Hi Dave,
Interesting thoughts. BTW I'm the one who started all this. I'm actually not certain my last message on the subject ever reached the list ('had some server problems and was so busy "catching up" that I didn't pay attention).
I agree that there are times when I could go either way on any number of the questions. However, I also believe that I have a stronger "attraction" to one answer or another. I've been involved in personality profiling for about 10 years. I too test myself repeatedly, over spans of time. I do find that I tend to remain fairly consistent unless I am operating in a "reduced capacity" (exhaustion, stress- or loss- induced depression, etc.). I guess you can make of that whatever you choose.
As for your points regarding this sort of profiling as a new tool for establishing bias, we are pretty much free to use anything in either a positive or negative way. I believe I have done both in my stronger and weaker moments (respectively). That is a matter of choice; consider the source. For instance you personally appear a bit negative towards INTJs (I apologize if I am misinterpreting). This is interesting to me. Right off the top, I can't think of many acquaintances in this category. However, some of my favorite people are ENTJs. I know they have the capacity for being aggressive, abrasive, judgmental, and demanding. That just doesn't happen to be the way in which my friends "show up". They are generally strong, intelligent, accomplished people. I'm guessing that an introverted version of the same could go similar directions.
There are few absolutes. My primary use of personality profiling is that it allows me a greater understanding of the people I deal with. Which in turn allows me to work and communicate with others more effectively.
Back to you, Roni (ENTP)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hall <davehall@dbn.lia.net>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 3:44 PM
Subject: Myers-Briggs test RE: virus: a few bombs
>Here's a game everyone can play ......
>
>Am not sure how this thread started or where it went, but I've been looking
>for an excuse to drop some personal observations regarding this
Myers-Briggs
>temperment classification stuff.
>
>>...I hope that's not what it applied to, cos I did the online mini-
>>test and ended up an iNTF, so no dice there.
>>...I'm kinda kicking myself for not thinking of that option though -
>>my recognition memory from school seems to have degraded some, I'm
>>losing tags.
>
>>> I suspect this was a reference to the Myers-Briggs Personality
>>> Inventory and similar systems, such as the Keirsey Personality
>>> Sorter. S refers to sensing (as opposed to N for intuitive), and F
>>> refers to feeling (as opposed to T for thinking). This is a guess
>>> on my part. Info on the personality types can be found at
>
>Practical experiment to try: Alter you mood via music, watching a movie
(or
>let the climate do that for you over the course of a year, or once around
>the Sun if your current "belief system" questions Time and other agreed
upon
>"realities") and take the tests regularly and with various types of mind
>altering fuels/foods/substances/street drugs to physically induce some
>variety, should that be neccessary. Depending on how structured your daily
>routine is (i.e is your meta-programming provided by yourself, or the
>various "cultures" into which you were spawn and in which you spend your
>time? Both, obviously .. just depends on where the balance lies at this
>point in Time) you may find some interesting results, as I have done. I am
>willing to share my data and experimentation "methodology" with anyone else
>wanting to try this. Or just open discussion is welcomed. I have nothing
to
>"prove", not at this point, only some data gathered, anecdotal observations
>and some ideas of what I "see" in the data thus far.
>
>---- Comments and Observations on http://www.keirsey.com ------
>
>With so many "lost souls" trying to establish their indentities on this
>planet, it's good/interesting to see how effectively http://www.keirsey.com
>is dispensing these "temperament identities" to anyone willing to show up
>and do the test. Take a look at the cumulative data page:
>http://keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/stats.cgi. When I first did this test,
>approx. 6-8 months ago, the sample pool was at 1.5m. In February it was
2.2m
>and now it's just under 2.5m. That's a lot of sheep lining up to be
tagged,
>and how many are coming back to check the assumptions and study the
>questions asked? My guess would be very few.
>
>I joined all the mailing lists I could find out about on the keirsey site,
>specifically iNTj and entp (the only one available ... that says something
>in itself) and from both of these lists got a sense that the members were
>pretty happy about having their identity established for them. I only
>read/scanned a few hundred emails from each and watched to see the volume
>flow over a period of a few weeks, scanning the subject headers for
>interesting trends. Nothing like an intj "master mind/genuis" finding out
>that he/she is indeed a master mind/genuis and arriving at the list to
>announce their most recent discovery (i.e. "I'm one of you!"). Kind of like
>a back-up for that mensa test done 20 years ago at school when such things
>were all the rave. Sort the dumb kids from the smart kids and let the
>gifted ones know they're gifted, and don't tell the less gifted anything in
>case it hurts their feelings. So they act "gifted", which of course means
>different things for different cultures. It's an indentity/ego thing, IMO.
