<p>it's pretty long, but for those of you interested in MTBI, it's cool. Plus most of us here are either INTJs, INFJs, INTPs, ENTPs, or ENFPs so it'll just boost your self esteem. maybe. haha.</p>
<p>91% of Rhodes Scholars are type intuitive.</p>
<p>I read a lot of research articles related to this in the past - need to dig them up again</p>
<p>Myers-Briggs Research: (March 6, 2006)</p>
<p>Academic:</p>
<p>Suiting Library Instruction to the Myers-Briggs Personality Types and Holland Vocational Personality Types of Engineering Students
<a href="http://www.istl.org/03-spring/refereed2.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.istl.org/03-spring/refereed2.html</a></p>
<p>PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE AND LEARNING
<a href="https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/News_and_Events/Publications/teaching_engineering/chapter13.pdf%5B/url%5D">https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/News_and_Events/Publications/teaching_engineering/chapter13.pdf</a>
<a href="http://ntsat.oulu.fi/ook/te/Chapter13.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://ntsat.oulu.fi/ook/te/Chapter13.pdf</a></p>
<p>THE EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY TYPE ON
ENGINEERING STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND ATTITUDES*
<a href="http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/longmbti.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/longmbti.pdf</a></p>
<p>Notable quotes:
"(The strengths of perceivers, such as flexibility and tendency to avoid premature closure in problem
solving, may provide them with compensatory advantages in research, a hypothesis well worth testing.)"</p>
<p>"The only significant attitude difference observed between thinkers and feelers was that as seniors,
thinkers were more inclined than feelers to go to graduate school (53% vs. 27%) (Table 13). A
predictable but not statistically significant difference was that feelers attached greater importance than
thinkers to doing socially important/beneficial work (Table 14)."</p>
<p>"More judgers than perceivers found lectures extremely helpful to their learning (Table 10), with
the differences early in the curriculum being statistically significant. This result is consistent with type
theory, considering the high level of structure associated with lectures. An interesting type difference was
that 28% of the judgers and only 5% of the perceivers in the senior year believed they did more than their
fair share in group work, while 13% of the judgers and 29% of the perceivers believed they did less than
their fair share. Whether these different beliefs were justified is an intriguing but unanswerable question."</p>
<p>"A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF ENGINEERING
STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION.
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND
STUDENT RESPONSES TO THEM "
<a href="http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/long4.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/long4.html</a>
<a href="http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/long5.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/long5.html</a></p>
<p>If anyone could find "Cooper, S.E. & Miller, J.A. 1991. MBTI learning style-teaching style discongruencies", please tell me so. I can't find the journal in the UW database.</p>
<hr>
<p>MY HYPOTHESES:</p>
<h2>Positive correlation between grades and sensing in school, negative correlation (as found) between grades and sensing in college. Sensing students will have the greatest difficulty adjusting to college, intuitives will love it.</h2>
<p>Non-Academic, but Still Fun:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/mbti.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/mbti.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.personalitypage.com/political_affil.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.personalitypage.com/political_affil.html</a> - Political Affiliation and personality type - UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE - VERY, but what the heck.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.skeeve.org/interesting/mbti.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.skeeve.org/interesting/mbti.html</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Search terms used:</p>
<hr>
<p>Thoughts of my Myers-Briggs Type"</p>
<p>Thinking over Feeling is my strongest trait by far.
Perceiving over Judging is second strongest
Then Introvert over Extrovert</p>
<p>But Sensing versus Intuitive is very sketchy still. I seem to be more intuitive in easier classes, more sensing in harder classes. not the best of things. Going as far as visiting the course webpages of other university websites - very sensing. In an easier class, I'd be bored if there was enough memorization - may have more to do with P than with S.</p>
<p>Main thing is, that there is no measure of laziness. Period. yes, I hypothesize a positive correlation between perceiving and laziness, but not an especially strong one. We NEED A MEASURE OF IT!!</p>
<p>What of LePore's class? Hmm. Different from math/science. In that case, I would have preferred more flexibility in finding research articles, (very P) and I love research articles too (Very S). Devising hypotheses? When they are within the limits, not really. But out of the limits, I love to do that (very NP)</p>
<p>SIMUW: Definitely more S than others - that really hurt my performance.</p>
<p>Previous classes: yeah, sensing was definitely a huge boon.</p>
<p>AP Self-Study: This is where Intuition dominated. ROFL!111.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://www2.gsu.edu/%7Edschjb/wwwmbti.html%5B/url%5D">http://www2.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The majority of undergraduates are sensing students. Based on data from the Center for Applied Psychological Type (CAPT) between 56% and 72% of over 16,000 freshmen at three state universities were sensing students. Interestingly, almost 83% of national merit scholarship finalists and 92% of Rhodes Scholars were intuitive students. Our own data base indicates that over 65% of business majors are sensing students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
They stated that people showing high scores on introversion (I) and intuition (N) show greater academic aptitude than those who score high on extraversion (E) and sensing (S).
