What type are you?

[Mercutio]

I *know* I've brought this up before, but it's something that's genuinely interesting to me.

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter (http://www.keirsey.com/scripts/newkts.cgi) is a sort of brief test of personality characteristics. When I read its result from my own testing, I was amazed at how closely it matched my own attitudes.

I'm curious about the scores others get on the test, and whether you think the depiction from its result is actually accurate.

The test requires an email registration. Feel free to fake it. It takes something between five and ten minutes to answer all 70 questions.

[Jake the Dog]

yep, pretty close on most things although it would be good if they would detail negative attributes as well.

[Mercutio]

Do you remember your "score"?

I'm an INTP (http://keirsey.com/personality/ntip.html).

[Jake the Dog]

ENFP (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfep.html) - that's me :)

[Jake the Dog]

thanks for the link btw! very interesting.

[P5-133XL]

NP - Idealist

[Groltz]

It says I am a SJ. (http://keirsey.com/personality/sj.html)

With at least 20 of those questions I didn't like either of the answers or felt the answers were diffcult to grasp the meaning of.

[Mercutio]

I think the difficulty is meant to invoke introspection. I do know - although not from this version of the test - that you can be an "X" in one or more dimensions, balanced between one side or the other.

Anyway, all four characteristics are important, and for both P5 and Groltz, I have to ask... was your result a fair description of how you see yourself?

[Stereodude]

I'm a SJ. I'd say it's pretty accurate

[Groltz]

I have to ask... was your result a fair description of how you see yourself?

At least in comparison to the paragraph I linked above, my answer would be about 85% "No"

[Clocker]

This is me...I don't want to pay for the full report...

C

All Artisans (SPs) share the following core characteristics:

Artisans tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, realistic, and focused on the here and now.
Artisans pride themselves on being unconventional, bold, and spontaneous.
Artisans make playful mates, creative parents, and troubleshooting leaders.
Artisans are excitable, trust their impulses, want to make a splash, seek stimulation, prize freedom, and dream of mastering action skills.

[Clocker]

Oh...and I think SP works for me...

http://keirsey.com/personality/sp.html

[Handruin]

Mine said I was an SJ.

[Jake the Dog]

according to the keirsey website:

guardians (SJ) = 40-45%
artisans (SP) = 35-40%
idealists (NF) = 8-10%
rationals (NT) = 5-7%

it will be interesting to see the distribution of temperaments on this forum. of course there won't be enough members participating for us to be able to conclude anything it should be interesting to see nonetheless.

so far we have:

SJ - 3
SP -1
NF - 1
NT - 1

[Tannin]

Idealist (NF). Whatever that means.

[Tea]

It says I'm an Idealist NF too. Same as Tannin. This is ridiculous! We are completely different!

[flagreen]

Another SJ here.

[Cliptin]

I took this test around the time Merc meantioned it the first time and scored and SJ on Mar 13.

After spending lots of time in forum dicussions having my perseptions knotted, twisted and pulled, today I scored an SJ.

[Mercutio]

I've gotten different scores a few different times, depending on other factors in my life, but from what I've read, your score should be essentially the same throughout your life. I first had the full sorter administered to me at age 12, and again at 20 and just a few days ago at age 26, and my score on the full examination seems to always come out the same.

[Mercutio]

Who is twisting your perceptions, Cliptin? You aren't talking about the Pledge thread over on SR, are you?

[Jake the Dog]

agreed. i've read up about it a little now. just like your IQ, it shouldn't much after the age of 20...

[Cliptin]

Who is twisting your perceptions, Cliptin? You aren't talking about the Pledge thread over on SR, are you?

Sorry, I meant all three af those to be happening inside my head and over the last few months. You know, personal growth. :)

[Mercutio]

Hey, join the club. You'd be surprised what I've learned about myself in the last three months.

Maybe some day we'll meet at a bar in, say, Cincinnati or Indianapolis or something and we can commiserate.

[Prof.Wizard]

I think these tests are no more accurate than reading your horoscope.

The human psyche is far too complex to be classified so easily in 4 categories. Personally, I sport characteristics from all 4 categories (Artisan, Guardian, Rational, Idealist- with a tendency for the last), but there are many questions I would respond different if posted in a slightly altered way or if I had another mood by the time I took the test.

70 questions to show you what guy you are? Pfff... nope.

[Mercutio]

Just take the test, and read the information on the site. Keirsey's work is an extension of Jungian archetypes, and the characteristics so described *do* seem to fit a lot of people. There is an examination that can be administered by professional therapists which has considerably more than 70 questions.
Jung, and probably many of the practices of psychiatry, psychology and indeed most of social science could probably be debunked in rigorous application of scientific method.

[Cliptin]

I think these tests are no more accurate than reading your horoscope.

The human psyche is far too complex to be classified so easily in 4 categories. Personally, I sport characteristics from all 4 categories (Artisan, Guardian, Rational, Idealist- with a tendency for the last), but there are many questions I would respond different if posted in a slightly altered way or if I had another mood by the time I took the test.

70 questions to show you what guy you are? Pfff... nope.

Bah, You're not a doctor. You're a Wizard. Take the test.

