Think Different.

[adastrac]

Hello, I just wanted to share my fellow INTPs something that has sustained me for quite some time now (of course, now I have intpforum.com as well )

This is from a really old Apples ad. Watch the ad here! (youtube)



Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They’re not fond of rules.
And they have no respect for the status quo.
You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Because they change things.
They push the human race forward.
And while some may see them as the crazy ones,
We see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think
they can change the world,
Are the ones who do.




Happy holidays, everyone!!

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Thanks. Needed that.

 

[Anticitizen]

Being an INTP, surely you're a bit annoyed by the fact that it should be 'Think DifferentLY'?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Though an INFP, I do agree.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Though an INFP, I do agree.

weren't you INFJ just last week?

 

[adastrac]

Being an INTP, surely you're a bit annoyed by the fact that it should be 'Think DifferentLY'?

Yess indeedy!

Some believe a grammatically correct version of the slogan would be: "Think Differently". However, the word different was not intended to be an adverb in this case but rather a "fanciful category" like "Think Playful" or "Think Change".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_different


lol

 

[EloquentBohemian]

weren't you INFJ just last week?

The quality of Extraverted emotion did not fit my actuality so, in lieu of finding an accredited individual in my own area whom I would trust to adminsiter a MBTI test, I had to return and read each question of the previously taken on-line tests very carefully. Aspects which I had misinterpreted as being neutrally emotional were in fact, extravertedly emotional, such as discussing my own emotions with others. I can discuss another's emotions to a degree of great depth, yet sequester my own behind psychologically locked doors.
The first alteration from INTP to INFJ was concerning the knowledge that I fundamentally react to the world emotionally rather than intelectually. The second shift was as above.

Though self-discovery is an ongoing process in constant mutatiion, I am quite confident with the assessment of INFP because of certain factors within it which are not within other IN designations.

The inaccuracy and relative ambiguity of the online tests is a barrier to truly discovering one's authentic MBTI. I hope to find an accredited MBTI person soon.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i'm not sure how much i trust the online tests either. my sister had her boyfriend take 3 different ones, one came out ENTP, one ENTJ, and another ESTP. i had my friend take 3 of them, he came out INFP on two and ISFP on one. as for me, i've taken probably 10 of them, i think 9 of them had me as INTP and one as ISTP. but, reading the descriptions of INTP and the descriptions of Ne and Ti, INTP tends to fit me much better then ISTP.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I believe it was Decaf (... he can enlighten me on this) who said somewhere that these on-line tests are aproximately 60% accurate, which is why I search for an accredited individual to administer the test.
As far as all the descriptions are concerned, it is the INFP which fits me the best out of all the others, in particular the Fi/Fe and Ti/Te comparisons. I have also accessed the Keirsey/Bates manual to augment these on-line tests.

 

[Anticitizen]

Here's a test you might or might not have run across before: http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~duniho/ddli/#6.

It's quite long, which I feel aids its accuracy.

 

[Waterstiller]

I generally use this as a checklist to type people.

 

[Decaf]

I believe it was Decaf (... he can enlighten me on this) who said somewhere that these on-line tests are aproximately 60% accurate, which is why I search for an accredited individual to administer the test.

The 60% is my own estimate, but I think if you know how I came to that figure you'd think I was being generous.

Split-half reliability of the MBTI scales is good, although test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. However, because the MBTI dichotomies scores in the middle of the distribution, type allocations are less reliable. Within each scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when retested within nine months, and around 75% when retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months.[28] For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument) these scores are higher (see MBTI Manual, p. 163, Table 8.6).

Now my theory about the poor test/retest results stems from the journey that individuals go through in learning about themselves. I hope someone performs studies to see how good the retest value is for people on their third after another 9 months. I would wager that with each successive period of time the reliability would increase dramatically (of course that test would be laughed off as giving someone a test that many times would introduce a familiarity variable).

Anyway, looking at those results, we now look at the internet tests that have had no studies performed on them and are often a collection of questions lifted from an old version of the MBTI with a few personal favorites added to make it look unique. Things are SO bad though, because internet tests that steal from the Form M don't have to worry about invisible weights like with the Form G.

But does it make sense why certified administrators are required to follow up a test with a consultation? In my opinion the indicator is a dart on a dart board. Its a starting point with which we then try to figure out what the real answer is. This is why I am so frustrated with the fact that 80% of type theory knowledge on the internet relates directly to people's experience with the indicator.


The real problem is one I talk about too much (especially considering most folk here have caught on) is that type is more than the sum of its parts. Determining if someone is T of F can be terribly difficult because you're ignoring the fact that an NT might act more like an NF at times than an ST. We need a validated test that gauges process dominance (there is at least one, but again, its just another internet test at this point).

