What is your MBTI personality type?

7 (22.6%)
4 (12.9%)
2 (6.5%)
4 (12.9%)
3 (9.7%)
0 (0%)
4 (12.9%)
1 (3.2%)
0 (0%)
3 (9.7%)
0 (0%)
2 (6.5%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 31


Author Topic: Personality Survey  (Read 37568 times)


  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #90 on: August 30, 2011, 07:46:44 PM »
My Little Equid
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!


  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #91 on: August 30, 2011, 10:45:08 PM »

FAKE EDIT: I found this picture while searching for a picture to go with that word and now I'm scared:

It's probably about horse marriage.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse


  • Inquiring
« Reply #92 on: February 25, 2013, 01:16:45 AM »
So, a few years ago I came across something called Socionics. It's similar to MBTI (I think they're both based off the work of Jung), but different and not exactly compatible, even though personality types have similar names. (It's my understanding that it's pretty compatible regarding Extraverted personalities, but incompatible with Introverted types.)
(Example: In MBTI, I'm most definitely an INTJ. Yet in Socionics, I'm uncertain as to whether I'm an INTj (LII) or INTp (ILI). I think I lean more toward INTp/ILI, though.)

What I find particularly fascinating about Socionics is Intertype Relationships--which is essentially how people of each type interact with people of each type.

I'm not sure I completely subscribe to the idea of Socionics, especially the part about duals and the organization of Model A Functions, but I still find it really interesting.

The whole Socionics theory is really complex and in depth. I'm still not sure I really understand it all. (It doesn't help that they use shapes as symbols for the names of functions.) But some of the stuff is scary accurate.

Here's a Socionics Test.

My results: ILI (INTp).
Funny how there's a 97% chance I'm LII (INTj). The in-depth link about ILIs is pretty spooky how accurate it is, though. Except for the Super-ego block; that only seems about half-right. Which is interesting, because I think that's the area where MBTI differs from Socionics.

If I'm an ILI, I'm definitely the Philosopher subtype (strong Introverted Intuition).
Ugh, there's really no good link to it; you have to hunt for it and scroll way down the page, so I'll just paste the description:
Quote from: V. Meged, A. Ovcharov
The intuitive subtype seems to be a quiet, counterbalanced, even sluggish person. Their movements are smooth and slow. They’re internally timid but they attempt to hide this under a mask of irony. Are tactful, polite, and scrupulous. Tries to avoid straightforwardness and criticisms in their conversations; are affable and kind but seldom smile. Despite their attempts to hide weakness they are, nonetheless, internally rather sensitive, inconsistent and vulnerable; thus they often find themselves suppressed and dissatisfied, and from this stems negative moods and emotions. Their moods may further be afflicted due to the state of their health; they rarely discuss such problems with anyone. They keep people, psychologically, at a distance. Like to talk and tell things to people, meanwhile they possess good figurative thinking for they read/reflect much. Gait and movements are smooth, barely ever shaken.

More stuff: Apparently there are "portraits" of each type for both male and female. Physical traits, behaviors, and attitudes, mostly. Mine was pretty accurate too. I found this part to be particularly amusing:
Quote from: Beskova
Small children, around whom adults usually act like they are moved by their cuteness, don't appeal much to female ILIs - the senselessness of an infant who has to be breast-fed and the need to manifest emotions seems repulsive to them. They like it much more when children grow up a little, and they can talk with them, supply them with important information, discuss interesting problems, and teach them life.
Heheheheh. I love kids--heck, I work with kids--but babies and toddlers repulse me. Well, toddlers are borderline, but babies, absolute yuck. Age 3.5+ plz.  (Uh oh, I predict a Suffix rebuttal...)

If you guys take the test, it'd be interesting to check out the Intertype Relationships and see how it compares to everyone's actual interactions with each other.
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."


  • Steamed
« Reply #93 on: February 25, 2013, 01:45:54 AM »
Blah blah blah! Blah blah...! Wait, what?

Oh, yeah. It is still my mission to promote tolerance of the newly born. The greatest burdens of infanthood fall on the parents, you instinctually inert baby basher (figurative)!


  • Inquiring
« Reply #94 on: February 25, 2013, 10:20:13 AM »
Was I right or what? ;)

Eh, I'd rather defend and promote tolerance of both the unborn and preschoolers+. They're overlooked and dismissed. Babies are the ones who steal the focus and get all the love and attention. Someone has a baby and people go crazy over them. Why? Because they're cute? New? Helpless? Psh, overrated.

Ever notice how no one seems to want to adopt children? It's always babies people want.  Like young and older children are somehow undesirable and no longer "moldable" or have outlived their usefulness or something. Or the novelty has worn off and they're not "new" and "exciting" anymore.

I especially feel bad for older siblings who are overshadowed by the newborn baby. Besides, by the time kids are 4 they're pretty autonomous. Being potty-trained and not having bodily fluids oozing from every orifice (and when they do, they can take care of it themselves, for the most part) is a big plus in my book. Plus, you know, you can actually hold a conversation with a preschooler. Four-year-olds are especially awesome because elaborate pretending and using imagination dominates that age. I'm all about that. Plus you can actually start to use logic and reason with them at that age.