[Prof.Wizard]

Just take the test, and read the information on the site. Keirsey's work is an extension of Jungian archetypes, and the characteristics so described *do* seem to fit a lot of people. There is an examination that can be administered by professional therapists which has considerably more than 70 questions.
Jung, and probably many of the practices of psychiatry, psychology and indeed most of social science could probably be debunked in rigorous application of scientific method.
If the above statement was 100% accurate Keirsey would be a billionaire and most psychologists out of job...

You know, about the "so described *do* seem to fit a lot of people" you said... And I know many people who say things in their lives happen exactly as they read them in their weekly (or worse, daily!) horoscopes...

I told you, I have characteristics of all 4 classes... why should I be an "Idealist"? Because the test says so?!

[Groltz]

Take the test.

...And report your results. Otherwise you shall be imprisoned in the heretofore unmentioned secret fifth category....Babbling Bubblehead :rnd:

[Prof.Wizard]

Bah, You're not a doctor. You're a Wizard. Take the test.
Trust me, this has nothing to do with the fact I study Medicine. (Here now, I'm a rational!)

Yes, I do have contact with the field (three courses: Introduction to Psychology, Medical Psychology, Psychiatry) but I'm talking as Wizard (Constantine) now.

Don't get me wrong... I said there might be a tendency, but not so great to make you classified in a certain group. People who are really (heart 'n' soul) in one of those groups are more of exceptions than the rule.

I believe most of us mix up rather well the aforementioned groups.

[Prof.Wizard]

Babbling Bubblehead :rnd:
Damn! How did you know it?! :eekers:

[Groltz]

Babbling Bubblehead :rnd:
Damn! How did you know it?! :eekers:

I almost fell into that Pit myself.

[Tea]

Jung, and probably many of the practices of psychiatry, psychology and indeed most of social science could probably be debunked in rigorous application of scientific method.

Just so, Mercutio, and I speak as one who majored in social science research methods. The problem is rather like that faced by your cliched typical retailer and his advertising policy:

"I know that half of my advertising budget is wasted - but which half?"

Indeed, there is a great deal of absolute bunk in the social sciences generally, and psychology in particular. Unscientific, ill-researched, and ill thought out.

But on the other hand, there is a smaller but still significant body of knowledge which is of real value, and which has been well established. If you look hard enough, and if you know how to tell the gold from the sand, there is a wonderful amount of knowledge to be gleaned.

Alas, it is much more difficult to distinguish between the good and the bad in sociology or psychology than it is in metalurgy or physics. This is essentially so because most of us spend most our lives not knowing anything much about the fundamentals of knowledge gathering (i.e., what is it that makes scienentific knowledge "scientific" and "knowledge" as opposed to "opinion" or "a clever idea")

Most people have the vague idea that it has something to do with experiments and mathematics, and that is about as far as they go. And in the conceptually easy disciplines (for example, physics, maths, chemistry) this level of understanding will get you quite a long way. But as soon as you venture into more difficult disciplines (such as economics, psychology, history, sociology, and possibly even biology), it becomes impossible to learn anything much unless you first equip yourself with the conceptual tools.

Psychologists as a breed are a particularly unusual bunch. They, like biologists, like to think of themselves as "real" scientists like their brothers over in the physics lab, and to this end most of them become more and more rigourous with their mathematical techniques and their positivist methods until the point is reached where, by discarding suspect research strategies, they have become incapable of learning anything of significance at all. They are, if you like, nothing but glorified button counters.

And then there are those that react to their realisation of this and proceed to throw themselves off the deep end of rationality and dive into the murky waters of mysticism and intuition. This soon results in them covering themselves in the excreta of the psudo-scientific. Consider Freudian or Jungian theory for examples of this.

In the end, most psychologists have failed to ask themselves the most fundamental scientific question of all: "what is this thing we call knowledge?" And this is why most of them produce such miserable mixes of fact and nonsense, why most of them are unable to tie their knowledge together in any meaningful way, and why the measured success rate of psychological intervention is on average the same as the measured success rate of many alternative interventions, including astrology, palmistry and the occult.

Psychologists do tend to do good work, they increase the chances of recovery from most individual problems to about 70% (figure from memory). At first this sounds rather impressive. 70% of psycolologists' paitents are "cured" or at least have their states "substantially improved"! But when you look a little harder, you discover that the success rate (measured in the exact same way) for no treatment at all is 50% (i.e., 50% of people just get better all by themselves) and the success rate for non-psychological intervention is also about 70%. A tea leaf reader, a priest, a fortune teller, or an astrologer, in other words, is just as likely as a psychologist to achieve a successful result.

Err.... I seem to be off topic.

[NRG = mc²]

Artisan (SP)

I wouldn't say it quite describes me but...

[simonstre]

I'm a NT, dunno which type. I can't find the full descirptions... :(

[CougTek]

The two previous times Merc asked people to participate to this test, I ended up being a SJ. Guardian, right...I down know guardian of what, but trust me, no one is gonna touch what I'm guarding :twistd:


If the above statement was 100% accurate Keirsey would be a billionaire and most psychologists out of job...
IMO, that would be a good thing, at least regarding the psychologists. Most are crazier than their patients anyway.

