![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daI spent 20 minutes earlier this week filling out an online MBTI, and today I went to Career Services on campus to review it with their resident expert, Liz K. (Free for staff; and mah boss has told me it's job-related and I shouldn't count it as personal time. ...But wait till she hears I'm going back.)
It was an entertaining hour, and I took a few notes on things that tickled me. To be read with various grains of salt.
* One area the Myers-Briggs has no predictive power is in the workplace. People with widely different types can both be happy in the same positions.
* However, it is useful for identifying preferences that people might not realize, based on cultural assumptions against those preferences- and, to some extent, strengths and weaknesses for personal interactions.
* ESTJ is what employers almost universally want from their front-line staff. Though many of these companies seem to brand themselves as looking for ENFP. And Introverts get no respect in the workplace. (Which is why we get to impersonate the E/S/T/J types at the office).
* N's are stereotyped as creative, but S's are creative as well- one such area is toward efficiency, parsimony.
* S's prefer to work a project from bottom-up and use language for accuracy; N's prefer to design from top-down and use language to play.
* N's might buy a fast car as a status symbol; S's might buy the car because they like the sensation of driving fast.
* NT's might be energized developing strategies; NF's energized by nurturing people.
* NT's may be known for their sarcastic humour.
* NF's may be known for enjoying taking the MBTI and learning the psychology of others; whereas FP's hate how the MBTI questions try and box you in without any subtlety or context.
* A bad combination in meetings: EN's tossing out half-baked ideas one after another, and after everyone else is in agreement, the IS might come up with his/her best answer, which s/he has taken the time to hone and finish in his/her head; coming across as passive-aggressive.
* A meeting of all J's may make a quick decision that's wrong; a meeting of all P's make the same decision over and over and over.
* Couples usually pair a P and a J. If both are P's, one will probably "fake it" as a J in order to keep the household running and bills paid.
* For J's the T/F dichotomy becomes crucial for how they deal with the outside world (setting their structure/organization via logic/objectivity or values/subjectivity).
* For P's the S/N dichotomy becomes crucial (via present/concrete or future/abstract).
---
I've tested myself online every once in a few years, and I consistently turn out IN__ - neutral between T/F and J/P. Sure enough, this time I rated "T" but just one point away from being rated "F"; and I was rated a "mild J".
But that didn't satisfy Liz; she said this didn't make sense with what I told her. And if I was J, I would be dominant for Feeling/Thinking- I certainly wouldn't be ambiguous on that measure. So, yay! I'm an aberration! She said perhaps I operated as a "J" both at work and home, but they aren't my preference? This seemed likely. So, she had me read some summary descriptions, until we zeroed in on INTP or INFP.
And when I read the long-form descriptions, I identified most with INFP, the same type as I self-identified 4 years ago.
She said if I come back, she can print out the appropriate pages out of their guide for me, but as it was, my custom printout wasn't at all accurate.
A cynical person might conclude that I've been told to vote early and often. Or, roll my character stats but change them around until they look right.
We were supposed to talk about strengths/blindspots I might want to know about, but we ran out of time. Fortunately, the second hit is free as well.
One thread of thought I found interesting is that I will make to-do lists, and refer back to them, which is a "J" type activity. However, the system for lists that I have settled on, GTD, allows maximal flexibility for choosing on-the-fly what tasks you're up for doing next. Which is the embodiment of "Perceiving" type.
So: yeah. INFP inna ESTJ wrld.
It was an entertaining hour, and I took a few notes on things that tickled me. To be read with various grains of salt.
* One area the Myers-Briggs has no predictive power is in the workplace. People with widely different types can both be happy in the same positions.
* However, it is useful for identifying preferences that people might not realize, based on cultural assumptions against those preferences- and, to some extent, strengths and weaknesses for personal interactions.
* ESTJ is what employers almost universally want from their front-line staff. Though many of these companies seem to brand themselves as looking for ENFP. And Introverts get no respect in the workplace. (Which is why we get to impersonate the E/S/T/J types at the office).
* N's are stereotyped as creative, but S's are creative as well- one such area is toward efficiency, parsimony.
* S's prefer to work a project from bottom-up and use language for accuracy; N's prefer to design from top-down and use language to play.
