ISFP - "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in other types. 8.8% of total population.
Personality Types
Moderator: Available
-
Guest
Rory is an INTJ, about 1 percent of the population. Rare ducks indeed! Here's a little of what our book has to say about INTJs:
To INTJs, authority based on position, rank, title, or publication has absolutely no force. This type is not likely to succumb to the magic of slogans, watchwords, or shibboleths. If an idea or position makes sense to an INTJ, it will be adopted; if it doesn't, it won't, regardless of who took the position or generated the idea. As with the INTP, authority per se does not impress the INTJ.
You think? Heh.
He makes a great reality check, and not just in MA. He is highly intelligent and knows how to use his mind, and he can make important decisions very quickly and with an astounding accuracy--very seldom does he make a decision that he later regrets, at least from what I've seen. When he does make a mistake he's quick to correct and clear about what he's doing and why, though he seldom spells out the details. I definitely feel like I'm the lucky one. My world would be very chaotic without him. He especially helps me reason through situations that I find highly emotional, which has the combined effect of calming me down and making me less likely to waffle later or feel guilty. It's also great to have someone who is as fiercely loyal as he is. Someone like me is easily shattered by cheating and hurt deeply by indifference. I can trust him absolutely with my heart, and that's a rare thing.
Kami
To INTJs, authority based on position, rank, title, or publication has absolutely no force. This type is not likely to succumb to the magic of slogans, watchwords, or shibboleths. If an idea or position makes sense to an INTJ, it will be adopted; if it doesn't, it won't, regardless of who took the position or generated the idea. As with the INTP, authority per se does not impress the INTJ.
You think? Heh.
He makes a great reality check, and not just in MA. He is highly intelligent and knows how to use his mind, and he can make important decisions very quickly and with an astounding accuracy--very seldom does he make a decision that he later regrets, at least from what I've seen. When he does make a mistake he's quick to correct and clear about what he's doing and why, though he seldom spells out the details. I definitely feel like I'm the lucky one. My world would be very chaotic without him. He especially helps me reason through situations that I find highly emotional, which has the combined effect of calming me down and making me less likely to waffle later or feel guilty. It's also great to have someone who is as fiercely loyal as he is. Someone like me is easily shattered by cheating and hurt deeply by indifference. I can trust him absolutely with my heart, and that's a rare thing.
Kami
One seed, many lives.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Keeping with the format, here is Laird.
The Artist
I had to admit that this one had me baffled at first, Laird. Then I saw this...
- Bill
And here is the details.ISFP
Quiet, serious, sensitive and kind. Do not like conflict, and not likely to do things which may generate conflict. Loyal and faithful. Extremely well-developed senses, and aesthetic appreciation for beauty. Not interested in leading or controlling others. Flexible and open-minded. Likely to be original and creative. Enjoy the present moment.
The Artist
I had to admit that this one had me baffled at first, Laird. Then I saw this...
Does that hit the mark?They're likely to be animal lovers, and to have a true appreciation for the beauties of nature. They're original and independent, and need to have personal space.
***
ISFPs are action-oriented individuals. They are "doers", and are usually uncomfortable with theorizing concepts and ideas, unless they see a practical application. They learn best in a "hands-on" environment, and consequently may become easily bored with the traditional teaching methods, which emphasize abstract thinking. They do not like impersonal analysis, and are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions based strictly on logic. Their strong value systems demand that decisions are evaluated against their subjective beliefs, rather than against some objective rules or laws.
- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
And this is Rory's by the same format.
The Scientist
I can see that in terms of the rigor about which he approaches his work.
Also this...
And the detail...INTJ
Independent, original, analytical, and determined. Have an exceptional ability to turn theories into solid plans of action. Highly value knowledge, competence, and structure. Driven to derive meaning from their visions. Long-range thinkers. Have very high standards for their performance, and the performance of others. Natural leaders, but will follow if they trust existing leaders.
The Scientist
I can see that in terms of the rigor about which he approaches his work.
Also this...
