came up. I can definitely see some usefulness now.
67 replies on your travel post, you definitely hit something with that one. Ironic that ERE, might actually increase travel opportunities/etc., if used efficiently.
I favor ERE as it's a simple solution to a perceived problem. I'd rather spend my time on my own endeavors than working for someone else for the next 30+ years. Seems simple enough
Thanks
67 replies on your travel post, you definitely hit something with that one. Ironic that ERE, might actually increase travel opportunities/etc., if used efficiently.
I favor ERE as it's a simple solution to a perceived problem. I'd rather spend my time on my own endeavors than working for someone else for the next 30+ years. Seems simple enough
Thanks
This is where I first heard about this:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/mbti.html
I do find how Jacob communicates appealing:) Probably because it is a lot of rational thinking with disregard for the status quo.
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/mbti.html
I do find how Jacob communicates appealing:) Probably because it is a lot of rational thinking with disregard for the status quo.
It wouldn't surprise me if the audience for a particular writer was somewhat directed by the style or tone of the writing. As an NT, I am drawn to anything appealing to logic or efficiency (which is found here and on the blog in abundance). And, conversely, I am repelled by an overuse of emotion or romanticism. Feelings are simply too subjective to be credited by me as sufficient evidence for a general proposition. I'm not saying those feelings aren't valid, I'm just not wired to work with them as deeply as with logic. Let me tell you, that small truth caused no end of problems during the "monk" years.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I suspect it appeals to NFs as well but with the risk of starting a personality war, I don't think NFs like to think about money---they may even consider it too evil for their refined sensibilities :O)"
Please let me provide personal testimony re this point. I am an INFJ. I spent zero time on money issues until I turned 35. It would be entirely fair to say that I viewed discussions of money as "too evil for my refined sensibilities." This is PRECISELY how INFJs look at money issues. When I received pennies as change, I tossed them in the trashbin. That tells you where I was coming from.
Then (as the result of a job loss) it clicked for me that gaining financial freedom would mean gaining the ability to do meaningful work. INFJS are CRAZY about the idea of doing meaningful work. So overnight I was transformed from the worst saver in the world to the best saver in the world.
The implications here are huge. If we PITCHED financial freedom differently, we could reach millions of people that cannot be reached by the INTJ-flavored arguments that dominate. It's a huge percentage of the money experts who are INFJs but a tiny percentage of the general population. The money "experts" are speaking in a language that the people who need to learn about money cannot understand!
This is a problem.
Rob
Please let me provide personal testimony re this point. I am an INFJ. I spent zero time on money issues until I turned 35. It would be entirely fair to say that I viewed discussions of money as "too evil for my refined sensibilities." This is PRECISELY how INFJs look at money issues. When I received pennies as change, I tossed them in the trashbin. That tells you where I was coming from.
Then (as the result of a job loss) it clicked for me that gaining financial freedom would mean gaining the ability to do meaningful work. INFJS are CRAZY about the idea of doing meaningful work. So overnight I was transformed from the worst saver in the world to the best saver in the world.
The implications here are huge. If we PITCHED financial freedom differently, we could reach millions of people that cannot be reached by the INTJ-flavored arguments that dominate. It's a huge percentage of the money experts who are INFJs but a tiny percentage of the general population. The money "experts" are speaking in a language that the people who need to learn about money cannot understand!
This is a problem.
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"[I sometimes wonder whether the reason that INTJs tend to concentrate so strongly on ERE (the blog) is due to the way I communicate and if so whether it's possible to reach other types by changing things up.]"
I strongly believe that the answer is "Yes." This is the goal of all the work I do.
INTJs are fantastic at generating insights. This is their big skill.
But they are horrible at communication (I don't mean you, Jacob -- my sense from the small number of blog entries of yours that I have read so far is that you are much better at communication than most INTJs). They work under the assumption that people who do not get what they are saying are "stupid" when the real problem is that they are so caught up in their own thought processes that they do not see that others have other ways of thinking that are equally valid.
