Best MBTI Test

[LucasM]

It is not a test, but it describes the differences between the 4 types very very well, the best I've seen so far. You can go through this page, and the next page, and compare each of the four functions against each other. Examples included.

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3783.html

 

[FacetiousPersona]

It is a very good article. I would conclude that I am ESFP based on it.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I've been looking for something like this for awhile. I dislike the true/false test that people are given, because many of them become impatient with it. This article does a really good job at laying out the types, as well as giving a lot of background.

*applaud*

 

[spearbunny]

Most of what it says is good, but there's some stuff in there that bothers me...

Intuitives are often more interested in theoretical studies like philosophy, psychology, sociology, and literature, while Sensors are often interested in more tangible subjects with practical applications, such as engineering, science, and business.

Many intuitives (myself included) are interested in science and engineering, while I know a lot of sensors interested in literature. It always bugs me when people try to predict what careers people go for- there are always more exceptions than adherents to the rule.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Most of what it says is good, but there's some stuff in there that bothers me...



Many intuitives (myself included) are interested in science and engineering, while I know a lot of sensors interested in literature. It always bugs me when people try to predict what careers people go for- there are always more exceptions than adherents to the rule.

I think it was generalizing iNtuitives, and due to the higher percentage of NFs, they are acknowledged over the NTs with the generalization. ISTX types are a far higher percentage, I think, and there's a a probability a fair degree of them are interested in science.

If you consider the population of these types, they might have a higher number in science than NTs. NTs could be more inclined to pursue science, yet they lack the numbers to be on par with the STs in it. Imagine there are 100 ISTPs and 10% are interested in science. 10 of those ISTPs may become scientist. Now, due to the NT's population difference to ISTP's, we have 10 NTs (their population far lower) and 40% of these are interested in science (they naturally have higher interest in science on average), which equals 4 NTs who may become scientists. T

 

[sagewolf]

This is not meant to imply that there are no Intuitive engineers, or that Sensors can't be successful psychologists, only that they don't tend to gravitate to these types of occupations in nearly the same percentages.

From the essay itself (my italics). The author also says that often, Ns are interested in theoretical pursuits: and for me, although I am interested in science, it is entirely theoretical. I have neither patience nor motivation to carry out detailed experiments in keeping with scientific theory. I would much rather read about the experiments other people did. This takes me, at least, out of 'S' territory and into 'N' territory, as the essay defines it.

FP's explanation makes a lot of sense as well. Logically, if there is an equal amount of Ts and Fs in the population (it is estimated that there are), and there are more NFs than NTs (NFs are estimated at about 15-20%; NTs 5-10%), then there are logically more STs than SFs in the population, which backs his theory up.

It's a good article as far as the type preferences go. For making a rough estimate of your type, it would be very useful, I think. For actually explaining the theory behind the letters and the deeper theory of the cognitive processes, though...