<p>Dude, there are only 8 different combinations for the test, it can only give a very broad perspective about your personality. I'm pretty sure Chicago attracts a specific type of student and that's why you have the same results as many other people, don't worry, you'll find many friendly people there no matter what. This is really just for fun, I consider Psychology closer to a pseudoscience than actual science.</p>
<p>16 combinations, Si.</p>
<p>"I consider Psychology closer to a pseudoscience than actual science."</p>
<p>...as does the Cruise. ---"psychology is a pseudo science unlike scientology, which has science IN the name."--the daily show on Tom Cruise.</p>
<p>superb.</p>
<p>not as superb as that soothing voice of yours.</p>
<p>You've got to love Scientology - it has to be one of the biggest hoaxes ever succesfully perpetrated - although that's not saying much - the list is pretty long. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity...</p>
<p>Scientology also KILLS PEOPLE.</p>
<p>How so, neverborn?
Yeah the fact that something so absurd can gain so many followers is pretty frightening. It makes me doubt democracy.</p>
<p>Democracy is mob rule - hence the constitutional republic we have.</p>
<p>HOW SO!?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whyaretheydead.net/%5B/url%5D">http://www.whyaretheydead.net/</a> - List of Scientology deaths
<a href="http://www.lisamcpherson.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.lisamcpherson.org/</a> - Lisa McPherson: Murdered by Scientology - her family sued for wrongful death, and Scientology tried to bankrupt them with aggressive lawyering. They eventually settled and now the "treatment" Lisa underwent has a waiver the Scientologist must sign saying that the Co$ can not be sued for results(including DEATH) of this treatment, the Introspection Rundown.</p>
<p>I'm an ISTJ</p>
<p>I'm an INTJ - I find it no surprise that I'm a Snape fan.</p>
<p>are you an Esquared fan?</p>
<p>To put it bluntly - no.</p>
<p>haha, not many are</p>
<p>roflwaffles</p>
<p>INFJ-- but the Myers-Briggs personality test is little more than a parlor game.</p>
<p>According to a Malcolm Gladwell piece in the New Yorker a year or two ago, Myers and Briggs aren't psychologists-- they're a husband/wife pair (I think) that came up with a way to distinguish their personality differences.</p>
<p>That doesn't stop my high school from doing an intensive study of the personality types sophomore year :-)</p>
<p>Never knew that. I think it is primarily based off of Karl Jung, so if thats true it would at least have "some" value.</p>
<p>Actually I'd say Jung had <em>no</em> value. Try reading some of his convoluted mess he called psychology. It's a nightmare.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_20_a_personality.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_20_a_personality.html</a> </p>
<p>Czech that out.</p>
<p>I'm too busy Czeching you out.</p>
<p>Some points from Gladwell: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>This is the first problem with the Myers-Briggs. It assumes that we are either one thing or another--Intuitive or Sensing, Introverted or Extroverted. But personality doesn't fit into neat binary categories: we fall somewhere along a continuum.</p></li>
<li><p>The problems with the Myers-Briggs suggest that we need a test that is responsive to the complexity and variability of the human personality.</p></li>
<li><p>A larger limitation of both Myers-Briggs and the T.A.T. is that they are indirect. Tests of this kind require us first to identify a personality trait that corresponds to the behavior we're interested in, and then to figure out how to measure that trait-but by then we're two steps removed from what we're after. And each of those steps represents an opportunity for error and distortion. Shouldn't we try, instead, to test directly for the behavior we're interested in?</p></li>
</ol>