A rant about wanting to be different

[Bertrand Russell's Barber]

So, MBTI is pretty popular among the crowd today right?
You have these websites saying INTP/INTJ/INFP/INFJ types are really rare.
Yet, when it comes to results, most people identify as one of the four.
Why is that?
I'd wager my guess on "people want to feel different from everyone else"
But not too different that they don't have a sense of belongingness to anything.
What they want essentially, is a label to tell them who they are.
I was one of those guys in the past.
I encountered the MBTI/Enneagram/Jungian stuff when I was 13/14.
And then identified myself as an INTP/5w4 etc.

But right now, 12/13 years on, it amazes me that I gave a shit.

Clearly the fact that I am writing here means I still give a shit right? Maybe.

Things are different now. I'm working. And while I'm one of the privileged few who get to say that work is fun and interesting, sure, it also means you can't just latch onto an identity and expect people to give you attention.

Most people really drawn to typology and all this stuff instead of treating it as a passing interest probably see themselves as a bit jaded with life maybe. Like they can't quite find themselves and are desperate for meaning.

I was like that too. Like many others here, I never had to put in effort in school. At every juncture I would hear those older than me talk about how the next phase would be a lot harder but I never felt it. I did mostly STEM stuff (math, CS, engineering) stuff in university and never felt challenged by the material. But at the same time I was so jaded with everything I didn't quite have the ambition to try to top the school and really push my limits. It wasn't interesting to me want to be "successful", whatever that means. But I was kidding myself. It did. I just thought trying to be successful was beneath me and for losers.

I was wrong. At work I got challenged. I'm in a startup environment whereby you get more thrown at you if you can do more. There is almost no bureaucracy, no pace to follow. You go at your own pace. It's really nice.

And for the first time in my time, I am actually achieving conventional success and it feels really good. And then I think back to the days I saw myself as being different from others and sought meaning in that perspective. No, I'm not really all that different. Maybe a little smarter, sure, and less agreeable in general. But other than that, pretty normal. I want people to like me, to have material success, to find a girlfriend, to maybe even have kids.

And I don't feel like it's all meaningless either. Nowadays it's kinda the opposite, i can't fine enough time to do all the things I want to do. What a change eh.

So yeah, end rant. Typology is mostly bull. Most people (there are exceptions of course) want the same thing they were evolved to want. Maybe some are a little smarter, a little more curious, a little more stubborn, that's it. Or the other way around.

 

[washti]

you were just weak. normieboy.

 

[Rebis]

Of course typology is bull in the sense we use a type as an identifier. The psychological classification of cognitive functions like Ni, Ne, Si, Te were all used to classify peoples behaviour in a non-deterministic way. Though, like any other interpretivist/abstract theory it was adopted by another that tried to simplify it for mainstream adoption.

They have value in terms of classification, determinism doesn't apply.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think plenty MBTI types give 0 fucks about MBTI which probably explains why certain MBTI types can go on a write nonsense on the net about MBTI for years and some people cannot be bothered to even figure out their own type.

 

[Rebis]

I'm fond of it because it shows at least a proclivity to a certain way of thinking: You can think critically, abstractly and operate on less pre-requisite knowledge. This is the basis of intuition after all. Shoes come in all shapes and sizes, though at its core it has laces, Heel, insole, eyelet....

Also, given the fact everyone that joined a forum pertaining to a Type, this must primarily mean they have some self-assured importance about their cognitive stack. Secondary to this is they cannot find a cohort of like-minded people in their real-life, which directs their trajectory to a typological forum where they hope to meet themselves.

 

[nanook]

Most types and individuals should not be excessively interested in typology, because they have neither a talent for understanding it, nor any use for such an understanding.

The jury is out on what group i belong to.

I kinda reached a limit of understanding typology, where further obsession seemed to go in cycles, because i don't have access to new data, so i gave up for the last few years.

But what everyone ought to take home from typology is that we are all different and that therefore the lessons we learn in life dont apply to other people.

