Adapting to change

[deltarho[1859]]

The most common type is ISFJ at 13.8% of the population. INTPs are not the rarest but low at 3.3%.

You are in good company: Albert Einstein, Immanuel Kant, Abraham Lincoln, and Dustin Hoffman amongst others.

So what am I? Well, I'm an INTP as well.

So incidentally was Carl Jung.

Freud was a father figure to Jung. Freud developed Psychoanalysis: "Why am I what I am?". Jung developed Analytical Psychology: "Who am I what I am?"

[Dinosaur]

Hi All

Until I saw the link (@ 78 years old) I had not done one for 50 years.
INTJ

I was head hunted for a job as Technical manager and the test involved ticking boxes
just like this one.
The failure with those test were, that many questions asked you to choose between phrases
that to a non-English background were completely confusing or just plain slang.

Being brutally honest with yourself when ticking the boxes is important.

Would be really interesting to see what the majority of members here are.
But perhaps, that is to private for some.

Regards

[deltarho[1859]]

INTJs are similar to INTPs but INTJs are generally more aware of their emotions than are INTPs.

The primary distinction between INTJ and INTP is that INTJ is a judging type (preferring structure, planning, and organization), while INTP is a perceiving type (preferring flexibility, spontaneity, and "going with the flow").

INTJs are a little rarer in the population at about 2.1%.

Notable INTJs: Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and Elon Musk amongst others.

Interestingly, both Newton and Hawking held the 'Maths chair' at Cambridge University.

[BasicCoder2]

I am very aware of my emotional states.

The role of emotions is a major part of our goal defining systems. We must however separate what they "feel like" and the physical systems being activated when we have these subjective feelings.

There is as much variation in our neurological makeup as there is in facial and other body features.

People on this forum have some traits in common that means they enjoy coding but we can be very different in academic intelligence, emotional intelligence and our other interests.

Although I have read psychology books and found their experiments interesting it isn't a hard science. Real research on how the brain works is much more rigorous and the books I read on what we have discovered about the brain are not books on psychology or make mention of personality tests.

The requirements for a study to be scientifically rigorous are:

1. clearly defined terminology
2. quantifiability
3. highly controlled experimental conditions
4. reproducibility
5. predictability and testability.

[Dinosaur]

Hi All

2.1 % and my DNA shows I am further removed from Neanderthal than normal.
I am feeling very special.

Shame I didn't know that 40 years ago.

Regards

[BasicCoder2]

As far as I know people with the least or no Neanderthal DNA can be found in Africa.
Not sure how knowing your percentage of Neanderthal DNA would change anything?
It doesn't appear to effect how smart you are. Prof Alice Roberts has 2.7% Neanderthal DNA.

[dodicat]

I got half way through ticking boxes and got fed up.
I don't know where I am at obviously.
I much prefer philosophy to psychology as a subject.
Neanderthals, we presume were (are) tough, but that is only because we like to think of them as that, absolutely no proof.
I think maybe DNA matching may be a little bit like the big bang or plate tectonics, (liable to change at any time soon)
99% of the human world, is make believe and movie material only IMHO.
The biosphere is the important thing, not human kind, IMO, Gaia hypothesis as an example, there are human beings out there thinking of other life forms which live all around us and amongst us.
It would surprise me none if extra terrestrial visitors (if they exist) would prefer to communicate with some other life form here on Earth, and give us a miss alltogether.

[deltarho[1859]]

I got half way through ticking boxes and got fed up.

It is worth the effort.

As BasicCoder2 wrote, psychology is not a "hard science". I have a book which examines many methods put forward from 1900 onward. That is what they are - methods. There are many and some are useful. Jungian Typology has its use.

Here are a couple of examples.

Some years ago, an ex of mine thought that she was an introvert. She wasn't. Her feelings were introverted. Her primary function was thinking, and she was an extroverted thinker - the opposite to my introverted thinking primary function. Opposites attract, so no major problem there. However, she was my mirror reflection, so all metrics opposed. The relationship was never going to run, and it didn't.

Another example. I failed a job interview because of a personality test. The prospective employer wanted a team player. It was determined that I would probably not be a team player. They had employees who worked better alone, but they did not have any vacancies for such types. I didn't argue because I knew only too well that I was not a team player.

I am feeling very special.

Belonging to a low percentage typology can be rewarding, but it can be lonely at times.

I sometimes wish I was an ISFJ. Would I have been happier? Quite possibly.

Notable ISFJs: The Princes Of Wales, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Mother Teresa, Maya Angelou, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, and J K Rowling amongst others. I could listen to Maya Angelou all day.

Failing that, I'd settle for a ISFJ friend. I doubt that many other types would put up with me.

[Dinosaur]

Hi All

I took the whole thing tongue in cheek.
When my wife read the INTJ description, she said SHE could have told me all of that.
Still ; you think of yourself a certain way and then to see an algorithm verify it, is somewhat satisfying.
Then again at my age, are the personality traits amplified due to life's experiences, or would I have answered the same at 30.?

The DNA tests results are changing all the time, without submitting a new sample.
My percentages of Dutch German French Polish and Scandinavian change as they get more participants.

However the most satisfying was that I did not carry any hereditary diseases.
Didn't stop me getting ostio-arthritis though.

Regards

[BasicCoder2]

The bottom line for me is that science is about what you can measure and observe. If I put a box on the table we can philosophize or make up all sorts of ideas about what is in the box based on what we already know. Science finds tools to open the box so we can see, measure and describe what is inside. The striking thing about science (opening the box) is often what you find you would never have guessed correctly what is in the box based on what you already know.

So in understanding the original post regarding the observation about conflicting actions (which side of the road to drive left or right) the difficulty lies in brain function. A computer program controlling a car would have no problem switching from one mode to the other.

In regards to dodicat's observation: "I think maybe DNA matching may be a little bit like the big bang or plate tectonics, (liable to change at any time soon)" I would say that science adds detail it doesn't actually change what has been measured or observed. Those observations do not change. Knowledge builds up over time and sticks. Once we know something we don't have to guess anymore we only have to expand on what we know.

[deltarho[1859]]

Then again at my age, are the personality traits amplified due to life's experiences, or would I have answered the same at 30.?

Apparently the traits do not change. That is, the order of the metrics do not change.

However, it seems that the inferior functions may improve with age. In my case, at 77, I am sure that my inferior function, feeling, has increased with age. My primary function, thinking, still dominates. It follows then the metrics tend to balance out with age, so it is less easy to determine an old person's typology compared to a young persons' typology. Having said that, some young folk have fairly balanced metrics to start with. In my case, the metrics were extreme when I was younger. There are some tests which give a percentage value for the metrics, but they are long tests.

I have osteoarthritis in my left knee. If it hit my right knee to the same degree, I'd end up in a wheelchair. As it is, I am just reduced to a walking stick. I buy a lot of my groceries online, nowadays.

[BasicCoder2]

As new tools and techniques are developed to open the box the neurological basis of personality traits will be known. Take introversion vs. extroversion. That trait is determined by how easily you are aroused. An extrovert needs more stimulus to generate the same arousal level as an introvert. So it is related to the neurons involved in regulating arousal levels.

If by "feeling" you mean empathy there is evidence for "mirror neurons" which triggers the same state as the state being observed in another person. You feel their pain. It is physical. When I see someone fall I feel an actual shiver up my leg. When I see someone suffering I have feelings of sadness and may get a lump in my throat and so on ... I mirror their feelings and actually experience those feelings to some extent. You can measure the phisological reactions of someone while they watch a movie to determine how empathetic they are.

[dodicat]

As new tools and techniques are developed to open the box the neurological basis of personality traits will be known. Take introversion vs. extroversion. That trait is determined by how easily you are aroused. An extrovert needs more stimulus to generate the same arousal level as an introvert. So it is related to the neurons involved in regulating arousal levels.

If by "feeling" you mean empathy there is evidence for "mirror neurons" which triggers the same state as the state being observed in another person. You feel their pain. It is physical. When I see someone fall I feel an actual shiver up my leg. When I see someone suffering I have feelings of sadness and may get a lump in my throat and so on ... I mirror their feelings and actually experience those feelings to some extent. You can measure the phisological reactions of someone while they watch a movie to determine how empathetic they are.

I think that this altruism towards others is really our (neurons) interacting and processing the benefit to ourself of an incident.
Of course we rush to help others -- in the hope that something will come our way out of it.
I don't think I am being cynical, but just removing the fake romance from a situation.
In this forum we code for and with each other.
The question is why, and is a philosophical question, not psychological, and this is the nub.
Many other species help each other out, and the same question applies.
Regarding the Big Bang and plate tectonics, I am neither an astronomer or geologist, but theories (in all disciplines) change in time as more data is gained, but you cannot hang your hat on them.
Make movies about them, of course.
Anyway, Christmas eve, so merry Christmas to the forum.

[paul doe]

INTJ for me. I've found the test kinda 'rigid'; many a time I wished there was a third option presented that better reflected what I would think/do, but I guess having very limited options is the entire point of the test ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[deltarho[1859]]

"many a time I wished there was a third option"

What we have is Thinking judgements (rational) versus Feeling judgements (irrational). What we also have is Sensing perceptions (rational) versus Intuitive perceptions (irrational). We also have Introvert versus Extrovert attitudes.

So polar opposition is the name of the game and is best suited with a binary questionnaire.

For what it is worth, I think where we are stumped on a question, we should be allowed to skip it. If there are enough questions, skipping the odd one or two shouldn't make any difference to the result. Alternatively, we could simply toss an unbiased coin.