[Koggit]

w00t w00t

Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice. ]


Guardians are the cornerstone of society. =)

[Prof.Wizard]

w00t w00t

Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice. ]


Guardians are the cornerstone of society. =)
And that would be Coug?! :o

It's definitely wrong... :lol:
(OK, I'm getting in the trench now cause CougTek will be on the counter for that...)

[CougTek]

And that would be Coug?! :o

It's definitely wrong... :lol:

Pbbbbt.

It's not completly wrong. Everything is in the interpretation :

Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
Judging by the feedback I receive regarding the front page, it's not too far from truth.


Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.Loyal mates isn't your business, but I'm a very responsible parent : I don't have kids and I don't want to have any (or more) at all. I know that with my temper, the poor litte shit factory would leave this world at an early age. I'm conscious that I don't have the patience to have children, so I won't have any. I think that's responsible. At least it's more than all those idiots out there who never asked themselves whether they would be able to raise their kids properly or not and ended up being parents anyway.

And I'm a great leader. No one ever argue my decision (but I won't say why ;-))


Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
Hmmm... Dutiful ok, cautious : depends on what, humble (cough) : I'll be when I'll have a reason to be, focused on credentials (credentials??? Babelfish anyone?) and tradition : I almost always dress the same way.


Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.
Trust autority? Well, as long as I'm the autority, that's fine.
Join groups? nope, sorry, but that's wrong. I'm a recluse and I've always been.
Seek security? If that's capital security, then yes.
Prize gratitude? I like to know when what I do is done right, but beyond that, I don't ask for flowers.
Dream of meeting justice? Certainly not the justice provided by our society. IMO, a law is like a neck : it's there to be broken. Our laws aren't just and our laws aren't fair. When I'll perceive the laws to be fair, I'll respect them. In the meanwhile, I prefer to look and act like someone who doesn't give a shit about the laws. I could write a while on that subject, but it would be high-jacking this thread.


Guardians are the cornerstone of society. =)I'm the cornerstone of my own life and for now, I'm not looking for more.

[Jake the Dog]

so far:

SJ - 7
SP -2
NF - 2
NT - 2

non-SJ's unite!

[jtr1962]

Type NT, which they described as follows:

All Rationals (NTs) share the following core characteristics:

Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.
Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.
Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.
Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement, seek knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.

Rationals are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better.

Rationals are very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 7 percent of the population. But because of their drive to unlock the secrets of nature, and to develop new technologies, they have done much to shape our world.


That's as dead on as I've ever had any analysis of my personality.

[jtr1962]

I know that with my temper, the poor litte shit factory would leave this world at an early age.


I don't know if you meant that to be funny or not, but I was laughing my ass off for about ten minutes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cliptin]

I know that with my temper, the poor litte shit factory would leave this world at an early age.


I don't know if you meant that to be funny or not, but I was laughing my ass off for about ten minutes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

As was I. Coug can be quite candid.

[Mercutio]

You get the full listing of your type from the email that they send you when you register, apparently. I did not know that.

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.

[The Giver]

You get the full listing of your type from the email that they send you when you register, apparently. I did not know that.

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.
Lord... grant thy mighty Giver patience and tolerance that he might not smite the liberal infidel. Send flocks of your Christians to his door to save him from himself and so that at long last he might see the light and reform his ways. Let them descend upon his door in twos, and threes, and fours, so that he might know at last that you are the lord... not Al Gore.

Amen.

[Mercutio]

What the hell is that?

[P5-133XL]

so far:

SJ - 7
SP -2
NF - 2
NT - 2

non-SJ's unite!


Distribution Stats (http://keirsey.com/cgi-bin/stats.cgi)

[The Giver]

What the hell is that?
A prayer. It helps The Giver not to swallow what some might consider "troll bait". :)

[Jake the Dog]

oh the irony...

[Prof.Wizard]

... and Prof, if it makes you feel any better, Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer before Ronald Reagan did anything important while he was acting as president of the US. So there are dumber people out there than those of us taking this little test, and dumb people sometimes get into important jobs.
I could live without knowing that... :o
Thank god I was a less-than-10 year-old kid when Reagan* was in power. You know, these things happen when you elect an actor to be the President of a nuclear superpower.

I can't f#$@n' believe it was Nancy's trusted astrologer that was commanding behind the scenes the lives of 5 billion people... :lol: :eekers:

*strangely, reading your 20th-century presidents' bioses I consider him and Clinton the most successful all-around...

[The Giver]

oh the irony...
Lol, so thick you can taste it huh? :)

[Tea]

strangely, reading your 20th-century presidents' bioses I consider (Reagan) and Clinton the most successful all-around...

Huh? You're kidding me, right? Clinton and Reagan? OK, you could make a case for either of these as moderately important Presidents, perhaps rank them alongside men like Eisenhower and Truman. But to rank either of them (or even both of them put together) above FDR - that's just crazy.

