Warrel Dane's MBTI type?

[Det Som Engang Var]

Well, you're supposed to take the test over and over a few times over the course of months, years, etc. You're going to get different results but over time you will start to figure it out. You and Christopher are definitely INTJ.

(Sorry I'm very serious about MBTI. It consumes my very existence.)

 

[Talking Backwards]

I'm supposed to be INTJ, but those "unique snowflake" tests tend to be wildly inaccurate, especially online.

Doesn't surprise me at all. I think Dead Winter is as well. Had him take this around a year ago.

This is the test that was referred to me, and it's what I've had others use. It's slightly longer than the one already linked, but not by much. It's also more black and white, than shades of grey.
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

 

[El Stormo]

You and Christopher are definitely INTJ.

Well I'm glad you're here to tell me what kind of person I am ^_^

 

[neal]

I find it hard to believe any lead singer would be an I. I mean, the job demands and E nature. Then again, Alex Skolnick has the most introverted type of the bunch and he's a lead player.

well Introverted doesnt mean you're like shy all the time or something. last time i did this i got INTP and ive been in a bunch of bands over the years and did drama/guitar in high school and elementary school band and other performing shit as a kid. i think its more about choosing when you want the spotlight, and whether socializing gives you energy or drains your energy.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

Exactly.

 

[El Stormo]

I've always understood it as introverted being more inclined to keep your emotions and opinions to yourself and being more inclined to deal with situations internally.

Of course, these days, people seem to think "introverted" means "special, beautiful, misunderstood snowflake".

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

At the risk of sounding rude, that's just plain wrong.

As neal said, it boils down to whether you get your energy from being around others, or being alone. Some introverts, especially those with strong extroverted feeling and introverted intuition, can be extremely outgoing and express lots of emotions.

Although, having said that, it's pretty easy to tell who is I/E by looking at them. How animated they are, hand gestures, even the eyes can be a giveaway. Obviously, you can't judge a book by its cover. But introverts and extroverts are easy to tell apart once you know the signs to look for in their face and demeanor.

As far as keeping opinions to yourself, that's more of an intuitive feeling thing.

 

[Talking Backwards]

A really good friend of mine randomly started talking about introverts, and I asked him if he was INFP since it had been about five years since he told me and I wasn't 100% sure anymore. That's what he is, but he made me jump through a bunch of hoops anyway first before telling me. So I decided to take the test again...

INTJ
You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have strong preference of Thinking over Feeling (88%)
You have distinct preference of Judging over Perceiving (72%)

I've always understood it as introverted being more inclined to keep your emotions and opinions to yourself and being more inclined to deal with situations internally.

Of course, these days, people seem to think "introverted" means "special, beautiful, misunderstood snowflake".

 

[El Stormo]

By the way...

(Sorry I'm very serious about MBTI. It consumes my very existence.)

That's unfortunate, seeing as it's basically bullshit dreamed up by a housewife who didn't get Jung and her daughter, who wrote mystery novels.

 

[Talking Backwards]

You know, even if it's "bullshit", it's remarkably accurate. At least as far as bullshit goes. And while I know it's really easy to get wrapped up in lables and read into things, see what you want to see and agree with what fits and ignore what doesn't, but I've found it more often than not to be a reliable metric.

 

[El Stormo]

It's accurate in the way all those psychology tests are accurate: "we've got something for everyone". People will recognize traits of themselves in their MBTI type because they're all so general. It's, like a fellow forum member said, 'astrology for atheists'.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

Look at it this way, man. I knew Warrel was INFP or INFJ, and I had 16 types to choose from. I nailed him without even ever meeting him. That has to account for something. Warrel is the same type (INFP) as Edgar Allen Poe. Quote the raven, Nevermore. I rest my case.

 

[El Stormo]

Because all the facts and science in the world is no match for anecdotal evidence!

Also, you 'nailed' him by guessing two types out of sixteen. A 1-in-8 chance. And even if you did 'nail him' it doesn't prove anything about the scientific merit of the MBTI model. All it does is show you can stick some vague labels on people. Furthermore, you 'nailed him' without meeting him. meaning you 'nailed him' based on no observable behaviour of any kind other than his song lyrics. It's the equivalent of throwing a dart, man.

