You know you're really the cool kid when Connie and Juliette are the same personality type. Both of 'em found recently that they are typed as "INTJ" by the classic Myers-Briggs personality inventory.
INTJ--Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging--personality types are among the rarest of the personality types that these tests measure. Sometimes, people who don't know better scoff at Myers-Briggs, but in my experience it's usually people who either hate the notion that their personality can be tested, or people who leap to hasty conclusions, of the "this is just another stupid internet test" variety.
It's not hard to see why INTJs are rare. We aren't all that interested in social activities, and instead lead a very rich inner life (I). We interact with the world by looking for the essence, the underlying theory of why (N), so that we may predict and sometimes control rather than merely sensing and accepting what's around us. We value logic (T) over feeling, and we hate dithering around without drawing conclusions (J).
Everyone has elements of all of the above of course. The point is, these are the INTJ's primary modalities.
Some will say this all makes us occasionally gruff and distant and cocky. Sometimes they will be right. Sometimes they'll even tell us we should stop being that way.
"Why?" we ask."Because people think you're a jerk," they will answer.
We contemplate momentarily, and then respond: "Ah, yes, but people are idiots, aren't they?"
See, now here's the thing: as soon as Juliette and Connie read that, they'll both laugh.
Yup. I am another INTJ. I laughed; then I read the last line and laughed again.
One of the most interesting applications of Myers-Briggs concerned the drafting of Ryan Leaf (remember him?) The SD Chargers were told be an expert NOT to draft him, that he'd take down the franchise, because his Myers-Briggs profile was Extrovert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging. I forgot who the expert was, but he said E-S-T-J may horrible quarterbacks, whereas the best NFL Quarterbacks are E-S-T-Perceiving...only one change, on the judging-perceiving scale.
As quarterback a Judger will more likely look to make the first right decision and thus throw to his primary receiver more often than not, whereas the best quarterbacks will check all their receivers first. The perceivers will thus gain more yards and throw fewer interceptions, and their behavior on field will be much harder to read by a NFL defense. The only downside is they'll probably get sacked more, too, if they wait too long to make a decision.
told "by an expert".
Nother change:
"E-S-T-J [make] horrible quarterbacks..."
gotta start previewing. Jebus I can't type.
I'm an INTJ too. I get along with people just fine as long as they realize that I'm right and then leave me alone. ;-)
INTJ as well here.
Regarding IB Bill's comments: I know of some books which consider the most important aspect to be whether one belongs to one of four categories: NT, NF, SP, or SJ, in which case the different between ESTJ and ESTP is quite significant.
INTJ here. And in the Sunday School class where we learned about our personality types, we also learned that believing we're surrounded by idiots is one of the primary pitfalls of the INTJ personality, along with too much faith in one's insights especially without getting all the facts.
I know that neither of those tendencies has served me well in my life.
IB Bill:
Absurd if true. It might well be that the QB in question will have a natural tendency to look for the first available receiver. I certainly recognize such in myself, for one thing that drives me batty is dithering.
That said, merely pointing out that this is a proven weakness will generally be enough to make the thinking judger modify his strategy. It certainly would in me. If it's a problem, you address it, you don't cry about the unfairness of it all. (Well, maybe you cry a little, but then you FIX it.)
This strikes me as a terribly amateurish way of using Myers-Briggs and would cause the team in question to throw away the wrong talent. The point of using Myers-Briggs in this context would be to give the coach tools to tailor how he trains and coaches his individual players, not whether a player will be good at a certain position--certainly not one who's already proven he can handle the position with college teams!
Well, Peyton Manning, who was selected ahead of Leaf, was ESTJ. Leaf is on his sofa watching American Idol reruns while drinking Schlitz quarts.
What I'd like to know is this: Are these categories fixed? Do they change as people grow with years? Can certain events change them? I don't know. My suspicion is there is a certain amount of change possible, but it would be limited.
Yes, IB Bill, the categorizations can change, depending on how you answer the questions from day to day. I'm an INTJ, also, but I'm also borderline ISTJ, ISTP, and INTP. The categories only state what your preferred modality is at the time you took the test. You can train yourself to switch to another modality.
Yes, change is quite possible. Indeed, most books on the subject will tell you that people of various personality types, if they become made aware of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of their personality type, will trend toward the middle of the spectrum on each axis.
You're not going to make a natural introver into a screaming extrovert, but the introvert can learn to lose shyness and to take a more active interest in others, and the extrovert can learn a little more reflection and looking inward. Intuitives can learn to stop daydreaming so much and sensers can learn to be more imaginative. And so on.
I doubt very much that Leaf's personality type is his reason for not having a job though.
By the way, Dean, you commented in between ... I was responding to John Thacker & agreeing with him.
Regarding your comment ... I was analyzing what I suspect to be true. Remember, we're talking NFL here. You have 11 of the world's finest athletes trying to do bodily harm to you, you only have 10 protecting you, and you are trying to execute a complicated play under time constraints. You may have to rely on your own instincts in that situation more often than not.
Leaf was just too immature for the job he wanted.
See, now here's the thing: as soon as Juliette and Connie read that, they'll both laugh.
