Poll: Hacker News (Myers-Briggs) Personality Types
56 comments
It's instructive to read the prose about all of the types this test partitions people into. Do it before you see your results. Can you pick the one that describes you ahead of time?
They're all flattering and describe experiences that I think most humans have at some point. The sense that something written for a very broad audience applies specifically to you can be deceiving. That's part of why horoscopes are popular.
I came out as an ENTP this time (I've scored as an INTP and INFP in the past) but the profile for ISFP also describes characteristics I'd like to think I have.
I'm suspicious of things like personality sorters. This one takes the more continuous and multifaceted range of human personality and quantizes it into four binary dimensions. Even assuming those categories represent some kind of tendency for human personalities to cluster around certain traits, are sorters like this helpful? Do they provide some genuine insight you didn't have before? Or are they just a more sophisticated variety of horoscope?
You answer a bunch of vague and general questions, and get a vague and general answer. Your input is 72 bits, and the output is only 4 bits. Were those 4 bits really such a mystery to begin with? Would the results be different if the test just briefly described both categories for each dimension, and had you pick the one that sounded more like you?
If you can pick your personality out beforehand by reading short descriptions of the personality types, what was the point of answering 72 questions? If you can't, are you still willing to accept that your type really describes you?
They're all flattering and describe experiences that I think most humans have at some point. The sense that something written for a very broad audience applies specifically to you can be deceiving. That's part of why horoscopes are popular.
I came out as an ENTP this time (I've scored as an INTP and INFP in the past) but the profile for ISFP also describes characteristics I'd like to think I have.
I'm suspicious of things like personality sorters. This one takes the more continuous and multifaceted range of human personality and quantizes it into four binary dimensions. Even assuming those categories represent some kind of tendency for human personalities to cluster around certain traits, are sorters like this helpful? Do they provide some genuine insight you didn't have before? Or are they just a more sophisticated variety of horoscope?
You answer a bunch of vague and general questions, and get a vague and general answer. Your input is 72 bits, and the output is only 4 bits. Were those 4 bits really such a mystery to begin with? Would the results be different if the test just briefly described both categories for each dimension, and had you pick the one that sounded more like you?
If you can pick your personality out beforehand by reading short descriptions of the personality types, what was the point of answering 72 questions? If you can't, are you still willing to accept that your type really describes you?
Well the questions can help you reflect on yourself as well as people in general.
Also, the fact that the responses to this poll skew massively toward INTP/INTJ tells you something doesn't it?
Also, the fact that the responses to this poll skew massively toward INTP/INTJ tells you something doesn't it?
"Also, the fact that the responses to this poll skew massively toward INTP/INTJ tells you something doesn't it?"
It does. I voted this up, because finding out about personality traits that correlate with voting in polls on news.YC is at least a little bit interesting.
But it's still not terribly surprising, if you expand the letters: people here tend more than the average person to describe themselves as introverted, interested in theories and abstractions, and reliant on thought for decision making rather than feelings.
It does. I voted this up, because finding out about personality traits that correlate with voting in polls on news.YC is at least a little bit interesting.
But it's still not terribly surprising, if you expand the letters: people here tend more than the average person to describe themselves as introverted, interested in theories and abstractions, and reliant on thought for decision making rather than feelings.
I once took a similar, but much simpler test consisting of choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic, and scored near evenly in each category.
I was told that it was because I was a super-rare type of person, who was essentially capable of exhibiting whichever type of personality suited me at the time.
I think it was because I gamed the test.
While I can see the value in attempting to define the traits of certain people, I don't think that a set 4, 16, or even 200 categories will help you understand someone as well as spending a week with them will.
I was told that it was because I was a super-rare type of person, who was essentially capable of exhibiting whichever type of personality suited me at the time.
I think it was because I gamed the test.
While I can see the value in attempting to define the traits of certain people, I don't think that a set 4, 16, or even 200 categories will help you understand someone as well as spending a week with them will.
Who's to say studying the personality types before taking the test won't influence your answers? For many there is quite a disconnect between who you are and who you _think_ you are. The difference is even greater between who you are and who you want to be. I'd bet people who read the prose before taking the test would alter their answers (even if subconsciously) to conform to who they want to be.
Tests like these can help you gain valuable insight into your personality and may help you get a handle on others with whom you don't click. If you game the test, you totally miss out on any knowledge it may provide.
Tests like these can help you gain valuable insight into your personality and may help you get a handle on others with whom you don't click. If you game the test, you totally miss out on any knowledge it may provide.
I'm not sure it really can help you gain valuable insight into your personality. Has anyone measured that value? Do people who have seen their Meyers-Briggs results do better in some measurable way from people who haven't?
I think the benefit is less in helping you understand your own personality, and more in helping you understand how others' personalities differ from your own.
I scored INTJ in high school and I just took the web test and scored INTJ again. So the test at least seems to have some kind of consistency.
Sure it does. It sorts people into bins based on what they say. So if you would answer these questions the same way now as you did then, it will produce the same answer. The aspects of your personality that it quantizes haven't changed enough to flip the answer on any axis since last time you took the test.
A test like "which Harry Potter character are you?" probably has the same kind of consistency.
A test like "which Harry Potter character are you?" probably has the same kind of consistency.
Here's the funny thing! I have been reading Erik Benson(Buster McLeod)'s blog from '04. I do't know what he started off as, but now he is a "ENTP" MEANING shit happens people change.
Between the Forer Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect), confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), and the fact that people routinely retest into different categories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs#Study_of_scoring_c...), I don't place much stock in Myers-Briggs. Add to that the dubious way in which the theory was developed, and I'm completely mystified by the appeal of this system to so-called hackers.
