User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 20 of 20

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    If you think other people can type you better than you can type yourself you have issues imo.

  2. #12
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I was thinking again about the issue of test taking as oppose to having your type analyzed by another person/other people. It seems to be a fairly common sentiment that the former is not as viable as latter. Is there really good reason for this?

    The most constantly repeated reason for being against testing is that people do not know themselves. The human mind has distorted self-perception. Well, this is undeniable. There is no way to make a test that can get around someone being sub-consciouly deceptive, or plainly ignorant of their identity.
    That is a flaw of testing, but is it a flaw greater than that of personal analysis? Here's why I'm skeptical of that.

    For one thing, my distorted view as a human being will come into play just as much when I'm analyzing someone else as when I'm analyzing myself. It would be preposterous to suggest that a human observing another human, can do so without any sense of bias regarding that other human. I can hardly list all the causes and forms of bias.

    And yet still, there's another problem. Not only do you have to deal with your own biases when analyzing someone, you have to see through their masks too. Isn't it obvious that people don't just deceive themselves when taking tests? People let self-perception alter their behavior and what they say to people. In other words, when you're trying to analyze someone, you are getting information just as corrupted by self-perception as the test would be getting. So, if the information received is just as bad either way, which is better for typing someone, a person, or a computer?

    Well, the computer is consistent and unbiased at least. It's may be a simpleton, but would good is the complexity of the human mind, when all it does is distort things? The way it seems to me is that if humans are so delusional that they can't accurately answer a test about themselves, how on earth can they do a better job of understanding someone else? The computerized test at least removes one degree of humanity. Isn't only one layer of human bullshit more reliable than two?

    I certainly don't think the wide variety of free online tests are reliable, but that simply is because they aren't very well written and that they do not actually follow a standardized concept between each other. But I do believe, having actually looked at the professional science of making tests, that a substantially more credible test is possible.The MBTI hardly knows what a real test is.

    Things like this thread are what keep reminding me of this subject. Not only these admissions to such bias damaging to my confidence in personal analysis, but the circus that has developed around typing people sometimes is also hard to respect. There are obviously a great deal of issues with tests, and things run by computers, and a human mind will always be involved to some extent, but it's not a new idea to say that some machine might do something better than people can.

    Thoughts?
    You bring up an interesting point and surely, I can't disagree with you.

    Not all people put up masks, though. If they're being just as honest with you as they are with themselves, then at least you break even on that front.

    One of the difficulties with a written test is the test-taker's interpretation of the words used. If their definition and yours don't jive, you have a problem.

    Another difficulty I have seen over the years is the lack of understanding of the basic dichotomies. For instance, when tests asked me if I was observant, I would say yes, because I thought I was observant. It was only after I knew my ISTP husband for a few years that I saw that THAT is what they meant by "observant" and compared to him, I am not observant at all!

    This is why my favorite method for typing is the one-on-one interview.

    Because even though people can lie to me, it's much more likely that I understand the system better than they do, and it's much more likely, especially if it's not a family member, that I can be more objective about them than they can be about themselves. Perhaps I feel that way because I'm an INTJ.

    But in defense of people who are not known for their objectivity, I have an INFP sister who seems to be quite intuitive about people and can type pretty well, though she and I disagree about our parents' types. She thinks they're both Fs and I think they're both Ts!

  3. #13
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Agree with INTJMom's argument and disagree with Lukepd's position. If hadn't been properly taught MBTI theory you would likely believe that you are better at typing yourself then Myers could, the inventor of dichotomy four. It is faulty that one believes to know himself better than anyone else, as if he went to six years of school to study the human, and these connections he makes are subjective if haven't done so.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    671

    Default

    I'm beginning to think it's all just a bunch of crap. I'm reaching that conclusion because I think my indepth analysis as a Capricorn is more accurate than my MBTI-type - even if I also closely analyze three other closely related types which COULD be my type (since I'm close to the center on two dictomies).

    There are issues with typing yourself and another typing you. I don't think that anyone is completely objective about themselves and the same goes for typing someone else. We all come to the table with our biases. Perhaps if a trained professional had a secret cam on us for 20 years and took data?

  5. #15
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    You bring up an interesting point and surely, I can't disagree with you.

    Not all people put up masks, though. If they're being just as honest with you as they are with themselves, then at least you break even on that front.

    One of the difficulties with a written test is the test-taker's interpretation of the words used. If their definition and yours don't jive, you have a problem.

