Is NT NT?
Jul 16, 04 | 6:24 am by John T. KennedyAccording to this test based on the Jung - Myers-Briggs typological approach to personality, my personality type is INTJ - Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging. Upon reflection I’d expect that all of the contributors to No Treason would fall in the NT categories, Intuitive and Thinking. I’d expect that most of the regular readers would be in those categories too. If you are or have been a contributor here and you don’t mind taking a few minutes to take the test I’d be interested to see you post your results in comments here. Readers are also invited to post their results.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 7:16 am
INTP, just like Homer Simpson and Rick Moranis. Whoo-hoo!
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 7:17 am
I’m INTJ with an mtDNA haplotype A.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 7:42 am
It was quite a long time ago when I tested as an off-the-chart ISTP.
From the ISTP synopsis (Keirsey/Bates), w.r.t. to ISTP’s mastery of tools:
“One tool especially attractive to the ISTP is the weapon. Should ISTPs turn against society (for whatever reason), they wield their weapons with lethal genius to support their rejection. The hitman of today, the gunslinger of the American West, and the duelist of 18th Century Europe, may be seen as virtuosos of precision homicide.”
Rock on.
Ragnar Danneskjold was proably an ISTP.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 9:18 am
I’m INTJ:
“Do not expect INTJs to actually care about how you view them. They already know that they are arrogant bastards with a morbid sense of humor. Telling them the obvious accomplishes nothing.”
“Do not be surprised at sarcasm.”
That’ll do.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 12:20 pm
I’ll do nothing of the kind. Personality tests are shit, cobbled together by pseudo-scientific scoundrels to decieve and impress the gullible and innocently naive. Which you are Kennedy - you are a innocent little creature and you are helpless before such intellectual and moral fraud.
Personality tests. What next?
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 2:07 pm
INTJ!
distinctively expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 2:11 pm
I took one of those a year or so ago…I think I came out as an INTP.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 3:00 pm
From my web site:
“My Myers-Briggs type is ESTJ: Administrator–Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of population.”
Cathy says the test I took was defective. I was INTJ forever, but I have also been working for several years to become a fearsome sales monster. Defective test? Redirected Greg? You decide.
I wrote about this at the time, of course.
From the test version you link to:
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
33 22 89 78
* moderately expressed introvert
* slightly expressed intuitive personality
* very expressed thinking personality
* very expressed judging personality
Go figure…
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 3:37 pm
INTJ.
I took one around high school, and was INTP. I’m also only a moderate introvert these days.
There’s a thread on ASC where everyone took this test… lots of INT’s.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 3:58 pm
Sabotta,
Being of a certain personality type does not relieve one of responsibility for one’s actions, and if anyone tries that tactic your problem is with them, not with the test.
As Swann and I indicated, one’s personality type can change, too.
It is certainly measuring something that I think we should try to understand, since INTJ is 1% of world population, 7% of all web users (from here, their source links are broken, though) but 100% (6/6, I’m including Swann) of No Treason present and past bloggers who responded.
I don’t know what it means, but it means something. Something more, maybe, than just Kennedy’s being good at spotting INTJ’s, since the other market anarchist websites also seem to have INTJ’s over-represented.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 5:10 pm
Sabotta,
It’s not like I think there’s much to this. I’m putting you down for INTP.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 5:17 pm
From this regular lurker:
INTJ Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
78 67 33 1
very expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
slightly expressed judging personality
I always thought I was a more judgemental bastard than that.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 5:39 pm
As for being 6 out of 6, I invited Rod (RKN) to be a contributor here and I would have invited Shonk if he hadn’t just up and started his own blog before I got around to it. I’d be interested to see them take the linked test which is not long.
But I was only predicting that you guys would come up NT, so Rod is the only one I didn’t figure so far. (I definitely had him pegged for NT.)
We’re a highly self-selecting bunch. I wouldn’t invite someone to contribute if I thought they valued feelings over thought, so I’d be quite surprised to see someone here say they were an F. Frankly I think Fs have their wires crossed.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 6:13 pm
From a lurker:
INTJ
# distinctively expressed introvert
# slightly expressed intuitive personality
# distinctively expressed thinking personality
# very expressed judging personality
Introverted 67
Intuitive 22
Thinking 67
Judging 89
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 6:54 pm
But I was only predicting that you guys would come up NT, so Rod is the only one I didn’t figure so far. (I definitely had him pegged for NT.)
If I recall correctly from way back then the significant difference in personality types lies in the first two designations, I vs E, and N vs S. Not suprisingly, at least not to me, with the exception of Greg v2.0 we’re all Introverts. I can’t figure how Greg must have answered what questions to brand him an Extrovert. And yes, I know being an Introvert doesn’t mean one is anti-social, anymore than being an Extrovert means that one is a constant pleasure to be around. Only that, generally speaking, the Introvert retreats to self counsel to understand the world whereas the Extrovert prefers company to do the same. At least that’s my understanding.