 

[adastrac]

i love how spontaneous INTPs are.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

The 60% is my own estimate, but I think if you know how I came to that figure you'd think I was being generous.

Great. Now I have to take many more tests 'cause I'm even less sure than before.

Now my theory about the poor test/retest results stems from the journey that individuals go through in learning about themselves.

I believe this is the most important point. Individuality is a journey in which one discovers different facets of oneself over the length of one's life. Many facets are revisited and deepened. What I learned in my study of astrology is that there is no method of concretely and unequivocally stating that one is this set of qualities in contrast to another set. Though I am positive that I primarily interact with the world emotionally, I do not disregard my intellect either, though most of the time I do use my intellect to justify how I feel.

But does it make sense why certified administrators are required to follow up a test with a consultation?

Yes. I believe it is essential that a consultation is necessary, for the nuances which constitute the category illuminate the individual to a greater degree.

In my opinion the indicator is a dart on a dart board. Its a starting point with which we then try to figure out what the real answer is.

Again, agree. Which is why I have no qualms in altering my initial 'category' as my knowledge of myself in relation to the indicators deepens.

The real problem is one I talk about too much (especially considering most folk here have caught on) is that type is more than the sum of its parts. Determining if someone is T of F can be terribly difficult because you're ignoring the fact that an NT might act more like an NF at times than an ST. We need a validated test that gauges process dominance (there is at least one, but again, its just another internet test at this point).

I believe this needs pointing out continually, Decaf, as one is truly more than any categorisation could determine.

 

[Agent Intellect]

we should make our own internet MBTI test and write our own type descriptions!

the way i like to think about the MBTI types though is that they explain how people think, not what they think. what i tend to see a lot is people saying that this or that is a "INTP thing" (like being an engineer or whatever). i was lurking on that INFP forum once, and the people kept talking about how INFPs are always this way or that way, and my friend (the one who came up INFP twice and ISFP once) doesn't really do anything that they were talking about. i would agree that he's INFP, in that he tends to hold strongly onto his value system (which is an Fi thing, if i'm not mistaken), but his value system didn't fit into what the other INFP's said all INFP's believe in.

edit- as simple and straight forward as it is, the test waterstiller posted is probably the best one, because you're just choosing based on descriptions of yourself rather then situations where you wouldn't always act the same.

 

[Thread Killer]

My theory is that MBTI explains the functions all wrong and hence why I prefer the socionics description of type because it makes more sense. After all, doesn't anyone think it odd that if an INxP's most predominant funcion is Ti or Fi that they usually score far higher on intuition strength than thinking or feeling to the point where they may consider themselves INxPs?

Well, that's what once went on in my head. But I had very similar type confusion when I more deeply examined MBTI and realized INxJ fit more despite me being an obvious perceiver. Though I don't follow MBTI outside of the most rudimentary concepts, I think you are an INFJ.

 

[Decaf]

My theory is that MBTI explains the functions all wrong and hence why I prefer the socionics description of type because it makes more sense.

To each their own, but I found the opposite to be true for me.

 

[Da Blob]

I believe it was Decaf (... he can enlighten me on this) who said somewhere that these on-line tests are aproximately 60% accurate, which is why I search for an accredited individual to administer the test.
As far as all the descriptions are concerned, it is the INFP which fits me the best out of all the others, in particular the Fi/Fe and Ti/Te comparisons. I have also accessed the Keirsey/Bates manual to augment these on-line tests.

When I took the test, I spent $20 and took the 'official' MBTI. I don't know if it is actually any better than the free Jung-type tests available online. However, I received quite a lengthy analysis in feedback and the MBTI organization has been at it since WW II, they did offer additional consultation (for an additional fee, of course...)

 

[AndOhh]

"they are not fond of rules"

This annoys me in reference to Apple -- the exclusivity of the apple platform contradicts this statement.

That quote from Apples add contradicts with what apple does with their platform/s.

 

[MochileiroAzul]

I don't know if the tests are totally accurate, but after reading posts on the "What INTPs hate" I was sure I am one. Maybe the tests alone shouldn't dictate which category you're at, but also the similarities with others that consider themselves as INTPs.

 

[Anticitizen]

"they are not fond of rules"

This annoys me in reference to Apple -- the exclusivity of the apple platform contradicts this statement.

That quote from Apples add contradicts with what apple does with their platform/s.

Agreed. The only thing 'different' about Apple than any other tech company is, in my opinion, their ad campaign.