Personality Types

[Spike]

I've noticed almost everyone who replied has IN infront...any thoughts?

[Bill Glasheen]

I agree, quite a few IN's. But Rich is the exception with the ESTJ.

The I stands for Introverted.

We are introverting when we:

* Read a book
* Think about what we want to say or do
* Are aware of how we feel
* Think through a problem so that we understand it

The N stands for iNtuitive

We are Intuitive when we:

* Come up with a new way of doing things
* Think about future implications for a current action
* Perceive underlying meaning in what people say or do
* See the big picture

Rick the "principles" guy is probably "IN"

- Bill

[chef]

Okay, Bill, I was finally able to take the test....really interesting and worth doing. Enlightening and entertaining as well.

Results:

I am an ENFP .

That's an Extraverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving type.

Percentages of Results: E/I S/N T/F J/P

93/7 46/54 22/78 36/64

But, having known me for 10 years, you probably had me pegged, I bet.

Variety is definitely the spice of Life!

Thanks for the suggestion.

Vicki

[TSDguy]

"TSDguy also seems to think it describes him well."

Sort of. It gets some things dead on where I'm strong on a letter and is wrong about the parts where I drift in between two letters. As I mentioned, I'm an extroverted introvert, so it got that business totally wrong.

I don't really like this site that has these B&W descriptions; what is much more useful is to talk to someone that actually understands what they mean. Then you can talk about the middle grounds. My uncle specializes in Myers-Briggs and it's really fascinating to talk to him about it. The end is not to lable a person, but to show that different people think differently and then understand it and deal with it.

How many times have you argued with a significant other and X wants to keep talking about the problem and solve it now and kiss and make up and Y doesn't until they calm down and can think. X gets more and more mad that you're not talking and Y gets more and more mad they're not being left alone. Great time for MBTI.

[gmattson]

She took the test on Jung-Myers site. On another site the test told her she was a "Guardian", but wanted $15 to complete the description.

[Spike]

George, i'm the same personality type as INTJ


Here's the description of that type from the personalitypage.com that was given earlier.

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

BTW: If anyone hasn't noticed, the personality type is at the end in capital letters, i'm assuming this will work for any of the personality types if you substitute your type for the type i have in there.

I have mastered the revered computer-fu technique: copy&paste

[Bill Glasheen]

VIcki was the first to give the precise numeric breakdown of each of the four dimensions. With her ENFP, we see that she is EXTREMELY extroverted and VERY feeling. Those who know her know this to be true. She's somewhat less perceiving, and almost equivocal on her intuitive vs. sensing. So on a given day, she might be more ESFP than ENFP.

Here's her description.

ENFP
Enthusiastic, idealistic, and creative. Able to do almost anything that interests them. Great people skills. Need to live life in accordance with their inner values. Excited by new ideas, but bored with details. Open-minded and flexible, with a broad range of interests and abilities.

Here's the detail.

The Inspirer

But not just an "Inspirer". On a given day, she also looks a bit like "The Performer".

This is the equivocal nature of the dichotomized expression of the result that gives Justin heartburn. It shouldn't. We simplify things in life to get a first-look understanding. Anyone that wants to dig deeper and understand the nuances most certainly can.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Justin

It cracks me up listening to your dialogue. Read some of the stuff Rory wrote. As he said, once upon a time, he thought everyone thought the same way he did. Then this test showed him otherwise.

I used to think similarly, but I no longer do. Are you saying you think my argument indicates otherwise?

Tests like these tend to ask the same "type" (dimension) of question multiple times. If there are 10 questions on a scale and you answer 8 one way and 2 the other way, chances are you're more one way than the other.
If you agonize and end up answering 50/50, or fluctuate when taking the test from time to time, then you're somewhere in the middle.

Remember, it's not that I equivocate over whether something is true of me, it's what that something is supposed to be in the first place. If it came out 50/50 as a result that would be one thing, the problem is that there are three choices, answer each question literally, as they think they meant it, or randomly depending on the question. Only the last one comes out 50/50 and I generally apply one methodology to all of them.

You should answer QUICKLY - first thing that comes to your mind. Fast... Fish or cut bait. That is most likely to be a reflection of the "you" that makes you feel at ease.

A fundamental part of answering a question is understanding it. If you answer before you've understood the question you're responding to a meaningless stream of words. Gaining that understanding requires placing it somehow into the framework of how you view the world. My point

Running alone on trails would drive me nuts.

That question is another fine example. I have never gone running alone on trails because I'd be bored out of my mind... but I answered this question yes, because to me it's almost impossible for it to be false the way it was stated. Enjoying even one aspect of an activity, even the tiniest little bit means you are deriving pleasure from that activity to some extent. Even if you hate the activity as a whole, if you derive any pleasure from a part of it then it's a true statement that you derive pleasure from the activity.