I love INTJs. I often point out their weaknesses and a good number of INTJs become upset about this (as a rule INTJs do not take criticism well). But my intent is always to make the insights developed by INTJs more powerful. That's something I would love to have others do for me. So I feel that what I am doing is a show of friendship even though some others have not seen it that way.
INTJs do not have all the answers and INFJs do not have all the answers and none of the other personality types have all the answers. The way it should work is that each type should focus on the things it does best and, working together, the combination of the various types could accomplish amazing things.
Rob
I strongly believe that the answer is "Yes." This is the goal of all the work I do.
INTJs are fantastic at generating insights. This is their big skill.
But they are horrible at communication (I don't mean you, Jacob -- my sense from the small number of blog entries of yours that I have read so far is that you are much better at communication than most INTJs). They work under the assumption that people who do not get what they are saying are "stupid" when the real problem is that they are so caught up in their own thought processes that they do not see that others have other ways of thinking that are equally valid.
I love INTJs. I often point out their weaknesses and a good number of INTJs become upset about this (as a rule INTJs do not take criticism well). But my intent is always to make the insights developed by INTJs more powerful. That's something I would love to have others do for me. So I feel that what I am doing is a show of friendship even though some others have not seen it that way.
INTJs do not have all the answers and INFJs do not have all the answers and none of the other personality types have all the answers. The way it should work is that each type should focus on the things it does best and, working together, the combination of the various types could accomplish amazing things.
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"This is where I first heard about this: http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/mbti.html"
I need to bring up a delicate matter here. I hope people will understand the intent behind my decision to bring it up (it is relevant to the discussion and sheds a good deal of light on it).
That site is owned by John Greaney. John and I became friends and built the Retire Early board at the Motley Fool site into the top board at that site back in 1999/2000. In 2002 I pointed out a mistake that John made in a retirement study at his web site and he flipped his lid. He has spent the last eight years of his life following me around the internet and defaming me. Here is a discussion board that he uses to ridicule me that he links to from the site linked to above:
http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi ... b2/YaBB.pl
Lots of people are amazed at such craziness. There is actually a very important substantive point to be taken from this with implications for discussions of both personality types and investing theories.
The mistake that John made in his study (numerous big names in the field have acknowledged in the years since I pointed out the error that the Old School SWR studies do indeed get the numbers wrong) is that he failed to consider the effect of the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins when determining the safety of a retirement plan (the historical record shows that the valuation level that applies is the single most important factor bearing on safety). Why didn't he correct the study when this was brought to his attention? I think that a big part of what is going on is that overvaluation is the product of investor emotion and INTJs (Greaney is an INTJ) HATE discussions of emotion. They want investing to be rational. Emotions are "yucky stuff"to many INTJs. So they just ignore them in their analyses.
Now look where that attitude takes us. Say that valuations/emotions really are the most important factor that needs to be considered to achieve investing success, as I claim. Then the INTJs are deliberately ignoring the most important factor and thereby getting the numbers wrong on every investment topic they examine. The asset allocation advice we hear is all wrong. The risk management advice we hear is all wrong. The retirement planning advice we hear is all wrong. All of it!
Do INTJs WANT to get all this stuff wrong? They do not. INTJs pride themselves on accuracy. They cannot help it! They cannot bear to deal with that yucky emotional stuff. It is just not their thing.
So -- we would change the history of investing analysis if we brought a good number of non-INTJs into the field. Right now there is peer review done on all the studies. But guess what personality type it is that most of those doing the peer review possess? They are mostly INTJs! INTJs are great at numbers and horrible (I am speaking generally) at emotions. So they just cannot see the importance of valuations, which are numbers that reflect emotional realities. Or in cases in which they do (it wouldn't surprise me too much to learn that Shiller is an INTJ), they don't fully appreciate the implications of what they see.
This personality stuff is a big deal, in my assessment. We all like to think that we act according to reason. But my experiences re the SWR matter have led me to believe that we are not capable of coming to even an elementary understanding of things that are not well appreciated by those seeing things through the perspective of our particular personality type. We are all limited and need to look to other personality types for guidance on questions that we cannot handle well ourselves.