I would be surprised if on retaking the test I turned into an E, but not if I turned into an N. As an S I am a “connect all the dots (A-D)” kind of person, whereas the N, supposedly, can intuit D from A directly. Sometimes I move to a conclusion directly, tho usually I proceed stepwise.
No surprise whatsoever that we don’t have any Feelers here, tho I’m wondering if they’re not actually better in bed! It’s a curosity for me to read the suggestions on what type you should seek to partner yourself with once you know your own profile.
What types does Keirsey say INTJs are most compatible with, do you know?
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 7:25 pm
> A thirst for adventure is something close to your heart
I’m a “Yes”. I think this is supposed to mark me as being Byronic, but, in fact, it’s why I’m better in bed. It might be instructive to look at particular questions, to see where we diverge. For example,
> In a debate, you strive to achieve mutual agreement
In intellectual debate, I’m a “No”, but in negotiations, I’m all over “Yes”. When I lead negotiations, I want to keep eveything but practical objectives out of the picture; there is nothing here but your property and their money, and nothing else matters; when we walk away from this table, we’ll have what we want, they’ll have what they want, and we’ll never see each other again.
There are others that I could go either way with.
–GSS
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 7:42 pm
INTJ
Strength of the preferences
Introverted: 67
Intuitive: 44
Thinking: 56
Judging: 44
People generally suck, but damn they can be entertaining!
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 11:27 pm
Cruelty has a human heart,
And Jealousy a human face;
Terror the human form divine,
And secrecy the human dress.
The human dress is forged iron,
The human form a fiery forge,
The human face a furnace seal’d,
The human heart its hungry gorge.
- William Blake
Personality tests. Bah.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 11:27 pm
Rod,
” No surprise whatsoever that we don’t have any Feelers here, tho I’m wondering if they’re not actually better in bed! “
I don’t see how they could be.
The fact that I’m a fully expressed T doesn’t mean I don’t have strong feelings, I’m very passionate. But I only demonstrate that passion with whom I choose.
Likewise the fact that I’m introverted doesn’t mean I’m uncomfortable in social settings. I was sometimes painfully shy as a youth but now I’m quite comfortable in social settings. I just don’t prefer them.
July 16th, 2004 at Jul 16, 04 | 11:44 pm
“Personality tests. Bah.”
Okay, then we’ve got 6 INTJs and 1 STFU so far from past and present staff.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 12:20 am
John,
Maybe I was thinking Feeler in the literal sense when I posed the question. That’s the “S” showing up in me again, I guess. ;-)
And I did say that I understood introverted doesn’t necessarily mean anti-social, but rather someone who is generally guided by their own counsel. I’m pretty picky about who I choose to spend time with, so I’m like you in that sense.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 3:34 am
What types does Keirsey say INTJs are most compatible with, do you know?
I don’t know, but I do know that I am most compatible with an INTJ.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 4:47 am
INTJ here as well…
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 5:34 am
Well I’ll be damned. Just took the linked test and came out as INTJ, though the J is a very weak preference according to the percentages.
However, taking the test reminded me why I hate this sort of test. It’s almost always very easy to know which answers are the “right” ones to be classified as any particular type. Even if one tries to answer honestly, I suspect there’s a subconscious inclination to answer questions you’re ambiguous about in such a way as to achieve the result (in this case, personality type) that one idealizes.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 5:36 am
From a regular reader:
Your Type is
INTP
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
78 78 78 56
INTP type description by D.Keirsey
INTP type description by J. Butt
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
You are:
* very expressed introvert
* very expressed intuitive personality
* very expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed perceiving personality
As for personality tests… Yes, they are all inaccurate to some extent, but people really do think in radically different ways. You shape your own personality through your decisions (or willfull lack thereof) , and there are definite patterns that emerge. I am not so sure about the validity of the specific details of the reasoning some of them, but I’ve seen very usefull emperical info .
There’s another usefull test here http://similarminds.com/embj.html
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 6:50 am
> There’s another usefull test here http://similarminds.com/embj.html
This is the test I cite at presenceofmind.net, the one Cathy says is defective. Just took it again and got similar (suspect?) results:
Your type is: ESTJ
ESTJ - “Administrator”. Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of total population.
Extroverted (E) 61.76% Introverted (I) 38.24%
Sensing (S) 62.79% Intuitive (N) 37.21%
Thinking (T) 87.1% Feeling (F) 12.9%
Judging (J) 68.57% Perceiving (P) 31.43%
Andrew Breese swears by the enneagram, FWIW.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 7:20 am
Hmm.. yeh, the test is longer, but the questions are not as well written. I’ve found much use in the enneagram. It’s a usefull model (as long as you remenber the engineer’s maxim that all models are flawed; that’s why they’re models) and can be enlightening when observing the interactions (and wild misunderstandings of each other’s motivations) people often have.