[/quote]
AISUDHsaodhsaoidhawodihjsaoidjsaoidjoida ARGHHH I am not going to read all of your articles, INQUILINEKEA! I am tired of this...</p>
<p>I'm an ENFJ. :)</p>
<p>I had no idea this test existed, and in general I'm sceptical of any type of personality test. But man, the descriptions of my type (INTP) I came across were frighteningly spot-on - not in the way fuzzy horoscopes can be accurate, but in the way that every single description explained and recalled hundreds of incidents and preferences in my actual life (how the hell could they know I had a crush on Lt. Commander Data as a child? How did they know what composers I listen to?! It's magic! Witchcraft!). Thank you for this!</p>
<p>...Next time someone accuses me of being aloof, I'll just mumble something about a lower-developed Fe-shadow and look irritated.</p>
<p>I know, it gave me chills because it felt like someone was reading my mind.</p>
<p>I know, it gave me chills because it felt like someone was reading my mind.</p>
<p>Haha, I just had to e-mail this to my mom. I can see her beaming with the joy of confirmation of everything she's ever found frustrating about me. It's not all in your head, mom! I'm a stubborn aloofster!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had no idea this test existed, and in general I'm sceptical of any type of personality test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah - it is good to be skeptical of psychometric tests in general. They're based on initial theories that cannot be experimentally verified (and they also suffer from vague definitions - and are easy to get caught up in their own definitions as well). The power in a psychometric test lies in its ability to correlate with particular variables. Of course correlation does not imply causation, but correlation can help produce questions that can help isolate the source of causation. I think one problem is that psychometric tests are inherently inflexible (and often stick to their own assumptions). IQ tests, for example, are not completely BS. But correlations between IQ and other variables are usually fairly weak, peaking out at 0.6. In fact, the highest correlation between IQ and anything else is merely the correlation between the IQ of identical twins reared apart (that does not mean that IQ measures what it's intended to measure - it's just that IQ measures something that is biological, but that could be highly irrelevant to success).</p>
<p>It's very unlikely that you can really categorize people in 16 different types. Some people find the MBTI to be amazingly accurate in describing themselves - whereas others do not find it so accurate. Personality tests have arbitrary distinctions (the Big 5 is used more for psychological research - that is the type I see when I read books on psychological research). But they certainly do correlate with a lot of factors - and hence this is where their value lies.</p>
<p>...insufficient explanation.</p>
<p>You can do better Inquiline. I am highly disappointed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's very unlikely that you can really categorize people in 16 different types. Some people find the MBTI to be amazingly accurate in describing themselves - whereas others do not find it so accurate. Personality tests have arbitrary distinctions (the Big 5 is used more for psychological research - that is the type I see when I read books on psychological research). But they certainly do correlate with a lot of factors - and hence this is where their value lies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. There's a risk of assuming these man-made, socially constructed categories somehow "exist" somewhere out there and have only been stumbled upon by diligent scientists. Psychology isn't a science, and despite its claim to be (in order to join in on the goldrush of modernity; both psychology and sociology have roots in positivism -- I hope people here are familiar with the terminology), when push comes to shove standardized tests of any kind only measure how well one does or fits in on the criteria of the test itself: not what naturally existent category the test purports to only identify you as belonging to.</p>
<p>IQ tests are a sham. I can't believe people actually believed they could objectively measure something as vague as "intelligence". Like you said, being a "type" doesn't cause behavior to happen. Also, do we really want to go around claiming "personality" is an innate and fixed thing? </p>
<p>That being said... It's very fun to have a category to identify with, haha.</p>
<p>Prove me wrong Inquiline! I dare you.</p>
<p>Yes, but it is sometimes helpful to generalize....
I'm an INTJ, sometimes INFJ.</p>
<p>Sickening! Get that nasty "F" letter/word/initial away from this thread! <em>spits even more furiously until saliva drips to my left pinky toe... the one with the nail hanging off of the hinges of my calluses... waiting to flake off and leave my body...</em> (I have two on my left... perhaps 2.25 even!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree. There's a risk of assuming these man-made, socially constructed categories somehow "exist" somewhere out there and have only been stumbled upon by diligent scientists. Psychology isn't a science, and despite its claim to be (in order to join in on the goldrush of modernity; both psychology and sociology have roots in positivism -- I hope people here are familiar with the terminology), when push comes to shove standardized tests of any kind only measure how well one does or fits in on the criteria of the test itself: not what naturally existent category the test purports to only identify you as belonging to.</p>
<p>IQ tests are a sham. I can't believe people actually believed they could objectively measure something as vague as "intelligence". Like you said, being a "type" doesn't cause behavior to happen. Also, do we really want to go around claiming "personality" is an innate and fixed thing?</p>
<p>That being said... It's very fun to have a category to identify with, haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow - your post was very nicely worded - better than anything I could do (clarified some ambiguities in my original post). :)</p>
<p>Categories are sometimes necessary for categorization purposes (at least we know that our ways of organizing people according to categories do better than chance). But the risk that society pays is when it entrenches itself on such socially constructed categories - and then sorts people according to those categories. Robert Sternberg remarks that intelligence is a subject that we know less about know than we knew about 100 years ago. There has been so much psychological research that depends on such a construct - and we have not been able to dig ourselves out of it. In fact - Nature and Science both publish articles that use intelligence as a valid construct - all along with the articles based on more respectable science.</p>