- Bill* Not threatened by conflict or criticism
* Usually self-confident
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jorvik
I'm an INTJ..which quite surprised me 
..although the stuff that I read wasn't that complimentary about that type 
I do doubt these kind of tests, because really we don't know ourselves well enough to answer honestly.the test is subjective rather than objective by its very nature.it would be interesting to know which groups were most reprisentative of martial artists as a whole.
..although the stuff that I read wasn't that complimentary about that type I do doubt these kind of tests, because really we don't know ourselves well enough to answer honestly.the test is subjective rather than objective by its very nature.it would be interesting to know which groups were most reprisentative of martial artists as a whole.
Great thread... but you already knew I liked it from reading my profile.
I see a lot of people talking about extroversion and introversion; someone with more knowledge correct me but I think there is a big difference between the common usage of the terms and the pyschologist's use of the words. I'm an introvert, but not at all shy, and like to be around people and go to clubs. My sister is also an introvert, but she never shuts up!
The introversion means (among a lot of other things) that when I get stressed or angry*, I need a break away from groups of people. Extroverts might want or need people when they get stressed. After a terrible day of work, my uncle the extrovert would call me up to go out and hang out with people at the bar. I'd go home and go to bed.
*useful to know the other guy's profile for VSD!
I see a lot of people talking about extroversion and introversion; someone with more knowledge correct me but I think there is a big difference between the common usage of the terms and the pyschologist's use of the words. I'm an introvert, but not at all shy, and like to be around people and go to clubs. My sister is also an introvert, but she never shuts up!
The introversion means (among a lot of other things) that when I get stressed or angry*, I need a break away from groups of people. Extroverts might want or need people when they get stressed. After a terrible day of work, my uncle the extrovert would call me up to go out and hang out with people at the bar. I'd go home and go to bed.
*useful to know the other guy's profile for VSD!
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I also was interested in what groups were represented most by martial artists. But when I think about it, my large classes always had quite a variety of people. The only common theme I saw was that most of my students were (or became) professionals (doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, etc.).
You are right about the fact that tests which require a response can have some degree of variability in terms of the individual response over time. And certainly the test's ultimate "label" tries to dichotomize each of the four dimensions. A more precise assessment of one's tendencies will look at where someone is on the continuum of each of these four scales.
There are other things that need to be considered when putting together the whole person. There is physical appearance, physical abilities, IQ, EQ, life experiences, education, age, gender, culture, etc.
- Bill
You are right about the fact that tests which require a response can have some degree of variability in terms of the individual response over time. And certainly the test's ultimate "label" tries to dichotomize each of the four dimensions. A more precise assessment of one's tendencies will look at where someone is on the continuum of each of these four scales.
There are other things that need to be considered when putting together the whole person. There is physical appearance, physical abilities, IQ, EQ, life experiences, education, age, gender, culture, etc.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I love taking online personality tests. It's something I do for fun fairly often. I'm INTP, Cyan, Colossus, The Boy Next Door, Fire, Heavenly Cloud, and a hundred other things I've long since forgotten.
But all these things to me are entertainment. Even the much-vaunted meyers-briggs to me is just kind of silly. Breaking people down into tidy little descriptions like this just doesn't strike me as having much validity. It's not that it isn't vaguely useful as a rough description of a person, but when people take these arbitrary descriptions of behavior and make the argument that they reflect something profound about the structure of the human mind I think it's been taken too far.
There's a place in the world for this kind of very general descriptive model. But people often use it as a kind of new astrology. I tend to find that almost any of these descriptions would fit me if I thought that it was mine. ISFP? Great, I love animals and I've taken classical dance styles all my life. I enjoy the moment and don't care to lead or control others. ENFJ? Hey that's totally me to! I have a strong need for close, intimate relationships (wait, isn't that all humans?). I get excited about possibilites for the future but become bored and restless with the present (I'm 24, what do you expect?)! But I'm also INTP, cold and harshly analytical, internally driven and so forth.
The problem is that there's enough general wisdom in each one of these extra-large personality-type buckets fit everybody. Whichever one you've been assigned, you can believe that's the one you are. People seem to have a pentient for buying into this kind of thing. It's exactly what astrology does and a host of other systems that are all fundamentally the same. You make up some categories, associate them with some fairly general patterns, throw in a few specific traits that people will selectively overlook or recognize and then assign them to people.