It just seems like you could take any 4 either/or categories and have a test that's equally valid. Do you like apples or bananas? Wear corrective lenses or not? Like dogs or cats? Rent your home or own your home? (I'm ACDR, for the record. My type is particularly rare, yet makes up a majority of CEOs and start-up founders. Yay, me!)
Can we please put a stop to this nonsense?
It just seems like you could take any 4 either/or categories and have a test that's equally valid. Do you like apples or bananas? Wear corrective lenses or not? Like dogs or cats? Rent your home or own your home? (I'm ACDR, for the record. My type is particularly rare, yet makes up a majority of CEOs and start-up founders. Yay, me!)
Can we please put a stop to this nonsense?
You're missing the point. Myers-Brigg types are most useful for understanding other people, not for understanding yourself. Before I read about the other Myers-Brigg types, I just didn't understand why certain other people made decisions as they did, e.g., a member of a group insisting on a worse outcome for everyone to punish someone who'd offended them. I mean, it just wasn't logical!
You see, I was trying to understand/predict others' behaviour by projecting my own personality onto them. Much better is to understand/predict someone's behaviour based on how someone of their Myers-Brigg type would behave.
If understanding how others are different is what Myers-Brigg types are for, then the division into 16 types makes sense. It represents a trade-off between having too few types (and not having predictive power) and having too many (and having to learn too much information of less relevance).
You see, I was trying to understand/predict others' behaviour by projecting my own personality onto them. Much better is to understand/predict someone's behaviour based on how someone of their Myers-Brigg type would behave.
If understanding how others are different is what Myers-Brigg types are for, then the division into 16 types makes sense. It represents a trade-off between having too few types (and not having predictive power) and having too many (and having to learn too much information of less relevance).
How are you supposed to know a person's Myers-Briggs type, when you're trying to understand that person's behavior? It's not exactly listed on the nametag. So the best you can do is infer it from what you already know of that person. But if you already know so much as to be able to infer it, you can understand/predict that person's behavior without resorting to any pigeon-holing.
If you're a people-person and can instinctively understand the people you meet, then you're right. But not everyone is born with this skill -- certainly I wasn't. Learning about the other Myers-Briggs types helped me to develop it.
"It just seems like you could take any 4 either/or categories and have a test that's equally valid."
The categories used by the Big Five were actually created using empirical research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Con...
The categories used by the Big Five were actually created using empirical research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Con...
Okay, then on that note, what's everyone's Big Five personality test score? There's an online inventory at:
http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo120.htm
Mine is 10 (3-4-4-70-17-57) / 73 (70-61-33-80-74-63) / 43 (52-33-41-35-26-80) / 41 (12-20-53-89-48-28) / 67 (81-50-5-38-87-87) in test order (that's Extraversion/Agreeableness/Conscientiousness/Neuroticism/Openness). Interestingly, that seems like it's about the worst possible personality for an entrepreneur, with super low scores in all the extraversion categories, high cautiousness, high self-consciousness, low self-discipline and adventurousness.
http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo120.htm
Mine is 10 (3-4-4-70-17-57) / 73 (70-61-33-80-74-63) / 43 (52-33-41-35-26-80) / 41 (12-20-53-89-48-28) / 67 (81-50-5-38-87-87) in test order (that's Extraversion/Agreeableness/Conscientiousness/Neuroticism/Openness). Interestingly, that seems like it's about the worst possible personality for an entrepreneur, with super low scores in all the extraversion categories, high cautiousness, high self-consciousness, low self-discipline and adventurousness.
I don't remember my scores offhand, but I remember getting weird results the last time I took an online version. I think it said I had low openness to experience, which is weird, because that factor should be pretty much off the charts for me. It's important to remember that while the categories themselves have empirical support, the specific test you took might not have high reliability for assigning scores within any given category.
those issues have to do with testing, not the theory itself. it's not the theory's fault that humans are so... kaleidoscopic when they try to look at themselves
as expected, people here are overwhelmingly INTJ/INTP. you'll find that's the case in most scientific disciplines
it's not easy to see how the theory is good without having noticed how particularly similar people can be
these type combinations are not just 'any four categories', their effect on a type is greater than the sum of the parts. a bit more descriptive is the underlying Jungian functions. for example, INTJ is syntactic sugar for Ni-Te, introverted intution primary (the part that makes them so confident) and extraverted thinking secondary (the part that makes them logical). INTP is sugar for Ti-Ne, introverted thinking primary (the part that makes them absent-minded), and extroverted intuition secondary (the part that makes them look at the world for answers)
so by flipping the J to a P, the whole type is different. not all letter flips are that significant. I/E is the closest. for example, Feynman (ENTP) and Einstein (INTP) were Ne-Ti and Ti-Ne respectively. Feynman was driven by extroverted intuition, while it served Einstein. the nature of their discoveries is similarly 'playful' and creative
also, these four categories are not poorly-chosen. the most significant category is the S-N axis. it's basically this simple: if you meet someone who shares this same letter (you are both S or both N,) you will click. otherwise you won't
here's some forums where the type differences stand out
http://infp.globalchatter.com/messageboard/ -- fluffy
http://www.intpcentral.com/ -- levitous
http://intjforum.com/ -- dry
one thing to keep in mind is these aren't 16 "boxes." it's a bit complicated. for example, i suspect pg is INTP, but not standard-issue. he might be an Enneagram 3 INTP, for lack of a formal label. it's something he would share with Maddox ^_^
as expected, people here are overwhelmingly INTJ/INTP. you'll find that's the case in most scientific disciplines
it's not easy to see how the theory is good without having noticed how particularly similar people can be
these type combinations are not just 'any four categories', their effect on a type is greater than the sum of the parts. a bit more descriptive is the underlying Jungian functions. for example, INTJ is syntactic sugar for Ni-Te, introverted intution primary (the part that makes them so confident) and extraverted thinking secondary (the part that makes them logical). INTP is sugar for Ti-Ne, introverted thinking primary (the part that makes them absent-minded), and extroverted intuition secondary (the part that makes them look at the world for answers)
so by flipping the J to a P, the whole type is different. not all letter flips are that significant. I/E is the closest. for example, Feynman (ENTP) and Einstein (INTP) were Ne-Ti and Ti-Ne respectively. Feynman was driven by extroverted intuition, while it served Einstein. the nature of their discoveries is similarly 'playful' and creative
also, these four categories are not poorly-chosen. the most significant category is the S-N axis. it's basically this simple: if you meet someone who shares this same letter (you are both S or both N,) you will click. otherwise you won't
here's some forums where the type differences stand out
http://infp.globalchatter.com/messageboard/ -- fluffy
http://www.intpcentral.com/ -- levitous
http://intjforum.com/ -- dry
one thing to keep in mind is these aren't 16 "boxes." it's a bit complicated. for example, i suspect pg is INTP, but not standard-issue. he might be an Enneagram 3 INTP, for lack of a formal label. it's something he would share with Maddox ^_^
tokipin: those issues have to do with testing, not the theory itself.
