The One Question MBTI Personality Test

[cascadeco]

You all need to know yourselves better.

Seriously. If you can't decided on any of those, something's wrong.

Before you argue, go to the corner and contemplate.

So I'm really an ISTP? Sweet!!

 

[Totenkindly]

You all need to know yourselves better.

Seriously. If you can't decided on any of those, something's wrong.

Before you argue, go to the corner and contemplate.

What does that have to do with the answers being accurately reflective of a type?

"If you didn't get the answers as the test, YOU must be wrong." How can anyone take this seriously?

 

[Jaguar]

If 10 people want to eat BBQ chicken right now, they're all the same MBTI type. Brilliant.

 

[KDude]

So I'm really an ISTP? Sweet!!

Well, you do climb a lot of mountains.

I don't even have mountains here.

 

[KDude]

What does that have to do with the answers being accurately reflective of a type?

"If you didn't get the answers as the test, YOU must be wrong." How can anyone take this seriously?

I'm almost positive that some of you Ne types who look at these options start squeezing out the possibility to the nth agree, all within a nanosecond, and find some correlation to your behavior. If you looked at them without extracting so much info, you'll fall in place... more or less. I think you could at least single out the Ti types. or Fe types. etc.

 

[prplchknz]

INFP: "Questor". High capacity for caring. Calm and pleasant face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 1% of the total population.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't just like one thing all the time so this is entirely invalid for me.

e.g. today I might want to play chess the most but maybe tomorrow I won't feel like it and would rather quietly speculate on practical ideas.

I don't see how this can be representative of types at all unless we're supposed to go into the abstract ideals of what each things represent, but at that point we may as well forego the obfuscation and just call the things by what they represent. Might as well just say "INTP" instead of "Play Chess".

 

[KDude]

I don't just like one thing all the time so this is entirely invalid for me.

e.g. today I might want to play chess the most but maybe tomorrow I won't feel like it and would rather quietly speculate on practical ideas.

I don't see how this can be representative of types at all unless we're supposed to go into the abstract ideals of what each things represent, but at that point we may as well forego the obfuscation and just call the things by what they represent. Might as well just say "INTP" instead of "Play Chess".

Another way to frame it is if you actually have a "Chess" like mode of thinking, in general. Not necessarily if you want to play chess at some time.

That said, that one in particular could be labeled better.

 

[sprinkles]

Another way to frame it is if you actually have a "Chess" like mode of thinking, in general. Not necessarily if you want to play chess at some time.

Yeah. Problem is that we're no longer taking it at face value. It no longer means "what would you like to do most?" if we're doing that.

This would make the answers not only unintuitive, but unreasonable as well. If the Chess option is only for a certain type, and there happens to be one (I'd presume many) who don't like chess and on first guess they pick something else, then they're already mistyped. If they have to go and interpret stuff in abstract ways then it's anyone's guess because we've gone off plan and into personal interpretation where just about anything can happen.

Edit: and now that I think of it, this is probably why tests are so lengthy most of the time and some of them even repeat questions. I'd assume there's controls and probably some complex averaging involved in some of them to account for variance within types.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah. Problem is that we're no longer taking it at face value. It no longer means "what would you like to do most?" if we're doing that.

This would make the answers not only unintuitive, but unreasonable as well. If the Chess option is only for a certain type, and there happens to be one (I'd presume many) who don't like chess and on first guess they pick something else, then they're already mistyped. If they have to go and interpret stuff in abstract ways then it's anyone's guess because we've gone off plan and into personal interpretation where just about anything can happen.

Exactly.

Not sure why Ne types are being told they are erroneously taking the test on one hand, and yet in the same breath they're being told they have to read into the test in order to take it properly.

For the record, I took the test in about ten seconds, skimming through the answers. I certainly did not "overthink" the test. And since I was on cell, the answer page did not work correctly, and it looked like I got INTP on the test, but I think actually I got ENTP. The page was poorly laid out and programmed, so it was confusing as to what answer one got.

I remember reading the list and thinking I need to pick chess if I wanted to game the test and get a stereotypical INTP answer; maybe when I was ten years old, I would have picked that answer, but since I've matured a lot, I find it more rewarding to study the world and how it works rather than sit around and focus on a single solitary game such as chess. I'm also very sure of my E/I rating, so it's not a matter of me being mistyped; the reality is that I'm not a cliche INTP, so a one-question test is ineffective.

If 10 people want to eat BBQ chicken right now, they're all the same MBTI type. Brilliant.

Oh, don't be silly -- go to the corner and contemplate the error of your ways!

 

[KDude]

Edit: and now that I think of it, this is probably why tests are so lengthy most of the time and some of them even repeat questions. I'd assume there's controls and probably some complex averaging involved in some of them to account for variance within types.

I'd like to see more short tests. It could use more questions, or better definitions, but the more you can crystallize a "Type", the better. As a general rule, no one should ever look at typology actually describing the totality of their personality anyways. If they go in with that in mind, and think only in terms of typical "mode" or preference, you single things out.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd like to see more short tests. It could use more questions, or better definitions, but the more you can crystallize a "Type", the better. As a general rule, no one should ever look at typology actually describing the totality of their personality anyways. If they go in with that in mind, and think only in terms of typical "mode" or preference, you single things out.

So basically, if you already know what type you are, and you can read the questions with an understanding of what type you already know yourself to be, you can figure out what the right answer is?

I think I'll let things be done with that, as every explanation you offer seems to be more damning to the test than the last.

 

[KDude]

So basically, if you already know what type you are, and you can read the questions with an understanding of what type you already know yourself to be, you can figure out what the right answer is?

Typically, these tests wouldn't be given to anyone who knows their type or about typology. They'd generally have a good idea of just themselves. For all of us wankers, it's not the same experience.

 

[sprinkles]

I'd like to see more short tests. It could use more questions, or better definitions, but the more you can crystallize a "Type", the better. As a general rule, no one should ever look at typology actually describing the totality of their personality anyways. If they go in with that in mind, and think only in terms of typical "mode" or preference, you single things out.

Yeah you can crystallize types but not quite this much.

A type that can be crystallized to one phrase is really not that useful when there's only 16 of them. To put everyone in one out of 16 categories, the categories either have to be very broad, or leave out a lot of information. If you go the 'leave out information' route to make things fit more quickly and neatly, then they don't really say much at all as a result.

 

[Such Irony]

I didn't like the item associated with my type.

I ended up getting INFJ with ISTP and ENTP as runners-up.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

ENTP

 

[Thalassa]

INFP
INTJ
ENTP
ISTJ

Um.

 

[Totenkindly]

INFP
INTJ
ENTP
ISTJ

Um.

No, no... you're just thinking too hard.

 

[KDude]

No, no... you're just thinking too hard.

 

[Thalassa]

No, no... you're just thinking too hard.

It asked me what I'd rather do, and there was no option for "walk around a cool city going into book stories, vintage stores, and stopping at a unique bar that also has a restaurant and eating and maybe chatting with some new people" or "having snarky convos with people on the Internet" or "ride a bike on the beach."

So I picked have a convo with a friend first (INFP), then contemplate my perfect home (I still can't fathom how that's INTJ, I was kind of shocked by that), then discuss how things work in the world (ENTP; I do that on-line, amirite?) and then quietly contemplate practical ideas (ISTJ).

So.