    Another difficulty I have seen over the years is the lack of understanding of the basic dichotomies. For instance, when tests asked me if I was observant, I would say yes, because I thought I was observant. It was only after I knew my ISTP husband for a few years that I saw that THAT is what they meant by "observant" and compared to him, I am not observant at all!

    This is why my favorite method for typing is the one-on-one interview.

    Because even though people can lie to me, it's much more likely that I understand the system better than they do, and it's much more likely, especially if it's not a family member, that I can be more objective about them than they can be about themselves. Perhaps I feel that way because I'm an INTJ.

    But in defense of people who are not known for their objectivity, I have an INFP sister who seems to be quite intuitive about people and can type pretty well, though she and I disagree about our parents' types. She thinks they're both Fs and I think they're both Ts!
    Yes, I am aware of these problems with test taking. I've been thinking about the best ways around them for a test in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Agree with INTJMom's argument and disagree with Lukepd's position. If hadn't been properly taught MBTI theory you would likely believe that you are better at typing yourself then Myers could, the inventor of dichotomy four. It is faulty that one believes to know himself better than anyone else, as if he went to six years of school to study the human, and these connections he makes are subjective if haven't done so.
    Even if I don't know myself better than others do, I certainly don't suspect they know me better than I. Call it even. My point is that since both the mind of the subjects and the analyst are filled with bias, neither one can claim to have a purely accurate view, and both of them put together creates and image even more distored than just one of them would.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #16
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Even if I don't know myself better than others do, I certainly don't suspect they know me better than I. Call it even. My point is that since both the mind of the subjects and the analyst are filled with bias, neither one can claim to have a purely accurate view, and both of them put together creates and image even more distored than just one of them would.
    Test yourself by multiple analysts, then assume the mode is correct.

  7. #17
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I think other people are good at seeing our external behavior, not so good at seeing our internal motivations.

    We're usually more aware of our own inner subjective world than others, but we can still be blind there as well and we also don't tend to step outside of ourselves enough to really see what we do and say and how it comes across.

    The more data you put on the table from different angles, the better the "read" will become I think, after the data is parsed for its own biases.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #18
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Test yourself by multiple analysts, then assume the mode is correct.
    How do you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think other people are good at seeing our external behavior, not so good at seeing our internal motivations.

    We're usually more aware of our own inner subjective world than others, but we can still be blind there as well and we also don't tend to step outside of ourselves enough to really see what we do and say and how it comes across.

    The more data you put on the table from different angles, the better the "read" will become I think, after the data is parsed for its own biases.
    This is why I believe it (at least seems) easier to do someone's Enneagram type.

    But does polling together all those external opinions ever produce more than just a comprehensive profile of your external behavior? It would seem that for someone's personality, especially concerning a concept like cognitive processes, the interal information is very important. Not much of a personality can be understood without it, in my opinion. But at what point and how can others ever know it better?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #19
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    But does polling together all those external opinions ever produce more than just a comprehensive profile of your external behavior?
    I think it offers an important dataset for triangulation purposes.

    Having had to raise children, I've had to deal a lot with having to explain to the kids how they might have felt or thought one thing but their behavior conveyed something else entirely. I think that this external information is useful to them for the purposes of changing how they are perceived by themselves and eventually others. Same thing for seeing oneself more clearly; sometimes we get an idea of who we would like to be, or a rather dreamy picture of ourselves, and don't realize how we actually naturally act in far different ways.

    It would seem that for someone's personality, especially concerning a concept like cognitive processes, the interal information is very important. Not much of a personality can be understood without it, in my opinion. But at what point and how can others ever know it better?
    It is very important. I've had to deal with lots of people who just see the externals and plug it into their worldview and don't even realize that there are other possible motivations involved. Motivations change perception once people "get it."

    But you're right, there's a difficulty in communicating the internal to others, and sometimes people also fight you if they're very anchored to their own perceptions. The process is faulty on many levels, but I'm not sure what other options we have communication-wise.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #20
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    How do you mean?
    How I mean is if you can get estimates from a variety of analysts, the most occurring solution is likely to be the correct solution.

    If 11 people say you're an INTP, six people say you're an INFP, three people say you're an INTJ and one person says you're an ISTP, then you are an INTP, trusting that you consider the analyses just.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Teaching Still a Viable Career? Advice Please!
    By Venom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 03:37 PM
  2. What is personality based on?
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 10:21 AM
  3. A personality analysis test.
    By Oaky in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 03:01 PM
  4. is personality type hereditary in any way?
    By John Goodman in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-10-2010, 07:10 PM
  5. Is function analysis useful?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 08:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO