Fast Personality Test

[annabenedetti]

I think you touch on my point in "outside my natural inclinations" though.

Maybe, but my overall point is one that's common in psychology: "it depends."

Speaking of natural inclinations, mine would be to wander away at this point because in weighing the hugeness of the subject (there's a whole branch of psychology dedicated to the study of personality) against the difficulty in distilling it down for this conversation while a mere student myself, I'd be inclined to stop while I'm still ahead. (And do I think you'll lock on that last part? Yes. )

So I'll try to address your comments but aggregate them a bit to simplify, hopefully without losing their general direction.

Personality traits tend to be consistent more or less throughout life, rather evenly influenced by both nature and nurture (environment) but they change and evolve and can be reactive to all sorts of influences, too many to list in a short conversation like this.

If you think of introversion and extroversion as traits which have degrees (more gray) and not types (more black and white), it might be easier if you know that I see them as traits, as sliding scales which have a certain predictability and yet a variability. In that light, you as an extrovert might be more introverted in some areas, or in reaction to some situational variables - and I the reverse. What stimulates you may exhaust me - that is, until I reach my perfect convergence.

And when you think of intro- and extroversion as traits, it might be easier to see that while the terms are general guides that they shouldn't be either self-limiting or stereotyped, because humans are just so much more mysterious and complicated than that. The whole idea of self-identity is a huge area of interest for me, and one that I have no doubt will occupy a good, if not major part of my post-grad study. I guess I'm resistant to seeing these ideas oversimplified in such a way that people are either elevated or dismissed based on terminology that's much more nebulous than it might seem.

And that would be a marked and entirely understandable difference from someone in the harder end of the extrovert pool, who gains energy from the experience.

"Harder" implies that introversion is softer, and I'm wondering how you came by that.

I think that's an interesting perspective, but it's not one native to me. Which is funny when you think about it.

Maybe it's only funny to the one seated on the throne.

Sort of and depending. Hollywood, novels, television are all speaking to fame, to the potential for greatness in anyone, the chance to change the course of other lives through one means or another. I don't think we're all Walter Mitty, but I suspect there's more than a little of him in most of us who aren't Buddhists. That said, I didn't say daydream about money and power, but about the use of them. And I think what changes over time in most people who live in a way that evolves them is the particular application. So a kid may dream of being a great athlete or rock star or novelist, etc. where the adult imagines beyond that into the point and impact of it.

I think that's semantics. Daydreaming about the use of money and power is still daydreaming about money and power. And I'm not knocking it, it just piqued my interest. People do change over time, I do agree with that, and their traits, while basically stable, are still on that sliding bipolar scale and can change in both the macro (life in general generates changes in us as we react to it) and the micro (situational, developmental, etc. where we're changed by various factors, but we can also exert some control over environment).

No. I'd be surprised if Bill Gates was an extrovert. But I'd bet introversion is an impediment in attaining that sort of power that requires bringing in investment and rallying troops and support.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends. On a purely personal level, I'm much more drawn to quiet power.

I think you're doing fine holding that line. But it's hard for me not to speak in generalities on the topic, even if the problem with generalities is how they have an annoying habit of breaking down in application.

That's the nature of the psychology beast, I think.

Not in general for either, but in the particular application I was speaking to, yes. That is, I think an introvert would be less effective as, say, a motivational speaker, on the whole. I've noticed that the best pastors I've known were extroverts, but many of the best preachers I've heard self described as introverts. I had a conversation with our Presbyterian minister on the point. He's a published and successful author and a great listen, but really has to work at the pastoral part, because it's contrary to his nature, the politics and gatherings in close quarters. He's much more at home in the pulpit and the quiet of his study.

Distinction noted, but still troubling.

I don't believe it is entirely. But I'm fairly certain that my enjoyment of center stage gives me an advantage with, say, a jury. That's really an audience and they're going to sense my comfort or interest and respond to that.

While I understand your point, I don't agree it's necessarily true in all cases. If I were on a jury I'd already be wary of the person that I knew was there in part to manipulate me and if he seemed too comfortable on center stage, it would almost be a detriment to his winning me over (and I'm aware that's a personality thing, so we've come full circle :chuckle.

No, that was you. I mean you began the party analogy with:

And I responded with: "Reasonable enough...and yet you know better and don't communicate exclusively by means that would guarantee that outcome and particular."

