Personality Type

[Captain Cosine]

This is actually really interesting and incredibly accurate, provided you are honest with yourself.

Take this test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Then hope over to http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=1&c=overview and find your temperament, then role variant and read the description.

It's very accurate. Supposedly, the exact opposite of your type is supposed to be your Anima (what you are attracted to).

My type is INTJ. Temperament is Rational and Role Variant is Mastermind.
My Anima is ESFP, which just so happens to be the personality type of someone I had fallen for.

[Henry P]

apparently I'm a slightly or moderately expressed extrovert, according to the humanmetrics site

[Captain Cosine]

More information regarding your four letter answer is on the second link up there^ it's a good read. :P

[Gardenhead]

I'm an INTP - the Architect. Apparently, I'm very rare; 'maybe one percent of the population'. I'm quite pleased with that :p

[Captain Cosine]

I'm an INTP - the Architect. Apparently, I'm very rare; 'maybe one percent of the population'. I'm quite pleased with that :p

Same here (rarity) :) Einstein is the classic example of the Architect. INTJ's (me) and INTP's have very few differences lol.

[Silver Wind]

I am a INTJ Rational Mastermind

Though I never considered myself very rational I cannot argue about being a mastermind *Grins*

[Captain Cosine]

By the way, these personality types and tests and all are largely based on the work of Carl Jung.

[Ernie]

I'm an ENFP Champion...

moderately expressed extravert

moderately expressed intuitive personality

moderately expressed feeling personality

moderately expressed perceiving personality

Who'da thunk it ! lol

Nice one Captain Cosine, very interesting :)

[rantingpete]

I'm INFJ

[Nature's heartbeat]

I'm an INFP healer...

[Gardenhead]

Just thought it'd be interesting to note that when I took this test a few years back, I was an INFP - a 'Healer Idealist'. How times change ;)

[smorzando]

i've taken this test soooo many times. sometimes because i've had to, and other times because i was curious. when i took it for the first time, i got INTJ. this time i took it i got INFJ. another time i took it i got ISFP, which is nearly the opposite of what i got the first time. in fact, the only thing that's really stayed the same is the I at the start!!

[Captain Cosine]

Yeah some people are on the borderline with some parts, some people just change drastically lol. It also depends where you've taken the test too, I'm not sure how accurate every test out there is, and some sites (like Socionics I believe) switch letters; supposedly an INTJ in Socionics is INTP in Myers-Briggs or something like that. There's so many different versions of the types now and what people think they mean, you've gotta make sure you're staying within the same type(?).

@Gardenhead: I had the same exact result when I first took it lol. But recently I re-read the description and I didn't feel it suited me, so I took it again, and got INTJ. Weird how much my mental state change in such a short amount of time.

[Ol' Man Nettal]

First time I took the test my result was INFJ. The second, INTJ.
The test is partially based on astrological configurations.
My sun is in Pisces, my moon and mercury in Aquarius.
One can easily recognise a nexus between both.

[Captain Cosine]

First time I took the test my result was INFJ. The second, INTJ.
The test is partially based on astrological configurations.
My sun is in Pisces, my moon and mercury in Aquarius.
One can easily recognise a nexus between both.

Though I've never heard the relation between the test and astrology, it wouldn't surprise me, considering Carl Jung was somewhat involved in astrology, along with other things like alchemy.

[Gardenhead]

Woooooah, woah - hold on a second. I don't want to shatter anyone's belief system before their very eyes here, but I'm afraid that the evidence base for astrology is nil, and the evidence against it is considerable. There's no softly softly way to put it; it's patently pseudoscientific nonsense. There's a very good reason that, in the 'related articles' on wikipedia, 'credulity' features rather glaringly. It's been around since antiquity, but as soon as science proper comes onto the scene, astrology is rightly discarded.

I'm skeptical of personality tests in any case - even 'established' ones, because they still tend to be littered with Barnum statements - but if it's true that it's in any way meaningfully linked to astrology then I'm very suspicious indeed. I can't find any reference to it online, mind.

[Captain Cosine]

Woooooah, woah - hold on a second. I don't want to shatter anyone's belief system before their very eyes here, but I'm afraid that the evidence base for astrology is nil, and the evidence against it is considerable. There's no softly softly way to put it; it's patently pseudoscientific nonsense. There's a very good reason that, in the 'related articles' on wikipedia, 'credulity' features rather glaringly. It's been around since antiquity, but as soon as science proper comes onto the scene, astrology is rightly discarded.

I'm skeptical of personality tests in any case - even 'established' ones, because they still tend to be littered with Barnum statements - but if it's true that it's in any way meaningfully linked to astrology then I'm very suspicious indeed. I can't find any reference to it online, mind.

I agree, I still wouldn't surprised if their was a link to astrology, but I've never seen anything saying astrology had any impact on it. Carl Jung was involved in astrology, but the extent is unknown, I don't believe he mentioned it often in his work.