In my view the thinking of IXTJ is concerned with practical, worldly problems so typology adds nothing to that. The subjective identity of NI is defined as the unique process of summoning inspiration towards actions, building momentum, finding their way through live, which is entirely irrational, so psycho analytical thinking adds close to nothing to that. Si is similarly irrational about how they move from day to day. Also what they do professionally may not require an understanding of other people, so typology isn't required for that either. There are exceptions tho. Ni types like ENTJ quentin tarrantion who are authors may greatly benefit from typology. But i will argue, that NI types are generally not good at analytically understanding cognitive functions as objective mechanism. They apprehend individuality differently, as narrative oriented story tellers.


I haven't seen many, if any, IXTJ, who did not end up dismissing typology, to some degree.

In fact, if someone dismisses typology, my fist idea is that they are either INTJ or ENFP or some sensor.

All introverted thinking types have this impractical puzzeling mind. Regardless of how dumb or smart we are, we puzzel compulsively, like men masturbate and cats lick arseholes. Typology is one of the most mysterious and fascinating puzzels that exist. Even if it does absolutely nothing for our practical orientation in life and adds nothing but mind boggling confusion to our idea or self. Its an utterly hypnotizing puzzel and intellectual defeat in that domain is the only thing that can shut it down.

That's what it is to me.

Of course i may be delusional about my functions and none of this makes sense to others.

Now that whole problem of wanting to be different from how we really are certainly does apply to all types, so we can talk about that, outside of debating the value of typology. I am all for that kind of conversation.

Personally i spent 20 years searching for a way to reconfigure my internal state. I started with psychology and ended up with entheogenic spirituality.

Please don't make any assumptions about my state of mind. I mean to make no claims to be like anyone else who has claimed some similar insight. But how i feel about life, after having seen enough of altered states of mind, about 10 years ago was this:

Before awakening, life has been chopping water and carrying wood, as per instruction of society. After awakening, life wants to be carrying water and chopping wood. Sane and natural. Stuff falls into place.

In more concrete words: If i wasn't too demented, to learn new things, i would rather become something easy, like a bike mechanic, to earn enough money, to do some neat vanlife, than someone, who hopes to outperform his own intelligence and to attain social relevance, like a change agent or paradigmatic reformer (carl jung, ken wilber, etc), because being ordinary reeks of suffering and depressing insignificance.

In other words: the experience of life counts more to me now, than the ideas of meaning. Money for a bike, a lake to drive by, swim in, jogg around, nice textures to look at and no drama.

You are kind of in the middle of the extreme. Your brain is younger and you still seek the challenge of learning new things. But you have already arrived in some satisfaction with what is.

I think this is mainly natural aging!

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Early 20s: I will save the world with my masters degree and I’ll be the next Nicola Tesla!
Late 20s: I will soon earn median wage and get a wife and a mortgage!

Mid 30s: I will get rid of my belly fat!

 

[nanook]

40: got rid of my belly fat. now lets see how long i can survive this leukemia.

 

[Rebis]

MBTI is like a stepping stone: You do a test, understand your traits which elucidates corresponding weaknesses (Nothing's a net benefit, right?)

Difference is over-emphasized: The reality is, the lifestyle you want has been defined and you should work towards emulating that: I think the reason why INTxs see themselves as important is because of the celebrity INTxs that came before them, along with being relating to beings of superior intelligence: "Architect", "Logician", "Thinker", "Philosopher".

INTPs do not have a dominant function in society in any way: They may have a diverse knowledge base but in terms of financial performance (I think we can all agree finance is a measurement of success) since high-paying jobs are allocated based on specialised skillsets this means that many INTPs don't play the external role they see themselves as having. When most technology relating to advanced concepts is stuck in corporations with billions of dollars in assets, you can be assured they'll never reach up to the practical potential of their pre-conceived abilities. Due to the poor pay this means you'll find many INTPs working in low-tier environments. If they work in low-tier environments the work isn't going to be rewarding and/or important, yet paradoxically this will contrast their need to affirm their importance.

