INTJ — Myers Briggs For Idiots, Or at Least Me


Who I is?
Who I is?

I took the Myers-Briggs personality test my freshman year of college, but I don’t remember what I was. I’m pretty sure that my personality has evolved in some areas since then. The other day on Twitter @eeUS was asking for people’s types, and I took this quick test to find out what I am. I usually don’t buy into this type of thing to heavily, but I have to say this pretty much pegged me.


I came out as an INTJ (11% Introverted, 88% iNtuitive, 62%Thinking, 22% Judging). There are a couple of articles describing this type along with some examples of famous people who possess these personality traits. Imagine the horror I felt being grouped with Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan! Of course, that was offset by the fact that I also get Ayn Rand, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking in my stable.

Then The Missus took the test and (surprise surprise) came out INFJ, which is listed as the ideal companion for the INTJ. Pretty cool!

So take the test and let me know in the comments who/what you are!

Similar Posts:

20 Replies to “INTJ — Myers Briggs For Idiots, Or at Least Me”

  1. INFP 56, 12, 12, 33: I’m suppossed to be a counseler, or in education. At least it wasn’t child day worker this time around.

  2. Dear lord… ENTJ – field marshal. My scores 1% Extroverted, 50% Intuitive, 50% Thinking, and 11% Judging. Here’s the tough part, other ENTJ’s Hillary, Bill Gates, Napoleon, Margaret Thatcher… Carl Sagan was in there though.

  3. INFJ

    44, 25, 12, 1

    John Bradshaw, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, John Calvin

    apparently i’m involved in the right fields: education (hah), psyche/counseling (but not paid for this one), design (if you call it that)…but yeah, it’s been a while so it was good to review…thanks.

    new page looks good.

  4. @all It’s funny to read the descriptions and match them up with the personalities you observe. Some traits are dead on, and others make you wonder, but it probably tells you a lot about what is going on beneath the surface.

  5. Despite what many MBTI authors claim, there is no one Type more compatible with another Type in terms of a relationship! Many Type interactions may make for *easier* relationships because they are similar enough to be on the same page, but different enough to provide some spice of difference. If one respects another’s Type, all Types are compatible! Easier isn’t always better!

  6. I’d dispute that in a heartbeat – not everyone is turned on by extraverted aesthetics like beauty!

  7. “not everyone is turned on by extraverted aesthetics like beauty!”

    crap…was someone passing out extra “verts” and i didnt get one?

    i’m just selfish enough to think that scott was not in agreement with MY asessment…have to admit, i was a little shocked. thought i was more “extraverted”…lol…guess it’s evolution (adapting to environment) at work.

  8. no threat perceived and no fear imposed. just thought i was more extroverted and more of a thinker than a feeler, as you and i usually think a like, but different…regardless, it was interesting.

  9. Sorry to be a downer, but the MBTI is crap. Despite what some people would like to believe, it predicts absolutely nothing. Countless studies have proven that it does not predict job fit, success, or anything else. It’s simply regurgitating what you told it about yourself. It’s an entertaining read, kind of like a horoscope. At best, it can be used to help people to understand individual preferences and, hopefully, figure out how to work together. It hasn’t prevented people from making a ton of money off of it though.

  10. Sorry to be an upper, but the MBTI is not crap – you have no idea what you’re talking about and regurgitating misinformed hype. It’s a completely validated psychological indicator, with plenty of research to back it up.

    It isn’t designed to be predictor of anything, and it doesn’t claim to. That’s an incorrect usage of the MBTI and qualified administrators who know what they’re doing don’t use it as such. Of course it’s regurgitating what you told it; that’s what psychological instruments are designed to *do.*

    The profiles don’t read like horoscopes – horoscopes read like pscyhological profiles. Every personality type is diffdrent from the other in the MBTI. The profiles are merely the first step in understanding psychological mental functions that are a part of the MBTI and Jungian psychology. If the only thing you learn from the MBTI is your profile, then you’re cheating yourself.

    The MBTI *does* help with career choices. It even helps if you choose a career where people of the same type don’t typically choose. When you understand your preferences for perceiving and judging information, you understand how you *work* at work.

    Helping people to understand individual preferences is exactly what it’s designed to do, but that’s not all it does. It teaches one about their own mental functions, both the ones we prefer, and the ones we don’t, and how we can use the ones we don’t effectively.

    And there’s nothing wrong with making money to teach people things. Unless of course you think we pay teachers too much.

  11. Michael, I seem to have touched a sore point. It sounds like you are one of the zealots who has invested a great deal of time and money in becoming certified in interpreting the MBTI.

    By definition, “a completely validated psychological indicator” must predict something. If not, what is it validated against?

    I stumbled onto your LinkedIn profile and, as a self-described “self-employed MBTI trainer,” I think you might be a little biased. Much like a Ouija board, the MBTI can be entertaining and provide insight into the unknown. I do agree that the MBTI can be a useful tool if used correctly. As I stated in my original post, it helps people to understand their individual styles and preferences.

    Unfortunately, it is often misused and sold to organizations as a selection or succession planning tool. Unlike many other commonly used cognitive and personality measures, there is not one credible journal article that has demonstrated that MBTI predicts success as a manager, a leader, or any other role. There are many more that show that it predicts nothing beyond the personal preferences I mentioned earlier. I’m sorry if this upsets you, but it is true. So I proudly accept my title as Party Pooper.