This test, in my opinion, seems very accurate and trustworthy. There are always some flaws, as everyone is unique, but it's still very interesting.

Astrology is something I've tried to get into, and I'll admit some things are quite interesting, but as you said, it's very pseudo-scientific and I'm not one to go out on a limb and believe in something so outrageous.

[Gardenhead]

Well, Newton believed in alchemy and we all know that's in the same league of complete and utter rubbish (although it hasn't managed to stick around as long as astrology, probably because it's a lot easier to take advantage of people's credulity in bite sized snippets in a tabloid).

It's probably the best test of its kind that I've taken, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it. Despite the lengthy descriptions, there were just as many misses as hits on my personality; but yeah, it is interesting.

Don't know whose idea it was to extrapolate random figures from near-to-ancient history though :p

[Captain Cosine]

It's probably the best test of its kind that I've taken, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it. Despite the lengthy descriptions, there were just as many misses as hits on my personality; but yeah, it is interesting.


Really? I had maybe like, two misses in my description. At first I didn't think it suited me, but after thinking about it and paying more attention to my thoughts and actions, I've come to find it's pretty spot on, and a hell of a lot more accurate than the INFP I got on my first tries lol. Perhaps you're one of the people who are on the border between another type?

[Ol' Man Nettal]

Woooooah, woah - hold on a second. I don't want to shatter anyone's belief system before their very eyes here, but I'm afraid that the evidence base for astrology is nil, and the evidence against it is considerable. There's no softly softly way to put it; it's patently pseudoscientific nonsense. There's a very good reason that, in the 'related articles' on wikipedia, 'credulity' features rather glaringly. It's been around since antiquity, but as soon as science proper comes onto the scene, astrology is rightly discarded.

I'm skeptical of personality tests in any case - even 'established' ones, because they still tend to be littered with Barnum statements - but if it's true that it's in any way meaningfully linked to astrology then I'm very suspicious indeed. I can't find any reference to it online, mind.


Correct, it is not a science. But I would venture to assume you have
never practiced astrology, otherwise you would know, beyond the
imposing scientific mind's remarkably stubborn tendency, that astrological analysis is fairly effectual in practice. In order to oppose 'credulity', you arm
yourself with a premature incredulity?
Astrology is often discarded by science because astrology
is a source of considerable disrepute amongst scientific minds.
So, in order to maintain their reputation, almost every scientist
inveighs against astrology. However, I would not be wholly surprised
if the majority of those scientists actually practiced astrology
clandestinely.

I urge you to form an opinion based on your own subjective experience, and
not the supposedly objective conclusion of the scientific mind, which is
almost as fatuous as the religious mind, actually, in that it imposes
that which it knows and dismisses that which it doesn't.


OMN

[Ol' Man Nettal]

Well, Newton believed in alchemy and we all know that's in the same league of complete and utter rubbish (although it hasn't managed to stick around as long as astrology, probably because it's a lot easier to take advantage of people's credulity in bite sized snippets in a tabloid).

It's probably the best test of its kind that I've taken, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it. Despite the lengthy descriptions, there were just as many misses as hits on my personality; but yeah, it is interesting.

Don't know whose idea it was to extrapolate random figures from near-to-ancient history though :p


Ah, you're referring to the 'astrology' in T.V. Magazines. Well, naturally are
categorically stupid and ficticious. I'm referring to real Astrology, in which
a nativity is drawn up as a wheel, divided into twelve houses, and the planets stilled into the position they were in when the child was conceived.
The planets maintain aspectual relationships with each other, and reside
in these twelve houses, also ruled by the twelve astrological signs.

[Spikey]

Apparently, I am:

Your Type is
INFP
Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving

44 12 38 22

moderately expressed introvert
slightly expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed feeling personality
slightly expressed perceiving personality.


The next one I am apparently a "Guardian"...

[YoungLady]

ENFP or INFP, because I am 50% introverted and 50% extroverted.. It's pretty accurate for me:)

[Mack Knife]

well ISTJ "Inspector" does describe me greatly although there's little bits of other types within me- personality/i.q./psych tests are always fun

[Bear]

Like Gardenhead I used to score as an INFP but now am more INTP. I think maybe it's sometimes tougher to use the feeling function over the thinking one with the world as it is?

I'm interested to know anyone's opinion on the enneagram test?
I think I prefer that as it includes motives behind people's behaviours. I was classed as a 5 with a 4 wing and found it quite accurate...

[Captain Cosine]

I don't know too much about it but I've tested as a 4.

[Silver shimmer]

ENFJ here. I'm a teacher, apparently. Oprah is one, as well. Hm. I like Oprah. *nods*

[shuyun]

ENTP
* slightly expressed extravert
* distinctively expressed intuitive personality
* slightly expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed perceiving personality

Michaelangelo, Richard Feynman, Thomas Edison, Hypatia of Alexandria

[CarlaKoala]

I'm an ENFP, though the intro/extraversion is flexible. Particulary strong on the F and P. :)