Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 9 released July 7th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

Personality Quiz: 16 Types

Posts: 4499
Joined: Feb 21, 2014

Personality Quiz: 16 Types


Post by Carmel1379 » January 3rd, 2018, 8:49 pm


Sure, I don't disagree too much, these systems definitely model certain salient features, otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are. One self-reports, and receives a predictably sufficiently accurate description of a "type" one now supposedly belongs to. The craving to be told who you are is finally partially satisfied. But there are enormously many limitations to it, and there's a long road for the psychological claim "I am a Logician." to arrive at the same level of scientific factuality as the empirical claim "I am Blond."

I wouldn't seek an identity in something like MBTI. A lot of the axes can be blurred, extended, complicated. For example, take the first question in the linked test: "Do you find it difficult to introduce yourself to other people?". I'd answer the most strong "Agree", and that answer is a point added towards "introversion", away from "extraversion". But is it even that bilateral and obvious? "difficulty", "introducing yourself", "other people" - all these terms can be unpacked and broadened. Do we, as responding individuals, even possess the mental capacity to assess something as vague as "difficulty"? It depends, it's a variable, not a constant, sometimes it may be easier or harder, there are intensive continuous spectra of gradation, and that doesn't even take into account the "difficulty" compared to who or what.

Of course no one conceives any of these questions in this way, and my own practical response for the purposes of this test will always and forever be "Agree". Of course I'd be much more comfortable and engaged working as an "INTP" mathematician, than an "ESFJ" social worker. But my point is that you can still complicate any one of these questions, such that there exist no straight forward answers, and hence you're not mappable unto any given "type". Suppose there exists an equally intelligent alien species now co-existing with us humans on Earth, but that the MBTI types just doesn't describe their psychology at all. Where is the objectivity now? It follows MBTI is inherently an anthropoid construct reserved 'for us', and I'm sure there exist many counter-examples even for that, in schizophrenics, that don't have any obvious type.

I would concur that, in a general aggregate way, we relatively sane contemporary people can fairly accurately pinpoint our 'type', but I wouldn't attach that much value to it other than a passing reference on an off-topic forum thread. I wouldn't construct my life around it, while some do.

Related to the above, I don't think it's too valuable to attach these types to historical figures either. Anyone can certainly say that Darwin was closer to an INTP than an ESFJ, but then again you also have debates whether he might be an ISTJ, etc., debates I frankly find fairly pointless. Not even competent biographers I'd say would have much of a clue. An ENTP may appear as an ISTJ, an ISFP as an INTJ; mental faculties, thought processes, lifestyles, behaviour - all these "indicators" intertwine, differ, there's evidence for both sides of any given claim, and the whole thing becomes so complicated that it's better to reassess ones initial conceptual framework.

René Descartes and Immanuel Kant are often typed as INTPs. Do they fit among authors you're reading, have an interest in, or even feel a kinship with? Maybe not, and there are countless other examples that wouldn't fit. You might say that their thought processes are in some sense comparable to your own, that given where they started from, their assumption and definitions, they made valid inferences through a combination of their 'thinking' and 'intuition', even if your don't agree with them, that they both have a philosopher's inquisitive nature you identify with and the label "INTP" overarches, and so on, and so on, but I'd say all of that is meandering, and that ditching the labels entirely would be better. I'm not going to view noteworthy historical thinkers through some one system devised recently. INTPs may also be prominent among communists - are they hence not 'true' INTPs, no true Scotsmen? It all becomes too vague and complicated.
Carmel, I could, even without knowing you, have told you, that you were INTP, simply by reading a couple of your comments.
Hehe, cheers I guess.
...a lot of authors I'm coincidentally reading at the moment...

...most prominent among anarcho-capitalists...
Speaking of which, I'm sorely missing your input on the "Your Favourite Books Read in 2017" thread... have you read any good Austrian economics recently? ;)
Last edited by Carmel1379 on January 3rd, 2018, 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 2534
Joined: Aug 18, 2013


Post by mathiasa » January 4th, 2018, 3:20 am

„Do they fit among authors you're reading, have an interest in, or even feel a kinship with?“ -> Amazing that you mention Descartes - I always confuse him with Pascal (no idea why, I also always confuse cat woman and bat girl, it‘s crazy). So that was supposed to be him. And yes, You could say I feel a something for Kant, but I‘m not that eager to read him atm, but hope to get there in the next years. I‘ve only read Eternal Peace many years ago.