The greates thinkers may be INTxs but only a few have a pronounced effect in the world. Many of them won't measure comparably.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

So, MBTI is pretty popular among the crowd today right?
You have these websites saying INTP/INTJ/INFP/INFJ types are really rare.
Yet, when it comes to results, most people identify as one of the four.
Why is that?
I'd wager my guess on "people want to feel different from everyone else"
But not too different that they don't have a sense of belongingness to anything.
What they want essentially, is a label to tell them who they are.
I was one of those guys in the past.
I encountered the MBTI/Enneagram/Jungian stuff when I was 13/14.
And then identified myself as an INTP/5w4 etc.

But right now, 12/13 years on, it amazes me that I gave a shit.

Clearly the fact that I am writing here means I still give a shit right? Maybe.

Things are different now. I'm working. And while I'm one of the privileged few who get to say that work is fun and interesting, sure, it also means you can't just latch onto an identity and expect people to give you attention.

Most people really drawn to typology and all this stuff instead of treating it as a passing interest probably see themselves as a bit jaded with life maybe. Like they can't quite find themselves and are desperate for meaning.

I was like that too. Like many others here, I never had to put in effort in school. At every juncture I would hear those older than me talk about how the next phase would be a lot harder but I never felt it. I did mostly STEM stuff (math, CS, engineering) stuff in university and never felt challenged by the material. But at the same time I was so jaded with everything I didn't quite have the ambition to try to top the school and really push my limits. It wasn't interesting to me want to be "successful", whatever that means. But I was kidding myself. It did. I just thought trying to be successful was beneath me and for losers.

I was wrong. At work I got challenged. I'm in a startup environment whereby you get more thrown at you if you can do more. There is almost no bureaucracy, no pace to follow. You go at your own pace. It's really nice.

And for the first time in my time, I am actually achieving conventional success and it feels really good. And then I think back to the days I saw myself as being different from others and sought meaning in that perspective. No, I'm not really all that different. Maybe a little smarter, sure, and less agreeable in general. But other than that, pretty normal. I want people to like me, to have material success, to find a girlfriend, to maybe even have kids.

And I don't feel like it's all meaningless either. Nowadays it's kinda the opposite, i can't fine enough time to do all the things I want to do. What a change eh.

So yeah, end rant. Typology is mostly bull. Most people (there are exceptions of course) want the same thing they were evolved to want. Maybe some are a little smarter, a little more curious, a little more stubborn, that's it. Or the other way around.

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

 

[Niclmaki]

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

That’s exactly how these “personality tests” I did in school worked. The other one was True Colours or something like that.

I got all kinds of concerned looks and reminding that I ought not to follow the profession and career that I was heading in because it didn’t match what this test said.

But right now, 12/13 years on, it amazes me that I gave a shit.

I’d say it is normal to get attached to it when one is younger (12-14), you’re still building an identity for yourself. You don’t yet have a career or job that tells you, “you’re a this”. A few letters and numbers to differentiate yourself is all you have. (I wouldn’t say a job or career telling you isn’t a much better substitute to be honest, it’s just more socially upheld as something important)

 

[fishhead]

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

I wouldn't say so, I think personality tests do help us think about ourselves and how we behave, provided they are not taken seriously. Sure, they are partially products of capitalism, even the marketing of these tests and related products indicate so, but they are also an attempt at trying to logically organize the human psyche into groups.

I’d say it is normal to get attached to it when one is younger (12-14), you’re still building an identity for yourself. You don’t yet have a career or job that tells you, “you’re a this”. A few letters and numbers to differentiate yourself is all you have.

I guess I was lucky that around the same time I discovered MBTI, I was diverted from my original path of STEM into what's culturally seen as the opposite - visual arts. So while this test states what fields I am likely to be in, it definitely does not define me. This explains why I used MBTI to think about the way I thought, but nothing more than that.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

I wouldn't say so, I think personality tests do help us think about ourselves and how we behave, provided they are not taken seriously. Sure, they are partially products of capitalism, even the marketing of these tests and related products indicate so, but they are also an attempt at trying to logically organize the human psyche into groups.