That's obviously not what they mean by the question, but that's my first reaction to it. Andit's not like that's my considered opinion after much deliberation. When I read the question, the instant the words go from just words to a coherent idea, the above is the idea they form. It doesn't matter how quickly I answer, unless I answer so quickly that the question is just a arbitrary stream of words that haven't been converted into meaning.

As for you...just flip a coin. You are whom you are. Don't agonize over it!

Oh, don't worry I'm certainly not about to agonize over it, I think they're fun, they make me think about myself and philosophically, but I don't take them seriously as I said in my first post.

And the instrument is what it is. The beauty is in its simplicity and ease of delivery. It gives you information. Use it for what it is worth. Don't take it as religion.

I don't disagree that the test is conceptually pleasing. I do appreciate the beauty of its simplicity and so forth. But something can be very beautiful, very easy to understand, and still be very wrong. I agree, use it for what it's worth. But I don't think it has much practical worth.

For example, using it to screening prospective employees is a bad idea in my opinion. There's definitely a lot of appeal to a system that purports to describe people quickly, objectively and scientifically and above all correctly. But ultimately since it screen candidates out rather than in, you never really know if it's working. Especially since the factors that influence productivity are so complex and the sample size relatively small. I'd be curious to know if any large companies have done scientifically viable studies on the effectiveness of personality tests in hiring.

Note, for those who might feel attacked, that there's no reason anyone should care at all what I think about this stuff.

[Bill Glasheen]

For example, using it to screening prospective employees is a bad idea in my opinion. There's definitely a lot of appeal to a system that purports to describe people quickly, objectively and scientifically and above all correctly. But ultimately since it screen candidates out rather than in, you never really know if it's working. Especially since the factors that influence productivity are so complex and the sample size relatively small. I'd be curious to know if any large companies have done scientifically viable studies on the effectiveness of personality tests in hiring.

Justin, I think you are confused. I'm not sure anyone uses these tests the way you describe. So you may be worried about something that just doesn't happen.

However when I was being considered for a position in "Innovation" in a health information company, I freely volunteered that I was an ENTP - a Visionary. That's not a requirement for every individual in Innovation. You need teams of people that bring different skill sets to the table to get things done. However you definitely need some visionaries in the innovation branch of a company.

Of course it didn't hurt that I had a Ph.D., that I had publications, and that I had experience in the field. The truth is, that is what got me the job. The personality evaluation just helped them understand why I was able to accomplish the kinds of things that I did. It was a reality check.

It has also served well for them to understand what kinds of people I should be teamed up with. Teambuilding is very important in the work environment - particularly on complex projects. You have many roles that require myriad skill sets and approaches to work.

In the work world, different personality types gravitate to specific job functions. Let me give you an example. I can definitely spot a marketing person - both by looks and by personality. For example, a drug company hires legions of good looking (male and female) "cheerleader" types to hawk the wares being produced by the geeks in the lab. These folks need to "cold call" in all the doctors' offices, get their attention, and get them interested in prescribing the new meds. Not everyone can do that kind of job - regardless of their IQ. It takes looks, people skills, persistence, and the ability to handle rejection. I'm sure if you ran personality tests on all the successful marketing types (after the fact), you would find them falling into a minority of the classifications. So as an HR person interested in bringing in new talent that can be up and running quickly, do you not pay attention to objective evidence? You certainly don't need to be a slave to it. It's just nice to have along with the twenty or so other pieces of information you use.

Let's say you are trying to train people to be project leaders in your company. That is a specialized skill these days. Whom do you recruit from within? If you did personality assessments of all the types that seem to be good at this, again, you would find certain types to be very good at it. You need folks who are task oriented, in to detail, in to planning, and like to get things done by a deadline. (Rich Castanet knows what I mean here, I'm sure). Shouldn't you take personality traits into account, along with all the other objective and subjective information you use?

The only thing that automatically excludes a person from a job is something like license, experience, or education requirements not met, or evidence of fraud. Everything else is there to help you differentiate candidates once you've found a handful who seem to be reasonably qualified. It's just more information, and more information makes for better-informed decisions. Nothing more, and nothing less.

But the truth is that by the time you've whittled your candidates down to the handful who seem to be reasonable, the personality tests will probably show you what you already know. And that is that specific personalities tend to excel in specific areas of life.

The people in a company who needs to know all this stuff (other than HR) are the senior management. They already know that a company is made up of many different functions that require many different types of intellectual and interpersonal skills to get the big machine operating properly. They embrace the diversity, and do their best to get all the parts working well together.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Bill said: "You need folks who are task oriented, in to detail, in to planning, and like to get things done by a deadline. (Rich Castanet knows what I mean here, I'm sure)."