Which was my way of noting that you aren't really in a corner out of the general eye on a forum like this, absent PMs and maybe sealed profile pages. None of the regularly posting introverts are.

You responded with:

Which I didn't know what to make of and

And I noted: And yet you have the conversation at a party. Or, if you only want to talk to a person there are ways to do that. So I think there has to be more to it than that...which is why I initially speculated that this was a good place for introverts to behave more as an extrovert would, absent some of the things that would otherwise be more distracting, like the actual physical presence of a crowd, instead of the knowledge that people would filter by and read at one point or another.

Regardless of how the party analogy came about, the bolded is the issue. Without assuming any negative intent on your part at all, your speculation just doesn't sit well with me. It implies that an introvert comes here seeking to be more like an extrovert and so by extension, you see extroversion as the good end to be sought after, leaving introversion as something less.

No, more curious and a bit surprised to find so many here of the introvert persuasion and wondering aloud why that was and what it meant.

I can't fault you for the curiosity and surprise and wondering why and what. That's all good. I just balk at being told my why and what.

 

[gcthomas]

Or maybe people are just having a little fun taking them.

In any event, I guess I don't get around much, I don't read enough blogs where the subject's come up to have a good idea of what's being said out there.

I'll take a look at the TED talk later, I'm supposed to be writing a paper when I'm not procrastinating in here. (Is procrastination a character trait?) But speaking as a self-identified introvert-type person, a lack of appreciation (lack of public appreciation anyway) isn't a driving force for me at all - the less attention, the better. Personal relationships are different, but then I wouldn't be sharing that publicly anyway.

Apparently I am INTP, assertive, along with Socrates, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Carl Jung, Albert Einstein, James Madison, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford.

If only I also shared their genius...

 

[Desert Reign]

As Briggs Myers goes this is a breeze of a quick test, taking fewer than twelve minutes even for a slow reader. Four pages of clicks and there you are. Feel free to post the results here.

Me? I'm an ENFP, thank you kindly.

Link to test here.

Breaks down

Extrovert: 71%
Intuitive: 61%
Feeling: 29%
Prospecting: 67%
Assertive: 54%

Overview:

You are one of the Diplomats - an empathic and idealistic individual who enjoys exploring interesting ideas and prizes morality. You are known for your enthusiasm, optimism and intuitive skills.


Famous ENFPs from celebritytypes.com:

Hunter Thompson, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Kurt Vonnegut, Walt Disney, Anais Nin, Jacques Derrida, George Carlin, Robin Williams, Orson Welles.

Mine is INTP, (see link for description) which is no surprise to me as I have done this kind of test occasionally before.

However, on 3 out of the 5 marked categories I was close to borderline, which means that I am more poised than average and can see both points of view.
Rather, it is that I find that often the question is badly posed, requiring a choice between 2 things where both are correct. It means that I can just reconcile within myself otherwise opposing points of view because I am able to create a new synthesis that goes beyond most people's way of categorising.
A simple example is that if you ask (as per one of the questions) whether I think judgement or mercy is more important, it is not that I am evenly divided over the question but rather I see both judgement and mercy as the same thing. It's perhaps what I might dare to call 'redeemed' thinking.
The summary lists three kinds of personality within INTP: philosopher, architect and dreamy professor. Mine is architect.

 

[rainee]

Mine is INTP, (see link for description) which is no surprise to me as I have done this kind of test occasionally before.

However, on 3 out of the 5 marked categories I was close to borderline, which means that I am more poised than average and can see both points of view.

Poised? Aahh, yes, I thought I've seen you poised here before... It's kind of like a military position...

Rather, it is that I find that often the question is badly posed, requiring a choice between 2 things where both are correct. It means that I can just reconcile within myself otherwise opposing points of vew because I am able to create a new synthesis that goes beyond most people's way of categorising.

I don't know what that means...?

A simple example is that if you ask (as per one of the questions) whether I think judgement or mercy is more important, it is not that I am evenly divided over the question but rather I see both judgement and mercy as the same thing. It's perhaps what I might dare to call 'redeemed' thinking.

DR, what does that mean? I'm trying to understand.

The summary lists three kinds of personality within INTP: philosopher, architect and dreamy professor. Mine is architect.

Now that does make sense to me

 

[Desert Reign]

Poised? Aahh, yes, I thought I've seen you poised here before... It's kind of like a military position...

ROFL. Another example of seeing beyond the typical classifications people generally think important. (I'm not suggesting you are a typical person, Rainee. It is just a general comment.)