It doesn't really matter what you think, if you put one or two hours of history research on the MBTI it is clear as day.
I will provide you some shortcuts.

https://forge.medium.com/the-capitalist-origins-of-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-309187757d4e

The history of Myers-Briggs shows how personality tests became a capitalist tool

The cult of personality tests became a tool for workers to sell not just their skills, but their selves.

qz.com

 

[fishhead]

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

I wouldn't say so, I think personality tests do help us think about ourselves and how we behave, provided they are not taken seriously. Sure, they are partially products of capitalism, even the marketing of these tests and related products indicate so, but they are also an attempt at trying to logically organize the human psyche into groups.

It doesn't really matter what you think, if you put one or two hours of history research on the MBTI it is clear as day.
I will provide you some shortcuts.

https://forge.medium.com/the-capitalist-origins-of-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-309187757d4e

The history of Myers-Briggs shows how personality tests became a capitalist tool

The cult of personality tests became a tool for workers to sell not just their skills, but their selves.

qz.com

That's an interesting piece of history, thanks for sharing. Still, this doesn't invalidate it as a gateway to self-understanding.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

It's all based on what the industry needs.
It's not about the people as they actually exist in the world.
It's about the formation and reinforcement of identity stereotypes that can be useful in various fields of capitalist production.

I wouldn't say so, I think personality tests do help us think about ourselves and how we behave, provided they are not taken seriously. Sure, they are partially products of capitalism, even the marketing of these tests and related products indicate so, but they are also an attempt at trying to logically organize the human psyche into groups.

It doesn't really matter what you think, if you put one or two hours of history research on the MBTI it is clear as day.
I will provide you some shortcuts.

https://forge.medium.com/the-capitalist-origins-of-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-309187757d4e

The history of Myers-Briggs shows how personality tests became a capitalist tool

The cult of personality tests became a tool for workers to sell not just their skills, but their selves.

qz.com

That's an interesting piece of history, thanks for sharing. Still, this doesn't invalidate it as a gateway to self-understanding.

I agree, that that's not the only thing that invalidates the MBTI construct,
but it's one part of the puzzle.
The second part is that it is pseudo-scientific.

Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless

It’s no more scientifically valid than a BuzzFeed quiz.

www.vox.com

The comforting pseudoscience of the MBTI

Each year, 3.5 million MBTI tests are administered each. Businesses have been using the test to make hiring decisions. The problem? The MBTI is bullshit.

nesslabs.com

The MBTI is Nothing But Pseudoscience - Pepperdine Graphic

Art by Christine Nelson “Four letters; say them and I’ll know who you are” is essentially the mental statement people seem to make whenever they ask for someone’s MBTI. But here’s some background first. MBTI, shorthand for the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, is essentially a complex personality...

pepperdine-graphic.com

Nothing Personal: The questionable Myers-Briggs test

Dean Burnett: The Myers-Briggs personality test is a popular tool, but may not be scientifically valid

www.theguardian.com

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an alleged assessment of one's personality type — whatever that means. It aims to classify how individuals view the world through a questionnaire, categorizing people based on four different dichotomies. It was developed by a mother-and-daughter team...

rationalwiki.org

Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Wonât Die

If you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between.

www.psychologytoday.com

Put these two ingredients together and you end up with pure ideology.

 

[Yellow]

^^^
SLOAN/Big 5 is better all around. You can fill out the survey, get your results that parrot of what you said. Then studies show that your preferences parrot what you said, and whammy bammy, you have a reliable tool. When you separate MBTI from the Jungian theory upon which it's based, you get a partially reliable, albeit incomplete tool. The biggest issue is that most people are ambiverts. If you take a stroll through Google Scholar, you'll see a few hundred studies saying about the same.

The Jungain Theory is objectively unscientific. Probably because Jung wasn't a scientist. The problem is the Jungian theory is the fun part. It's the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts part.

@OP, INxx's have a pretty big "I want to be understood" drive. Half of them also feel frustrated by being unable to understand others. Jungian Typology and the MBTI test is a big draw. Other folks aren't going to care as much. Or they'll treat it as a novelty.

