Your personality?

[PutraenusAlivius]

Spammer here!

...i tried the test out.
....the results were bad.

How was he spamming?

Oh sorry. I saw him posted the same thing once and thought he was spamming. Sorry. Although he posted the same pic on 3 threads.

It's fine, the only time it is normally a spammer is if he only has 1-3 post and talks about something off-topic and then provides a link and I don't know why he did that either.

Look at both of my signature and profile pic. Funny, huh?

[Brosive]

Spammer here!

...i tried the test out.
....the results were bad.

How was he spamming?

Oh sorry. I saw him posted the same thing once and thought he was spamming. Sorry. Although he posted the same pic on 3 threads.

It's fine, the only time it is normally a spammer is if he only has 1-3 post and talks about something off-topic and then provides a link and I don't know why he did that either.

Look at both of my signature and profile pic. Funny, huh?

When I saw it, I was more like 0.o wtf....

[eliasfrost]

That's what I'm saying though, the result I got wasn't just accurate to my current personality, it pretty accurately summed up the way I've acted and felt for the last 3 - 4 years.

That you've been feeling and acting the same for 3-4 years may be specific to you, but I change all the time (and so does most of the people I surround myself with), one week I'm happy happy and the next week I'm down, but I can't say I have any kind of "personality traits" for that matter (like being introvert or extrovert, it depends on my mood) and to me it's weird that people refer to themselves with terms like intro- or extrovert and then ultimately live up to that definition of themselves (not saying you do but that's been my personal observation over the years), instead of just letting every side of you shine independently.

[Adrianis]

That's what I'm saying though, the result I got wasn't just accurate to my current personality, it pretty accurately summed up the way I've acted and felt for the last 3 - 4 years.

That you've been feeling and acting the same for 3-4 years may be specific to you, but I change all the time (and so does most of the people I surround myself with), one week I'm happy happy and the next week I'm down, but I can't say I have any kind of "personality traits" for that matter (like being introvert or extrovert, it depends on my mood) and to me it's weird that people refer to themselves with terms like intro- or extrovert and then ultimately live up to that definition of themselves (not saying you do but that's been my personal observation over the years), instead of just letting every side of you shine independently.

This. This is exactly the problem with these tests - they were devised as a way of segregating people and will remain that way. The real problem is when work places ask you to do it (as mine recently did), it is their way of figuring out if you will be the right fit or not when the premise of the test is faulty anyway. It can be fun, and sometimes accurate, but it is harmful and, more critically, full of s**t. Enjoy it, for now, but don't ever believe it is accurate.

[Your Computer]

That you've been feeling and acting the same for 3-4 years may be specific to you, but I change all the time (and so does most of the people I surround myself with), one week I'm happy happy and the next week I'm down, but I can't say I have any kind of "personality traits" for that matter (like being introvert or extrovert, it depends on my mood) and to me it's weird that people refer to themselves with terms like intro- or extrovert and then ultimately live up to that definition of themselves (not saying you do but that's been my personal observation over the years), instead of just letting every side of you shine independently.

Mood swings are not evidence of real change. Even i, being an introvert, can act like an extravert when motivated by other extraverts. But at the end of the day, i'm still me. The truth is people rarely change, as history has shown. There are blatant patterns to human action--even non-human action--, hence why many things can be predicted.

It's not that people define themselves as either-or, but, rather, they recognize that they match the description of these terms. Indeed, why would you claim you're "happy" or "not happy"? It is no different than claiming to be an introvert or extravert. If you're against descriptions like "introvert" or "extravert", why should "happy" or "sadness" be acceptable?

[Kman]

What I was trying to say is that I've noticed I have certain beliefs, habits, etc. that are consistent with me regardless of what mood I'm in. Granted, when I'm in different moods those may manifest in different ways and some might be more prevalent than others, but they're still there.

[Damascus]

INTJ

Introvert(89%) iNtuitive(38%) Thinking(25%) Judging(1%)


You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (38%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
You have marginal or no preference of Judging over Perceiving (1%)

"INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does
it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the
prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence
of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention,
or sentiment for its own sake ... INTJs are known as the "Systems
Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual
trait of combining imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ
happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to
an INFJ;
both perfectionism and disregard for authority come into play. Personal
relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles
heel ... This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp
the social rituals ... Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is
that INTJs really want people to make sense."

—Marina Margaret Heiss

Yeah that's me in a nutshell.

[Adrianis]

If you're against descriptions like "introvert" or "extravert", why should "happy" or "sadness" be acceptable?

Because happiness and sadness are emotional reactions relevant to a particular period of time. The point of these tests is to define a personality that, whilst they can change as you say, are definitive to the 'core' of someones personality. The exact problem we are referring to is that Introvert and Extravert are supposed to define the core personality, instead of being reactions relevant to the environment and a period of time as they should be, as Happiness and Sadness are (though one is emotional, the other is personality, linked but not the same)

I very much disagree that history shows us personalities are defined and generally remain unchanged, I think history shows us absolutely nothing of peoples true personalities. I happen to think that I do not fully understand my own personality, and that likewise you do not fully understand yours, and especially that we cannot possibly know each others even if we had known each other personally for an extended period of time. Looking back at loose parts of information about someone provides so little insight into personality that anything we do comment on (in terms of personality of historical figures, famous or not) is assumption.