Yes, I agree about the the external diagnosis of famous dead people, a lot criteria for defining the the types are really only available to introspection it seems, so it‘s risky and rather silly to do it. For one reason, you would have to know so much about a person.
Take for example Murray Rothbard:
On a reddit someone gave him ENTP (debater) but no explanation. My gut feeling would have been INTP. And then it dawned on my what he could have thought of. Some of his lesser able critics ridiculed him for changing his affiliations so many times over his life span, I associated first with Old Right, then the NEW LEFT, the Libertarian party and towards the end of his life Paleo-Libertarianism. One of the features of ENTP his is dynamical approach to truth finding, he can incorporate new facts very fast and adopts easily (While the INTP carefully constructs his world and will change only if forced by reason). Now looking at thst biography one could easyily get the impression Rothbard was a pragmatic debater, shifting through different environments, opportunisticly chosing sides.
The problem with that is, Rothbard was absolutely unrelenting and actually very static in his reasoning. It was the world around him that changed. Old Right and the New Left had much in common, both were anti-war etc
He simply always joined the group he felt was the most similar to his views. That‘s just a reasonable strategy for someone who wants to further liberty.
He could be ENTP on an other basis, but it shows how easily one can be misled.

But on the other hand I feel like I they help me explain some things. Usually, I feel connected to educated (I say this because in forums etc there are a lot of juvenile libertarians who seem a bit deranged to me) people with the same political view. Most of them are likely INTP or ENTP (to which I can relate too).
There are certainly some that are categorized differently, so far I know of two. And towards both I have a strange feeling which is not caused by what they write, it‘s just a strange, negative feeling:
- Ayn Rand (ENTJ) - I respect her for the polemics concerning education, the stern call to use reason, and others. But it feels cold (her writing, not simply her TV appearance) and different. I also think the way she writes fits ENTJ, amost nothing about epistemology, and instead strategy advice how to life and discussion strategy against statists.

- Rand Paul (ISFJ, ESTJ, INTJ, ISTP, INTP, ENTP, ISFP, basically everything): He‘s my second favorite us politician (after his father), tied with some others (from the view I knew) and listened to two of his audiobooks. Emotionally, he is very strange to me, hard to explain. Warm but negative.

Of course two mean absolutely nothing, but I‘m interest enough to look into it a bit more.

Yes, there are a lot of socialist INTP, but socialist‘s themselves are not
that much often INTP. Libertarianism has a much higher INTP rate (well I didn‘t make a study). So I don‘t think it‘s bias, libertarianism and even more ancap‘ism are far less know and smaller.

Yes, I‘m reading Eugen Böhm Bawerk‘s history about interest theories called Capital and Interest.
And also the proto-austrian Destutt de Tracy‘s Political Economy. This guy thrills me. He was part of the french revolution but got in prison and almost executed. While in prison he had the idea to found a new science called Ideology which would scientifically teach us the advantages of liberty and stuff. He came up with a methodology for economics almost exactly as that of Mises 130 years later. He also showed or at least claimed that economics and ethics go together, something that Rothbard reintroduced into as an addition to Austrian Economics. He‘s also the only one so far I know, who tried to develop a laisser faire ethics that wouldn‘t allow to hurt animals without justification which I feel is very nice (I wouldn't want to live in a world where it would be legal to torture animals).

I guess the test works differently for different people. It‘s maybe more easy for someone with diagnosed adhd to answer correctly, because we have to deal much more with ourselves than normal people.
It‘s not that I‘m looking for an identity, it‘s just that it fits me so good. If my mother, girlfriend, best friend would describe me, they wouldn‘t do half as good a job.
I‘m gonna look at the theory behind it now.
Last edited by mathiasa on January 4th, 2018, 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 4499
Joined: Feb 21, 2014


Post by Carmel1379 » January 4th, 2018, 5:29 am

I accidentally deleted my reply... so here I go again, in a more pulverised fashion.

Your Rothbard example highlights more variables - environmental, social, biological fluctuations, ones reactions to them and the changes they instigate within. But I think PeacefulAnarchy covered all that concisely, so it's useless for me to repeat.

I'm not saying this specifically about you, but suppose some hypothetical MBTI fan, that upon hearing that Descartes is an INTP, and Pascal not (say, an INFP), would instinctively weight the former in higher regard against the latter. One difference in letter will instil an immediate psychological bias towards the one belonging to the same type, in belief he's the more relatable and thoughtful individual. This is some preposterous religious supremacy zealotry, the shuffling of saints and emblematic representatives. The INTP vs. INFP segregation says nothing whatsoever of any value about such exceptional people as Descartes or Pascal. Yet MBTI precipitates identitarianism and tribalism.