Also, most people aren't terribly insightful, and a lot of the online tests suck. There are statements like "I like to daydream". Well what the fuck does that mean? It's meant to identify abstract vs concrete thinking styles, but concrete thinkers daydream too. What about fucking that hot chick, or winning the lottery, or telling your stepdad what you really think? Those are some solid daydreams.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

SLOAN/Big 5 is better all around. You can fill out the survey, get your results that parrot of what you said. Then studies show that your preferences parrot what you said, and whammy bammy, you have a reliable tool. When you separate MBTI from the Jungian theory upon which it's based, you get a partially reliable, albeit incomplete tool. The biggest issue is that most people are ambiverts. If you take a stroll through Google Scholar, you'll see a few hundred studies saying about the same.

The Jungain Theory is objectively unscientific. Probably because Jung wasn't a scientist. The problem is the Jungian theory is the fun part. It's the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts part.

Just one flavour of self-fulfilling prophecy bias against the other.

 

[Yellow]

SLOAN/Big 5 is better all around. You can fill out the survey, get your results that parrot of what you said. Then studies show that your preferences parrot what you said, and whammy bammy, you have a reliable tool. When you separate MBTI from the Jungian theory upon which it's based, you get a partially reliable, albeit incomplete tool. The biggest issue is that most people are ambiverts. If you take a stroll through Google Scholar, you'll see a few hundred studies saying about the same.

The Jungain Theory is objectively unscientific. Probably because Jung wasn't a scientist. The problem is the Jungian theory is the fun part. It's the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts part.

Just one flavour of self-fulfilling prophecy bias against the other.

I think you mistake me. The purpose of personality tests, from a research standpoint (and that's all the research is going to care about, right?) is that you can have someone fill out the test, and then trust that you can get reliable results from the next step.

So let's say you have someone with a Big 5 score of RCUEI and another with a score of SLOAN, right? No researcher is going to care if they feel "understood" (and Big 5 doesn't bother with interpretation beyond stating results). I doubt the results would even be shared with the subjects. They just want to know reliably that an RCUEI will do A and a SLOAN will do B. That way, you have something upon which to build further research.

MBTI is inferior to Big 5 in that regard. You can't as reliably expect an ESFJ to so A and an INTP to do B.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

BIG 5 is scientology level pseudo-science as well, so i don't get where you draw the line.
The only usefulness of the assessment procedure is recruiting a new cult member who is then, convinced by his own biases, channeled into doing anything the cult demands.

 

[Yellow]

BIG 5 is scientology level pseudo-science as well, so i don't get where you draw the line.
The only usefulness of the assessment procedure is recruiting a new cult member who is then, convinced by his own biases, channeled into doing anything the cult demands.

I guess I'm misunderstanding you, then. I've never heard of anyone caring about their Big 5 results.

Where I draw the line between MBTI and Big 5 is that Big 5 is just a series of variables that does an okay job of encompassing personality differences (that aren't highly situational), considering how few variables there are. There's no more than the sum of its parts. 45% S and 55% R are just that.

Whereas MBTI is sitting atop Jungian Typology, which has a wonderfully strong cult appeal for the reasons we've already described. 45% I and 55% E results in a blazing E from which the theory obliquely extrapolates that your every thought process begins with information you gather externally.

I'd say there's a big line between the two.

But again, if we separate MBTI from the Jungian Typology, we get something a bit more boring and assessment-like, like Big 5.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

It's all unscientific nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Considering all the drama that stemmed with you, is it really too much to expect you to conduct yourself with more civility? Serac is gone, there's no point in arguing with him or trying to flamebait his followers. Yellow doesn't deserve such ire. If you can't play nice, then don't play at all.

You're not going the save the world from fascism by going on a crusade against nobody in particular here.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

I am not antagonizing, there is just not anything scientifically proven about Big 5.
This is not personal at all.

I have not asked for Serac to be removed as a sort of offering.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Serac left of his own accord. You were responding aggressively to him in the other thread.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Well, if he left voluntarily, why am i responsible then?
Do you want to hold me accountable for another person's inability to face criticism and formulate refutations?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I didn't say you were responsible for him. You are responsible for your own behavoir.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

I didn't say you were responsible for him. You are responsible for your own behavoir.

