User Tag List

View Poll Results: What type is House?

Voters
409. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTP

    74 18.09%
  • INTJ

    121 29.58%
  • INFP

    2 0.49%
  • INFJ

    2 0.49%
  • ISTP

    4 0.98%
  • ISTJ

    4 0.98%
  • ISFP

    2 0.49%
  • ISFJ

    5 1.22%
  • ESFJ

    6 1.47%
  • ESFP

    5 1.22%
  • ESTJ

    3 0.73%
  • ESTP

    1 0.24%
  • ENFJ

    1 0.24%
  • ENFP

    1 0.24%
  • ENTJ

    25 6.11%
  • ENTP

    153 37.41%
First 1523242526273575 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 1047

  1. #241
    Senior Member Nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    A peas offering? Oh... peace... never heard of it, but I'll try anything once.
    It's always fun to try new things....it keep things exciting!

    Plus, that's the best offer I can offer you right now because I still can't see it your way. But then again, not many people can change my mind on things - I think that's an INTJ trait.
    Sorry for any typos, spelling or grammer errors but I'm a bit preoccupied planning my wedding.
    Or if you want to read more about me and help me gain more insight to your world (I do need more experiences in life), feel free to skim through my blog.

  2. #242
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    No no, see, the four letters, as pt has stated, are basically just a shortcut to the functions. It's easier to write, ENTP, than to write Ne Ti Fe Si Ni Te Fi Se.

    If you're not using all the rules of MBTI, then it's not really MBTI. It might be accurate, but it's not MBTI, it's something else.
    Eh, I wouldn't say shortcut - it simply states the instrument results (hence why the E and P are included in "type"). Presuming a functional view on top of that would make MBTI the long way around. MBTI is an instrument (a factor analysis, reliability tested, validated instrument - the attacks on MBTI are all based on the functional theories) that is suppose to determine type by answering preference questions. MBTI is literally the validated approach to determing one's Jungian functions.

  3. #243
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Eh, I wouldn't say shortcut - it simply states the instrument results (hence why the E and P are included in "type"). Presuming a functional view on top of that would make MBTI the long way around. MBTI is an instrument (a factor analysis, reliability tested, validated instrument - the attacks on MBTI are all based on the functional theories) that is suppose to determine type by answering preference questions. MBTI is literally the validated approach to determing one's Jungian functions.
    yeah but mbti doesn't include differences between
    Ni and Ne
    Si and Se
    Ti and Te
    Fi and Fe

    "MBTI is literally the validated approach to determing one's Jungian functions."
    where do you get this from?

  4. #244
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Eh, I wouldn't say shortcut - it simply states the instrument results (hence why the E and P are included in "type"). Presuming a functional view on top of that would make MBTI the long way around.
    I meant that it's faster to write ENTP than to write all 8 functions in the order an ENTP uses them.

    If you're familiar with programming, I compare MBTI types to a bitwise function, sort of vaguely.

    MBTI is an instrument (a factor analysis, reliability tested, validated instrument - the attacks on MBTI are all based on the functional theories) that is suppose to determine type by answering preference questions. MBTI is literally the validated approach to determing one's Jungian functions.
    Well it really depends on which test you're taking. I've never taken the 'real' one. Most online tests are bullshit, but claim to be just as reliable.

    If you're going to analyze yourself, then a test is probably the best place to start, or if you need to type people en masse (in the case of an employer) then the test is easier than meeting each person and assessing their personality, but in the end, since one dictates the other, and function is more specific and interchangeable than type (even on a daily basis) I favor the functions.

    Also, when the test CAN'T be administered (in the case of house) we have nothing scientific to go on than the functions. Popular experience might help, but it can really only be a stepping stone.

  5. #245
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    yeah but mbti doesn't include differences between
    Ni and Ne
    Si and Se
    Ti and Te
    Fi and Fe

    "MBTI is literally the validated approach to determing one's Jungian functions."
    where do you get this from?
    Right, exactly. In the case of an NFJ (it's the easiest and most likely misconstruction) one might score as highly intuitive on the test, but very low on the J section, because the questions usually are about having a clean desk or being late to appointments.

    Ni working with Fe (the NFJ functions) most definitely do not drive one to clean up their desk without being told, or to be on time for appointments, unless it's for a date or to meet a friend. They're pretty reliable in that shit.

    So the NFJ, might score as an NFP, which would imply Ne and Fi, even though it's incorrect measurement.

