Blog Post

5 years ago


◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
I'm still working on getting Miasmon ready for beta testing - there's still quite a bit left to do - and I have been reading all the comments on the other two news posts... But for now, I want to talk about something completely unrelated to that.

This is something that I wrote about elsewhere recently, so I'll just copy and paste and edit what I wrote there:

I've been fond of the Temperaments for ages, as you can tell from the fact that I use them on this site.
The main 'competitor' to this concept was the 'Myers-Briggs Type Indicator', or whatever it's called, which it seems that every intellectual teenager worth their salt knows about.
I never did though, and I avoided it due to stubborn preference for the temperaments. I knew vaguely about it, but never in detail.

However, I've been reading about it recently, finding out my type and all that, and it's been quite interesting! I feel I've been missing out by incredulously dismissing it out of ignorance.

It turns out that my type is most likely INFJ... which happens to be the rarest type, especially amongst men (about 0.5% of all men), though it's more common in women (2-3%).
I suppose that might go a long way towards explaining why I've never felt comfortable around males and always admired typical female traits, like gentleness over roughness, emotional understanding over swaggering conflict, and so on...
It also explains why I've always felt that I have a strong sense of empathy... and why I struggle to find people on the same wavelength as myself (if it's so rare).

Since I'm still new to the concept and have a lot of reading left to do, I might change my mind about my type later, but for now, this appears to be the best fit.

I'm curious about whether anyone else knows their Myers-Briggs type thing! I imagine that at least some of you will.

If not, there's a test that you can do, though it shouldn't be relied upon; it only gives you an idea of your type, and it would require more reading about them in detail to really settle on one.
It's here: ∞ LINK ∞

There are loads of websites that describe them individually in some detail, such as this poorly-made one, for example: ∞ LINK ∞

I also want to say something about personality types in general, because it frustrates me how commonly I hear the same argument time and time again that leads people to reject these concepts incredulously...

"Humans are too complex to be typed so simply like this, therefore these systems are rubbish. You can't put a label on me. I'm too unique."

That's the gist of it.
It seems to assume that these personality types attempt to describe every tiny little detail about a person, from their favourite type of mushroom to their mother's maiden name.
But they don't! They only group you as part of a *collection*, and don't try to explain your every aspect.

Personalities are multi-faceted, and everyone's very different; there's no denying that. Personality types merely try to describe one (or more) facets; not the whole thing.
It's like how being 'male' or 'female' doesn't describe everything about you, but it *does* put you into a distinct group with other people who fall under the same label. Two women may have similar anatomy, which makes them both 'female', but that doesn't mean that they're anything alike.
Similarly, two people might both be INFJ, but that doesn't mean they're clones either. One might be male, the other female. One might be into rap and skateboarding, the other Classical and stamp collecting. Just because they have one shared facet doesn't mean that their uniqueness is reduced in any way.

It's similar to how pieces of music can be classed under genre labels, like 'rock' or 'jazz' or 'classical'.
Not every piece of rock music is identical, but if you go to a 'rock concert', you'll have a good idea of what to expect, and if someone says they like 'rock music', it conveys a great deal of information succinctly without reducing the uniqueness of each piece of music that they like.

It's also similar to how animals can be classed as 'mammals' or 'canines' or even 'dogs', but that doesn't mean that every dog is identical to every other dog; they just have enough in common to be classed under the same label.
These labels exist to communicate large amounts of information in a single word, and for that purpose, they're extremely useful.
Imagine if we had no words for species, or even whole classes of animals... Talking about out pets would become ridiculous!

A lot of people seem to feel that their desire for 'uniqueness' comes above the fascinating usefulness of being classified under certain personality types... which I feel is a shame, because understanding personality types seems to me like a great way to learn how to treat others right, to understand that they have different emotional needs to you, and to explain their behaviour which you might disagree with because it's different to yours. (For example, extroverts telling introverts to 'get out more' is *not* understanding that they don't have the same needs as themselves.)
Understanding that we're not all working from the same base, and having ideas of how best to treat those who are different to us, seems like a great way to achieve peace and understanding to me.

Saying "it's all rubbish because I'm too special!!!" throws all that out the window for the sake of ego though, I think...

But anyway!! o_O

I am indeed curious about other peoples' types!

Another thing that I'd like to mention is that the test and Myers-Briggs are not one and the same. To truly understand which type you are, you'd really have to read about all of them in detail and choose the best fit for yourself. But not everyone has the time to understand it all on a deep, conceptual level, so the test merely serves as a convenient, accessible shortcut.
It shouldn't be relied upon as accurate, but just because the test isn't doesn't mean that the whole Myers-Briggs concept falls apart.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your four-letter type things, since I'm really curious about how they compare to peoples' temperaments...
I think that the two attempt to describe different facets of the personality, so some people might have the same MBTI things but different temperaments, or vice versa, so I'm curious about whether that'll hold true.