I am a very gentle person. I so much approve of gentleness that I fight hard and vicious to uphold it...

DR, what does that mean? I'm trying to understand.

DR means Desert Reign.

Just kidding. I knew what you meant. It means that the question asks you to choose betwen two opposites, judgement and mercy.
I do not see them as opposites at all. They are highly complementary and both define each other. Without one, the other could not exist. Any choice between the two would be a wrong choice. You must choose both because they are indissolubly part of one another. Any choice that favours one over the other is a wrong choice because it misunderstands the nature of both. Hence a choice for judgement is bound to be a choice for false judgement and a choice for mercy is bound to be a choice for false mercy.

Now that does make sense to me

I'm a big soft bundle of fluff really. (Just like the cat...)

 

[aikido7]

As Briggs Myers goes this is a breeze of a quick test, taking fewer than twelve minutes even for a slow reader. Four pages of clicks and there you are. Feel free to post the results here.

Me? I'm an ENFP, thank you kindly.

Link to test here.

Breaks down

Extrovert: 71%
Intuitive: 61%
Feeling: 29%
Prospecting: 67%
Assertive: 54%

Overview:

You are one of the Diplomats - an empathic and idealistic individual who enjoys exploring interesting ideas and prizes morality. You are known for your enthusiasm, optimism and intuitive skills.


Famous ENFPs from celebritytypes.com:

Hunter Thompson, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Kurt Vonnegut, Walt Disney, Anais Nin, Jacques Derrida, George Carlin, Robin Williams, Orson Welles.

My wife and I are both introverts. Both of us worked in health care and we are very comfortable and skilled at giving our energy to others who are in great need of help due to health problems, end-stage cancer patients and families, AIDs patients, etc.

But to recharge from a busy day, we need to hole up in our living room, turn the shades down and basically relax.

Extroverts are those who feel uncomfortable being alone and need to "charge up" around people.

 

[Town Heretic]

My wife and I are both introverts. Both of us worked in health care and we are very comfortable and skilled at giving our energy to others who are in great need of help due to health problems, end-stage cancer patients and families, AIDs patients, etc.

But to recharge from a busy day, we need to hole up in our living room, turn the shades down and basically relax.

Thanks for the insight. I think you're in line there with some of what anna has been arguing.

Extroverts are those who feel uncomfortable being alone and need to "charge up" around people.

But you drop the ball here. No, extroverts are charged by the interaction. It doesn't follow that we're uncomfortable without it. I've always spent a good bit of time in contemplation and removed from others and I'm a strong extrovert.

 

[WizardofOz]

YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE IS: ENFP
VARIANT: ASSERTIVE
ROLE: You are one of the Diplomats - an empathic and idealistic individual who enjoys exploring interesting ideas and prizes morality. You are known for your enthusiasm, optimism and intuitive skills. Above you will find a brief overview of your personality traits - proceed to the type overview to learn much more about your personality type. Prepare to be impressed.

- MIND -
Extraverted 33%

- ENERGY -
Intuitive 28%

- NATURE -
Feeling 32%

- TACTICS -
Prospecting 40%

- IDENTITY -
Assertive 31%

 

[Town Heretic]

...If you think of introversion and extroversion as traits which have degrees (more gray) and not types (more black and white), it might be easier if you know that I see them as traits, as sliding scales which have a certain predictability and yet a variability. In that light, you as an extrovert might be more introverted in some areas, or in reaction to some situational variables - and I the reverse. What stimulates you may exhaust me - that is, until I reach my perfect convergence.

I rather like that.

And when you think of intro- and extroversion as traits, it might be easier to see that while the terms are general guides that they shouldn't be either self-limiting or stereotyped, because humans are just so much more mysterious and complicated than that.

I agree. That was my point in the "break down in particular application" bit.

The whole idea of self-identity is a huge area of interest for me, and one that I have no doubt will occupy a good, if not major part of my post-grad study.

Excellent. I hope you share some of it around here. I think it's fascinating.

I guess I'm resistant to seeing these ideas oversimplified in such a way that people are either elevated or dismissed based on terminology that's much more nebulous than it might seem.

Likewise.

"Harder" implies that introversion is softer, and I'm wondering how you came by that.

The harder end, the farther end, as opposed to someone who might be just inside the designation. Like hard right or hard left. No one says "he's a soft left winger" by way of.

Maybe it's only funny to the one seated on the throne.

