is everyone evenly interested in profiling people?

I was just wondering if there were types who don't want to hear about profiling people?

Or to say things differently, do people who read books about mbti, big fives, etc have a bigger probability of being NT types (just an example ;-) )?

and does one have to pay to have themselves typed as a Myers-Briggs type? seems awfullllllyyy fishy to me ...

No, there are free on-line tests you can take, or check out a book from the library. You can start with the books shared by members of this group.

alopex, I've wondered the same thing. The large majority of people who've posted in this group thus far are Ns. Nearly all are Is. So, a lot of INs. But I'm thinking that the majority of active LT members are Is, so I don't know if we can infer much from the I-ness. NTs are primarily interested in analysis and by default classifications and NFs are interested in people and relationships..., but anyone could find this stuff interesting...so I just don't know.

tim w, are you playing with us? If not, what seems fishy? It's fairly straightforward to me.

hello again citygirl, my answer to your question is yes and, on deeper reflection, yes again. but that doesn't mean i'm not looking for the answer: that is, where does one go to take these tests cost-free? you see, before answering in here (and in the P & J thread), i looked for Myers - Briggs and stumbled across an offical looking pay up front page (there's the fishy part).

so, if the answer is "no, most of us didn't pay to find out the parameters of categorizing ourselves" then cool, i think i'll enjoy this group. but yeah, enjoy is the working word in my intent. i hope the majority (assuming any) who read my posts also enjoy. life's too short not to, don't you think?

whirled peas ...

tim w, no worries. I'm a playful sort myself.

I've not paid for typing, although I did buy Please Understand Me II after typing myself online. The book includes a sorter and is well worth the money.

The following online sorters are all free. If you want "official," I guess you have to pay.

test 1

test 2

test 3

test 4

test 5

I also put these links on the group page.

Ha. My high school had every student take the official test freshman year, and eventually I found the online ones.

Tim,

you really don't have to pay ...

fact is, MBTI is used, in my case at least, to profile people just by asking a few questions and see how the person behaves...

Then when in doubt, you just ask more questions... and validate your appreciation.

the idea is that once profiled, you can predict the natural way people will react to things... What you do afterwards is your own business I guess ;-)

Now sure, you can argue that there can't be only 16 prototypes of individuals out there :-) But most of the time, it's sufficient for most people's needs...

You also have to understand that once typed, you don't have to act like your type... It's like when you hand something to someone, he'll be drawn to using his usual hand (don't know how to say this in english), it doesn't mean he can't use his other hand to grab the pen you hand him over...

It's a matter of observation... and yes, it's also a matter of context ;-) (that's where experience comes into play)...

7> and also, remember you are not tied to your type: you can change type a few times during your life, depending of experience... ;-)

8> Where did you get that idea? If you're close to a boundary then you might be able to use either function proficiently, but if you are a strong T you are unlikely to ever be entirely comfortable using your F. On the other had, as you age you start learning to use your neglected types but you can't just switch.

it seems that sometimes, things change... you get a bad divorce, you become mother or father, something happens, and part of your profile switches on or off...

so it seems...

You are not born with a type.

(but I can be wrong) :)

That is, I believe, the theory (that you are born with a type). See the book Nurture by Nature.

You must be right... tried to find papers linking "life events" to personality types but failed to find any...

sorry sorry

CPP Inc., the organization that owns the rights to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, does charge for administering the test. The people who administer the test (which is a much more complex one than the books on MBTI may imply) are given extensive training and, as a prerequisite to becoming trainers, are required to have a degree in psychology. So I think Tim is right; you don't get it for free. If you're lucky (as I was), you may get the test paid for by an employer, in which case the expense isn't an issue!

Having said that, there are plenty of very good (and free) Keirsey Temperament Sorter tests online, and these will do essentially the same thing for you... as will others that say they are "based" on Myers-Briggs. You can also pick up books on MBTI and work through each pairing to decide your "initials" for yourself.

(As to a Thinking type feeling uncomfortable about using the Feeling function, I think it's a little more complicated than that because it depends on the other components of that person's type and which functions are more or less "preferred". For example, for certain type combos, the greatest difficulty would be having to extravert their Feeling function; for others, it would be introverting it.)

For me the tests didn't help too much since I can't help over-thinking my answers. Plus your answers may change depending on whether your in a job that demands strong organizational skills or strong empathic skills which may not match your true type.

So for me, the way to find my type was to understand each of the letter pairs (I and E, S and N, T and F, and P and J) and to understand myself well enough to decide which fit me best. I still had a lot of trouble with S/N and P/J though. Then reading the type descriptions I found that INTP really nailed me.

On the other hand, I can't figure out anything for my wife except that I'm pretty sure she's S and P.