I would argue that if you can't test a given theory, then what you have isn't a theory, but a belief. Otherwise, you're committing the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. The Wikipedia article I cited actually states that self-reporting is to be taken more seriously than the test results. Like, "Oh, I tested INTJ, but feel ESFP, therefore I'm ESFP." This is just rank silliness, akin to an astrologer justifying his failed predictions of your successful romance with, "Well, Mars was entering Gemini, but your love-lines were of different lengths."
As far as the theory itself, the original "Please Understand Me" book is filled with wild extrapolations from anecdata and borderline mystical thinking.
tokipin: also, these four categories are not poorly-chosen. the most significant category is the S-N axis. it's basically this simple: if you meet someone who shares this same letter (you are both S or both N,) you will click. otherwise you won't
This is precisely why this kind of pigeonholing is so maddeningly counterproductive. "Clicking" has just as much to do with personal goals as it does personality similarities, no matter how (mis)measured. What if one is aware that there are benefits to meeting with minds that have perspectives different from one's own? Perhaps that person would most "click" with people wildly differently than his/herself.
tokipin: one thing to keep in mind is these aren't 16 "boxes."
It would appear that this is at least in conflict with the idea that clicking is determined (at least partially) by compatibility on a personality axis. At most, this is an absolute refutation of MB personality theory in that it denies it any predictive power. What's the point of having the categories if you can always plead out of them when the evidence is uncomfortable?
I would argue that if you can't test a given theory, then what you have isn't a theory, but a belief. Otherwise, you're committing the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. The Wikipedia article I cited actually states that self-reporting is to be taken more seriously than the test results. Like, "Oh, I tested INTJ, but feel ESFP, therefore I'm ESFP." This is just rank silliness, akin to an astrologer justifying his failed predictions of your successful romance with, "Well, Mars was entering Gemini, but your love-lines were of different lengths."
As far as the theory itself, the original "Please Understand Me" book is filled with wild extrapolations from anecdata and borderline mystical thinking.
tokipin: also, these four categories are not poorly-chosen. the most significant category is the S-N axis. it's basically this simple: if you meet someone who shares this same letter (you are both S or both N,) you will click. otherwise you won't
This is precisely why this kind of pigeonholing is so maddeningly counterproductive. "Clicking" has just as much to do with personal goals as it does personality similarities, no matter how (mis)measured. What if one is aware that there are benefits to meeting with minds that have perspectives different from one's own? Perhaps that person would most "click" with people wildly differently than his/herself.
tokipin: one thing to keep in mind is these aren't 16 "boxes."
It would appear that this is at least in conflict with the idea that clicking is determined (at least partially) by compatibility on a personality axis. At most, this is an absolute refutation of MB personality theory in that it denies it any predictive power. What's the point of having the categories if you can always plead out of them when the evidence is uncomfortable?
> I would argue that if you can't test a given theory, then what you have isn't a theory, but a belief.
most psychology is like this
> The Wikipedia article I cited actually states that self-reporting is to be taken more seriously than the test results.
currently doctors look at pictures to determine if a patient has cancer or some other condition. why can't the computer do that instead? neural networks are used for this sometimes, but it remains that the subject is not so easy to capture with a pixel-wise algorithm. hence, why is it strange that a point-by-point questionnaire is inadequate to ascertain someone's type?
> As far as the theory itself, the original "Please Understand Me" book is filled with wild extrapolations from anecdata and borderline mystical thinking.
the original theory isn't Kiersey's or Myers-Briggs'. it's Jung's. he didn't think of it as a "put me in a box" type of thing. that was how Myers-Briggs sold it. also Kiersey originally used four general archetypes, which he did not notice until later corresponded nicely with NT (rational) / NF (idealist) / SJ (guardian) / SP (artisan)
invention/reinvention of these types occurs often. i remember finding a book published in Einstein's time titled something like "on the two types of intelligence in mathematical discoveries." Jung's theory may not have even existed at that point, but the book was clearly talking about Ni/Ne (by extension, mostly INTJ/INTP)
another reinvention is the programming characters Mort, Elvis, and Einstein. Elvis = INTJ, Einstein = INTP, Mort = probably ISTJ
and again, a lot of psychology is hand-wavy. you're not going to be able to prove any of these things any time soon. that doesn't mean they aren't sound. take a look at those forums i linked, and tell me if you think there is no difference between them, especially no difference having precisely to do with their types
> This is precisely why this kind of pigeonholing is so maddeningly counterproductive.