I'm willing to bet that you could devise a study where this is done absolutely randomly and have a group of test subjects swearing up and down that the categories they've been put into represent something important and deep about them.
Okay, that's enough of my pointless harangue. My appologies to anyone I've offended in the process.
But all these things to me are entertainment. Even the much-vaunted meyers-briggs to me is just kind of silly. Breaking people down into tidy little descriptions like this just doesn't strike me as having much validity. It's not that it isn't vaguely useful as a rough description of a person, but when people take these arbitrary descriptions of behavior and make the argument that they reflect something profound about the structure of the human mind I think it's been taken too far.
There's a place in the world for this kind of very general descriptive model. But people often use it as a kind of new astrology. I tend to find that almost any of these descriptions would fit me if I thought that it was mine. ISFP? Great, I love animals and I've taken classical dance styles all my life. I enjoy the moment and don't care to lead or control others. ENFJ? Hey that's totally me to! I have a strong need for close, intimate relationships (wait, isn't that all humans?). I get excited about possibilites for the future but become bored and restless with the present (I'm 24, what do you expect?)! But I'm also INTP, cold and harshly analytical, internally driven and so forth.
The problem is that there's enough general wisdom in each one of these extra-large personality-type buckets fit everybody. Whichever one you've been assigned, you can believe that's the one you are. People seem to have a pentient for buying into this kind of thing. It's exactly what astrology does and a host of other systems that are all fundamentally the same. You make up some categories, associate them with some fairly general patterns, throw in a few specific traits that people will selectively overlook or recognize and then assign them to people.
I'm willing to bet that you could devise a study where this is done absolutely randomly and have a group of test subjects swearing up and down that the categories they've been put into represent something important and deep about them.
Okay, that's enough of my pointless harangue. My appologies to anyone I've offended in the process.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
No problem, Justin. Those thoughts crossed my mind as well. It does seem like reading astrology at times, doesn't it? Written general enough that you can read in anything you want.
First remember that psychology is one of the "soft" sciences. There's a long path between structure and function in the brain. Personality is a very complex thing, and chaos (a degree of mathematical unpredictability) sometimes ensues.
As I have said many times, YOU ARE CORRECT that it can be misleading to dichotomize, rather than give a value on a numeric scale. Take introversion vs. extroverson. Everyone pretty much agrees that this is a dimension of measurement of personality. Well you have some people who are very introverted, some who are very extroverted, and a good deal of people who are somewhere in the middle.
My wife and I were talking about this last night. What happens if you fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum on each of the four dimensions of personality assessment? Well then you would be one of those people (perhaps yourself) who could read any number of the 16 different descriptions, and see a little of yourself in there. You might be the consumate generalist.
Dichotimization is a tool people use in both research and in practice to simplify things. Sometimes it's relevant. For instance, you are either pregnant or you aren't. But other times... Our legal system says you are either guilty or you are not guilty. But a given case may come out differently based on which lawyers tried it, and which jury (or judge) heard it. Voting is another example. Some people are true blue Democrats. Some are faithful Republicans. And then you have folks (like me) that find they don't identify with either traditional party. But come November, I have to vote. Often I make the decision in the voting booth. The only thing I can tell you this year is that I know whom I will NOT vote for. (I'm farther along than in most years). Meanwhile, Carey and Bush are running around the country in all the "swing" states trying to appeal to some sort of amorphous middle ground. It's not a pretty sight...
Discrimination in the gray zone can be tough. This is why we have things like analogue scales and fuzzy logic.
I'm also a person who tends not to like to dichotomize things, Justin. But when it comes time to do predictive modeling and I need to be able to compute which patients get the extra case management care and which do not, I have to fish or cut bait on my measures. So someone is either a diabetic or they are not. They are classified as having a rare/expensive illness or not. Their severity of illness within a disease gets reduced to a five point scale. Etc., etc. I need these simplifications to maximize my sensitivity and specificity at the back end, given the limited, imperfect data I put in at the front end.