Didn't either.
;)
Interesting. I've tested out several times as an ENTJ, but am borderline INTJ.
ENTJ here. I lead a deep rich inner life that I am compelled to share openly with everyone. Cursed. I am cursed.
one test calls me an SP type (and says nothing about the first two qualifiers) and the other says I'm INTP.
Judgers suck! Perceivers rule!
If I don't try to slant the test, I'm INTP. The advantage to this is that I can jump to conclusions even faster than an INTJ!
"We interact with the world by looking for the essence, the underlying theory of why (N), so that we may predict and sometimes control rather than merely sensing and accepting what's around us."
[politely holds down gorge] And then those of us with *functional* personality types, who know how to have rich inner lives and still deal with the world around in all its messy, unalterable glory, get to explain why you can't just "intuit" yourselves from A to P without understanding what happens at L.
OK, I did the quick Myers-Briggs version. I'm
a ISTP, which makes sense to me.
I am an ENTJ. I want to RULE the WORLD!!!!
Intuiters (N) probably do tend to daydream more. But if we had to wait for you plodding finger-counting knuckle-dragging sensers no one would have even bothered to think maybe man could fly, now would they? Huh? Huh? You know what I'm sayin'? I'm just sayin' is all....
Who are you again? Ooh, look, birdies! (Wanders off pondering the significance of bird song on the development of music in early hominids and how that might relate to cognitive imagination skills which....)
Wish on. The S brigade can use the private brain to envision a future flight system powered by the sound waves emitted by songbirds while, in a different mental compartment, reflexively noting that your use of the pronoun which to begin a restrictive clause is non-standard in American English and methodically plotting how we might use our scant data points to make hypotheses about prehistoric cognition.
Not that we would share this with you, because then you might have to, like, multitask, instead of just riffing.
INTP here. Probably explains why my blog is titled "On the Third Hand".
Actually, upon further review,I'm a INTP.
"Homer: [walks up, looks at Guy] [gasps] Oh my God! This man is my exact double. [gasps] Oh my God! That dog has a puffy tail! [he chases it, giggling] Here, Puff! Here, Puff!
"
The only problem I have with Myers-Briggs is that I think some of the questions are ambiguous (as in, does not being afraid of the telephone really make me an extravert, or is it just a reflection of the fact that I've trained myself to deal with it?)
(P.S. I remember one personality-type test where I tested very strongly toward the process side, which baffled the teachers because they knew I was strongly intuitive. The questions were all along the lines of "how do you write this paper?" and I had been very thoroughly trained as to how to do that, so as to get the process over with as quickly as possible. Of course, the random approach appeals to me now that I no longer have the academic pressure.)
INTJ here, and one of the things that's hardest for me to get my friends and family to understand is that being alone doesn't make me lonely. I cherish my downtime - the time I have just to myself - which I often use for solving theoretical problems and analysis, or sometimes just daydreaming. I do find interaction with non INTJs to be a bit frustrating at times, but then I have yet to resign myself to the lot of them being small-brained knuckle-dragging throw-backs that over compensate for their intellectual shortcomings by "feeling" rather than "thinking".
Actually, I like this description of the INTJ personality. My wife told me I should frame it for future reference, because it was so accurate.
I didn't laugh, but I smiled. Wryly.
I'm ever evolving. I first took the Myers Briggs 9 years ago to find that I was an INTP. I took it again about 3 years ago and was an ESFJ! And after reading this entry I found an online version of the test (so take it with a grain of salt) and found that I am now an ENTP.
INFP
Makes for a good pastor. ;-)
ENTJ here, though I've infrequently hit INTJ. I think people are idiots, but I love hanging out with them anyway. :)
you can't just "intuit" yourselves from A to P without understanding what happens at L.
See, that's the thing. An INTJ can. That's what makes them an INTJ (or more generally an NT type).
Just as a, say, F (feeling) type can make perfectly good decisions based on how they feel, a way of life that strikes me as akin to walking a tightrope blindfolded over a tank full of sharks with laser beams on their heads. Risky, dangerous, even stupid. But their adeptness at doing that is what makes them a Feeler.
We are discussing personality types in one of my graduate classes, and the professor shared another model for understanding personality and behavior. It is called the Enneagram, which is a system comprised of nine personality types. Each of the nine personality types represents the way that one thinks, feels, and acts; and each one is the perceptual filter through which one sees the world and acts in the world.
The nine personality types are:
1. Perfectionist
2. Giver
3. Performer
4. Romantic
5. Observer
6. Loyal Skeptic
7. Epicure
8. Protector
9. Mediator
If you'd like to take a free test to explore your type, go to http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/dis_sample_36.asp.
I did laugh.
What I find annoying is that many people want to talk about the issues of the day without using facts. They'd rather use their own fantasy of how the world works. Hence, you have the Bush=Hitler crowd.
What I also find annoying is how insecure people mistake self-confidence for arrogance.
(I posted this sccidentally on the Patriot Act thread; proof that, no matter what the rest of you think, we INTJs are not Gods. :-)
And have had the exact conversation at the end of this post countless times. It always comes out the same way: why should I give a rat's behind what provably stupid people think?