indeed, it can suck, and some people use typology defensively and offensively, which is certainly counterproductive
> "Clicking" has just as much to do with personal goals as it does personality similarities, no matter how (mis)measured. What if one is aware that there are benefits to meeting with minds that have perspectives different from one's own? Perhaps that person would most "click" with people wildly differently than his/herself.
try it. tell me if you find someone whose second letter isn't the same and you click with them. i guarantee you you won't. i don't mean that in an assholish dismissing sort of way, but the S-N axis is by far the most "categorizing"
it's almost like speaking a completely different language. you could flip every other letter and keep that axis the same, and you will be able to understand eachother easily. but flip just that letter and you're at eachother's throats
is this a generalization? despite the fact that my best friend doesn't share my letter on that axis; no, it isn't. it's 800% proven fact, and will be the case in 800% -- maybe up to as high as 1200% -- of situations. even videogame characters, and the letters S and N themselves, hate eachother due to this rigid dichotomy
> It would appear that this is at least in conflict with the idea that clicking is determined (at least partially) by compatibility on a personality axis. At most, this is an absolute refutation of MB personality theory in that it denies it any predictive power. What's the point of having the categories if you can always plead out of them when the evidence is uncomfortable?
could you think of them as boxes? yes. but they aren't boxes in the way most people would think. genaralizations is more accurate, and gets across what i was trying to say -- you may be introverted, but that doesn't mean you can't go hit corners in your lo-lo wit da gangstaz whilst spewin out madd lyrics, or lead a country as president, etc. in fact interesting things happen when you put types in places they wouldn't normally be. you could think of it as a mutation effect that in some cases is very beneficial
Feynman (ENTP) is a great example. most scientists are INTJ/INTP, but science was lucky and grateful to have Feynman as a member
your type is you, but what you do with you is up to you :)
most psychology is like this
> The Wikipedia article I cited actually states that self-reporting is to be taken more seriously than the test results.
currently doctors look at pictures to determine if a patient has cancer or some other condition. why can't the computer do that instead? neural networks are used for this sometimes, but it remains that the subject is not so easy to capture with a pixel-wise algorithm. hence, why is it strange that a point-by-point questionnaire is inadequate to ascertain someone's type?
> As far as the theory itself, the original "Please Understand Me" book is filled with wild extrapolations from anecdata and borderline mystical thinking.
the original theory isn't Kiersey's or Myers-Briggs'. it's Jung's. he didn't think of it as a "put me in a box" type of thing. that was how Myers-Briggs sold it. also Kiersey originally used four general archetypes, which he did not notice until later corresponded nicely with NT (rational) / NF (idealist) / SJ (guardian) / SP (artisan)
invention/reinvention of these types occurs often. i remember finding a book published in Einstein's time titled something like "on the two types of intelligence in mathematical discoveries." Jung's theory may not have even existed at that point, but the book was clearly talking about Ni/Ne (by extension, mostly INTJ/INTP)
another reinvention is the programming characters Mort, Elvis, and Einstein. Elvis = INTJ, Einstein = INTP, Mort = probably ISTJ
and again, a lot of psychology is hand-wavy. you're not going to be able to prove any of these things any time soon. that doesn't mean they aren't sound. take a look at those forums i linked, and tell me if you think there is no difference between them, especially no difference having precisely to do with their types
> This is precisely why this kind of pigeonholing is so maddeningly counterproductive.
indeed, it can suck, and some people use typology defensively and offensively, which is certainly counterproductive
> "Clicking" has just as much to do with personal goals as it does personality similarities, no matter how (mis)measured. What if one is aware that there are benefits to meeting with minds that have perspectives different from one's own? Perhaps that person would most "click" with people wildly differently than his/herself.
try it. tell me if you find someone whose second letter isn't the same and you click with them. i guarantee you you won't. i don't mean that in an assholish dismissing sort of way, but the S-N axis is by far the most "categorizing"
it's almost like speaking a completely different language. you could flip every other letter and keep that axis the same, and you will be able to understand eachother easily. but flip just that letter and you're at eachother's throats
is this a generalization? despite the fact that my best friend doesn't share my letter on that axis; no, it isn't. it's 800% proven fact, and will be the case in 800% -- maybe up to as high as 1200% -- of situations. even videogame characters, and the letters S and N themselves, hate eachother due to this rigid dichotomy
> It would appear that this is at least in conflict with the idea that clicking is determined (at least partially) by compatibility on a personality axis. At most, this is an absolute refutation of MB personality theory in that it denies it any predictive power. What's the point of having the categories if you can always plead out of them when the evidence is uncomfortable?
could you think of them as boxes? yes. but they aren't boxes in the way most people would think. genaralizations is more accurate, and gets across what i was trying to say -- you may be introverted, but that doesn't mean you can't go hit corners in your lo-lo wit da gangstaz whilst spewin out madd lyrics, or lead a country as president, etc. in fact interesting things happen when you put types in places they wouldn't normally be. you could think of it as a mutation effect that in some cases is very beneficial
Feynman (ENTP) is a great example. most scientists are INTJ/INTP, but science was lucky and grateful to have Feynman as a member
your type is you, but what you do with you is up to you :)
you are an entp presumably?
intp actually, though my Ne is strong, so you are correct in that sense. this is what i was getting at about how it can get complicated. my 'function composition' is Ti-Ne, but that's talking about the dominance (perhaps conscious/subconscious) of the functions, not their strengths
Jung said everyone has all 8 of the functions in varying degrees of strength. i believe it's possible (and this is stepping out of my bounds) that you may be, say, Ni-Te (INTJ) but have very strong Fe
Jung said everyone has all 8 of the functions in varying degrees of strength. i believe it's possible (and this is stepping out of my bounds) that you may be, say, Ni-Te (INTJ) but have very strong Fe
Despite the drawbacks in MB, the poll results show an interesting and compelling deviation from expected (i.e. average) results.