Rob
I need to bring up a delicate matter here. I hope people will understand the intent behind my decision to bring it up (it is relevant to the discussion and sheds a good deal of light on it).
That site is owned by John Greaney. John and I became friends and built the Retire Early board at the Motley Fool site into the top board at that site back in 1999/2000. In 2002 I pointed out a mistake that John made in a retirement study at his web site and he flipped his lid. He has spent the last eight years of his life following me around the internet and defaming me. Here is a discussion board that he uses to ridicule me that he links to from the site linked to above:
http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi ... b2/YaBB.pl
Lots of people are amazed at such craziness. There is actually a very important substantive point to be taken from this with implications for discussions of both personality types and investing theories.
The mistake that John made in his study (numerous big names in the field have acknowledged in the years since I pointed out the error that the Old School SWR studies do indeed get the numbers wrong) is that he failed to consider the effect of the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins when determining the safety of a retirement plan (the historical record shows that the valuation level that applies is the single most important factor bearing on safety). Why didn't he correct the study when this was brought to his attention? I think that a big part of what is going on is that overvaluation is the product of investor emotion and INTJs (Greaney is an INTJ) HATE discussions of emotion. They want investing to be rational. Emotions are "yucky stuff"to many INTJs. So they just ignore them in their analyses.
Now look where that attitude takes us. Say that valuations/emotions really are the most important factor that needs to be considered to achieve investing success, as I claim. Then the INTJs are deliberately ignoring the most important factor and thereby getting the numbers wrong on every investment topic they examine. The asset allocation advice we hear is all wrong. The risk management advice we hear is all wrong. The retirement planning advice we hear is all wrong. All of it!
Do INTJs WANT to get all this stuff wrong? They do not. INTJs pride themselves on accuracy. They cannot help it! They cannot bear to deal with that yucky emotional stuff. It is just not their thing.
So -- we would change the history of investing analysis if we brought a good number of non-INTJs into the field. Right now there is peer review done on all the studies. But guess what personality type it is that most of those doing the peer review possess? They are mostly INTJs! INTJs are great at numbers and horrible (I am speaking generally) at emotions. So they just cannot see the importance of valuations, which are numbers that reflect emotional realities. Or in cases in which they do (it wouldn't surprise me too much to learn that Shiller is an INTJ), they don't fully appreciate the implications of what they see.
This personality stuff is a big deal, in my assessment. We all like to think that we act according to reason. But my experiences re the SWR matter have led me to believe that we are not capable of coming to even an elementary understanding of things that are not well appreciated by those seeing things through the perspective of our particular personality type. We are all limited and need to look to other personality types for guidance on questions that we cannot handle well ourselves.
Rob
"If we PITCHED financial freedom differently, we could reach millions of people that cannot be reached by the INTJ-flavored arguments that dominate."
I think Your Money Or Your Life and http://www.financialintegrity.org/ use the kind of pitch you're talking about.
I think Your Money Or Your Life and http://www.financialintegrity.org/ use the kind of pitch you're talking about.
Honestly, all this Myers-Briggs personality stuff seems like modern-day astrology to me. Every test I've taken yields a different type. No wonder! The questions are usually very vague.
"Do you prefer to work in a group or alone?"
Depends on what I'm working on! Every single question leaves out crucial details that would radically change the response. I'm not splitting hairs. I think these tests are ridiculous, but I see so many smart people giving this so much importance. I want to know what I'm missing.
EDIT:
@Rob
I certainly am amazed at that craziness. It took me a few minutes to even understand what the hell I was reading. Does this guy have followers that also harass you?
"Do you prefer to work in a group or alone?"
Depends on what I'm working on! Every single question leaves out crucial details that would radically change the response. I'm not splitting hairs. I think these tests are ridiculous, but I see so many smart people giving this so much importance. I want to know what I'm missing.