Reagan, they say, ended the Cold War, but that's very debatable. At most, he brought forward the collapse of the Soviet Union by a few years, perhaps a decade at most, meanwhile (according to some) doing substantial harm to the US economy. Indeed it would be perfectly rational to argue that Reagan, in hurrying the end of the old Soviet Empire, only succeeded in making the transition of the USSR into a more efficient and democratic state (or set of states) less orderly and more destructive. I'm not saying that is so, but it's a point of view to consider. But let's be charitable and say that Reagan achieved what people say he did.

Clinton. Well, I guess Clinton did something or other too. Struggling to remember what though.

Truman: this was the President that stepped out of the shadows when FDR died and finished off the great man's work. It was Truman who, as much as any other man, was responsible for the great rebuilding of the world that took place after the hate and devestation of the greatest war the world has ever seen. It was Truman who was responsible for the Marshal Plan that rebuilt Europe, for the emergence of modern Germany as a democratic and successful nation, for the swift recovery of other European nations too. And it was Truman who was responsible for the democratisation of Japan, Truman who appointed that grossy flawed general but truly gifted military governer Macarthur (a political opponent of Truman's, by the way) to administer the occupation of Japan and its restoration to the world as a national good citizen, and the almost complete dissapation of the massive hates and resentments that folowed World War II. A vastly more successful President than either of those modern pigmies.

Eisenhower: this was the man who saw us through the Korean War safely, and who carried on Truman's good work. Unfortunately he was also the man who sewed the seeds of the Vietnam conflict and oversaw the hysterical anti-communist ravings of the '50s. Still, at least the equal of Carter and Reagan.

And then there is FDR. If you can say that Reagan and Truman did one great thing each (as did Lincoln, for that matter, and possibly Washington too - though my knowledge of Washington's Presidency is very small), then you are obliged to admit that FDR did two great things. It was FDR who oversaw the recovery of the world's biggest economy from the Great Depression ("We have nothing to fear except fear itself"), and also managed a successful conclusion to the greatest crisis the world has ever seen - World War II - under very, very difficult circumstances.

In short, if you are going to name one great US President of the 20th Century, there is only one possible candidate: FDR. And if you are going to name two, then the other is most certainly Truman. No-one else is even in the same league as those two. I'm not sure who I would rank third. I'd be interested to hear opinions on that. (Especially Flagreen's - I often don't agree with Bill's views of history, but I always read them with close attention and considerable interest.)

[flagreen]

Of the twentieth Century? You have some interesting choices there. I never thought of Truman in just quite that way.

Which one? It's tough really because it depends on what you rate them on. With one exception and that being FDR who rates close to the top in all categories and would have to top the list overall. Truman was not what one would call an inspirational leader. Certainly not as FDR was. And that was Reagan's greatest asset as well. Both Reagan and FDR led, and I mean really "led" this country out of the doldrums it had fallen into. Of course Reagan's challenge was no where near what FDR faced. But when Reagan came into office this country was about as low as it could be morale wise. A US serviceman walking down the street would be lucky not to be spit upon. When he left office, the Country had pride in their military forces and a new found confidence in ourselves. Reagan was an optimist and brought that optimism, back into our lives as Americans. As did FDR. Leadership is an amazing thing. And it was lacking in Clinton, Bush, Carter (God help us!), Ford (who?), Nixon (please!) and Johnson (yuck!).

What role did Reagan play in the downfall of the evil empire? Well it might have collapsed anyway as you point out. But certainly the US arms build up of which Reagan was the chief architect, drove them into bankruptcy. And there's always that possibility that the USSR would have survived indefinitely had that not happened. We'll never know. But one thing is for sure, the world is better place today because it did not survive. Bush "the first" is often not given enough credit for the excellent job he did in for providing the sort of atmosphere where the USSR and it's satellite states could dissolve their relationships without fear of the US taking advantage of the situation.

One of my favorites as a man (not as president per se) was Theodore Roosevelt. Interesting fellow to say the least.

Overall, regardless of the century in which he served, Lincoln still tops the pile. Even FDR did not face the obstacles and opposition he did and yet he always remained resolute in his determination to do what he believed to be the right thing to do.

I'm sure my comments here will draw many cat calls from the peanut gallery so I'll shut up now. The Giver handles political matters for the Green household these days. And he practices his craft at SR these days not here.

[Prof.Wizard]

I would bet my life that someone would quote Eisenhower and Truman as the best US presidents of the 20th-century, but bear in mind those two were after-war ("victory") presidents.

Their tasks were pretty straight-forward IMO. When WW2 ended the Soviets still didn't have a nuclear-bomb and, for a while, the USA was the only real superpower (since Russians were still licking their war wounds)...

Reagan and Clinton had much more difficult agendas (Cold War, show economic performance) than Eisenhower and Truman.

The good and worthy presidents are being shown on really scary and pivotal scenarios. That's why JFK is regarded a magnificent president (Cuba 1962) by many, although I personally dislike him and his whole damn family.

[Prof.Wizard]

Roosevelt was a neutral president.

What did he do that's so special?
Declare war on Japan? It was the natural course of action...

[Prof.Wizard]

Reagan and Clinton had much more difficult agendas (Cold War, show economic performance) than Eisenhower and Truman.
Don't underestimate their jobs. I strongly believe internal approval of a president is much more difficult to achieve than being the president during an all-vs-one war campaign (see Bush Sr.).