    Sorry to waste space on a discussion that no one else probably has any interest in, but it pisses me off when someone questions my credibility. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you better be able to back it up with facts from a source that doesn’t make a living off of the MBTI.

  12. The only sore point you touched is the sore point I have about people arguing against something when they’re so obviously misinformed about something and don’t have an argument and only hyperbolic attacks. You’re painting me into a corner that does not exist. And you’re questioning *my* credibility. I’m questioning your arguments, not you. I don’t know anything about you, and I don’t need to. I’m picking apart your misinformed arguments, not you.

    I am a qualified MBTI administator, but I am not a zealot. I have my criticisms of the MBTI, but my criticisms are informed ones. I don’t have a bias *for* the MBTI but you obviously have one *against* it.

    The MBTI is nothing like a Ouija board. It’s a validated pscyhological instrument and a Ouija board is not.

    I repeat – the MBTI is not *supposed* to predict success in any job. It’s not designed for it, it’s not supposed to be used for it, it doesn’t claim to do so. You’re accusing of something that it doesn’t claim. You’re accusing me of saying that it does when I clearly stated that it does not.

    It is not sold to be a selective tool, and it’s unethical to use the MBTI as such as tool. You can read it for yourself in the Association for Psychological Type’s ethics website. Since you seem to be astute at searching for things, it should be easy for you to find it on their website.

    Abuse of a psychological theory by certain practitioners does not negate the instrument itself, nor does it negate the effectiveness of other practitioners who do not use it for such abusive purposes. You’re creating an argument where there isn’t one.

    So don’t question my credibility when I have the facts that supports proper and ethical use of the MBTI for what it is designed.

    The MBTI is NOT a predictor. It doesn’t claim to be one, and it doesn’t attempt to do so, and it clearly states that. And I never said it did, and don’t state otherwise.

  13. I’m very familiar with the MBTI. I have used it when teaching MBA students and in Fortune 100 organizations. I do question your ability to be objective when it comes the MBTI even if you are a qualified MBTI “administator.” Your reference to the “Association for Psychological Type” simply reinforces my argument. It is an organization created by people who make a living from the MBTI.

    I prefer to rely U.S. employment laws and credible academic journals. It’s not only unethical, but illegal to use the MBTI for selection given its inability to predict success. I’d like to reciprocate by suggesting that you read this journal article:

    Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. By Pittenger, David J. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. Vol 57(3), Sum 2005, 210-221.
    The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; K. C. Briggs & I. B. Myers, 1998) is a popular measure of normal personality that its promoters claim has many applications. M. H. McCaulley (2000) offered an optimistic and enthusiastic account of how counselors can use this instrument in corporate settings. The present article evaluates several of the psychometric limitations and criticisms of the MBTI that warrant considerable caution when making inferences from its 4-letter type formula. The author concludes that the MBTI, while offering much intuitive appeal, may not yet be able to support the claims its promoters make. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)

    This is just one example, there are many more like it. Thanks for sharing all of your facts and clarifying that the MBTI does not predict anything and was never meant to predict anything.

    Most importantly, who says the Ouija board is not a validated tool? The dead ancestors I talk to on regular basis and many well known psychics would beg to differ. I think I have made my point and bored anyone else who has bothered to read these posts to tears so I won’t take up any more space on sadcox’s blog with a response to whatever “facts” you bring to the table.

  14. This is exactly why I got out of the corporate health industry (Well, that and the fact that I was fired for not being a team player, after 10 years of service). You both are obviously intelligent and insightful people. And yet, you have two opposing views on the use and affect of one single readily accepted psychological evaluation tool. That’s all it is. A single tool that has been used and/or abused by many well-meaning evaluators for various reasons whether self-promoting or financial. It is a good baseline test for certain personal indicators…nothing else. Next week I could take the same test and would probably score differently.

    So basically if it CAN be explained away as one thing and it happens to bring in more business, than use it. And if anyone opposes that view, than they are negative and not team players and probably are not happy and need to be removed from the premises…oops..i digress…

    Where was I? Oh yeah, don’t go against the flow…you’ll get shit-canned…

  15. I fail to see how the fact that because I am a qualified administrator of the MBTI, that it automatically disqualifies me from discussing ethical applications of the MBTI, when if anything, it makes me an expert on the topic. Secondly, I don’t understand why you think that somebody who makes a career of teaching a psychological theory is unethical for doing so, when that’s what we have teachers for. Are you against instructors? Do you think all knowledge should be self-taught? Wait, didn’t I see that you teach MBA students?

    I use credible academic journals too, so again, you’re painting me as someone on one side of an argument that doesn’t exist.

    Again, you’re creating an argument where there isn’t one. I’m not advocating use of the MBTI for a selection tool. I’m saying that it is *unethical* to use it for such a reason. I’ve stated this four times now. How is it that you fail to see it? That’s showing your bias *against* it, or me.

    The ethics statement in APT says that this is unethical as well. So why are you trying to disparage the organization when it’s actually supporting the argument? Again, you’re showing *your* bias against it.

    The synopsis of the article says nothing to contradict anything I’ve said thus far. Again, you’re creating an argument out of nothing.

Comments are closed.