Well, the results are certainly skewed, but that's not necessarily an indication of anything interesting.
For example, you can't rule out the possibility that the test is particularly appealing to people with a certain personality (i.e. "hackers"), and that the test happens to label these people identically (i.e. "NT"). The fact that the test was posted here, and that the results are heavily skewed toward a small number of types, could be one big example of selection bias.
For example, you can't rule out the possibility that the test is particularly appealing to people with a certain personality (i.e. "hackers"), and that the test happens to label these people identically (i.e. "NT"). The fact that the test was posted here, and that the results are heavily skewed toward a small number of types, could be one big example of selection bias.
"the test is particularly appealing to people with a certain personality (i.e. "hackers"), and that the test happens to label these people identically (i.e. "NT")."
Isn't this the only claim that proponents of the test make? It's the whole point: people with different personalities are supposed to show up differently on the test. It's not clear to me why you seem to think that the claims for the test are actually claims against it. :)
Isn't this the only claim that proponents of the test make? It's the whole point: people with different personalities are supposed to show up differently on the test. It's not clear to me why you seem to think that the claims for the test are actually claims against it. :)
Well, the Meyers-Briggs test claims to be able to discriminate many different types, not just NT variants. But NT seems to be a type that is particularly well-identified by the test. You don't often hear SJs (for example) raving about the accuracy of their type classification.
Simpler example: if I created a test that appealed primarily to cooks, written using language and questions that related to food and gastronomy, you probably wouldn't be surprised if that test "profiled" the characteristics of a large number of professional chefs. You could argue that such a test is therefore a good discriminator of professional chefs, but that doesn't necessarily make it an interesting assessment of personality.
Point is, maybe there's something about the analytical nature of the people described as "NT" that leads them to find this test appealing/accurate/relevant. You can control for this phenomenon in an experimental setting, but you can't point to the results here, and suggest that it validates the test because the results are exceptionally skewed.
Simpler example: if I created a test that appealed primarily to cooks, written using language and questions that related to food and gastronomy, you probably wouldn't be surprised if that test "profiled" the characteristics of a large number of professional chefs. You could argue that such a test is therefore a good discriminator of professional chefs, but that doesn't necessarily make it an interesting assessment of personality.
Point is, maybe there's something about the analytical nature of the people described as "NT" that leads them to find this test appealing/accurate/relevant. You can control for this phenomenon in an experimental setting, but you can't point to the results here, and suggest that it validates the test because the results are exceptionally skewed.
But even if it is an enormous case of selection bias (which I won't argue against, since it's a position I've held myself), it may still be interesting. And to hold that there's such a wide selection bias among the type of people who frequent this site is, I would argue, an interesting phenomenon.
I don't disagree. "Interest" is a pretty ambiguous word. That said, if this site appeals to a certain type of person, and the test appeals to the same type of person, then the results aren't surprising. I guess that's what I'm getting at.
That's exactly what an INTJ would say. If you were an INTP, you wouldn't have posted that because you would've been second-guessing yourself. :)
Myers-Briggs used to annoy me because there were always a lot of questions I could go either way on. The third time I took it I figured out what to do. I divided my answers into two columns. Anytime I had an unambiguous answer, I'd put it in both columns, but if I felt split I'd put opposite answers in each column. I was curious as to whether this would yield interesting results, and it did: I got a 50/50 split in two of the variables (that is, I'm evenly matched in IE and TF), and an extreme bias in the other two (I'm about as N and P as you can get). This matches how I feel about myself pretty well. I found another amusing way to verify the approach: if you combine the opposites to my extremes you get SJ, and the SJs turn out to be my arch-enemies. I read the description of SJ and it makes me squirm and think, why would anybody be like this? These people are neurotic bureaucrats. The world would be better off without them!
Edit: I'm joking, of course. SJ is so much my polar opposite that I have a hard time understanding or empathizing with them. I just find it ironically hilarious to read a typology that's designed to foster understanding and find myself dismissing 1/16 of humanity as basically adding no value.
Edit 2: As of this moment, the SJs are less than 3% of the respondents to the poll. Evidently I've come to the right place. :)
Edit: I'm joking, of course. SJ is so much my polar opposite that I have a hard time understanding or empathizing with them. I just find it ironically hilarious to read a typology that's designed to foster understanding and find myself dismissing 1/16 of humanity as basically adding no value.
Edit 2: As of this moment, the SJs are less than 3% of the respondents to the poll. Evidently I've come to the right place. :)
Wow. 30 points for INTP, 13 for INTJ while I'm writing this.
The timing for this poll couldn't be better. Just yesterday I was wondering about three things:
- How much of an INTP Paul Graham shows to be through his writing and his attitudes in regards to the development of Hacker News (both the software and the community).
- How much of the "initial" community would be INTP. It seems to me that many people came here because of affinity.
- Given that INTX are the least common group in the population (less than 5%), and given the way that PG is not willing to change the community "profile", this site is bound to have few users. Not because of elitism, but just because there isn't that many INTXs around!
The timing for this poll couldn't be better. Just yesterday I was wondering about three things:
- How much of an INTP Paul Graham shows to be through his writing and his attitudes in regards to the development of Hacker News (both the software and the community).
- How much of the "initial" community would be INTP. It seems to me that many people came here because of affinity.