Social science researchers often collect lots of data on people, and use special inferential statistical methods to arrive at these descriptions. They would use techniques such as cluster analysis, principle components analysis, and discriminant analysis. Believe it or not, there is real science and math behind working with these very, very noisy data.
There is the real world, and there are the constructs we use to understand and interact with that world. In the case of human behavior, we do the best we can. It is not an exact art. For some, that is the fun of it.
Back to Meyers-Briggs... When you find people who are extreme on two or more of these dimensions, you will find that the descriptions pretty much nail the people. That definitely is true for myself (very, very scary...), Rich, and I believe Kami. TSDguy also seems to think it describes him well. But it may not be of much value for folks who fall somewhere in the middle on all the scales. In any case, such descriptions can be very useful for career counseling, team building, and understanding of human behavior.
- Bill
First remember that psychology is one of the "soft" sciences. There's a long path between structure and function in the brain. Personality is a very complex thing, and chaos (a degree of mathematical unpredictability) sometimes ensues.
As I have said many times, YOU ARE CORRECT that it can be misleading to dichotomize, rather than give a value on a numeric scale. Take introversion vs. extroverson. Everyone pretty much agrees that this is a dimension of measurement of personality. Well you have some people who are very introverted, some who are very extroverted, and a good deal of people who are somewhere in the middle.
My wife and I were talking about this last night. What happens if you fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum on each of the four dimensions of personality assessment? Well then you would be one of those people (perhaps yourself) who could read any number of the 16 different descriptions, and see a little of yourself in there. You might be the consumate generalist.
Dichotimization is a tool people use in both research and in practice to simplify things. Sometimes it's relevant. For instance, you are either pregnant or you aren't. But other times... Our legal system says you are either guilty or you are not guilty. But a given case may come out differently based on which lawyers tried it, and which jury (or judge) heard it. Voting is another example. Some people are true blue Democrats. Some are faithful Republicans. And then you have folks (like me) that find they don't identify with either traditional party. But come November, I have to vote. Often I make the decision in the voting booth. The only thing I can tell you this year is that I know whom I will NOT vote for. (I'm farther along than in most years). Meanwhile, Carey and Bush are running around the country in all the "swing" states trying to appeal to some sort of amorphous middle ground. It's not a pretty sight...
Discrimination in the gray zone can be tough. This is why we have things like analogue scales and fuzzy logic.
I'm also a person who tends not to like to dichotomize things, Justin. But when it comes time to do predictive modeling and I need to be able to compute which patients get the extra case management care and which do not, I have to fish or cut bait on my measures. So someone is either a diabetic or they are not. They are classified as having a rare/expensive illness or not. Their severity of illness within a disease gets reduced to a five point scale. Etc., etc. I need these simplifications to maximize my sensitivity and specificity at the back end, given the limited, imperfect data I put in at the front end.
Social science researchers often collect lots of data on people, and use special inferential statistical methods to arrive at these descriptions. They would use techniques such as cluster analysis, principle components analysis, and discriminant analysis. Believe it or not, there is real science and math behind working with these very, very noisy data.
There is the real world, and there are the constructs we use to understand and interact with that world. In the case of human behavior, we do the best we can. It is not an exact art. For some, that is the fun of it.
Back to Meyers-Briggs... When you find people who are extreme on two or more of these dimensions, you will find that the descriptions pretty much nail the people. That definitely is true for myself (very, very scary...), Rich, and I believe Kami. TSDguy also seems to think it describes him well. But it may not be of much value for folks who fall somewhere in the middle on all the scales. In any case, such descriptions can be very useful for career counseling, team building, and understanding of human behavior.
- Bill
This I agree with just fine. When you need to get a job done you use the best tools you have if those tools are even slightly useful.Bill Glasheen wrote:But when it comes time to do predictive modeling and I need to be able to compute which patients get the extra case management care and which do not, I have to fish or cut bait on my measures. ...
I need these simplifications to maximize my sensitivity and specificity at the back end, given the limited, imperfect data I put in at the front end.
Here's where I disagree. I think personality testing is the wrong tool for all of these things, Especially with regards understanding human behavior. I tend to think scientific personality testing is about on par with phrenology.In any case, such descriptions can be very useful for career counseling, team building, and understanding of human behavior.