Hey, everyone... I'm new here but I'd like to contribute a little "rant" that I did actually post in one other thread. Hope you don't mind and please "let me have it" if you disagree... :-)

One has to do a lot of reading about this stuff if one wants to truly understand it. A lot of people approach it a little too casually and can dismiss it or misunderstand it all. If you read the current texts/experts in the field like Please Understand Me II by David Keirsey and People Patterns: A Modern Guide to the Four Temperaments by Stephen Montgomery, they address what they know are the common misgivings people have. Their approach is a little more holistic than Myers-Briggs, and it's based on tons of current research and refining (since Myers & Briggs)... and besides this, it is a fact that temperament theory, in one form or another, goes back thousands of years!!

Temperament... NF, NT, SJ, & SP is something we are born with. Having said that, it is merely our strongest preference. It's not something we're forced to be for all time anymore than we are forced to be right or left handed. In times of stress, we may find ourselves going against these preferences, and maybe that's part of the reason why we are stressed (in these situations), because we are forced to act in a way other than what we'd (even sub-consciously) prefer.

Another analogy is the four fingers of your hand; the middle (longest) finger being your preferred way of being and the others being your less preferred. We still have and use all four fingers (in principle), but there's one that is certainly a stand-out for us... especially if you need to really express yourself ;-)

Don't forget too that when you read a temperament profile, you are getting a relatively sterile snapshot of a pattern of behavior that can't fully illustrate what that temperament would do in the context of individual life experiences, sex, age, culture, etc.. Both Gandhi and Hitler were NF (Idealists)... WOW!... but if you stop and think about it, you can see some similarities between them.

There will always be those for whom this type of analysis is useless, or those that are very suspicious/skeptical of it. That's fine. In fact, according to the literature, that is partly an indicator of particular temperament styles! But, there are good reasons for knowing about this stuff, and it doesn't have to do with putting people into boxes or limiting people... it has to do with understanding, appreciating, and working with people; seeing the strengths, value, and potential in everyone. Knowledge of these matters can go a long way toward alleviating frustration and problems in parent/child, couple, and office dynamics. After all... the main text that illustrates all of this is entitled "Please Understand Me".

Sorry about all that! I just love this stuff... I guess my NF (Idealist) preference is kicking in! BTW, my preferred style is INFJ.

Re: Tests

Well... the MBTI technically is an indicator, not a test, i.e. there are no right or wrong answers, just your preferences.

The MBTI and other indicators provide you with information that you can use to "type yourself" for want of a better expression. They're useful for that. In the end, though, the decision on your type is yours, not the indicator's. Any person who administers the MBTI should be telling you that.

You don't necessarily need to do a questionnaire to work yourself out. I've done the MBTI a few times over the last 15 years and I also did the MBTI qualifying program in 1994. I've also done the latest type indicator, the Majors PTI, and a lot of the online freebies. They're OK, and can be useful at times if you want some extra info to assist you in your judgement, but they're not essential.

I think the most useful process that I've come across is Linda Berens "Self Discovery Process" which I experienced in early 2007. Linda has been working in the temperament and type community since the 80's.

The process involves identifying your "interaction style", then your "temperament", then using that information to come to your "type". We did that first without using the information that we got from various indicators then compared it to the results of the indicators. Generally, I think the participants thought their own judgement from the process was more reliable than the indicators. Certainly I did.

If you want to try this yourself you can do it easily using four short books of hers. They are each about 60 pages long and ask you some key questions that help you to clarify your own style.

1. Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles

2. Understanding Yourself and Others®: An Introduction to the 4 Temperaments-3.0

3. Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code

4. The 16 Personality Types, Descriptions for Self-Discovery

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Pete

PS You can get more info on this at Linda's website, http://www.interstrength.com and also at http://www.16types.com .

By the way, this is not an advertisement. I have no connection with the companies or the sites. I just found them useful and would have liked to come across this type of process 15 years ago.

Thanks Pete.

I have come across the Linda Berens websites, and was impressed by them.

Unfortunately living in the UK I feel distanced from all the activity in this area, but based on your recommendation I believe I will invest in her books.

I thought I'd try to get Touchstones going for Linda V Berens. I had to do some separating of works because all the works starting with "Understanding Yourself and Others" http://www.librarything.com/work/1201887 were combined (both in LT and in Worldcat). I took a look at Worldcat, because the subtitle: 'An introduction to Temperament' (2000 - 2nd ed) appears to have changed to an An Introduction to the 4 Temeraments (2006 - 3rd ed). I left these two editions combined. Relatively few people own these and LT, and relatively few libraries have these books (29) - the only one in the New York City area appears to be the Kings Point Merchant Marine Academy library.

No worries zenomax.

It might be worth checking some of your type organizations in the UK to see if any of them bring Linda out to your part of the world. Or she may have trained some people to do it in the UK.

I live in Australia and ITD (Institute for type development http://www.itd.net.au ) used to bring her out to do workshops. More recently ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research http://www.acer.edu.au ) have been bringing her out to do training in the Self Discovery process, usually around February.