EDIT:
@Rob
I certainly am amazed at that craziness. It took me a few minutes to even understand what the hell I was reading. Does this guy have followers that also harass you?
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Rob - Isn't the desire for freedom overestimated [by us]? I bet there are many who subconsciously reduce their choices (career, mortgage, debt, ...) simply so they don't have to make them. Thinking independently is hard---I imagine there's an equivalent "feeling independently", and a great many prefer to avoid it. How are the SJs, in particular, to be reached, presuming they don't want this independence. Do we simply need to change the focus from net worth to relative wealth (liquid net / expenses)?
[I know how to reach SPs: The opportunity to travel and experience the world. NFs are, as you say, meaningful lives and peace of mind.]
@B - MBTI is not the test but the framework of defining personality as a preference along four dimensions. Officially, you're supposed to have a shrink work out your type. I'd say sufficiently self-aware people can work out their own type by crossreferencing with the type descriptions (which don't read like astrology). The test is merely there to help---I've noticed that test questions are often off possibly because they are biased by the test writer.
[I know how to reach SPs: The opportunity to travel and experience the world. NFs are, as you say, meaningful lives and peace of mind.]
@B - MBTI is not the test but the framework of defining personality as a preference along four dimensions. Officially, you're supposed to have a shrink work out your type. I'd say sufficiently self-aware people can work out their own type by crossreferencing with the type descriptions (which don't read like astrology). The test is merely there to help---I've noticed that test questions are often off possibly because they are biased by the test writer.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I certainly am amazed at that craziness. It took me a few minutes to even understand what the hell I was reading. Does this guy have followers that also harass you?"
Yes.
But it's far bigger than that, B. If it was just a small group of abusive posters, this phenomenon would have no significance. Site owners would ban these people and the rest of us would just move on. So that's not the real issue here.
What happens is that the site owners ban ME. This has happened numerous times. There have been several cases where it happened in ways that are flat-out comical. There's a fellow named Carl Richards who writes a fantastic blog called "Behavior Gap." I used to post comments at the blog almost daily. I often found fault with Buy-and-Hold because I view Buy-and-Hold as the most dangerous investing philosophy ever concocted by the human mind (I do not believe it was intentionally concocted to be dangerous, however). This upset some of Carl's readers. So he asked me to stop saying such things. I said that I needed to post honestly to be able to help anyone and he banned me. He told me in the e-mail in which he banned me that he loved my work and that he thought that it was of huge value and that he himself sees dangers in Buy-and-Hold. And then he banned me for saying what he himself believes! Top that!
What's going on is that we are living through a transition period. People once really believed in Buy-and-Hold because they really believed in the Efficient Market Theory, which is its foundation stone. Then Shiller's research showed that the EMT does not hold water. And people just cannot deal with this. When you examine the implications, it stands all that we know about investing on its head. We are today in the investing realm where we were in physics when we learned that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. We are living in a time of wonderful discoveries but they are TOO wonderful. They are so wonderful that they cannot be spoken about out loud in respectable places.
Greaney just happened to get caught up in all this. I am not excusing his behavior. But it would not be fair to say that he is the only crazy one. The really fair way to say it would be to say that we are all at least a little crazy re this subject. I am guilty. I didn't tell people what I knew about safe withdrawal rates for several years because I was worried about how mad people would get if I did so. So I fed the craziness for a time. Then circumstances developed that forced me into coming into the open and the craziness that that opened up (it was like the splitting of the atom!) has been the story of my life for the past eight years.
I believe that we are on the threshold of the biggest breakthroughs in our understanding of how investing works that we have ever seen. But it is going to take a lot of financial pain for us to collectively work up the courage to start talking about what we have learned. There are today huge institutional pressures to keep this stuff bottled up. I do what I can to get the word out. And when I reach a point where I can do no more, I just try to accept that that's the way it is.
It's a strange, strange story, I can tell you that much for certain. I have never in my life seen anything like it or anything that comes even slightly close to being like it. The upside potential is just huge, almost unimaginably good stuff. And the nasty stuff has been so bad that it embarrasses you even to acknowledge that it has taken place in the way it has. Humans!
