Post MBTI tests?

[Tyria]

If you do not fit into one category consistently in the MBTI, are there other tests that can help a person to find out more about themself? Also, are they free to take and online?

 

[Fukyo]

I've been recently doing some research on MBTI and I found this interesting temperament test.

It suggest that due to strong environmental factors a person may develop a "secondary" temperament which starts overshadowing the original one and scores the highest on tests,while not being the actual "core-self".

http://www.notjustapaycheck.com/careerstrength.html

This one also deals with temperaments,but gives them different names (Director-NT, Negotiator-NF, Explorer-SP, Builder-SJ;pretty self explanatory).Assigns 2 temperaments to a person as well.Not directly associated with MBTI as the author seems to draw on the idea that brain chemistry affects temperament,but the descriptions of temperaments have a strong similarity with the MBTI.

Well, individuals who have inherited particular genes in the serotonin system tend to be calm, social, cautious but not fearful, persistent, loyal, fond of rules and facts and orderly. They are conventional, the guardians of tradition. And because these men and women are also skilled at building social networks and managing people in family, business and social situations, I dubbed those who had inherited this constellation of genetic traits Builders.

I had also studied testosterone. Although testosterone is often associated with males, I knew that both men and women are capable of expressing particularly strong activity in this neural system. Moreover, those who inherit this chemistry tend to be direct, decisive, focused, analytical, logical, tough-minded, exacting, emotionally contained and good at strategic thinking. They get to the point. Many are bold and competitive. They excel at figuring out machines, mathematical formulas or other rule-based systems. Many are good at understanding the structure of music, too. I named these people Directors.

Last in my store of biological knowledge were some of the traits linked with estrogen. Women and men with a great deal of estrogen activity tend to see the big picture: they connect disparate facts to think contextually and holistically, expressing what I call web thinking. They are imaginative. They display superior verbal skills and excel at reading postures, gestures, facial expressions and tones of voice, known as executive social skills. They are also intuitive, sympathetic, nurturing, mentally flexible, agreeable, idealistic, altruistic and emotionally expressive. I christened the people of this broad biological type Negotiators.
Other chemical systems play a role in personality, of course. We may have as many as a hundred different kinds of neurotransmitters (smaller molecules) and some fifty types of peptides in the brain. But most keep the heart beating or orchestrate other basic functions. It is increasingly apparent that these four chemicals—dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen—play lead roles in producing aspects of personality.
On impulse, I listed some of the personality traits I knew were associated with specific genes in the dopamine system: the propensity to seek novelty; the willingness to take risks; spontaneity; heightened energy; curiosity; creativity; optimism; enthusiasm; mental flexibility. I decided to call those men and women who expressed the traits associated with this biology Explorers.

Two others should be mentioned, though. Norepinephrine, a chemical closely related to dopamine, undoubtedly contributes to some of the Explorer’s traits, especially their energy and impulsivity. And oxytocin—a chemical synthesized, stored and triggered (in large part) by estrogen—most likely plays a role in the Negotiator’s compassion, nurturing, trust and intuition. In fact, families of chemicals produce the Explorer, Builder, Director and Negotiator. The specific activities of any one chemical are not as significant as the ratios and interactions among all of them and several other neural systems.

Nevertheless, only dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen have been directly associated with a wide range of personality traits. So variations in these four chemicals most likely form the foundation of these four basic styles of thinking and behaving.

http://www.chemistry.com/whyhimwhyher/?trackingid=2000126&bannerid=2014032

*Requires registration,but you can enter any bs random info,and I don't think it needs the e-mail verification at all.

 

[Toad]

Tests can only take you so far. Types only show you your basic self. There comes a time, when you have to take a step back, observe yourself, and then really figure out who you are.

I think of MBTI "types" as skeletons. We are so much more than skeletons, don't you agree? Tests can only tell what type of skeleton you are. Of course your skeleton is important, but now you have a complete understanding of it, it is time to go onto your muscles, blood, etc.

So in conclusion. Stop taking tests! They all pretty much of the same conclusions.

 

[Razare]

If you do not fit into one category consistently in the MBTI, are there other tests that can help a person to find out more about themself? Also, are they free to take and online?

Just ask me, I'm very good at typing people. :P


Or there was a test here, but it's gone...

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/survey.html

This test focused more on what cognitive functions you use, rather than just the resulting personality. Like if you have a strong Fi as an INTP, this test would show that.

 

[Agent Intellect]

MBTI tests might be a good loose guide, but ultimately we choose what group of people we fit into. i disagree with the notion of types being skeletons; they're more like genre's at a music or book store. even though a book by Michael Crichton and a book by L Ron Hubbard are both science fiction, they're still very different; in the same way, any two people on here might both be INTP, but are still very different. there's nothing intrinsic about an MBTI type (and the online tests are all kind of bullshit anyway), they're simply a way to categorize people of the same genre. i found the descriptions about the types (and this forum) a much better way of determining and confirming my 'type' then any of the many tests i've taken about it.