Yes, i know. I'll try to be nicer, but i don't see why being nicer should be equivalent to supporting pseudo-science.
I don't personally have any grudge against any person i oppose.
In fact, i might even like the person i oppose, otherwise, why bother?

 

[Rebis]

It's all unscientific nonsense.

I see you call stuff unscientific a lot but I think this is known. Science is reductivist in nature and we can't functionally reduce the level of our abstract understanding of our own existence into logical functions. Anything pertaining to abstraction like Politics, Psychology and Art cannot be explained in their totality by science.

MBTI and IQ were used by industries as a means of identifying good workers, yes, but the psychological functions in jungian theory which MBTI builds upon, adding a confusing J/P dichotomy turns in abstraction of personal understanding to one of psychological identity. I don't know, calling stuff that can never conceivably be science as a refutation of it being a functional model kinda defeats the purpose. Molecule interactions are far easier to understand in terms of variance than a human mind, yet the psychology of a person is probably more important to understand in a given moment if you socialise to any capacity. We should use some operational model. Big 5 is best for fitting people into a job role but it's no doubt in my mind Jungian psychology is better for understanding cognitive functions which precede behavioural form. Understand the possibilities instead of being assured of the eventualities. MBTI is a buffer, anyone interested in MBTI will certainly research jungian functions but I doubt this to be the case if someone started with jungian functions. In fact, reading his book psychological types completely alienated me, it was no textbook with clear definitions. When I read into MBTI and went back to this book of pure abstraction I was able to understand the functions far better.

 

[Bertrand Russell's Barber]

Lots of posts.

I too find the Big-5 model more reliable because it's less tied up with subjective interpretation of those words. Also, you can be placed along a spectrum and not be one or the other.

When I was younger I was more interested in trying to figure out "who I am".

As a mathematically inclined person I thoughts perhaps we could all correspond to shapes ala homology groups in some high-dimensional space and I thought it my mission to try to formulate what that could be. You could also think of as some kind of unique basis in that space. The relationship between (co)homology groups and basis still form the crux of my mathematical vision, so to speak.

Anyway, as I got older that task seemed nearly impossible to have any conclusion be drawn from it. Primarily because I had no idea how to even get started. If I had access to high resolution scans of a lot of people's brains that could be one thing but the technology isn't really there yet and the world had too many other things for me to learn.

Also, thinking about who I was too much got me clinically depressed. Because you can't really be sure, can you? If I were to choose between say "I am attuned to people, relationships, and emotions." and "I am attuned to logic, knowledge, and empirical data." I wouldn't know and trying to push the scale towards one direction or the other would feel like I was portraying a facade.

I call it a "dynamic hiding" in the sense that if two diametrically opposed traits were to be placed before me to choose from, I would spontaneously portray one or the other depending on the context. Of course, everyone does that but in my case it felt like I was embodying the character to the point that I would convince myself I am him and only realise it's a facade when I'm all alone.

So instead, most of the time I prefer to surround the locus of my attention towards an entity apart from myself, whereby there is some goal at hand whose objective doesn't feedback into having the locus of attention shift to me instead.

I have selves I portray to people but I know they are all facades. Perhaps a self is nothing but a facade as it is constructed due to the need to differentiate one from others.

Life is tough but also very interesting. I keep myself sane by trying to map out the workings of processes around us, from man-made to natural. Sometimes you just want to wallow in yourself though and that is when I write things like this. Life goes on.

 

[Morrow]

Anyone taking the MBTI should know that it's just a generalization of the types. These types are dictating who you are or what you will accomplish. They are great fun to take and can even provide some insight into one's own cognitive functions and abilities but everything about them should be taken with a grain of salt. I have had great fun in reading about my type INTPs, and even though I can identify with a lot of the stuff said about them, not everything does because every person is different in their own regards. The MBTI might not have a lot of hard, scientific evidence behind it, it can still provide some insight into how a person thinks, but should be complimented with say other tests, as well as just basic observation of a person in the forming of an opinion about them and their abilities.