:chuckle:

I think that's semantics. Daydreaming about the use of money and power is still daydreaming about money and power.

No, daydreaming about what being wealthy could allow you to do isn't the same as daydreaming about money, which is why I added the age and scope qualifier as to focus. So the kid might dream of the thrill of fame where the adult might dwell on the impact of it. It's the difference between means and ends.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends. On a purely personal level, I'm much more drawn to quiet power.

Which makes sense, but marketing is geared toward the greatest numbers bid and it's scaled differently than your preference...or mine, comes to it.

Distinction noted, but still troubling.

Where I'd say human and wonder why that's troubling.

While I understand your point, I don't agree it's necessarily true in all cases. If I were on a jury I'd already be wary of the person that I knew was there in part to manipulate me and if he seemed too comfortable on center stage, it would almost be a detriment to his winning me over (and I'm aware that's a personality thing, so we've come full circle :chuckle.

Jury consultants will tell you that for most trials the more at ease and personable the lawyer the more likely they are to win the jury, provided the ease doesn't appear studied. Jury trials are almost always matters where the outcome and evidence are far less than certain on the point.

And while every social interaction has a measure of manipulation in it, especially the argumentative sort, I'd suggest that there doesn't have to be the element of insincerity you seem to be assuming on the point. I like people. I found that going with that and interacting with a jury from my inclination made jurors more comfortable and attentive. A win/win for everyone. My ease wasn't a matter of study, as it would have to be with someone who found the center stage and interaction outside of their inclination, habit, preference. I suspect that person would have a harder time with you and with most juries. In fact, that's what tends to happen if someone who isn't inclined makes the attempt.

Regardless of how the party analogy came about, the bolded is the issue.

Only offered to clarify the set up.

Without assuming any negative intent on your part at all, your speculation just doesn't sit well with me. It implies that an introvert comes here seeking to be more like an extrovert and so by extension, you see extroversion as the good end to be sought after, leaving introversion as something less.

With respect, that's just not my approach. Rather, finding a lot of introverts involved in a thing that seemed to me much more tailored to an extroverted personality I speculated. It wasn't a thesis or a hard wired position. Only one that appeared, at first blush, to make sense to me.

I can't fault you for the curiosity and surprise and wondering why and what. That's all good. I just balk at being told my why and what.

Understandable, but I don't think that was ever really my aim. :cheers:

 

[FellowServant]

I got ISPF or ISFP.. I can't remember what order the letters were in. .. I can't share all the info as I'm on my phone..

 

[aikido7]

...But you drop the ball here....

It isn't black and white. Everyone is on a continuum.

 

[prefersinful]

INFP

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Old GM is a; ENFJ Just like Ronald Reagan!!!

 

[TomO]

Or maybe, since INTP and INTJ are supposed to come up so rarely (according to TH's 2012 thread), it makes them feel rare and unique.

What?...I'm not?!?! :shocked:


Personality: INTJ

Variant: Turbulent

Role: Analyst

You are one of the Analysts - a rational and impartial individual who enjoys intellectual pursuits and prizes independence. You are known for your strategic thinking skills, self-confidence and impressive knowledge.

 

[oatmeal]

I have a personality, I do not have to have myself tested to know that.

As long as I am not brain dead, I have a personality

 

[Desert Reign]

I have a personality, I do not have to have myself tested to know that.

As long as I am not brain dead, I have a personality

Sure. You don't have to be brain dead to be a spoil sport.

 

[CabinetMaker]

INTJ

Variant: Assertive

Roll: Analyst

 

[Town Heretic]

It isn't black and white.

Which is a strange comment considering your:

...Extroverts are those who feel uncomfortable being alone and need to "charge up" around people.

 

[The Barbarian]

Introversion and extroversion are only with regard to how you recharge. For me, being with lots of people is fun, but tiring. My youngest daughter gets energy from all the people around her.

I get re-energized being by myself, reading, tinkering, or writing.

That's all it means. One psychologist recalls how a mother objected to the analysis of her daughter:
"My daughter is not an introvert. She is a lovely girl!"

In our particular society, solitude isn't valued. But it's the way some of our brightest and most inventive people accomplish what they do. It's like being left-handed (which I am); nothing wrong with it, but it seems to annoy some people.

 

[rainee]

Did any one else get turbulent?


I normally don't take tests like these but I gotta say I really like being called "turbulent"!
That is so much better than saying "blustery"