Jung Typology Test
As a response to Lori's blog post, I followed up and completed this quick version of the Jung Myers-Briggs typology test. I've linked to such tests before on this blog but I thought that I would re-evaluate myself. For the record, I came out as ISTJ. My stats were calculated as follows: 78 Introverted, 1 Sensing (Ha!), 50 Thinking and 67 Judging.
The test results provided these two links explaining this personality type. This link provides a pretty detailed explanation. While I agree with some of the elements described here, I think that I've learned how to temper the more extreme aspects of this personality type. In particular, I've consciously changed my habits when it comes to showing concern and appreciation for others and in showing my emotions. In that I do both more often and more openly now.
Anyone else?
8 comments:
Personality tests are fun little things, but don't mean much. We're all far too textured and complicated to be under in such limited ways.
And the questions themselves are kind of silly. "You value justice higher than mercy" - Justice and mercy aren't opposites, so why do I have to choose between them? "Your actions are frequently influenced by emotions" - Well, some types of actions are, some aren't. This question is way to broad to be of any use.
The results of this test can only provide some flimsy reinforcement of your self image.
They are fun, I agree! I think these tests 'attempt' to measure your personality preferences which can provide alot of insight for some.
I don't think the question of "Do you value justice higher than mercy" was meant to imply that they are opposites, but to appeal to Feeling vs Thinking, or something like that. I respect your perception that it was a silly question, however I perceive it to be strategic based on the fact that they clearly are not opposite. Justice is thinking, mercy is feeling - exactly what the test is intended to measure. Don't get me wrong, I hear you - and these tests are just theoretical.
Oh and Jamie, 1 Sensing (Ha!) - I second that! Ha-ha!
Heh. Sure, Mike, a philosophy buff like yourself won't put much stock in it. A phychologist might, and a teacher might. Your opinion only reinforces your worldview, right? :)
I agree that these tests may only reinforce our perceptions but sometimes they can reveal aspects about ourselves that we hadn't realized before. To suggest that it's inaccurate or incomplete may well be true but it may also be a useful tool. And it's fun, too.
So does your test result indicate that you would have this opinion of the test?
Not to be a jerk, I swear, I have an honest question here.
Jamie - what is a "phychologist"? Is that a new "ologist" that mixes physiologist and psychologist? The reason I ask is betwen "h" and "s" aren't exactly next door neighbours on the keyboard...so I dunno if it's a typo, or something i haven't heard of before.
Bah! First my math skills fall apart, and now my linguistic skills follow suit. I'll take "psychologist" for 100, Alex.
A phychologist might, and a teacher might.
Well, a psychologist of a certain persuasion certainly might. Ie, the type that seeks to better intergrate you into your social environment. Aka, the type that produces good little robots.
And yeah, a teacher would find it useful too. They are, after all, authority figures and so have an interest in maintaining regular behaviour.
Jamie, do you remember a conversation we had a couple years ago? Something about what you would be like if you had grown up on a small farm in 18th century France?
I seem to recall that conversation, Mike. Did I disagree with you at that time as well? :)
It's funny. I thought that this test was fun and useful. Mike, you seem to find conversations like this to be fun and useful. To each their own, eh?
Post a Comment