I'm also wondering whether to add MBTI things to profiles here alongside temperaments... but I won't spend my time doing that now or anything, when I need to be working on Miasmon.

I'm curious about whether you think your type is accurate and whether you've read about it in detail, too, as well as maybe what you think of the system as a whole, rather than just hearing "ISTJ FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER" or something.
The four-letter things are more interesting than quoting the four percentages that you get.

on 57 Roots


shark emu

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Like many others who have posted, I'm INTP, the Thinker. I've taken this test a few times so far and I think it's reasonably accurate, but the main point I wanted to make that I found fascinating is that of the 6 pages of comments currently on this post, I found exactly 3 extroverts. I just thought it's interesting to see what type of person goes on this site.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
akali95 22 Israel INFJ 1C
My result was closest to INFJ and 2nd closest to INFP. I must admit that it was in the most part, spot on. When I read your post I was able to identify with you in many of the aspects, however, I used a different site than your own and I'm not sure if it will give me any different results as I have yet to try it.
Actually, I'm not too sure that these personality types are what I would've WANTED for myself. In fact I believe I'd like to change myself in many ways, not to the extent of giving up my ideals, but to change many personality traits that I believe I'd be better off with which will NOT make it hard to live with myself and feel like a somewhat different person.
This subject seems quite interesting in fact and this is the first time I hear of it. I think I'm going to share this with my family and see how their results turn out. I haven't read about any of the other types yet though but the test seemed rather accurate to me, I might get round up to reading them later when I have the time.
The site I used: ∞ LINK ∞

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
dude that test had 78 freaking questions! no way am i doing that! i have to finish mardek 3!!!

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I took an MBTI test a while back, and got INTJ. I've looked into Socionics far more, though... Socionics is very similar to MBTI, much more so than the temperaments are, but is different enough that its practitioners consider it a competitor rather than a variant. It comes from Russia, and isn't nearly as popular in English-speaking countries as MBTI is. The original way to write a Socionics type is with a three-letter code, but since Socionics has sixteen types divided in approximately the same way that MBTI divides them, Socionics types in the west are often written as an MBTI-like four-letter code with the last letter in lowercase. My Socionics type is thus INTj... yeah, the same letters as the MBTI type. Many people conclude that their MBTI and Socionics types differ in the last letter; it's less common for any of the other letters to differ. I think you would also have the same Socionics type as MBTI type; I considered your Socionics type at one point in the past, and pegged you as INFj ("Much like me," I thought, "but far more concerned with people's feelings"). INFp would, I think, not really fit with your concept of empathy.

Socionics includes as one of its basic premises a system of how relationships between different types turn out; for instance, an INFj and an ESTp pretty much cannot get along beyond superficially, whereas an INFj and an ESTj becomes one of the best relationships (if the lack of shared interests doesn't kill it at the outset). The last letter actually switches most of the relationships between bad and good, which makes the lack of agreement with MBTI about that particular letter more troublesome.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Ohh, one of the three tests that I linked to, which I thought was an MBTI test, was actually a socionics test, and I did get INFj; I wondered why the last letter was in lowercase. I suppose I'll have to read more about that concept at some point...
Interesting that I'd seem like that type from analysis before I chose it myself, though.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I just tried the test and am - according to it - an INTP, which is described as the Thinker on the other linked page. I believe, that Thinker might be a good describtion of me, but to be fair, I had a lot of trouble with a whole number of questions. And I had never heard of the system at all.

My numbers were 56%/25%/50%/22%, so I seem to be close to INTJ - Scientist.

At the moment I really don't know what to think about this.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
dreamsdragon 18 United States MelancholicSanguine INTJ 631 28C
According to the test, I am an INTJ. I haven't read about it, or really ever heard of it before, but based on the words it said the letters stand for, and the paragraphs, I beleive it does describe me accurately. As for what I think of it, I feel the same way I do abut the Temperaments. It is a way of sorting and attempting to understand.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I've done a lot of reading about MBTI, and I've generally found that I fall into the ISTP group. For anyone curious about the type, it's generally about problem-solving and working well under stress, as well as a drive to fix things and make them better. I've found that it describes me well enough, to a point.

That being said, I'd like to say that pidgeonholing people into 16 groups is not a fantastic idea, and you shouldn't read too much into any kind of test like this. There's a lot of factors at play here, not least the way that people will purposefully bias their tests (even subconsciously) to get a result they like. I have a feeling that might be why we're seeing so many supposed INFJ's showing up here (allegedly the rarest type). The MTBI is a powerful tool and can accurately describe large segments of the population, but it's also very hard to administer properly. It's incredibly common for people to build up an image of themselves which doesn't match reality just because they prefer one type description to another. Similarly, and more dangerously, they can try to force themselves to act like the type they feel they SHOULD be.

There's nothing wrong with any of the types, and there's never any reason to feel ashamed about a result. At best it's an interesting discussion point, and at worst it's a triviality of psychology. Don't read too much into it.
david s

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
david s 24 United States MelancholicCholeric ISFJ 621 1192C
I took the test twice, since there were some answers I was on the fence on. The first time, I didn't record the percentages. Both times, however, I showed up being INTJ. The first time it was strong I, moderate N and J and slight T. Now it's Strong I, slight N, T and J. I=89%, N=12%, T=12%(I remember that's what it was before.) and J=22%.(EDIT: I took the two tests Pseudo put in the other blog post, and the simpler one gave me INTJ, while the longer one gave me ISTJ, suggesting S & T were both very close calls, about 52/48. FURTHER EDIT: After reading a bit on them, I think that I'm more S than N, since I tend to rely on what I observe more... it's just that I try to think things through on what is going to happen in the future, which skewed the results of the other tests.)

I'd say this concept accurately describes 4 words of me. 4 better words to describe me would be awkward, annoying, stubborn and defensive. To be honest, you get a lot more out of those words.

I don't really know though... I really think my personality is... I know it's bupkis, but it's almost like my personality is split in two. If you believe me on that, I could tell you exactly when and why such a split would have occurred. Suffice it to say, I used to be more or less extroverted, always trying to become accepted by others and always thinking I was cool, doing just about anything for attention and thriving on it. My internet self is more like that personality, since the internet feels... safer... than the outside world.

On the other hand, though, is my outside world personality. This one didn't come about until I was about 13 or so.(The extroverted personality "died" when I was 11. Between those times... I was just a wreck.) The introvert is mostly introversion out of fear of what happened and self-loathing for why I was so extroverted.(I now greatly regret being so thirsty for attention.) Now I'm more cautious, avoiding people since I know they'll destroy me when they have a chance. I expect them to act like wolves and tear me apart if I try to interact with them. No, not *literally*, rending me limb from limb, but rather *emotionally*. And they do. When I try to interact with a group of people, even a small group, they seem to know I'm irregular, and, just like wolves, they single out the weak individuals and tear them apart, forcing them to be outcasts. As a result of my fear and hatred of their behaviour, I avoid them. I don't approach them. I don't socialize. If I do socialize, and they begin their taunting, it brings up an old piece of my history, the core of this whole dilemma; my temper. No, I'm not aggressive... I'm defensive. Very defensive. A verbal attack is an attack, it hurts just as much and is just as likely to be lethal.(See suicide.) Whenever I feel threatened, or like someone else is being threatened, I get hostile. I'm only aggressive until the threat is gone, but I can be fairly aggressive in that time. The past 8 years have been me trying to make it so that I let people rip me to shreads while I do nothing, hoping someone will help me or show some mercy and no one ever does. Occasionally it gets hard and I really want to lash out, anything to make the "wolves" stop, but I know what happens if I do.

So basically, at this point I've learned that the people I thought liked me actually were trying to effectively(and possibly literally, on a subconscious level) make me kill myself. Do you have any idea what that feels like? Yeah, I don't trust people anymore. People like that, animals like that, sometimes make me think that our inevitable extinction is a good thing.

  Spoiler for The rest of this is mostly like a rant thingy sort of thing that's my own ideas and observations. I've never read anything that says this stuff... then again, I don't read much.:

Yeah. If you read all that, you should be able to understand why I dislike the way groups of people act, even if you don't agree with me. So yeah, I avoid socializing, trusting people, or accepting things without question. I question everything, I'm cautious of everything, I don't trust people, not even my own family.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Hmm, I seem to alternate between INTJ and INFJ, but after reading into it I think the INTJ fits me better, "the scientist", well, I guess that's another way to do it, I wonder how many other ways there are to measure the personalities?

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
ThirdParty 34 United States PhlegmaticCholeric INTJ 514 177C
For those complaining about the absolute yes/no nature of the test A β Pseudolonewolf linked to, ∞ here's ∞ a different test that lets you rate your answers on a scale of 1-5. It gave me similar results as the other one--I came out extremely INTJ, as usual--but (unsurprisingly) with slightly narrower percentages.