What the person on the other end of the conversation usually doesn't realize is that *if* they give me a good reason to alter my behavior, I'll say "okay" and make an honest and sustained effort to do so. There have been a few who "got it." Not many, though.
Not the typing Gods either (well, maybe Dean is).
Keep in mind that the most valid Myers-Briggs tests are LONG, with a couple of hundred questions at least. The online tests have a lower degree of accuracy.
Also, people who are very near the center on certain axes may tend to move a little, especially on the short online tests. People also tend to change over time.
I am very, very close to the center on the Perceiving/Judging axis, and occasionally test out as an INTP. On the other hand, my thinking vs. feeling axis is severely to the Thinking side.
I think, as I said above too, you can change some things about your personality type. Certainly, most people can file the rough edges off. One thing that helps is actually being aware of it. If you realize that your introvert tendencies explain certain things about yourself, you can also say, "hmm, yes, but if I modified certain behaviors a little, I could probably be more comfortable in groups." If you're aware that you're heavily leaning on the Perceiving angle, you can realize that you have a habit of dithering excessively and choose to work on that aspect of yourself. And so on.
But anyway: Juliette, MAN I speak your language!
Color me an ENTP.
If you NTP like INTP...
That's what I came up as on an online test back in BBS days and two of the wiki links today. Introversion does not equal shy, but it occasionally comes close. Perceiver procrastination has been a major factor in my life - it certainly wasn't very compatible with the educational system up on which I grew.
INTP here (as plastered on my weblog). It fits too, but there have been times in my past where I stood on the introvert/extrovert line. I'm an introvert who doesn't cringe and freak out when required to publically speak. I sometimes describe myself as an extroverted introvert.
A question: I know INTPs are rare in the population, but how much compared to INTJs?
INTJs are about 2% of the population, INTPs about 3%. All the NT types added together are only about 10% of the total population.
Although, the rarest of all types actually appears to be INFJ. See this article.
Note that the most common type is Sensing Feelers. Figures.
Rosemary:
"I am an ENTJ. I want to RULE the WORLD!"
I knew there was a reason I liked you. I too am aparently an ENTJ.
Sean:
I consistently test INTP, but when people read the descriptions of the personality types they always say I sound more like an ENTP (and I can see their point to some extent). But I'm not particularly close on the introvert/extrovert line. And I'm quite comfortable with public speaking and can function at parties and even enjoy them. But I do find them very draining afterwards, and I think that's the distinction.
The best description I ever read of the difference between introverts and extroverts was that introverts draw energy from time alone. I enjoy being with people, but then I need time to absorb and synthesize the experience or I start to go nuts. I have to analyze and put things into perspective, or the little gerbil in my head starts racing and it's bad news...
James,
:-)
And we are a rarer breed than Dean's INTJ people. We represent 1.8% of the population -- the second rarest personality type.
Another INTJ here...
Cassandra: I am quite adept at public speaking myself. Indeed, I had a job as a professional trainer for a while and some people who knew about MB were shocked when I told them I test out as introvert. They didn't get it but I'm much like you: I can get a charge out of public speaking, can have all sorts of fun, but my default mode of interaction is still either intimate gatherings with close friends or basic solitude.
Rosemary: Loudmouth. :-)
Dean:
That's interesting - I did training too for a while, and people are usually surprised when I describe myself as an introvert. People confuse self-confidence with extroversion to some extent. I'm more of a balancer in groups - if someone else is talking I'll sit and listen, but if the group is faltering then I'll speak up and get things going.
But I have no patience whatsoever with smalltalk at parties! I really have a hard time not staring up at the ceiling when people drone on about their french manicure or what happened when they were driving to pick up donuts for their beagle. I tend to prefer topic-oriented discussions. Until I took the MB test, I thought there was something wrong with me.
Interesting. I am seeing a lot of myself in this. I hate small talk with a passion, and nobody would be terribly surprised that I self-describe as an introvert. Yet my job requires me to do some public speaking, and this causes me no discomfort at all.
I wish I had access to more than just the one online test I have seen. . .
My wife and I tried an experiment: each of us took the test for each other. In other words, I answered the questions according to what I thought the correct answers were for her, and she did the same for me.
This was interesting because it gave us a chance to see whether our perceptions of our own persnalities were the same as our spouse's perceptions.
My wife sees me as an INTJ, which is the result I got for myself. She sees me as less introverted than I see myself, but otherwise it lines up pretty well.
My wife tested herself as ISTP -- close to center on the T. I saw her as ESFP -- very close to center on the extroversion, and fairly close to center on the "feeling" part.
I know I always test as an I and T... the S is normal, but can flip to N - I like dealing with the facts, but can be creative within limited fields.
J/P is always almost 50/50 for me.
Didn't take the test this time yet, I'll do that later, I think.
I'm an INTJ. Borderline "F", a Romantic among rationalists. I love solitude, pulchritude, beauty, fantasy, myth, speculation, theory, ideas, ideologies, ideological spectrums, color spectrums, hierarchies, form, structure, order.