I understand said tests are an imperfect and often unscientific way of categorizing people, but I also find that I can learn things about myself, and that many of us have similar ways of processing information and interacting with the world around us.
I took the Jung type test #1 first and started to wonder, over the course of the test, if I would still test as INTP. You see, I’ve developed a major frustration with the way options are presented during these tests, and how imprecise I find the language sometimes, or where I’m presented with an either/or option when my answer would be neither or both.
Take question #2:
-I can easily think of things to say to keep the conversation flowing.
-I like to size them up before I initiate conversation.
I’m not at a loss for words in conversation. I can talk the hind legs off a donkey.* I don’t really ‘size people up’ before initiating conversation, I am just unlikely to be the person to initiate conversation in person, but as soon as someone else initiates, I can take off like a rocket.
I more often feel the urge to roll my eyes when others
-don’t have their act together.
-are inflexible and lack spontaneity.
Both. I have been personally annoyed and inconvenienced by both types.
Question #4: (I swear I’m not going through every question on the test, ahem.)
When others communicate, I more often get distracted when they
-demonstrate disregard for others’ feelings or unawareness of their own feelings.
-make errors of logic or fact.
Questions that pit logic/facts and emotions against each other drive me insane.
Emotions ARE facts. They are a biological reality. They are our earliest form of communication – a language, if you will. When we’re not busy ignoring them, their function is to help us understand our needs and the needs of others so that those needs can be met. They’re a tool for interpersonal communication. It’s not logical to ignore your emotions or the emotions of others.
When faced with a novel challenge
-I prefer to think the problem through, using my knowledge and experience to come up with a solution that I know will work. The approach doesn’t have to be glamorous as long as it gets the job done.
-I tend to end up exploring and imagining the new possibilities that I had not pondered before and the excitement can sometimes can sometimes lead me away from the original problem.
Again, both. It depends on if the challenge has a time frame and negative consequences for failing to come up with a relatively speedy solution.
Question #8 was so lengthy I don’t feel like repeating it here, but it basically had to do with how disagreements over an issue should be handled – with pure logic/rationality vs sensitivity to the other person’s emotions and experiences. This isn’t either/or! You can, in fact, engage in an argument using facts while ALSO being sensitive to the other person’s experiences (sometimes their experiences are, in FACT, a valid bit of data that needs to be included in the argument!)
Question #9 is related:
If someone wants to convince you of something
-they should show me the logic, pointing out how their position is more rational than competing positions.
-they should show me how their position connects with my values and how it affects the people involved.
Knowing how an issue affects the people involved is a necessary and logical part of choosing a position on any given issue!
Okay, I swear I’m done dissecting the questions for now as people’s eyes will start glazing over, otherwise. There will, however, be upcoming posts about the questions or results on other tests.
For anyone still wondering, yes, I did get INTP as a result.
*I have no idea if ‘talk the hind legs off a donkey’ is something people still say or one of those bits of archaic slang I’ve collected from my forays into a random assortment of older books.