 

[snowqueen]

It's funny - I have a lot of INFP traits but I know that I'm INTP because when push comes to shove, thinking will always trump feeling as my primary mode of engaging internally.

It's a real shame that cognitive functions site is no longer providing a free service because that was really interesting (though I could probably find my results from the thread where we all posted them some time ago if I scrabbled around for long enough). As I recall, Intuition was my strongest function.

 

[Ermine]

I find it more helpful to look at combinations of different functions than at set MBTI types. For example, I'm INTP, but it's more telling that the order of my functions is Ti, Ne, Fi, Te, Ni, Si, Se, Fe. Certainly a strong INTP, but this fills in the "skeleton" a bit.

 

[Toad]

AI! How dare you disagree with an idea I just made up when writing that post! Arrrgh! Darn U!

LoL..actually I was listening to Bones by the killers. I was kind of picturing each mbti type as a different color skeleton, and the muscles and skin we develop over the skeleton are our life experienecs.

Ermine, do you think as you mature and develop your lesser functions, you will appear to be less INTP? I think any person who develops their lesser functions will be hard to type.

 

[Ermine]

Ermine, do you think as you mature and develop your lesser functions, you will appear to be less INTP? I think any person who develops their lesser functions will be hard to type.

I think so. The more I've been trying to develop other functions, the less stereotypically INTP I am. However, none of that has been big enough for me to be another type according to any test, though I have some INFP and some INTJ characteristics.

 

[LucielaMinerva]

I've been recently doing some research on MBTI and I found this interesting temperament test.

It suggest that due to strong environmental factors a person may develop a "secondary" temperament which starts overshadowing the original one and scores the highest on tests,while not being the actual "core-self".

First and foremost, I must thank you for sharing this test. While I essentially disagree with the philosophy of the testing, I noticed that I have gained very valuable insight into the type of type I am, and it has helped me gained more clarity with regards to the type of career I should be looking for. I actually had a rough idea of what I would like, but this helped me narrow the mechanism of my thinking down in an almost scientific way. =D

Did this test, and scored NT first, SP second.

While it is interesting to see that I have a major and minor side, I also noticed that this test based its logic/philosophy on a claim that has little to show for itself.

Firstly, the notion that there is an 'overshadowing' is the part which got me interested- while I do not dispute that it could be quite a possibility that it MIGHT be a case whereby one's perception of oneself could be a false front, it does not necessarily mean that is always the case, and this very vague assumption that most people do it (ergo, the sole reason that accounts for its underlying principle) is not enough for me to believe in the reliability of this test.

They said to do the test in the way I truly feel, and yes, I did it in the way I truly felt about stuff and how I would like things to be (to be honest I had no idea what on Earth I was supposed to get as results), and I have a hard time believing that whatever I chose as a 'first choice' is an 'overshadow' of what I truly am because of the rather vague presupposition of 'environmental' factors.

One way I can prove this test inapplicable in its assumption is that whatever I chose was could not have possibly resulted from my environment. If anything, my environment was hectic, with dominantly extraverted feeling influences and people who made me feel bad for not being fast enough to think about things, which confused me into thinking I was an extravert, because I know deep down, I am not a very impulsive type of person (and who better to affirm that than my mother), but due to the pressure around me (ESFP mum + ESTJ aunt + ENFJ cousin), I was forced to "buck up" and become as "successful", "driven" and "quick" as they are. This meant being quick in thinking skills and coming to a decision fast, but being a natural introvert and P the way I was born, I had to struggle to fit in with their coaxing (more like subtle taunts of my prowess pfft) so that I did not lose my honour and be shame to look sub-par beside their "excellence" of being such success-driven, on-their-feet individuals.

So if the theory of this test were to be true, I should be typing myself an an SJ-Guardian and NF-Diplomatic type (like my ESFJ/STJ relatives) just so I would "live up" to their expectations and be like someone they wanted me to be (because I was young and thought that hey, they WERE successful anyway, so I should try being more like them so that I would be more successful).

However, I did this test with sincerity and I thought through all the questions and questioned myself many times if I really felt that way, and I really did, despite what people wanted from me, I would not be like them (although you cannot say I did not TRY).

In conclusion, while it did give me some valuable, organized and somewhat scientific insight, I disagree with the testing principle, and should be taking the analysis of the overall results with a pinch of salt.

I prefer my primary results the way I want it and less so the second and nothing's going to change me because it's what I... feel.

And THAT is something I really cannot explain