- Given that INTX are the least common group in the population (less than 5%), and given the way that PG is not willing to change the community "profile", this site is bound to have few users. Not because of elitism, but just because there isn't that many INTXs around!
I've seen these run through various hacker communities in the past and INTJ is definitely the classical hacker, with INTP not too far behind.
When testing in high school I tended to test INTP, but I've drifted towards ENTP and now tend to test as a pretty strong extrovert.
When testing in high school I tended to test INTP, but I've drifted towards ENTP and now tend to test as a pretty strong extrovert.
makes me feel a little weird being and INTJ Designer with marginal to crappy hacking ability. Yeay for feeling out of place.
These are interesting results. I'm an ENTP - which seems to me to be an extroverted version of INTP. If you lump those two together - it seems that the overwhelming people here are very, very similar.
for all you INTPs out there, have a look at this:
http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html
I was floored when I found that link. Describes me to a T.
http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html
I was floored when I found that link. Describes me to a T.
I know what you mean. Reading INTP personality profiles online was a life changing experience for me. Suddenly everything made so much more sense.
It's not just identifying with some vague general points of the description. For some people reading an INTP profile for the first time is blow-your-mind-and-shit-your-existential-pants amazing.
INTPs would be first in line to understand and point out the kind of cognitive bias that make people believe in horoscopes and astrology (and possibly the other 15 MBTI categories).
INTPs would be first in line to understand and point out the kind of cognitive bias that make people believe in horoscopes and astrology (and possibly the other 15 MBTI categories).
Care to share what is so amazing about it? As it apparently describes millions of people to a T :/
Interesting, but somewhat unsatisfactory, I feel. What if the description really did describe everyone quite well? For example "you are a human" would describe everybody quite well. So the experiment seems incomplete.
"Hence, it is common to see INTPs dabbling at many things, achieving competency, just enough to prove to themselves that they could become more proficient if they wished, but rarely actually bothering to refine their skills further. This is a point at which we begin to get a feel for the workings of iNtuition backing up Thinking. The INTP has a whole set of skills which he knows that he would be proficient at, yet other people may know little of this."
Yes, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up when I read this.
There's a great book by Radcliffe Hall called 'A Saturday Life' (Info on Radclyffe Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radclyffe_Hall) that should be of interest, and also some good pulp SciFi Fantasy that I found pretty comforting while I was growing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Five_Magics Master of the Five Magics by Lyndon Hardy about a hopeless wizard trainee.
Yes, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up when I read this.
There's a great book by Radcliffe Hall called 'A Saturday Life' (Info on Radclyffe Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radclyffe_Hall) that should be of interest, and also some good pulp SciFi Fantasy that I found pretty comforting while I was growing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Five_Magics Master of the Five Magics by Lyndon Hardy about a hopeless wizard trainee.
Wow! Took the test 5mins ago, found out I'm an INTP too. Now reading these comments and links is blowing my mind! lol
Why? Millions of people behave similarly. I don't get why this is interesting... or surprising.
I took a "leadership" course at work recently and it was all based on Meyers-Briggs and learning what your personality type is and how to deal with other personality types. The Meyers-Briggs test and the whole "ecology" around it seems to me a way for some subset of the business training industry to make a buck.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Cri... for criticism of Meyers-Briggs.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Cri... for criticism of Meyers-Briggs.
([E|I][S|N][F|T][J|P]) Doesn't matter. Go write Code!
I am an ENTP. E/I was only a 2 point difference, so I usually say I am an E/INTP.
Another question, how many people actually were administered the actual Myers Briggs test vs a web survey or classroom activity? (I took the test via a career counselor 10 years ago).
Another question, how many people actually were administered the actual Myers Briggs test vs a web survey or classroom activity? (I took the test via a career counselor 10 years ago).
I got to 25 before I bailed .. what does that say about me?
72 questions you got to be kidding me.
72 questions you got to be kidding me.
Answer the questions as quickly as you can. Your first impulsive response will be the most accurate.
Most accurate against what other measure? Has this been tested in some way, or is it just something people say?
Good question. Actually I'm not sure - I'm just repeating the advice my mother gave me when I asked her. She's a certified proctor for these sorts of things.
At least three different psychologists have told me that the instinctive response is supposed to be the right one. I think it has something to do with how these tests were developed.
Keep in mind that personality tests like these are primarily intended to map out traits of a person's personality in preparation for some kind of psychotherapy. Maybe not so much for Myers-Briggs, I wouldn't know. But the scientific intent of these tests, if you could call it that, is simply to give your therapist an idea of when to start when trying to figure out some deeper issue. (Why you are miserable, unable to work, excessively anxious in specific situations etc.) For that purpose, personality tests are perfectly suitable.
Keep in mind that personality tests like these are primarily intended to map out traits of a person's personality in preparation for some kind of psychotherapy. Maybe not so much for Myers-Briggs, I wouldn't know. But the scientific intent of these tests, if you could call it that, is simply to give your therapist an idea of when to start when trying to figure out some deeper issue. (Why you are miserable, unable to work, excessively anxious in specific situations etc.) For that purpose, personality tests are perfectly suitable.
That is an amazing result, though not surprising when you think about it, few developers are serious extroverts,though if you're NT and an extrovert it is conceivable. you need to be intuitive to develop large software apps, It is difficult to make software by feeling you need to think and both perception versus judging could be considered valid and useful ways to make software.
Most developers would be NT and indeed INT. If nothing else this does seem to indicate there is some validity in the myers briggs tests.