>
>So I can imagine that for the "no-cheating-in-the-test iNTj" (hahahahaha)
>the sense of relief must be almost overwhelming. I can say that I was
>moderately surprised, or disappointed even, when I got "Idealist -
>Healer/Teacher" coming up so often, but extremely pleased with myself when
I
>finally "broke" through into the "rational fieldmarshall" catagory. It took
>about a week of "hard-core work routine" to properly establish itself ..
and
>a lot of coffee and nicotine and looking-for-stress. FWIW after 6 months,
>and having done the test about 20 times now, (whenever I feel conclusively
>I've shifted into a different operating mode, i.e. thinking about ideas and
>travelling is a different "mode" to getting down to some "hard work" behind
>a PC and developing a 60-person team software package in 10 months @ 500
>hours per month. Totally different modes, both goal oriented) I've found
>myself drifting between "Guardian - Provider" and "Healer -
>Teacher/Idealist". So I guess I'm definitly not gifted, not within in the
>Western Anglo-Saxon kick-butt-or-die definition of gifted ;->
>
>To take some wild stabs: I would thus say that one is "given" (reported to
>by means of the result page) the classification that is most NEEDED at the
>time. We are telling the "sorter program" how we WANT to think, then it
>tells us how we should be thinking (because this is how others who answer
>the test seem to "behave", and it then goes on to provide a "bright shiny
>star"/"great person" in all 16 sub-catagories that one can go and emulate.
>Analysis and therapy rolled up into one neat 10-minute excercise.
>
>The questions are pretty good (in that they stop and make one consider
><what, in general?>) and have obviously been put together with much thought
>and editing/experimentation over the +- 20 years (??) this temperament
>classification thing has been pursued by Dr. Keirsey (trust me, I'm a
>doctor). They remind me of all the questions asked to establish whether
one
>"has" manic-depression, schizoid affective disorder and/or
>obssessive/compulsive disorder. Once classified, it then becomes possible
>to indentify a customer bracket, and make and try sell something to that
>customer. Such as experimental psychopharmaceuticals. [Or a mug and
t-shirt
>combo kit with "I'm an iNTj", to use an example, to market one's results
on.
>I'm sure many people are intimidated by the "strength" of iNTj's thus it
>becomes quite an effective power "weapon" for those who wish to wield it.
>Many iNTj do, it's in their temperament]
>
>Designing a more useful test
>---------------------------
>
>However in terms of useful data gathering, a "recording/measuring tool"
(in
>the way that the current website is no more than that), if those same 70
>questions were all asked simulataneous and the various "brain responses
>systems" simultaneously provided an answer for the exact state in which the
>entire organism is functioning at that specific snap-shot in time, then
we'd
>be able to observe how humans can CHANGE their "minds"/"temperaments" in
>response to the environment (which could taking in a keirsey or mensa test)
>.. on the fly. [With this data, we could then do some "mining", and come
up
>with a whole bunch of new theories, ways to classify ourselves, products to
>create new needs, and genrally have a merry time selling new "personalised"
>stuff to each other!]
>
>Kind of like "fly-by-wire" high-tech fighter planes are constantly sending
>back heaps of data from "nerve points" to a central controller(s), whose
>function it is to keep the plane flying, despite the "fact" that nature
says
>such a machine/entity should not be flying anywhere because it breaks the
>early rules of aerodynamics or whatever. In a far more complex entity,
the
>human, the central controller's chief fucntion is to keep the human alive,
>topped on fuel and "happy" for as long as is physicaslly possible, so doing
>the test whilst under intense gun-fire, or stoned or drunk out of one's
tiny
>mind is going to likely result in different classifications. The more
>adaptable a human is to their environment (and not just physical
>environment) and depending on their "need fulfullment requirements" (which,
>IMO, relates in some way to "will" <to do something>) the more
>"classifications" a human can be "awarded". The Ideal World Most Balanced
>Man would have to be the one that can "be" anyone of the 16 classifications
>whenever he/she wants or needs to be. And has sufficient "will" available
>to make an impact on the other humans within in transmission range.
>
>To use Question 33 as an example to make the final point:
>
>33. Do you prize in yourself
>1. a strong hold of reality
>2. a vivid imagination
>
>If one considers that the "link" (or difference) between imagination and
>reality, used within the above context, could be the concept known as
"will"
>... i.e. someone with a "strong will" is likely to imagine how they would
>like their reality to be, then via their will (transmission) try to shape
>their reality, or "shape the world within their worldview". It takes some
>imagination to guess/create what alternative realities one can have, and a
>high-need/lot-of-will to realise the desired reality. It's neccessary to
>get lots of other people to agree to one's imagined idea before it becomes
>reality. So I think the question leaves one with too many "new" questions
>(like how often to ask it?), as many others do, because I want to answer
>them both "positively", depending entirely on my mood/temperature, of
>course. When I feel I should be hybernating/sleeping during long dark
>winters (i.e. depression) then I just do, and sleep a lot .. and don't
spend
>much time imagining anything or even trying to have a "hold on reality" ..
I
>just WANT/NEED to sleep.
>
>I guess that's enough rambling. I'm interested in conversing on the topic
>of "behavioural classification" with anyone who is interested, from all
>sides of the fence, so to speak. I think these test have become Western
>civilisation's primary "meta-programmers" now that skin colour is redundant
>and English is going to win (because it has the strongest collective will)
>... and that can be extremely useful and dangerous.
>
>Dave