If you like to travel and the exchange rate works for you, it might even be worth coming to Australia to do a bit of training and a holiday.

Cheers

Pete

Thanks Pete - indebted to you again for your suggestions.

And well done vpfluke - I have only recently joined LT but already its benefits are apparent. I just hope I have enough time in the day for all the extra reading I want to do...

And don't forget, we all have different learning styles and "filters," so there's more than one way to approach this kind of study.

Certainly we have different filters. Type is just one perceptual filter that we can use of many to understand the world that we find ourselves in.

Interestingly, there is a UK report called Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning - A systematic and critical review published in 2004, which examines a voluminous amount of research on learning styles (including MBTI stuff) and identifies a school of thought that suggests that there may not be anything in it.

As a librarian, I love finding information that supports both sides of any issue. This report also encouraged me to be a bit more critical in my analysis of learning styles, and other, theories.

Worth a look, especially because of its measured and skeptical evaluation of the MBTI and its learning styles component on pp 47-52.

The online sceptics dictionary at www.skepdic.com/ also has a look at MBTI and personality typing in general.

The interesting dilemma for me is that, as an INTJ I am reputedly (and I think factually) a sceptical, independent minded creature, who always doubts the voracity of any theory until conclusive proof is found in its favour. In other words claims are always considered guilty until proven innocent.

But with the 16 types of personality I connected straight away. The 'INTJ' profile seems to fit me closely (certainly the MBTI version).

My friends seem confused that I have become a disciple for this thinking when I have always been anti any sort of disciple, because disciples are not objective....

Re #24

Yeah. I'm a bit the same.

I was pretty skeptical when I first came across type and the MBTI.

I'm inclined to agree with the criticisms in the report I cited above. I think the stats on the MBTI are pretty unconvincing. I appreciate the effort that is going into justifying the MBTI instrument experimentally, but really, I couldn't care less about the instruments.

But psychological type theory itself I find experientially compelling. For me, it explains aspects of reality that were previously a mystery to me. And it also provides some tools for improving my responses to those realities. You could totally disprove the reliability and validity of the MBTI and yet, psychological type theory would still work for me. The theory is not dependent on the instruments. My direct personal experience tells me that type works. How SP is that?

I haven't looked at the skeptics dictionary's negative article on the MBTI and personality for years now but I do remember it being equally unimpressive, too, but for different reasons. As I remember, it used the old trick of attributing things to the MBTI and to personality style theories that they don't claim for themselves and then debunking them. It doesn't matter how compelling an intellectual argument is, direct personal experience overrides that for me.

Science, or what passes for science in some places and times, often lags behind our experience in its explanations of reality. Sometimes due to lack of reliable and valid data, including poor experimental methodologies and sampling, which I think is possibly the case with the MBTI. Sometimes due to a lack of the appropriate equipment or technology to record and measure data. Sometimes due to refusal to see data. Have a look at Thomas Kuhn's classic "The Structure of scientific revolutions" for more on that one.

I think it was Arthur C Clarke who said that magic is just technology that we don't yet understand. For me, psychological type is a technology that works. If some people don't yet have evidence that convinces them of that, that's OK. As I said, my direct personal experience convinces me.

By the same token, other people do not have to "believe" or "accept" type. If it doesn't work for them in their realities, that's fine. That doesn't make them or me right or wrong, just different. Life's rich tapestry, may it continue to evolve.

Having reread my last message and seen me describe myself as a disciple I think its time to step off the gas a little!

I am still doubtful of any particular school of 16 type thought (MBTI, Keirsey, Berens, Socionics), but the premise itself seems to hold an important kernel of truth...just maybe not fully understood or articulated by any of the proponents yet.

Re #25 - I am not sure my direct personal experience alone is enough to convince me. Perhaps that's why it makes me edgy still? Or perhaps it just illustrates why I am NT and not SP.

I'm also an INTJ who generally scoffs at things like this. I wouldn't go so far to describe myself as a disciple, but I find typing fascinating. The descriptions fit me eerily well. Then again, I've typed some people who just don't fit any of the descriptions. But, recognizing other people's types has allowed me to forgive them for some things, like my best friend, a P, who will only agree to a schedule under threat of death, and my SJ girlfriend who refuses to talk about god or philosophy, but will remind me that I've worn my shirt three days in a row. Typing has helped me to better understand them and being able to name exactly why they are that annoying sometimes helps me deal with it.

Typing has helped me on personal level, but that is not enough to validate it on theoretical or scientific grounds. I'm willing to accept non-perfect ideas, as long as they function well. It's kind of like god. People can believe in god if they want to (so long as they don't bother me about it). If god helps them on a personal level that's great and I have no problem accepting god as a valid part of their life. However, this does not mean their god is something I will accept as a universal truth. There may be some little truth behind typing or god, but neither has been proven to me objectively and thus both must not be accepted as the truth.
(I would accept, say, the laws of thermodynamics as the truth.)