    What they ought to do, is describe the functions, but put them in context, or ask type specific questions. It would be more reliable that way.

    You can talk all you want about its 'approved legitimacy' or reliability or whatever. In my experience, the tests don't hold much water. Seriously... it marked me as a damn ISTP. I don't know if I've ever Se'd. I probably have.

  6. #246
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Well it really depends on which test you're taking. I've never taken the 'real' one. Most online tests are bullshit, but claim to be just as reliable.
    For sure, the online ones are a joke... reliable needs to be a rather specific test which they certainly haven't done.

    Also, when the test CAN'T be administered (in the case of house) we have nothing scientific to go on than the functions. Popular experience might help, but it can really only be a stepping stone.
    Well, I would say quite the opposite - you can take the test "on house's behalf", basing it on behaviour... but you can't assume functions in a person that doesn't exist... but in respect to scientific measurements - functions are the only part of the process that can't be measured scientifically. Well, up until we start picking apart brains to validate types (or doing scans similar to the ones done for Risk/T/Agreeableness, Extroversion and neuroticism). You can validate the typing process scientifically, however, which is what MBTI is, at its core.

  7. #247
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    For sure, the online ones are a joke... reliable needs to be a rather specific test which they certainly haven't done.



    Well, I would say quite the opposite - you can take the test "on house's behalf", basing it on behaviour... but you can't assume functions in a person that doesn't exist... but in respect to scientific measurements - functions are the only part of the process that can't be measured scientifically. Well, up until we start picking apart brains to validate types (or doing scans similar to the ones done for Risk/T/Agreeableness, Extroversion and neuroticism). You can validate the typing process scientifically, however, which is what MBTI is, at its core.
    if you took the test as you think house would answer the questions, you'd probably get INTJ. but he uses Ne/Ti as a dominant function pair (he always writes on blackboards/bounces ideas off people, etc.

    this is why the mbti test aren't very accurate...they can't see the difference between extroverted and introverted functions.

  8. #248
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Ni working with Fe (the NFJ functions) most definitely do not drive one to clean up their desk without being told, or to be on time for appointments, unless it's for a date or to meet a friend. They're pretty reliable in that shit.
    pta, this is why i mistyped myself until i learned about how the functions actually work. i always test as P.

  9. #249
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    For sure, the online ones are a joke... reliable needs to be a rather specific test which they certainly haven't done.



    Well, I would say quite the opposite - you can take the test "on house's behalf", basing it on behaviour... but you can't assume functions in a person that doesn't exist... but in respect to scientific measurements - functions are the only part of the process that can't be measured scientifically. Well, up until we start picking apart brains to validate types (or doing scans similar to the ones done for Risk/T/Agreeableness, Extroversion and neuroticism). You can validate the typing process scientifically, however, which is what MBTI is, at its core.
    I really don't think you can. Those dichotomies mean different things for every single type. You can get close, but still screw it up even if only by a hair. Like I've said, if you know what to look for in identifying the functions, you can't go wrong. Unless you're going for a holistic analysis, the type code is at best questionable, even if it gets it right 90% of the time.

  10. #250
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    where do you get this from?
    *scratches head*

    That's what it is. Briggs read about Jungian views, talked to him and wanted to create a test for it. Jung said "that's not how I work", and so Briggs created a inventory for it. They tested, worked on it, etc... Eventually it drew upon the scientific method and they created step II - factor analysis, sub traits, reliability studies.

    The instrument itself was designed to find a way to type individuals. The progress of the instrument has been from Jungs approach to a scientific approach.

    (Maybe the word "validated" is throwing up the wrong message here. When I say valid, I'm using the clinical definition - that it actually reflects something meaningful - functions if you wish, but behaviour or underlying facets of personality if not. Of course, there are those that argue about the validity of a lot of instruments, and I would be among them, but as far as it goes, MBTI isn't a lightweight in this area.)

Similar Threads

  1. What type is Shadow the Hedgehog (Sonic Adventure 2 Battle)
    By Athenian200 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-29-2016, 05:04 PM
  2. What type is Falcarius the dinosaur?
    By Falcarius in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-06-2015, 09:34 PM
  3. What type is Dr. House?
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 11:15 AM
  4. What type is he?
    By Climber07 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 03:34 PM
  5. What type is the most pedantic?
    By Kiddo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-24-2007, 02:11 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