Rob
Yes.
But it's far bigger than that, B. If it was just a small group of abusive posters, this phenomenon would have no significance. Site owners would ban these people and the rest of us would just move on. So that's not the real issue here.
What happens is that the site owners ban ME. This has happened numerous times. There have been several cases where it happened in ways that are flat-out comical. There's a fellow named Carl Richards who writes a fantastic blog called "Behavior Gap." I used to post comments at the blog almost daily. I often found fault with Buy-and-Hold because I view Buy-and-Hold as the most dangerous investing philosophy ever concocted by the human mind (I do not believe it was intentionally concocted to be dangerous, however). This upset some of Carl's readers. So he asked me to stop saying such things. I said that I needed to post honestly to be able to help anyone and he banned me. He told me in the e-mail in which he banned me that he loved my work and that he thought that it was of huge value and that he himself sees dangers in Buy-and-Hold. And then he banned me for saying what he himself believes! Top that!
What's going on is that we are living through a transition period. People once really believed in Buy-and-Hold because they really believed in the Efficient Market Theory, which is its foundation stone. Then Shiller's research showed that the EMT does not hold water. And people just cannot deal with this. When you examine the implications, it stands all that we know about investing on its head. We are today in the investing realm where we were in physics when we learned that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. We are living in a time of wonderful discoveries but they are TOO wonderful. They are so wonderful that they cannot be spoken about out loud in respectable places.
Greaney just happened to get caught up in all this. I am not excusing his behavior. But it would not be fair to say that he is the only crazy one. The really fair way to say it would be to say that we are all at least a little crazy re this subject. I am guilty. I didn't tell people what I knew about safe withdrawal rates for several years because I was worried about how mad people would get if I did so. So I fed the craziness for a time. Then circumstances developed that forced me into coming into the open and the craziness that that opened up (it was like the splitting of the atom!) has been the story of my life for the past eight years.
I believe that we are on the threshold of the biggest breakthroughs in our understanding of how investing works that we have ever seen. But it is going to take a lot of financial pain for us to collectively work up the courage to start talking about what we have learned. There are today huge institutional pressures to keep this stuff bottled up. I do what I can to get the word out. And when I reach a point where I can do no more, I just try to accept that that's the way it is.
It's a strange, strange story, I can tell you that much for certain. I have never in my life seen anything like it or anything that comes even slightly close to being like it. The upside potential is just huge, almost unimaginably good stuff. And the nasty stuff has been so bad that it embarrasses you even to acknowledge that it has taken place in the way it has. Humans!
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I know how to reach SPs: The opportunity to travel and experience the world. NFs are, as you say, meaningful lives and peace of mind."
That's exactly it, Jacob. You say it so perfectly in those words.
I could get up on a stage and go on and on and on about how great it is to be able to do the work you love and the SPs would be thinking "What a bore this fellow is! What a preacher! What's next week's sermon going to be, I wonder!" Nothing I said would connect.
Then someone could get up and show slides from a trip around the world and they would have a click experience. People with different personality types literally speak different languages.
Kevin mentioned Your Money or Your Life. Absolutely! That book changed millions of lives. It just said things differently, it just came at things from a different angle. But that made all the difference.
I try to push the ideas in YMYL from yet another angle. The book was aimed at people who wanted to save the world with volunteer work and such. I try to change it so that each reader comes up with his own vision of what financial freedom means and then pursues that using the techniques described in the book.
You're right that the word "freedom" does not turn everybody on. Some people close their minds as soon as you say the word "freedom." They say "I love my job!" And they mean it too! They are not kidding!
But they can be reached with a different pitch. It might be that they don't ever want to retire, early or late, but that they can get excited about the idea of saving enough money to start their own business or a foundation.
It's different things for different people. But I believe that all of us have some deep desire that could be advanced by us learning how to manage our money more effectively. The trick is getting people to recognize that they possess such desires, to get them out of the habit of thinking that the sole purpose of money management is to be able to retire at age 65.