Unfortunately, you have to kindof fish around for a good enneagram test, as many of them are loaded with quasi-mystical baloney.
I’m going to suspect the readership here has more than the common share of enneagram type 5’s.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 7:32 am
Ha, thats pretty crazy, I was INTJ as well.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 7:49 pm
The enneagram. I knew it was only a matter of time before someone came up with that thing. One of the absolute worst experiences of my life is connected with that goddamned piece of newage shit.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 8:07 pm
Worst experience? That would be an engram, not enneagram.
July 17th, 2004 at Jul 17, 04 | 10:54 pm
Stedman:I don’t know what it means, but it means something. Something more, maybe, than just Kennedy’s being good at spotting INTJ’s, since the other market anarchist websites also seem to have INTJ’s over-represented.
Assuming that the test shows something approaching validity, it’s another strike against rational evangelisim: the set of people who might “get it” is a subset of ~1% of the populance.
July 18th, 2004 at Jul 18, 04 | 2:36 pm
> Assuming that the test shows something approaching validity, it’s another strike against rational evangelisim: the set of people who might “get it” is a subset of ~1% of the populance.
Stipulating that this is true–and I suspect it might be, where “get it” means really understanding as opposed to the slap-happy Jacksonian mobs of the early nineteenth century–what course of action does this imply?
July 18th, 2004 at Jul 18, 04 | 5:20 pm
It implies a course of action that does not rely on persuasion by rational argument. It implies rearranging simpler incentives and disincentives in a strategic manner. We already do this on a meaningful scale, but not on a sufficient scale. To grow a business you don’t rationally persuade every employee of the mission of your company, you provide material incentives for them to collaborate.
July 18th, 2004 at Jul 18, 04 | 8:20 pm
> It implies rearranging simpler incentives and disincentives in a strategic manner.
I was thinking more along the lines of attending to one’s own garden, but I have been thinking that way for a year or more.
–GSS
July 18th, 2004 at Jul 18, 04 | 9:30 pm
That qualifies. And the bigger the garden the better, as far as I’m concerned.
July 19th, 2004 at Jul 19, 04 | 7:17 pm
INTP
July 20th, 2004 at Jul 20, 04 | 3:30 am
INTJ as well.
July 20th, 2004 at Jul 20, 04 | 4:58 am
Assuming that the test shows something approaching validity, it’s another strike against rational evangelisim: the set of people who might “get it” is a subset of ~1% of the populance.
Careful. While it might be true that most libertarians and rational anarchists here and elsewhere in the blogsphere test as INTJ, the corrolary is not necessarily true, i.e. that all INTJs are Libertarian. In fact I’m pretty sure that’s not true. Which would mean, sadly, that even less than 1% of the population “get it.”
July 20th, 2004 at Jul 20, 04 | 5:43 am
It seems to me he was careful to say it’s a subset of 1%.
As I’ve been saying for a long time there are only a very small number of people who tend strongly to act in an epistemically rational manner in most situations, only a small number consistently driven to anchor their theories in reality. Almost everyone in our society is functioning at an instrumental level, by which I mean they’re just looking for easiest way to get from where they are to the next thing they want. People functioning instumentally have little incentive to ground their politics in reality - no matter how much effort you invest in understanding the political situation you’re still gonna get Kerry or Bush in November.
If there was any legitimacy to this kind of testing I’d suspect that that almost all epistemically rational people would be NTs and the highest concentration would be in the INTJs. And I’m not saying all NTs or INTJs would be epistemically rational.
July 20th, 2004 at Jul 20, 04 | 4:31 pm
> While it might be true that most libertarians and rational anarchists here and elsewhere in the blogsphere test as INTJ, the corrolary is not necessarily true, i.e. that all INTJs are Libertarian.
Nor, likewise, that all people who call themselves libertarian are NTs. The non-impractical side of the net has a huge number of INTJs, period, inasmuch as the net was invented by INTJs. But I’ve met a lot of mainly non-wired people who call themselves libertarians whom I would characterize as being loosely glued on at best.
July 21st, 2004 at Jul 21, 04 | 11:18 pm
Swann’s had more thoughts about INTJs and so have I.
The NT NTs are selfish and because of this they strongly tend not to be breeders. Stedman , Swann and I appear to be the only family guys in the bunch - with three offspring I may be the Brigham Young of market anarchism
I’d like to hear offspring counts from the NT’s who posted. I have three and I know Lynette has one. I think Andy has two but I’m not certain. Not sure of Swann’s count.
July 22nd, 2004 at Jul 22, 04 | 1:16 am
Two is correct. Both boys, ages 5 and 3.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 9:28 pm
Longtime reader, first-time caller. Or something like that. Anyway: INTJ.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 10:01 pm
I’m an ENTP, strongly NT, weakly EP.
June 3rd, 2005 at Jun 03, 05 | 4:14 am
Don’t know why I ignored this the first time around, but I’ve put up my results at my place.
Thus spake foadi: “Whoa.”