The total lack of S versus N is also fascinating. (for reference I started life as an INTP when I first did this 20 years ago, a few years ago I was an INTJ, now today I'm an INFJ, not sure what this means, maybe I'm mellowing with age)
Most developers would be NT and indeed INT. If nothing else this does seem to indicate there is some validity in the myers briggs tests.
The total lack of S versus N is also fascinating. (for reference I started life as an INTP when I first did this 20 years ago, a few years ago I was an INTJ, now today I'm an INFJ, not sure what this means, maybe I'm mellowing with age)
Check out this site for a quality description about your type.
http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps...
I'm INTJ which is a Mastermind. Sounds exactly like me.
http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps...
I'm INTJ which is a Mastermind. Sounds exactly like me.
Highest scores go to the NT's - ENTJ (20 points right now), ENTP (24), INTG (64) and INTP (71) together represent 76% of the total sample (179/235).
It's not surprising though that hackers and entrepreneurs tend to be intuitives and thinkers.
INTJ myself.
IMO this site is better for diagnosis. With the yes or no one, I find myself second-guessing the questions.
http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html#Inven...
http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html#Inven...
What's up with the percentages? Zero points gets 13%, 6% or 5% depending on the answer, while 122 points gets 1%, and 133 points gets 1%. I'm intrigued to know what the logic behind the percentages is, considering the solution is so simple (points/total*100) I'd love to know how the code was developed to get it so spectacularly wrong.
(It's probably the same code which gives you an "Unknown or expired link" message when you try and make a post after reading comments for more than five minutes... get those Reddit guys over here to sort this out!)
(It's probably the same code which gives you an "Unknown or expired link" message when you try and make a post after reading comments for more than five minutes... get those Reddit guys over here to sort this out!)
The percentages have nothing to do with the results of this poll; they're the percentages for the population in general.
I am interested to see how much we differ from the average
population. The average #s appear in parenthesis after the
choices, and were copied from
http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/stats.htm[deleted]
YOUR TYPE
I N T P
Strength of the preferences %
67 75 1 22
i dont get that. 1% thinking but yet
RANK of FUNCTION FUNCTION ORIENTATION Dominant Thinking Introverted ( Ti ) Secondary iNtuition Extraverted ( Ne ) Tertiary Sensing Introverted ( Si ) Inferior Feeling Extraverted ( Fe )
The consequences of the orientation and rank of each of the four functions for the INTP type is described in turn below.
thinking seems to be the most dominant of INTPs?
i myself consider myself a thinker. maybe with a direction towards more practical means though rather than philospoher.
i dont get that. 1% thinking but yet
RANK of FUNCTION FUNCTION ORIENTATION Dominant Thinking Introverted ( Ti ) Secondary iNtuition Extraverted ( Ne ) Tertiary Sensing Introverted ( Si ) Inferior Feeling Extraverted ( Fe )
The consequences of the orientation and rank of each of the four functions for the INTP type is described in turn below.
thinking seems to be the most dominant of INTPs?
i myself consider myself a thinker. maybe with a direction towards more practical means though rather than philospoher.
[deleted](1)
I wonder how much of an overlap there is between the INTPs and INTJs. For example, I always score INTP on these tests, and yet the INTJ profile describes me far, far better.
You really only need one question to test for INTP. Do you have a constant compulsive need to correct people for even very small errors in logical congruency regardless of the social consequences? Can you detect cognitive dissonance from like 100 meters away? Have you ever not really been listening to somebody but somehow still noticed that they contradicted what they just said two minutes ago? Have you already hit the 'reply' button to explain to me that four similar questions is not technically the same thing as one question?
No, I won't explain this to you.
[deleted]
I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, and I was glad to see it posted here. This poll also seems to have initiated (in my opinion) some of the best discussions I've seen on this board in a while. Although some polls and "Ask HN"s can be a bit stupid, the good ones are really good.
So, yeah, I'm an INTP. I've lately been acting a bit more E than usual, but I'm still definitely I (am all I am).
(Why oh why didn't Common Lisp abbreviate integerp?)
So, yeah, I'm an INTP. I've lately been acting a bit more E than usual, but I'm still definitely I (am all I am).
(Why oh why didn't Common Lisp abbreviate integerp?)
Wow, pretty amazing. I test myself every year or two, and other than flipping from ENTP to INTP several years ago, it's been INTP ever since. I'm surprised just how many INTPs there are on here considering the supposedly low prevalence.
FWIW, my wife is ESFJ, the polar opposite. It actually works out rather well. It's worth seeing what your SO is too, I wonder if that's a pattern.
FWIW, my wife is ESFJ, the polar opposite. It actually works out rather well. It's worth seeing what your SO is too, I wonder if that's a pattern.
I'm INTP and my girlfriend is INTJ. I consider myself very lucky to have someone to relate to. We have a lot of the same habits -- e.g. we both stay up too late, are too stubborn, and we try to be completely honest with each other -- and usually this is nice, but sometimes we get carried away.
For example, when we met four months ago, we almost completely ignored our school work in favor of getting to know each other.
And for the past week we've been going to bed at 5am and waking up at noon. Ugh. :)
For example, when we met four months ago, we almost completely ignored our school work in favor of getting to know each other.
And for the past week we've been going to bed at 5am and waking up at noon. Ugh. :)
I really think that the 1% prevalence number thrown around for INTPs in the general population has to be an underestimate.
I'm wondering how they came up with that number. Where did they get their test sample? Surely if you go around asking people to take personality tests at random, their likelihood of saying "yes" vs "no, sod off" is going to be a lot stronger for some personality types than others.
I'm wondering how they came up with that number. Where did they get their test sample? Surely if you go around asking people to take personality tests at random, their likelihood of saying "yes" vs "no, sod off" is going to be a lot stronger for some personality types than others.