Rob
That's exactly it, Jacob. You say it so perfectly in those words.
I could get up on a stage and go on and on and on about how great it is to be able to do the work you love and the SPs would be thinking "What a bore this fellow is! What a preacher! What's next week's sermon going to be, I wonder!" Nothing I said would connect.
Then someone could get up and show slides from a trip around the world and they would have a click experience. People with different personality types literally speak different languages.
Kevin mentioned Your Money or Your Life. Absolutely! That book changed millions of lives. It just said things differently, it just came at things from a different angle. But that made all the difference.
I try to push the ideas in YMYL from yet another angle. The book was aimed at people who wanted to save the world with volunteer work and such. I try to change it so that each reader comes up with his own vision of what financial freedom means and then pursues that using the techniques described in the book.
You're right that the word "freedom" does not turn everybody on. Some people close their minds as soon as you say the word "freedom." They say "I love my job!" And they mean it too! They are not kidding!
But they can be reached with a different pitch. It might be that they don't ever want to retire, early or late, but that they can get excited about the idea of saving enough money to start their own business or a foundation.
It's different things for different people. But I believe that all of us have some deep desire that could be advanced by us learning how to manage our money more effectively. The trick is getting people to recognize that they possess such desires, to get them out of the habit of thinking that the sole purpose of money management is to be able to retire at age 65.
Rob
@B, I suspect you're probably towards the center for each of the MBTI categories. The way you describe feeling about the MBTI is how I felt about every personality test I took *before* the MBTI test: that it wasn't providing useful discriminating information about my personality.
The thing about MBTI in particular, for me, is that for the first time ever in a personality test, they had actually identified *me* in particular. I'm 100% I, 100% N, 100% T, and about 60% J. Those results have been stable for 10 years. I'm saying you're probably around 50% I/E, 50% N/S, 50% T/F, and 50% J/P and that's why the test doesn't explain much for you and the questions are difficult to answer.
I find the I, N, and T categories to be extraordinarily helpful for me in explaining how I am the same or different from other people. However, I find the J (vs P) category doesn't help me very much. I suspect this is because I'm not really a true J, and as just a 60% J, I can easily identify with both J and P.
When I'm talking to someone and find out they are interested in MBTI or have taken the test, I always ask to guess their type before they tell me, and my success rate for the I/E, N/S, and T/F categories is nearly perfect. (I usually try to place them on spectrums... I, E, or somewhere near the middle but leaning towards I, etc.) I can't guess J/P though, because it's not a helpful distinction for me, as I'm both J and P.
- akratic
PS: Something that continues to blow my mind is that every girl I've ever dated has eventually taken the test, and they always score the exact same thing: INF. (INF is a relatively uncommon combination.) I guess I have a type.
The thing about MBTI in particular, for me, is that for the first time ever in a personality test, they had actually identified *me* in particular. I'm 100% I, 100% N, 100% T, and about 60% J. Those results have been stable for 10 years. I'm saying you're probably around 50% I/E, 50% N/S, 50% T/F, and 50% J/P and that's why the test doesn't explain much for you and the questions are difficult to answer.
I find the I, N, and T categories to be extraordinarily helpful for me in explaining how I am the same or different from other people. However, I find the J (vs P) category doesn't help me very much. I suspect this is because I'm not really a true J, and as just a 60% J, I can easily identify with both J and P.
When I'm talking to someone and find out they are interested in MBTI or have taken the test, I always ask to guess their type before they tell me, and my success rate for the I/E, N/S, and T/F categories is nearly perfect. (I usually try to place them on spectrums... I, E, or somewhere near the middle but leaning towards I, etc.) I can't guess J/P though, because it's not a helpful distinction for me, as I'm both J and P.
- akratic
PS: Something that continues to blow my mind is that every girl I've ever dated has eventually taken the test, and they always score the exact same thing: INF. (INF is a relatively uncommon combination.) I guess I have a type.