Clinton achieved economic prosperity and achievements even the most hardcore Republican can acknowledge. Afterall, war are being won by generals and soldiers, not presidents...

That's why don't be so quick to Bush Jr. as well... Yes his IQ is below Clinton's, yes he got some easy approval due to the "War On Terrorism" auto-publicized stance, but he IS still in-office working on much-needed projects. Let's wait for his mandate to end before criticizing him.

PS. Of course, Bush Jr. belongs to the 21-st century presidents... :wink:

[Cliptin]

[quote="flagreen"]
One of my favorites as a man (not as president per se) was Theodore Roosevelt. Interesting fellow to say the least.
quote]

Although I don't really get into the analysis of history as much as some of you, I too like Teddy as a personal figure. Very quotable too.

[Tea]

Roosevelt was a neutral president. What did he do that's so special? Declare war on Japan? It was the natural course of action...

Not so, Prof. FDR, like Churchill before him, had the vision to see that the appeasers were hopelessly naieve, that Hitler and Tojo and their minor lickspittles would never stop demanding ever more, would never content themselves with any amount of conquest, and that their threat was so great that nothing less than the united effort of the entire free world would be sufficient to defeat them.

FDR saw this at a time when most of the USA was convinced that affairs in Poland or Austria or Eithopia or Manchuria were minor foreign matter and of no concern to them, when public opinion strongly favoured no involvement by the US in the war that the English and the Greeks and the Austrailians and the South Africans and the Poles were fighting, when most of the US still believed that the oceans would protect them from the fascist jackboots, and that if any fighting were needful, then the English and the Poles and the Greeks could do it for them.

Very like Lincoln, he was ahead of his time, and just like Lincoln, he had vision and he had paitence. He had the wisdom to see that if he simply came out with a full statement of his views (entirely correct though they were later proved to be), he would be marginalised and rendered powerless. If Roosevelt had said "we must help fight the Fascists" in 1939, when he himself became aware of the peril that threatened, he would be remembered, if at all, simply as a man who was correct in his judgement but utterly powerless to do anything to stop the slide into the abyss. In fact, it's doubtful that he would be remembered at all, for it took the united effort of the United States, England, the Commonwealth, the remnants of occupied Europe, and the USSR as well to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Without America's very generous aid to England, England would have fallen in 1941, without the English and Commonwealth forces at their backs to draw off resources, Hitler would quite probably have defeated the Soviets; without American munitions and the heroic bravery of the US Navy, Australia too would have fallen, sometime in 1942, and without a base anywhere nearer than Pearl Harbour, America would have been powerless against the Japanese. Without FDR, the USA would have been left alone, with only Canada to stand beside it. And it is ludicrous to fantasise that North America could have long withstood the military machine that took the united and desperate efforts of the Soviet Union (who did the bulk of the fighting, let us not forget) America, the entire Commonwealth, England, and the surviving parts of Europe to defeat.

So, had FDR stepped off the tightrope in either direction - urged war before his people were ready to accept it, or on the other hand failed to give all possible aid short of war as early as he did, and failed to prepare his unready country as best he could - then there is no room to doubt that the Allies would have lost. And in that case, then FDR would not be remembered at all by history, for there would be no history, bar the lies and gross distortions of Gobbels and Tokyo Rose.

Instead, FDR showed wisdom and phenomenal paitence. As Flagreen said, he was a leader who led, and he was also a man who was either very lucky or very wise in his choice of subordinates: Marshall was simply the best organiser the military world has ever seen; King was badly flawed but nonetheless capable of learning from his gross mistakes early in the war, and Nimitz, who ran most of the American war against the Japanese more-or-less on his own, was superb.

If it were not for FDR's support of the British during the time when they stood entirely alone in Europe, and his tireless wearing away of shortsighted and foolish domestic opposition, it is very doubtful that you and I would be having this conversation - certainly not in English. As a world leader of the 20th Century, Roosevelt stands second only to Churchill.

[Prof.Wizard]

Thanks Tea. Your remarks about FDR have been appreciated. I'll do a better research on him to discover all his aspects. :)

[James]

NT.

[flagreen]

And you thought you gained an extra day coming over eh? That'll teach you.

[flagreen]

Oops posted that last one in the wrong thread.

[Prof.Wizard]

NT.
nice thread?!
:?:

[flagreen]

NT.

Non Toxic?

No Thanks?

Next Time?

[NRG = mc²]

New Technology

[simonstre]

NUKE THEM!

[Tea]

Not tellin!

[Prof.Wizard]

.............

(you SF guys are really really weird...)

