So do I. I don’t jump in the deep end nearly as much as I probably should. I know it’s not a bad trait to have but there’s pros & cons.
I only took pause because they said my personality type INTJ was the rarest for females. So I looked it up. You girls are still rare!!
No, I didn’t mean it like that! I meant thanks for the information! It doesn’t bother me at all whether we are rarest or 3rd rarest.
In keeping my mind balanced in behavioral/social sciences I'll try to type some well known people dead or alive. It's usually much easier if I type people I've met but...... I'll also put a 1, 2 or 3 beside their name 1 meaning I feel sure I'm right about their type. 3 not so sure, I'll give a second opinion of what their type may be if I select 2 or 3. I realize I'm typing them through intuition not by any scientific method. I may do some fictional characters played in movies too. Donnie Trump ESTP 1 George Bush ESTP 1 Al Capone ESTP 1 Meyer Lansky INTJ 1 Neil McCauley (movie heat, real character) INTJ 1 (Original King of NY) Lucky Luciano ENTP 1 Albert Einstein INTP 1 Nikola Tesla ENTP 1 Walt Disney ENTP 1 Colin Powell ESTJ 1 Barack Obama ENFJ 1 John Gotti ESTP 1 Carlo Gambino INTJ 1 More to come later
Neil deGrasse Tyson ENFJ 1 Steve Jobs ENTP 1 Bill Gates ENTJ 1 Tony Accardo ENTJ 1 Mike Tyson ISTP 1 Bill Maher ENTP 1 Alicia Keys INFP 1
Elon Musk INTJ 1 Bugsy Siegel ESFP 1 Dave Chappell ENFP 1 George Carlin ENFP 1 Oprah Winfrey ENFJ 1 Jeff Bezos. INTJ 1 John Nash INTJ 1 INTJ is a force to be reckoned with.
Richard Feynman ENTP 1 Warren Buffet INTJ 1 Jay Z INTJ 1 Napoleon Bonaparte ENTJ 1 Alexander the Great ENTP 1
Sighs... I think this is all bullshit, but, I have some time on my hands... Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™ Your Type INTJ Introvert(28%) iNtuitive(38%) Thinking(44%) Judging(31%) You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (28%) You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (38%) You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (44%) You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (31%)
You are the first INTJ I met that think this is bullshit. Lol. But I know you think that because we briefly discussed it before. Dr David Keirsey is a real social scientist if that matters to you.
I am a natural born skeptic. I don't believe in this shit, lol. But, I have some time today, and I keep seeing this thread pop up.
Skepticism is good. I realize I could be off on some of this "typing" that I'm doing. Especially when I haven't met someone, but I'm confident most of my calls are still dead on target.
Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless It's Jungian Astrology
I may peep this later but life experience has taught me different. I think Jungs work on it was incomplete he just simply contributed just like most do with other fields of study. The flaws in one person's thinking doesn't invalidate a field of study, those kinks get worked out and the study/field gets expanded by the next professor. Dr. David Kiersey is modern and real and doesn't use astrology. Kiersey uses a testing procedure. It doesn't reference stars and planets. Also Jung isn't where it all started. He was just a contributor.
I think most people can see the difference between an Extrovert and Introvert. Also someone who is a "judger" vs "perceiver" how differently they sometimes go about things. It's the N vs S or the T vs F that some people can't see so they may think it's bullshit. When you put it all together it sort of works like a function. ENTP's are naturally good at analyzing functions.
Let me know after you've read the article. The astrology statement means that, like astrology, the "one-size-fits-all" conclusions made are just general and vague enough to give the believer the impression that it is 100% spot on. Takes a bit of "faith" in that system. An excerpt from the article; "CPP, the company that publishes the test, has three leading psychologists on their board, but none of them have used it whatsoever in their research. "It would be questioned by my academic colleagues," Carl Thoresen, a Stanford psychologist and CPP board member, admitted to the Washington Post in 2012."