Psych was one of my majors in college, and while I think there are domains where it succeeds well (primarily in aberrant psychology), there's also an awful lot of it that is a hopeless mixture of common sense, half-baked experiments and utter hokum.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
OK, at least you are up front. However...I tend to think scientific personality testing is about on par with phrenology.
- Personality testing is based on real data, and tested instruments. There is scientific evidence that justifies the classification schemes used. They aren't perfect, and you can even quantify the degree to which classification schemes work and don't work (a good example would be a C statistic). But everything is based on hard data. Noisy data, but data nonetheness.
- Phrenology has no science behind it
- What people think or feel about something - and they are entitled to have those thoughts - is one thing. "God's truth" - whatever that may be - is something else. Whatever objective evidence we can come up with in an assessment process is designed to be the best possible reflection of that thruth. They are designed to be the reality check against personal biases.
But at the end of the day, YOU make the decisions and YOU live with the consequences of those decisions. That's your prerogative, in whatever role you would play. Whatever lets you sleep at night...
- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Why did I even bother to bring this thread up in the first place? Well elsewhere on this forum - in two different threads - we had two parties in a "chicken and egg" arguement. One was espousing the value of understanding principles. The other was placing great value on practicing and performing technique and staying out of the theoretical realm. To some extent, both views have value. And to some extent, different individuals may value unique approaches to the same material.
It's all good. We need the mixture of people when approaching a complex subject. Each unique personality - quirks and all - brings value to the table, so long as all can appreciate the differences.
I feel very lucky to be surrounded by people very different than me. Life would otherwise be boring. I don't know that I could live with a bunch of clones of me... 
- Bill
It's all good. We need the mixture of people when approaching a complex subject. Each unique personality - quirks and all - brings value to the table, so long as all can appreciate the differences.
I feel very lucky to be surrounded by people very different than me. Life would otherwise be boring. I don't know that I could live with a bunch of clones of me...
- Bill
Since I'm a classic ENFJ and seek to 'find myself' a lot, the personality profile was entertaining and I liked using it as a mirror. But that wasn't the true value to me. All the parts Rory agreed with in his profile (and some of the parts he may not agree with but I saw in him) helped me understand him a lot better. Employing this understanding has proved challenging, but now I feel like I'm on a boat and not just swimming in a stormy sea, if that makes sense.
Kami
Kami
One seed, many lives.
My degree is in experimental psychology. I've administered most of the tests and haven't found them to be that useful. So, usually. I'm with Justin.
But a year or so ago, Bill recommended it. The test was available at:
http://humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
It was the first test that ever pegged me. Further, it explained why the other tests hadn't (a test written for the majority of the population will never apply very well to the out lyers) and pointed out and explained almost every problem I had with other people.
The hallmark of the INTJ is pragmatism. All I care about is if something works. I don't care if it looks goofy or is non-traditional or doesn't make sense as long as it works. I had honestly assumed that the rest of the world thought the same way I did, but wasn't very good at it.
Literally, it had never occured to me that anyone under any circumstances would make a decision based on anything other than efficiency...
I had completely misread 99% of the world. The test has been very good at pointing out that often Kami and I aren't disagreeing about the answer so much as not seeing the same question.
It's a tool. It's an efficient tool. I'll keep using it til Ifind something that works better.
Rory
But a year or so ago, Bill recommended it. The test was available at:
http://humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
It was the first test that ever pegged me. Further, it explained why the other tests hadn't (a test written for the majority of the population will never apply very well to the out lyers) and pointed out and explained almost every problem I had with other people.
The hallmark of the INTJ is pragmatism. All I care about is if something works. I don't care if it looks goofy or is non-traditional or doesn't make sense as long as it works. I had honestly assumed that the rest of the world thought the same way I did, but wasn't very good at it.
Literally, it had never occured to me that anyone under any circumstances would make a decision based on anything other than efficiency...
I had completely misread 99% of the world. The test has been very good at pointing out that often Kami and I aren't disagreeing about the answer so much as not seeing the same question.
It's a tool. It's an efficient tool. I'll keep using it til Ifind something that works better.
Rory