[Mercutio]

iNtuitive/Thinking

"RATIONAL NTs, being ABSTRACT in communicating and UTILITARIAN in implementing goals, can become highly skilled in STRATEGIC ANALYSIS. Thus their most practiced and developed intelligent operations tend to be marshalling and planning (NTJ organizing), or inventing and configuring (NTP engineering). And they would if they could be wizards in one of these forms of rational operation. They are proud of themselves in the degree they are competent in action, respect themselves in the degree they are autonomous, and feel confident of themselves in the degree they are strong willed. Ever in search of knowledge, this is the "Knowledge Seeking Personality" -- trusting in reason and hungering for achievement. They are usually pragmatic about the present, skeptical about the future, solipsistic about the past, and their preferred time and place are the interval and the intersection. Educationally they go for the sciences, avocationally for technology, and vocationally for systems work. Rationals tend to be individualizing as parents, mindmates as spouses, and learning oriented as children. Rationals are very infrequent, comprising as few as 5% and no more than 7% of the population."

[Prof.Wizard]

LOL. And I thought James was responding about Roosevelt... :mrgrn:
(forgot FDR was OT)

[Jake the Dog]

another breakdown of types: http://www.typelogic.com/. the description for ENFP isn't exactly flattering but it's true in my case atleast.

[P5-133XL]

Reading the descriptions of the NF category, I can pin myself down. I am much closer to a INFJ than the other NF's

[Cliptin]

Reading the descriptions of the NF category, I can pin myself down. I am much closer to a INFJ than the other NF's

I must be very close to middle of the road. Of the SJs, I match most closely ISFJ (http://www.typelogic.com/isfj.html).

However, I remembered taking one of these type tests near the end of high school. 200 questions or something. I think I remember scoring ENTP or INTP but I have since lost the paperwork. After reviewing, INTP this matches me fairly closely too. Ah, well.

[Tea]

My pleasure Prof. As you can see, FDR is one of my heros. Interesting to read Flagreen's point of view too. As ever, very thought provoking. Though thinking of Reagan as a good President, let alone one of the greats would require a pretty fundamental shake-up of the way that I conceptualise the man. Good Lord, during my formative years, I don't think any politician anywhere in the world provided as many laughs are Ronnie did. Hey, without Reagan, Max Gillies might not have had a career!

(You sort of had to be there, but The Gillies Report was quite possibly the funniest TV show I've ever seen, and his portrayal of Reagan was just sidesplitting. And - the mark of truly great satire here - from that moment on, you could never see the real Ronnie Reagan on TV without thinking it was just another episode of The Gillies Report.)

...... blip .....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Why is it that, when Tannin and I took the test, we got the same result? That's very interesting. We answered differently to quite a few questions. For example, Tannin said that at a party he'd rather just talk quietly to a few friends, where I was keen of jumping right in and having fun. Lots of other questions got differernt answers too.

This suggests that the test is either (a) remarkably powerful, or (b) not very powerful at all. Interesting.

[Mercutio]

The test itself may or may not be powerful. The online version is actually slightly flawed. It used to give a numerical analysis of responses, including some data on the percentages of people with the same score as you. I know, from the test and from real life, that I am as introverted as the test can measure; in fact all my responses tended to extremes.

My guess is, despite variations on some number of questions, you still answered the same way on a core of questions, and that despite a different per-category score, enough of the "real Tony" showed through the veil of Tannin and Tea to get to the same place.

[flagreen]

Just for fun I had The Giver take it. He just went down the list of questions selecting the last answer for each one. It turns out this produced a result of "NF".


All Idealists (NFs) share the following core characteristics:


Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.

Idealists, as a temperament, are passionately concerned with personal growth and development. Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self--always this quest for self-knowledge and self-improvement drives their imagination. And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.

Idealists are rare, making up no more than 8 to 10 percent of the population. But their ability to inspire people with their enthusiasm and their idealism has given them influence far beyond their numbers.


Oh yeah... that's The Giver alright. :D

[James]

iNtuitive/Thinking
[...]
Rationals are very infrequent, comprising as few as 5% and no more than 7% of the population."Or between 20 and 30% of those responding to the online test. Weird.

[Mercutio]

For the entirety of NTs, the breakdown from the online test is
ENTJ = 3.17
ENTP = 2.23
INTJ = 5.24
INTP = 3.09

13.73% of test takers are NTs of some sort.

[James]

Merc, you're right, I was working from memory. Either way, either the online population is more geared in that direction than the general population, or people are lying to try to get certain personality types, or their estimates of numbers of population in each category are wrong, or finally their list of questions is not enough to properly identify each personaility type.

I seem to be closest to the Architect, INTP.

[Mercutio]

Actually, it looks like the percentage of online respondents is below the averages Keirsey is reporting in his blurb.

INTPs ... are 5 - 7% of the population...
INTP = 3.09% of respondents.

Very odd.

[James]

Perhaps I should just give up trying to remember the figures and wait until my jet lag has lessened somewhat.

[Sol]

Aparently I'm an SJ, guardian.
Personally I don't buy it - one of the reasons I have nothing more specific to note -

Gotta say I don't think the questions were very applicable to me, or the answers anyway.

Mostly I just wanted to answer yes or no.
for example:


42. In stories, do you prefer:
action and adventure
fantasy and heroism



Most heroic fantasy books contain action and adventure. Or the ones I read at least.
Do I have to answer action and adventure because I don't like fantasy romances?



54. Facts:
speak for themselves
illustrate principles



Can't they do both?

More information, or just a plain better question works for me.

