<p>Free</a> Jung Personality Test</p>
<p>I picked a semi-short test. This is because I want your test to be accurate.</p>
<hr>
<p>I am an INTP. I do well, but this is because I adopt several INTJ traits such as organization. Unlike a true INTJ, I had to learn these skills in middle school. I also tend to only take classes that I am interested in. I am very one sided (math & science orientated). </p>
<p>Et tu?</p>
<p>The Myers-Briggs test has been proven to be inaccurate. It’s not that great of a test; it has no validity and reliability, proven by research studies. This thread is pointless. You’d be trying to create a false correlation</p>
<p>^ May I see those studies?</p>
<p>I don’t have them. Here is the book that has a brief overview of the studies: The Person: An introduction to the science of personality psychology 5th edition by Dan P. McAdams. The info is located in page 125.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf[/url]”>http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf</a></p>
<p>Here you go 
I found the study.</p>
<p>I’m INTP as well. In general, I’m a B+ student. </p>
<p>Why would anyone take classes they’re not interested in if they’re not required?</p>
<p>^^ I don’t need a brief overview of the studies. I want your evidence proving Myers-Briggs to be false.</p>
<p>@JamesGold: This is CC. People will do anything to get into HYPSM</p>
<p>^read the article i gave you. That should be all you need. Unless you don’t know how to read, I would be happy to spell out the arguments of the said study</p>
<p>You must first make a distinction between “interested in” on an intellectual basis and “interested in” because they look good to ad coms.</p>
<p>^^ Do you not know the difference between theory and fact? Some people question the validity of evolution as well. Just because there is controversy and speculation, doesn’t ** prove ** that it is false. You stated that Myers-Briggs has been ** proven ** to be inaccurate. The article you provided merely gives one man’s reasoning and theories.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Key words there? “I believe” - This is just one man’s opinion. His choice of words prove it. Pittenger’s arguments stem from the idea that, “there is no evidence that Myers-Briggs is true.” This is akin to the Christian argument, “There is no evidence that God doesn’t exist either!” </p>
<p>I asked you to give me the study that ** PROVES ** Myers-Briggs to be inaccurate. Not the study that gives one man’s ** opinion ** on why Myers-Briggs * may * be inaccurate.</p>
<p>Your man Pitterman’s argument on Reliability also suffers a fatal flaw. After taking the Myers-Briggs test multiple times, it ** becomes ** predictable. Thus, lets say you get ESFJ. However, after watching * A Beautiful Mind * you want to be just like John Nash. You read online that he is an INTP. So maybe next time when you take the test, you pick the obvious choices to get INTP. Once you take the test enough times you can actively pick out the answers needed to create a desired outcome. Or lets say you are an INTP. However, you want to be known as the organized type because you are committed to going to a top college. Then you pick the answers on the test that make you seem organized. Congratulations! You got INTJ. Thus, the only reliable test is the first one and perhaps the next few after that. As such, Pitterman’s argument of your personality ** changing ** is inaccurate.</p>
<p>Are these tests supposed to hold any significance?</p>
<p>I wish I could take all the classes I’m interested in… but they’re not classes I’m supposed to take, if I want to get into a good school. sigh, why do I let the man get me down</p>
<p>i just took this for fun XD</p>
<hr>
<p>Jung Test Results</p>
<p>Extroverted (E) 72.73% Introverted (I) 27.27%
Sensing (S) 50% Intuitive (N) 50%
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%
Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%</p>
<p>Your type is: ESTJ</p>
<p>ESTJ - “Administrator”. Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of total population.</p>
<p>I don’t care if he’s expressing his opinion. Did you care to read about his evidence from actual experiments?</p>
<p>Did you not take notice of the statement describing a normal distribution of traits? The MBTI “classifies people into a rigid dichotomy”</p>
<p>Also he notes the results of his factor analysis, which were not convincing. I don’t feel like reiterating his evidence. You can read about that on your own. Just because he said “I believe…” doesn’t discount his objective evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did the Christian argument mention any specific data?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know the difference between speculation and justified conclusion?</p>
<p>^ I read through everything in the article and the evidence does not empirically disprove Myers-Briggs, which you said it would. There are plenty of studies “proving” 9/11 to be an inside job, alien encounters, and God. His evidence was not convincing enough to completely disprove the theory. Thus, we cannot know for sure if the test is really inaccurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You clearly don’t understand what he’s saying. So let me elaborate a little…The theory that MBTI states that:
</p>
<p>What you are describing to me is an example of interactionism, personality taken into account of the context, which is NOT MBTI’s theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part wasn’t convincing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You totally missed the point of my statement. When an atheist argues with a Christian, the Christian often makes the argument that the Atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. This is what the author of the article is doing. He states that there is no evidence to prove that Myers-Briggs is true. However, there is evidence that supports the theory as well. For example, here is a quote taken from <a href=“http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/reliability-and-validity.asp:[/url]”>http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/reliability-and-validity.asp:</a></p>
<p>
</p>