* N's might buy a fast car as a status symbol; S's might buy the car because they like the sensation of driving fast.
* NT's might be energized developing strategies; NF's energized by nurturing people.
* NT's may be known for their sarcastic humour.
* NF's may be known for enjoying taking the MBTI and learning the psychology of others; whereas FP's hate how the MBTI questions try and box you in without any subtlety or context.
* A bad combination in meetings: EN's tossing out half-baked ideas one after another, and after everyone else is in agreement, the IS might come up with his/her best answer, which s/he has taken the time to hone and finish in his/her head; coming across as passive-aggressive.
* A meeting of all J's may make a quick decision that's wrong; a meeting of all P's make the same decision over and over and over.
* Couples usually pair a P and a J. If both are P's, one will probably "fake it" as a J in order to keep the household running and bills paid.
* For J's the T/F dichotomy becomes crucial for how they deal with the outside world (setting their structure/organization via logic/objectivity or values/subjectivity).
* For P's the S/N dichotomy becomes crucial (via present/concrete or future/abstract).
---
I've tested myself online every once in a few years, and I consistently turn out IN__ - neutral between T/F and J/P. Sure enough, this time I rated "T" but just one point away from being rated "F"; and I was rated a "mild J".
But that didn't satisfy Liz; she said this didn't make sense with what I told her. And if I was J, I would be dominant for Feeling/Thinking- I certainly wouldn't be ambiguous on that measure. So, yay! I'm an aberration! She said perhaps I operated as a "J" both at work and home, but they aren't my preference? This seemed likely. So, she had me read some summary descriptions, until we zeroed in on INTP or INFP.
And when I read the long-form descriptions, I identified most with INFP, the same type as I self-identified 4 years ago.
She said if I come back, she can print out the appropriate pages out of their guide for me, but as it was, my custom printout wasn't at all accurate.
A cynical person might conclude that I've been told to vote early and often. Or, roll my character stats but change them around until they look right.
We were supposed to talk about strengths/blindspots I might want to know about, but we ran out of time. Fortunately, the second hit is free as well.
One thread of thought I found interesting is that I will make to-do lists, and refer back to them, which is a "J" type activity. However, the system for lists that I have settled on, GTD, allows maximal flexibility for choosing on-the-fly what tasks you're up for doing next. Which is the embodiment of "Perceiving" type.
So: yeah. INFP inna ESTJ wrld.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Monday, 18 July 2011 07:32 pm (UTC)Anyway, I posted it to a shareware site of some sort for free when I was done, and apparently it took off. It got about 2.5 million downloads at a time when that was a truly massive number. I got a request for modifications from some office of professional development that worked for the U.S. government, and although I couldn't take money for it (see below), they did send me a couple of mugs. It appeared in some print articles about "neat stuff you can find on the net" in major newspapers. It also started appearing on lists of resources for actual psychologists, some of whom sent me e-mail saying how easy it was to use and how much better it made their lives. All in all, kind of fun for a lark.
At some point, in fact, it became popular enough that the author of the book contacted me about it. Needless to say, he wasn't as thrilled as everybody else. However, we e-mailed back and forth and came to the arrangement that I could keep distributing the software for free so long as I didn't get any monetary benefit from doing so, and so long as I took all the descriptions of the types out of the results section, instead providing links to his website as the place people could go to find out about their type and the interpretation thereof. I did that, and everything was cool for a while.
Then, a few years later, I got a cease-and-desist from a lawyer representing Kiersey's son. I replied back with a summary of what had transpired between the Dad and I and that we'd had an informal arrangement. I got a response that the son was in charge of that part of the business now and that any informal arrangements were null and void and that I had x amount of time to remove my software from anywhere it appeared on the entire internets. I responded and said that I'd removed it from my own website and the places that I had personally posted it, but I had no control over most of the internets and that his demand was impossible to satisfy. I never heard back after that. For a while I was a bit nervous about a huge lawsuit stamping me out of fiscal existence, that never came to bear, and it's been a good decade or more since that last interaction with no further ill effects.
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 19 July 2011 01:19 am (UTC)...Guess so would the lawyers. ;)