It's plausible that many educated people sharing your political views have our personality type. But inferring correspondences and likelihoods of various kinds (like some psychology->ideology link) is not straight-forward. We can't dabble in non-existent statistics either, hence given the abundance of things and their complexity, I'd like to concede to the possibility that anything is possible.

Thus I don't use 'types' myself at all. I'd like to believe that the people I'm interested in are far more complex than a 4x4 grid of labels. Everyone is ((at least) nuanced, to use PeacefulAnarchy's term). Even fictional film characters. Reality is fluid and complex, everything flows, nothing remains. The limitations and biases implicit within MBTI outweigh its utility.

Haven't heard of Destutt de Tracy, thanks for the info.
Last edited by Carmel1379 on January 4th, 2018, 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 2534
Joined: Aug 18, 2013


Post by mathiasa » January 4th, 2018, 5:37 pm

Yes, we agree. To say that these types are a fundamental category of nature, I would have to have a model of how the mind works and test that. I'm simply fascinated by the results as they objectively present them self in my case. I'm very aware of how science works, and the need to dismiss something as astrology, in the name as science but without reason is a contradiction in terms. I see this a lot, it seems to be the modus operandi when dealing with theories that try to use biology (etc) to explain aspects of human nature. It's rather sad that political views can influence science so much.
Not that I disagree with anything peaceful wrote (albeit he missed that there are to things involved that are not the same, the test and the categories. The test isn't even meant to be necessary for the application of a type to a person. A fair assessment would need to incorporate this fact, not mingle it).

Yes, of course, in general. But in my case, I already had much knowledge about the famous persons, own books, read book, stumble upon them in other books. My judgement about these people has been made 15 years ago or more. I know the mbti for 2 days.
For people I do not know at all, like Pascal, you are certainly right. And not only instinctively, also after reflecting on that instinct, Pascal has now gotten a small bonus.

I fully agree that that there is no determining link between personality and ideology. And neither was I born with my current ideology. But it is certainly clear, that political theories which rest very much on logical consistency will be much more appealing to NT types. That could also be a statist ideolgy, it's just that at this time, there are none with that level of consistency (Marxists have long ago given up fixing the inconsistencies of marxism, and other socialists don't care about theory anyway).
Last edited by mathiasa on January 4th, 2018, 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 1319
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium


Post by Lakigigar » March 19th, 2018, 8:39 pm

I'm an INFP.

User avatar
Posts: 186
Joined: Jul 02, 2012
Location: Belgium


Post by Hippiemans » April 10th, 2018, 9:03 pm

I'm also an INFP (Healer)
"- Tu es ma petite sœur, tu es ma fille, tu es ma mère.
- J'aurais bien voulu aussi être ta femme."

User avatar
St. Gloede
Posts: 10878
Joined: May 06, 2011


Post by St. Gloede » April 10th, 2018, 10:16 pm

I think some of the questions were a little too implicit or vague, but thank you for sharing, certainly entertaining. My result was Commander (ENTJ-A). I would likely have gotten a different result a few years ago. Apparently managing people has left a trace. :lol:

Extraverted: 79%
Introverted: 21%

Intuitive: 58%
Observant: 42%

Thinking: 65%
Feeling: 35%

Judging: 53%
Prospecting: 47%

Assertive: 78%
Turbulent: 22%

Edit: As for the discussion above, yes, I would not take this too seriously, and it should certainly not be a source of identity, but it is always fun to see where various tests think you are. Hell, due to nuance I'm sure many could take the test twice and get different results. That said, if used right tests like these can be great for self-analyzis and actually asking yourself "to what extent does this question apply to me?". Or even more interesting, "Having said x, what does this mean, and am I happy/content with the answer?". The end results can apply the same way as well.
Last edited by St. Gloede on April 10th, 2018, 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 30620
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia


Post by mightysparks » March 16th, 2020, 4:34 am

mightysparks wrote:
April 19th, 2016, 9:14 am
One of my friends sent us a link to this the other day: https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

It's pretty much the same as the one we've posted before but a bit different, the site is prettier and uh well maybe you've changed :P

I got Logistician - INTJ (I think they may have their S and N mixed up coz I dunno how intuitive stands for s?)


Three of my friends took it and they got ENFP, ISTJ and ENTP. So there's a bit of a mix of us.
My boyfriend had never heard of this so I was trying to explain it to him, and then decided to take it again to see if I'd changed (especially since I posted this before I got depressed)..

It looks like last time I actually got ISTJ (which is listed as logistician) but the site screwed it up. This time I got INTJ fo realz.


The change from assertive to turbulent is interesting. I guess depression has made me less confident in myself (no surprise lol). Dunno why I'm more intuitive than observant now.

Edit: Bf got INFP-T.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT


Post Reply