Kind of reminds me of a servey I took once. It would ask a question and the next question would assume that you answered the previous one a cirtain way.

This test seems to asume some personality traits before you even answer the questions.

[Tea]

Ahhh. Sol, I see you start to understand psychology. Sometimes it's even clearer.


Psychologist: "Do you love your mother?"

Subject: "Yes."

Psychologist: "Ahh. So you are consumed with suppressed longing for your mother. No wonder your sex life is a mess."

Subject: "But actually my sex life is fine. I came to see you about my dissatisfaction with my career choice."

Psychologist: "Oh dear, this is even worse than I thought. So you have repressed your true feelings."

Err ... Let's try that again, shall we?


Psychologist: "Do you love your mother?"

Subject: "No."

Psychologist: "Ahh. So you have repressed your unconscious feelings. You are in a bad way."

(Rest of interview proceeds as above.)



Psychology is the art of putting a psudo-scientific gloss on whatever it is that the psychologist decided to discover in the first place. Well, most of it is, anyway.

[Cliptin]

Aparently I'm an SJ, guardian.
Personally I don't buy it - one of the reasons I have nothing more specific to note -

Gotta say I don't think the questions were very applicable to me, or the answers anyway.

Mostly I just wanted to answer yes or no.
for example:


42. In stories, do you prefer:
action and adventure
fantasy and heroism



Most heroic fantasy books contain action and adventure. Or the ones I read at least.
Do I have to answer action and adventure because I don't like fantasy romances?



54. Facts:
speak for themselves
illustrate principles



Can't they do both?

More information, or just a plain better question works for me.

Kind of reminds me of a servey I took once. It would ask a question and the next question would assume that you answered the previous one a cirtain way.

This test seems to asume some personality traits before you even answer the questions.

Th more questions there are the better the test is. There will be several questions during the test that point you toward one of two conclusions in a catagory. You should answer the question as best you can.

I think some of the questions are asked in such a way that they will be more easily answered (i.e. answered quicker) by certain of the other catagories.

FWIW, your complaint about the test even reveals something of your personality. Read Jake's link, especially ENTP and INTP.

[Prof.Wizard]

Psychology is the art of putting a psudo-scientific gloss on whatever it is that the psychologist decided to discover in the first place. Well, most of it is, anyway.
Amen. :right:

This is the sagiest thing I've heard from an ape... kudos Tea!
I couldn't agree more...

[Jake the Dog]

For the entirety of NTs, the breakdown from the online test is
ENTJ = 3.17
ENTP = 2.23
INTJ = 5.24
INTP = 3.09

13.73% of test takers are NTs of some sort.

what was the breakdown for NF's? i can't seem to find any the stats myself.

[Mercutio]

From P5's link, above (Distribution of types):

ENFJ = 7.43
ENFP = 8.59
INFJ = 7.31
INFP = 6.81
= 30.14%

You'd have to look at the per-type descriptions for an exact figure.

[Howell]

Well, almost two years after I took the test for the thread I've gone on vacation and had the test administered again informally. One of the guys I went to the beach with brought Keirsey's book (http://keirsey.com/pumII.html) and I was given the test and read some of the book. Reading the synopsis on the website is a poor substitute for reading the much longer and more in depth (and comparative) descriptions in the book. In the book he also gives a historical overview of the progression of the theory beginning with Aristotle and Plato.

Two years ago I tested as an SJ. I can wholehearted say that today I'm an INFJ (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfij.html). The other description is here (http://www.typelogic.com/infj.html). I actually tested as equal for E & I which is descibed here (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfej.html) and here (http://www.typelogic.com/enfj.html). But, I think I lean slightly toward the I.

In thinking about what's happened in my life in the last two years as well as the people I've met and conversed with and the personal growth I've had I found that two years ago I had answered several of the questions as I wished I were. I also found that historical life circumstances had not allowed me to exericse some of my natural tendancies and thus skewed the result and was likely a reason for my dissatisfaction.

This could not have come at a better time as I am currently considering what direction to take in my career and possibly even switching careers.

We have had a good bit of interaction in the last two years; anybody see me as the INFJ?

[Mercutio]

On the matter of type, in this case, it's a little hard to determine from your posts. Protector (the SJ type) and Councilor are pretty simlar, after all. It boils down to whether or not one thinks you're compassionate/empathic vs being more detached.

And that's a hard thing to see from here, although I can recall a couple of incidences I'd put forth as evidence of Howell being a compassionate person.

Now, what're your thoughts on your career?

[Buck]

This questionairre labeled me as Guardian SJ Type. As for the sub-types: Supervisors (ESTJ) | Protectors (ISFJ) | Inspectors (ISTJ) | Providers (ESFJ), I don't plan on going any further.

[Mickey]

Took it once a few years ago for work. I think I was stuck between two, either INTJ or some other one. I took it recently again and I now lean more towards INTJ.

[ddrueding]

Guardian SJ

[Howell]

On the matter of type, in this case, it's a little hard to determine from your posts. Protector (the SJ type) and Councilor are pretty simlar, after all. It boils down to whether or not one thinks you're compassionate/empathic vs being more detached.