Yep, sure do. For decades I was involved in projects that were funded based on strict startup and production schedules. It was very common to have damages associated to missed starup and performance as part of the contract. With GE's deep pockets, we were always at serious finacial risk.

To make matters worse, the civil and mechanical parts of the projects (concrete, iron and the like) were always done first. The civil guys would delay the mech guys and the mech guys would lag, delaying the electrical portion of the project. The start up date would not change but much and sometimes most of our project time would be eaten up before we got started.

Since I was always doing the electrical sytem, be it power distribution or utilization or control, if we were not ready, nothing worked. The plant managers would come out, see our team behind and assume we were the problem. So, most of my working life at GE I was behind the time table eight ball.

However, knowing the civils and mechanicals on the job were standing by to point at the 'late electrics' I always kept after them and documented their shortfalls. I actuall built their 'screw up' time into my schedules to stay on track. Ultimately, most of my projects started up on time.

My largest project was a paper mill complex in Plymouth, NC. At the time (1990 to 1994), at $500 million, it was the largest industrial investment ever in NC. My portion was about $20 million in electrical distribution equipment with the civil and mechanical structure being the largest part. The plant manager/VP had all of the various companies project leaders on site on the day he threw the switch. Wow... it worked perfectly. At the followup review meeting he called me up in front of all of the suppliers, architects, contractors, etc and told them GE was the only company on the project that he had heard nothing about. That was the ultimate compliment... no complaints from his staff about our or our products performance. If the power did not come on, a new $500 million dollar complex would have been in deep doodoo, and GE would have had to pay serious damages.

GE appreciated these kind of on time performances and as a result (courtesy of some serious bonuses), I am able to sit back watch others worry about these sort of things nowadays.

In any event, because of decades of strategic and tactical project planning, my mind works to a schedule, and I do not tolerate those marching to their own drummer. Did I end up in the correct job or was I molded over the years? Do not know, but that is me, and industry loved it!

Captain Rich, the relentless overseer

[TG]

Ancient Chinese proverb:

"In order to get the answer you WANT, you must first ask the "right" question."

TG

[Bill Glasheen]

Rory Miller proverb:

"I had completely misread 99% of the world. The test has been very good at pointing out that often Kami and I aren't disagreeing about the answer so much as not seeing the same question."



- Bill

[KZMiller]

Not only do we not answer the same question, sometimes we don't even live in the same universe. Mine is full of nice people with some bad eggs running around and a gorgeous mix of cultures. At the risk of putting words in his mouth I think Rory's is a world of natural beauty and intense danger mixed with some interesting architecture polluted by too many people. The highest compliment he ever paid me was that I was almost as good to be around as being alone.

As for the introverted/extroverted thing, you have to really look closely at the definitions of the terms and what they encompass. It's been stated earlier in the thread but it bears reiterating: An extrovert gets charged up by being around people, an introvert gets recharged by being alone. The other definitions are just as important to read. They don't always mean everything that they mean in the dictionary. The definitions have been narrowed to mean specific things in relation to the test.

Kami

[HALFORD E. JONES]

THE CONVERSATION! However, a few comments. I don't recall saying exactly that the brain is binary but it does have two halves: the right side and the left side,and various things have been ascribed to each side,but newer research has altered this a good deal,of course. The brain is also considered tripartite, with the older portion, the thalamus,etc. as a 'dinosaur' or reptilian section, if I am not mistaken, though,again, nothing definitely hard and fast,as things change when it comes to brain studies,etc. Personality types are actually profiles and perhaps more ocmplex than simple terms would have us believe. The studies of enneagram types,which are controversial,etc., are somewhat along this line. Introvert-extrovert,unless I am mistaken, came from Carl Jung who coined the term,'ambivert' to cover those who did not fit into this. Ther work of Sheldon, to link up physical types with personality types,is another area, though most present-day psychologists tend to dismiss Sheldon,etc. especially in this day of politically correctness trend. Additionally, Rick Wilson and myself are not as diverse or divergent as you might think from reading our comments. Just take a few readings of Thoreau to see what I mean,in regards to his comments on reading newspapers! Once you discover the principles of newspapers, you never need read them again! More to come. Halford

[HALFORD E. JONES]

GALL who founded the 'science of Phrenology' was 'scientific' in his approach and if you think I am exaggerating, read,MY LIFE AMONG THE SERIAL KILLERS by Helen Morrison who pointed out that Gall laid the foundations, however, inaccurate they are from today's viewpoint, for some of this 'profiling' or 'typology'! The idea that there is a physical correspondence to a mental one,etc. underlies a good deal of research and vice versa,of course.