• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

You're not 100% anything.

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Getting 100% on a MBTI test doesn't make me 100% E or 100% P. It means that I scored 100% on that test for those items.

No point in getting up in arms about it.
So it doesn't mean I get a scratch and sniff sticker? That's what usually happens when I get 100%. :static:

Oh wait, that's only if you are 100% sensor, right? The Ns are just told to imagine their gold star. :puppy_dog_eyes:
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I agree. And the opposite end, but less annoying, are the people who seem to reject meaning from percentages all together.

Don't forget the people who split words like "altogether" into two words with total disregard (DISREGARD!) for proper English form.
 

speculative

Feelin' FiNe
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
927
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
To show that someone can't or very rarely score 100%, you'd have to show how everyone who did score 100% was mistyping themselves with the preference(s).

I'm not sure I understand this part. I believe you can score 100% and that may be a valid measurement of preference. I understand your point about preference vs. action. With the above statement, are you disagreeing with the validity of a 100% preference and the identifying the cause for scoring 100% to be people mistyping themselves? Or is there something else I am missing.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
AFAIK, the % numbers are suppose to represent confidence in categorization and has nothing to do with strength. MBTI does not have strength measurements - it was rejected along with normalization, IIRC.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I'm not sure I understand this part. I believe you can score 100% and that may be a valid measurement of preference. I understand your point about preference vs. action. With the above statement, are you disagreeing with the validity of a 100% preference and the identifying the cause for scoring 100% to be people mistyping themselves? Or is there something else I am missing.

Oh I'm agreeing with the validity of a 100% MBTI preference and that people who score 100% aren't mistyped any more than the average person is mistyped.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah, the only one I ever score 100% on is Thinking. And that's absolutely true in life - my preference is for logic and rational thought every time, over and above Feeling.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm 100% extroverted according to one of the tests.
That's why i'm sitting here behind the computer screen and talking about it :)
 

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
I have always veiwed Myers Briggs to revolve around human preference, and not to be a strict code of events that define a person, and that the person is always going to act a certain way under a given type.

That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to be 100%, no matter what the test tells you, because MBTI isn't a set of boxes where different types fit in certain boxes, it's more like a scatter plot where you're a little here, a little there. You're type only defines the actions and decisions that you are most likely to act upon and carry out on a normal routine, disregarding any environmental catalysts (say, Mental disorders).

As for my type, If I were to guestimate my type percentage I'd have to say..

E - 15/100 - 15%
N - 75/100 - 75%
F - 70/100 - 70%
P - 45/100 - 45%

As you can see, my E is very week, almost nearing borderline I. My N is very strong, in relative to percentages, as is my F. My P is fairly strong to average, as nothing is said to be 100%.
 
G

garbage

Guest
I resonate closest with the type descriptions of ENTJ, then ENTP, then ENFP, in that order. Looking at the ideal function ordering of each type and the descriptions of the functions makes sense, too, as I see how Ne and Fi come into play for me but the planning and organization combo of Te/Ni is obviously strong in me. I also sometimes test as a feeler or a perceiver (or their near-equivalents) on personality tests that I haven't taken before, but factors that would map to extraversion (e.g. "Outgoing" in the Big 5) and intuition are pretty well consistent.

So, it's a combination of different metrics that have led me to discover my type and preference strengths, not just the tests alone. Tests are inherently flawed for reasons described, type descriptions won't always match spot-on, and function ordering tries to explain too much.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
I tested INFJ first time.

[RANT]I think you have to know yourself really well, to the point of objectivity, in all the areas the test questions. I don't believe any type is purely objective in that sense, and it doesn't help that most people are taking the test to learn more about themselves. They use their MBTi type to help learn more, and at the same time learn with a huge bias in what they explore or believe as a result of it. It can highlight strengths and produce feel good moments, but tomorrow I might waking feeling like ISTJ is the way for me, and learn a sudden appreciation of thinking that way and seeing the world that way. Tell me some idiots who thought they'd choose 16 categories, rather than 25 or 10 or whatever else they could've chosen, will change that. They are arbitrary, and if someone can ever explain a scientific basis for grouping by these things, rather than it just being comfortable groupings in social terms, I might believe there is something to it. That isn't to say you can't group humans, just that this is all we are doing. Creating modules where there are no clear barriers. We group all the time, I can group black haired people, blue eyed people, there are traits to group, but why do the groups mean anything deeper than blue eye people have blue eyes and black haired people have black hair. Obviously they are genetic things, but I was highlighting them as superficial things we perceive hence group. The human brain is adaptable, that is the beauty of it. If anything MBTi has made me bored of being my type and want to explore the world as something new. Type is a limitation. And a boxing in of thinking and perspective. And you'll never learn that more than when you put an F in your type. If there is another way to see it, why not go there. Is it an excuse to be something, and not learn more? And does defining self achieve much more than comfort and restriction in what you can be?

Why does anyone need to be anything except to keep others happy with an image? Humans are too dynamic to define, and regardless of the four letters next to names, social cliches, whatever else, everyone should be met on a personal basis, because that is the only level you will ever truly define them on. And I believe it has never been the goal of psychology to change that.[/RANT]
 
G

garbage

Guest
Humans are too dynamic to define, and regardless of the four letters next to names, social cliches, whatever else, everyone should be met on a personal basis, because that is the only level you will ever truly define them on. And I believe it has never been the goal of psychology to change that.[/RANT]

This was actually much of the point of Gifts Differing, which just so happens to have been written by Isabel Briggs Myers. Typing wasn't intended to be a limitation, rather as a starting point in the realm of self-discovery and an aid in understanding general differences in other people.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
According to the way I view things, my probability of existence is 100%.

So there, nyah.
 
Top