Human babies are the most helpless, needy, demanding, selfish creatures on the planet. They're completely and utterly dependent. And you pretty much have to wait until they're older (young toddlers) before you feel you get anything from it (that is, they can reciprocate love in an observable way). I don't blame them for any of this; it's not like they can help it or anything. But still, it's a major turn off. And the bodily fluids and smells...the horror.

For the record, I don't hate babies. I just prefer not to be around them. Like, ever. :P

Revisiting my first sentence, I also defend the unborn, as they're are overlooked and dismissed because people rationalize they're not "fully" human. And thus their worthiness to live is debatable and to be determined by the mother. Why living inside or outside the womb makes a difference when regarding "personhood," I'll never understand.

...But, we're straying from the topic. End spiel.
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."

The Chef

  • Super
« Reply #95 on: February 25, 2013, 12:04:13 PM »
It's not living inside or outside the womb, it's having a functional brain and heart. If something doesn't have a functional brain and heart, it's not considered medically alive.

Also, I'd adopt a child if I could. :(


  • Old Person™
« Reply #96 on: January 30, 2014, 03:25:45 PM »
So, which Star Wars character are you? 
Looks like I'm Obi-Wan. 
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

« Reply #97 on: January 30, 2014, 06:55:16 PM »
Jung Explorer Test

Actualized type: INFP
(who you are)
Introverted (I) 66.67% Extroverted (E) 33.33%
Intuitive (N) 65.79% Sensing (S) 34.21%
Feeling (F) 52.78% Thinking (T) 47.22%
Perceiving (P) 59.26% Judging (J) 40.74%

INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.

Preferred type: INFP
(who you prefer to be)
Introverted (I) 59.38% Extroverted (E) 40.63%
Intuitive (N) 60% Sensing (S) 40%
Feeling (F) 53.49% Thinking (T) 46.51%
Perceiving (P) 63.64% Judging (J) 36.36%

INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.
Attraction type: INFP
(who you are attracted to)
Introverted (I) 60.87% Extroverted (E) 39.13%
Intuitive (N) 63.33% Sensing (S) 36.67%
Feeling (F) 53.33% Thinking (T) 46.67%
Perceiving (P) 61.29% Judging (J) 38.71%

INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.

Well that was surprisingly linear and remarkably accurate.
Unwillingly, but successfully! Twice!

« Reply #98 on: January 30, 2014, 07:28:19 PM »
In the past few years, my result has consistently changed to ESFP/ISFP.

Girls dig Ewoks, r-right?
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #99 on: January 30, 2014, 08:56:48 PM »
Apparently I'm a Palpatine...

« Reply #100 on: January 30, 2014, 09:19:46 PM »
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #101 on: January 31, 2014, 02:45:10 AM »
Advanced Global Personality Test Results

Extraversion   ||||   16%
Stability   ||||||   27%
Orderliness   ||||||   22%
Accommodation   ||||||||||||   44%
Intellectual   ||||||||||||||||||||   83%
Interdependence   ||||||||||||   50%
Mystical   ||||||||||||||||||||||   100%
Materialism   ||   8%
Narcissism   ||||||   25%
Adventurousness   ||||||||||||||||   66%
Work ethic   ||||   16%
Conflict seeking   ||||   16%
Need to dominate   ||||||   25%
Romantic   ||||||||||||||||||   72%
Avoidant   ||||||   25%
Anti-authority   ||||||||||||   50%
Wealth   ||||||||||   33%
Dependency   ||||   11%
Change averse   ||||||||||||   44%
Cautiousness   ||||||||||||||||   66%
Individuality   ||||||||||||||||||   72%
Sexuality   ||||||||||||||||||||||   91%
Peter pan complex   ||||||||||||||||||   75%
Histrionic      0%
Vanity   ||||||||||   33%
Artistic   ||||||||||||||||||||||   100%
Hedonism   ||||||||||||||||   61%
Physical fitness   ||||||   27%
Religious   ||   8%
Paranoia   ||||||   25%
Hypersensitivity   ||||||   27%
Indie      0%

Stability results were low which suggests you are very worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.

Orderliness results were low which suggests you are overly flexible, improvised, and fun seeking at the expense too often of reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.

Extraversion results were very low which suggests you are extremely reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and secretive.

trait snapshot:
messy, depressed, introverted, feels invisible, does not make friends easily, nihilistic, reveals little about self, fragile, dark, bizarre, feels undesirable, dislikes leadership, reclusive, weird, irritable, frequently second guesses self, unassertive, unsympathetic, low self control, observer, worrying, phobic, suspicious, unproductive, avoidant, negative, bad at saving money, emotionally sensitive, does not like to stand out, dislikes large parties, submissive, daydreamer

Nice, lol. I had a good deal of extremes on this one.
Unwillingly, but successfully! Twice!

« Reply #102 on: January 31, 2014, 03:50:36 AM »

God I feel really bad for any ESFJs we might have.

I got ISTP and I honestly feel this is pretty accurate given the description in the Stars Wars image.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 04:07:51 AM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?