And that's a hard thing to see from here, although I can recall a couple of incidences I'd put forth as evidence of Howell being a compassionate person.

Now, what're your thoughts on your career?

Regarding the personality type, I think a more accurate reflection can be garnered from PMs rather than general posts. General posts probably reflect more of the diplomat and if I see a poster in a discussion as an underdog I might tend more toward devil's advocate.

I'm not sure about the career. I'd hate to think that I'd have to get out of technology. I have experience and I enjoy it. Maybe move more towards teaching or career counseling in conjuction with computers.

I recently had to turn down a job managing the computer systems for a local city school system as well as teaching and supporting the faculty and staff. I'm also thinking about moving over-seas. Mid-east, far-east, east-bumble. Something like that.

[Buck]

I'm not sure about the career. I'd hate to think that I'd have to get out of technology. I have experience and I enjoy it. Maybe move more towards teaching or career counseling in conjuction with computers.

I wouldn't mind leaving the technology sector, as long as I'm compensated well for my work. :D I should become a purveyor of fine Scotches.

[Mercutio]

Teaching is OK. I like to think of it as "curing ignorance".

I don't know about IT though. I can't imagine doing anything else for a living, but I can see how hard it is for people to find work. It's scary right now.

I guess if I had to get out I'd spend a couple years getting another degree or something. Something useless like a Fine Arts degree.

Anyway, why the move? I mean, I know TN isn't the hotbed of IT that, say, Chapel Hill is, but aren't you looking at something kinda extreme?

[ddrueding]

I think the most fun part of my new (and ridiculously fun) job running a gaming center is teaching people who haven't played games on computers before how to do it.

Teaching is very fun and very rewarding (I spent quite a bit of time helping in a 3rd grade classroom a few years ago), but teaching people how to have fun is awesome. Some friends of mine teach diving, kayaking, and horseback riding; they say the same thing.

[Buck]

I think the most fun part of my new (and ridiculously fun) job running a gaming center is teaching people who haven't played games on computers before how to do it.

Teaching is very fun and very rewarding (I spent quite a bit of time helping in a 3rd grade classroom a few years ago), but teaching people how to have fun is awesome. Some friends of mine teach diving, kayaking, and horseback riding; they say the same thing.

That does sound like fun. I've had the opportunity to teach some individuals about customer service, and for those that wanted to learn this art, it was fun.

[Howell]

Anyway, why the move? I mean, I know TN isn't the hotbed of IT that, say, Chapel Hill is, but aren't you looking at something kinda extreme?

Extreme is a matter of perspective and personality, Is it not? :) My adventurous spirit may be very influential on the decision. Besides, I could help improve the lives->community->country of some third world nation.

As far as staying in IT or not, I'm not sure I know anything else. I use to be a bike mechanic. I'd really rather not go back to school. I don't do well there.

[SteveC]

When I took this in college, I was an INTP.

[The JoJo]

Hmm, labeled as Guardian.

[mubs]

Myers-Briggs and software development teams (http://weblog.infoworld.com/dickerson/2004/08/31.html#11.05.53)

[Howell]

Very interesting, mubs.

[ddrueding]

Go figure....just took it again (some things have changed recently)

Now I am an Artisan (SP)

[Howell]

My whole company took the test last week and we had a two hour team-building meeting. This includes all employees: management, techs, admin assistants. It is a smallish company doing contract network engineering and break/fix work for small and medium sized businesses.



E(8,2) S/N(10,10) T(16/4) J(17/3)

I(2,8) S/N(10,10) T(11,9) P(7,13)

E(7,3) S(13,7) F(15,5) J(13,7)



I(4,6) S(16,4) F(7,13) J(13,7)

I(0,10) N(4,16) T(15,5) J(11,9)

E(7,3) S(13,7) T/F(14,6) J(15,5)



I(1,9) N(8,12) T/F(10,10) P(7,13)

E(7,3) N(8,12) T(11,9) J(13,7)

E(6,4) N(4,16) F(3,17) J(11,9)



E(8,2) S(15,5) T/F(10,10) J(18,2)

E/I(5/5) S(13,7) T(11,9) J(16,4)

I(4,6) N(8,12) T(11,9) J(15,5)



E/I(5,5) N(5/15) F(5,15) P(9,11)

E(6,4) N(2,18) T(11,9) P(9,11)

E(10/0) S(15,5) T(11/9) J(16/4)



E(6,4) S(15,5) T(13,7) J(17,3)


Out of the entire company there are only 3 Ps. One developer, me and the HR guy. There are also only a few NFs including me. Almost everyone in the organization is either an STJ or an NTJ. This job is going to kill me.

[freeborn]

Hmm,

Johny come very lately here. Taking that test today it seems they want money to tell me my score and final designation. My overall type is Rational. So for $15 I could tell you which of the following I was catagorized to.




The Four types of Rationals are:

Architects (INTP) | Masterminds (INTJ) | Inventors (ENTP) | Field Marshals (ENTJ)

Free

P.S. maybe I will spend the money, not sure yet :)

[Mercutio]

Site with free online tests (http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html). No paying $15 for anyone.