"The truth is people rarely change"
The truth is something so completely abstract that neither of us could say what it is. Currently, we do not fully understand the human mind, let alone be able to quantify emotions and personalities to the point where we could say whether people 'truly' change or not. Truth requires certainty, and certainty requires absolute proof, not simply logical deductions from assumptions.

As a kind of disclaimer, I do think these tests can be useful to a point, they get people thinking about what their motivations really are, why they act the way they do. I think however that too often they are used as a definitive answer, instead of simply a piece of the puzzle.

[Your Computer]

Because happiness and sadness are emotional reactions relevant to a particular period of time. The point of these tests is to define a personality that, whilst they can change as you say, are definitive to the 'core' of someones personality. The exact problem we are referring to is that Introvert and Extravert are supposed to define the core personality, instead of being reactions relevant to the environment and a period of time as they should be, as Happiness and Sadness are (though one is emotional, the other is personality, linked but not the same)

In other words, you're against the tests and not the terms themselves. The tests merely measure what you're more inclined to do in certain social situations, hence the percentages at the end. What do you consider the percentages to mean?

I very much disagree that history shows us personalities are defined and generally remain unchanged, I think history shows us absolutely nothing of peoples true personalities. I happen to think that I do not fully understand my own personality, and that likewise you do not fully understand yours, and especially that we cannot possibly know each others even if we had known each other personally for an extended period of time. Looking back at loose parts of information about someone provides so little insight into personality that anything we do comment on (in terms of personality of historical figures, famous or not) is assumption.

Continual action implies a pattern, and, obviously, these patterns provide insight and knowledge on human action. We would not be able to provide descriptions on the personality types if these things could not be clearly and continually observed in the first place. Even if the conclusion is merely an assumption, shouldn't it stop being an assumption upon agreement between the observer and the one being observed? Union should lead to full understanding, surely? I wouldn't think that we would forever remain ignorant of our own selves (singular).

Continual action can only be observed through history. From which you'll find many patterns in the way humans interact with each other and the way an individual would act on their own. Would it be any wonder why something like religion would be picked as a prime example for stating obvious human patterns? (Could you not even predict what would happen by merely mentioning the word "religion" in these forums, though i'm not desiring any discussion on religion?)

"The truth is people rarely change"
The truth is something so completely abstract that neither of us could say what it is. Currently, we do not fully understand the human mind, let alone be able to quantify emotions and personalities to the point where we could say whether people 'truly' change or not. Truth requires certainty, and certainty requires absolute proof, not simply logical deductions from assumptions.

Fully understanding the human mind may touch on areas beyond determining personalities, so i wouldn't be inclined to admit that as a necessity for describing, let alone predicting, human action.

While it may be true that truth contains no falsehoods, and that two contradicting things cannot be both true at the same time, i wouldn't be so quick as to pass off truth--albeit, doing so in this case may be a red herring. In fact, thinking about it more, i'm inclined to retract my previous statement and say that people do not change at all.

There is one thing i've observed across every human being, and that is all humans act logically. As simple and as counter-intuitive as that may sound, i've found it to be consistent. However, this is not to say that what they did at the time was in fact logical, but that to themselves at least it was logical and that every action is driven by desire; even if their response is, "I don't know," when asked, "Why did you do that?" As i see it, all actions to have ever been committed by humans have spawned from this one thing. While it may allow for many possibilities, that is, many actions, it most certainly isn't an infinite amount of possibilities.

Therefore, i would argue all the things that a human is capable of doing has either already been done or is merely trivial in difference.

[Froge]

I dislike playing the "I've studied this so I know more than you" card, but having taken a few higher psychology courses, I am well aware that Jungian tests are hardly accurate indicators of one's personality.

To put it simply, self-report data lacks validity. Information found through surveys or questionnaires pretty much always have the potential to suffer from confirmation bias, self-serving bias (or modesty bias if your cultural paradigm leans towards collectivist), and possibly also demand characteristics. The most credible indicators of personality are found through observations of behaviour within either controlled conditions (but not too much, since laboratory experiments suffer artificiality), or through strong correlations identified by field observations. Furthermore, this personality test makes use of only nominal data at best because its only possible answers were "yes" or "no", which basically throws you into black-and-white regions of categorization.

That said, quizzes like these are still very fun and I like to see where my own confirmation bias takes me.

Edit: Perhaps "confirmation bias" isn't the best term to describe the idea that self-report data has little validity. What I basically mean is that the way a question asks you to judge yourself could cause you to lean towards certain expected ways of self-perception that may or may not be true of how you actually behave.