I'm fairly certain that INTP is more the norm when looking at the set of people who would be interested in HN. (Well, obviously. I mean that the stereotypical programmer / hacker-in-the-classical-sense seems like they'd fall close to INTP)
i'm intj and my wife is esfj. she's going to school to become a therapist, while i'm finishing a cs degree... talk about opposites. but, it works.
You're not wrong there. Mine's a nurse! The way I see it, hopefully I can use my brains to bring in some cash while we're young, and she can care for me once I go senile in my 50s from stress.
My wife is ESFJ, too.
I'm an ENFP now, but the funny thing is I was an ISTJ in high school (about 7 years ago). Funny how a few years can change you.
wow. now THAT is quite some change. Can you be more explicit in what changed you so much?
I'm transitioning now from an INFP to an ENFP, but that's only because I've found some people who I can feel comfortable socializing with.
I'm transitioning now from an INFP to an ENFP, but that's only because I've found some people who I can feel comfortable socializing with.
I'm not entirely sure, actually. I went through college, made some really good friends, and got involved in some campus clubs. Being around a lot of people really changed my focus outward.
these two types are actually relatively similar (negatives of each other); they perceive and judge in the same manners but emphasize their parts in opposite orders
NTs dominate technical fields and most engineers are INTPs, so these results are consistent with what I've seen before. I've learned that your position on the Introversion-Extraversion axis depends on your situation. I'm a lot more outgoing when I'm at work if I can get a few hours in the evening alone to recharge mentally.
Oh, yeah. INTJ.
Oh, yeah. INTJ.
I did the test and resulted to be ENFP, and I'm shocked how much the description matched what I really think and how I'm! There was even the detail that I hate bureaucracy so much. Pretty impressive.
Type-3 iNTj (44-50-50-22)
I used to be an INTP (i think) in high school, but since then I've become a highly social, highly popular but really-geeky geek; which gave me the above score.
I used to be an INTP (i think) in high school, but since then I've become a highly social, highly popular but really-geeky geek; which gave me the above score.
I wonder why most people are INTP or INTP. I wonder if this says something about entrepreneurs in general or just cs/internet entrepreneurs.
Feature request: display poll results as histograms.
ENFP, though I really think this test is not as successful as it could be in percieving how we are in different situations.
I've tested as ENTP and INTP too.
I've tested as ENTP and INTP too.
Here's a trick: do the test twice, about 10-15 minutes apart.
When I did, the strength percentages changed, but the actual type was constant. Interesting.
When I did, the strength percentages changed, but the actual type was constant. Interesting.
I went back and took the test again. For each question where I'd hesitated to choose between two options I took the option which I had not chosen the first time. What surprised me was that the type did not change, only the percentages.
The description of my personality type (INTJ) was uncanny.
The description of my personality type (INTJ) was uncanny.
This is only one step away from astrology surely.
I'm ENTJ - just like Madonna and Whoopi Goldberg!
I'll throw my name in that hat too.
(22, 38, 75, 11)
Don't hold it against me :)
Most of my friends are INTJ/INTP, we sent this around in some emails a few months ago.
Don't hold it against me :)
Most of my friends are INTJ/INTP, we sent this around in some emails a few months ago.
INTJ. type loudly, speak boldly on occassion ;)
INFJ (44/88/62/11) ... I'm the rarest type of all! Quite amazing that there are 21 others like me already. Want to hook up? ;)
INFP when i fall in love, INTP otherwise
Accurate!
I classified myself as INTP after reading the descriptions.
My-Type classified me as INTP after I took the test.
I classified myself as INTP after reading the descriptions.
My-Type classified me as INTP after I took the test.
I've always tested as right on the border of INTP and ENTP with a slight lean towards the former.
About as INTP as INTP gets. I'm going to claim that INTP is the optimal personality type ;P
I think mine would change based on how I was feeling that day - does that make me bi polar?
[deleted]
INTJ - is this good or bad? I am interested now to find out what everyone else is.
[deleted]
So I guess this means that most smart, ambitious people are INT
INTP poster boy here.
I'm an ENTP but I am very close to the borders for E/P
i'm surprised there are so few extroverts here..
INTJ represent
INTJ represent
I'm a ENTP and rarely post. I am right on the line between INTP/ENTP. I've seen people on the line refered to as an XNTP. I've taken the test a number of times over the years and always end up with the same type.
I know I am, as more of an extrovert, just as likely to voice my opinions in any number of different ways. I think if anything this forum provides a way for introverts to voice their opinions.
I know I am, as more of an extrovert, just as likely to voice my opinions in any number of different ways. I think if anything this forum provides a way for introverts to voice their opinions.
[deleted]
there are stacks but they're talking amongst themselves at the pub
I got INTJ
Introverted: 44
Intuitive: 62
Thinking: 62
Judging: 11
Introverted: 44
Intuitive: 62
Thinking: 62
Judging: 11
INTP last time I checked.
INTP
[deleted]
I scored 100 for introverted. Do I get a reward party?
Yes. But only you're invited.
My mom is certified to deliver one of the official versions of the test. When I first took it in Middle School (well, used to be called Jr. High) I scored 1 point in the E column which is the courtesy point you get for being male. Therefore, the only way I could become more introverted would be to have been born a woman.
INTP
INTP
INTP
INTP
If you don’t know you can find out at http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp or on Facebook at http://apps.facebook.com/my-type/.
For info on the types, check out profiles at http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html and http://typelogic.com/
I am interested to see how much we differ from the average population. The average #s appear in parenthesis after the choices, and were copied from http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/stats.htm
Obviously only choose one type. (And none of the links above are associated with me in any way aside from the fact that I just copied and pasted them.)