Also, re-checking the thread, you attributed INFJ to him, even going so far as to say he's a "classic INFJ", which is not only presumptuous to assume from someone you don't even know, but it turned out to be wrong, since WD himself says his result was INFP. Only later did you say, "Oh, yeah, right, it could have been INFP". You didn't "know he was INFP or INFJ", you said he was "classic INFJ" and then adjusted your opinion after he said he scored INFP. In other words, you didn't 'nail him', you were wrong.


I know it's hard to realize that something you believe in is basically the equivalent of tarot readings, but that's what it is. It's pseudo-science.

 

[Talking Backwards]

Because all the facts and science in the world is no match for anecdotal evidence!

What's funny about this, is that you're agreeing with critics of MBTI who make claims that Myers/Briggs didn't understand Jung's work, as though Jung was the final word in the first place.

At one point in time people didn't believe the world was round either. There were no "facts and science" yet to prove otherwise, yet...the earth was still round!

 

[El Stormo]

I don't understand what's funny. Or are you arguing that the MBTI doesn't claim to be based on Jung's work? And your 'round Earth' argument makes no sense.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

I know this sounds like a lie, but I really did think he was INFJ or INFP. I went with INFJ because it's what I am and I really wanted to be the same type as someone I look up to. Either way, I still had his first three letters down. (Even though those two types have opposite function stacks)

What about the functions, though? Extroverted sensing is a real thing, you use it when you walk in the grass barefoot. Introverted intuition is a real thing, you use it when you have gut feelings. Extroverted/Introverted Feeling is real, we just call it empathy.

I'm a lot different personality wise than the other INFJs I work with, but our function stack is still the same. We're all clumsy and bad at sports because Se (Extroverted sensing) is our weakest function, all three of us have social anxiety because we get stuck in Ni Ti loops.

I think looking at it as a people categorizer isn't the right way, it's about the function stack. I knew Warrel was an F for sure (INFJ or INFP) because he makes his decisions based on his feelings rather than what's logical. Of course that's a generalization, he uses T, we all do. But he uses F more. In general he acts based on his feelings, not his logic.

Someone who was a T IMHO could never have written lyrics like Dreaming Neon Black, because they never would have felt the emotions as deeply needed to write it, because their Feeling (be it introverted or extroverted, depending on their function stack) is not developed enough for them to hurt so much. I'm not saying T's don't get depressed and kill themselves. I'm generalizing, obviously.

But look at me and Warrel. We are Feelers. We are whiny guys a lot of people would call pussies for being too emotional. Now I've never met you or Chris personally, but you as Thinkers, you guys sure seem pretty emotionally solid and logical to me.

Someone with an actual education would surely have explained that better. But hey, maybe I'm no better than a Christian trying to defend his faith. I just think in this case, there's a little evidence to work with.

 

[Talking Backwards]

I don't understand what's funny. Or are you arguing that the MBTI doesn't claim to be based on Jung's work? And your 'round Earth' argument makes no sense.

Some people claimed that the Earth was round. There was no "facts" or "science" yet to back that up. It was just a theory until proven otherwise. Yet the Earth was still round, despite what all of the non-believers said.

As to why I find it ironic that you are defending the criticisms? It's simply that you're basing your opinion on the belief that Meyers/Briggs misinterpreted Jung's work; as though Jung was the final authority to begin with. Even if they are wrong, who's to say he wasn't either and that neither party is "right" in that regard? Look at how popular Freud was for the longest time. His word was god in psychological circles, and now much of what he said is being dismissed. And who knows, maybe they saw the flaws with his work and tried to correct what they thought improbable or inaccurate? You don't have to be a genius or certified scientist to make contributions to science.

I never made any claims about MBTI to be thoroughly valid, although there's a lot more to it than simple parlor tricks. Even though it generalizes too much, a lot of the desriptions are relatively accurate in a macro sense. I've also read the various statements about how people retest differently even within a short period or that they've read a completely different type description (other than what they tested as) to people they knew, who agreed with the descriptions fitting. Hurray for them I guess? I know from "anecedotal" evidence that it isn't the case for everyone at all.

What concerns me the most about what they claim though is that they say that you are born that way. They make claims that it's nature and not nurture that influences us the most, yet I have a lot of misgivings about that. I feel like I am the way that I am more because of the environment I grew up around rather than simply being this way from the start. The same thing applies to two of my best friends. I can't really see them being the same (or even similar for that matter) people, given opposite upbringings.

MBTI makes claims of having actual test subjects to refute this, especially in the case of identical twins, but I'm not completely sold on that yet.

Here's a pretty decent argument against it. I suggest you also read the replies.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific