Poll: What is Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type?

[Rocco]

INTJ, no surprise at all. When I go out in the political world I use the "T" to help force myself out of the "I" when I know it's a bad situation to be introverted. But truth be told, a day where I stay in my house, relax and don't see or talk to anybody is a pretty damn good day.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

INFJ

http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/counselor.asp

Roxi too.

 

[July]

INTJ here.
What I find interesting is that only 2% of the population is of this type and only a mere .8% women. Yet the greatest majority of the liberty movement are comprised of the INTJ personality. This begs the question: Are we up against something that is just not attainable in regards to waking the general population up and getting our country back? Are we just spinning our wheels?

I've seen it theorized that a majority, roughly ~80% or so, are inclined to go along with the status quo, whatever it happens to be. While a relatively smaller minority of radicals of various types ~10-20% compete with each other, dragging the majority along with whatever group wins out. So they say, it's really just a small group of various radicals, ideologues, thinkers, visionaries, etc, fighting for control of the same subset of ~10-20% of people. The majority goes along with the minority perceived to be the most convincing, dominate, etc. If that theory is true, then all we'd need to do is win over enough "fringe" types to become the dominate intellectual/ideological force among the minority, and the rest will more or less go along with the new status quo. That's doable. I don't know if that theory has any merit, but if so, could explain how a relatively small minority of intellectual neoconservatives, progressives, etc, could come to dominate the intellectual sphere, even though they aren't the majority.

At any rate, I don't doubt the political class has given a lot of thought to this question... why else would they be funding studies analyzing social patterns and democracy in animals, fish, etc? If you can find out how majority populations make decisions, there would be a lot of power in that, I would imagine.

 

[Philhelm]

I've seen it theorized that a majority, roughly ~80% or so, are inclined to go along with the status quo, whatever it happens to be. While a relatively smaller minority of radicals of various types ~10-20% compete with each other, dragging the majority along with whatever group wins out. So they say, it's really just a small group of various radicals, ideologues, thinkers, visionaries, etc, fighting for control of the same subset of ~10-20% of people. The majority goes along with the minority perceived to be the most convincing, dominate, etc. If that theory is true, then all we'd need to do is win over enough "fringe" types to become the dominate intellectual/ideological force among the minority, and the rest will more or less go along with the new status quo. That's doable. I don't know if that theory has any merit, but if so, could explain how a relatively small minority of intellectual neoconservatives, progressives, etc, could come to dominate the intellectual sphere, even though they aren't the majority.

At any rate, I don't doubt the political class has given a lot of thought to this question... why else would they be funding studies analyzing social patterns and democracy in animals, fish, etc? If you can find out how majority populations make decisions, there would be a lot of power in that, I would imagine.

Our enemies succeed because most of their arguments are manipulative and rely on emotional appeal. The INTJ's are incapable of that.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I've seen it theorized that a majority, roughly ~80% or so, are inclined to go along with the status quo, whatever it happens to be. While a relatively smaller minority of radicals of various types ~10-20% compete with each other, dragging the majority along with whatever group wins out. So they say, it's really just a small group of various radicals, ideologues, thinkers, visionaries, etc, fighting for control of the same subset of ~10-20% of people. The majority goes along with the minority perceived to be the most convincing, dominate, etc. If that theory is true, then all we'd need to do is win over enough "fringe" types to become the dominate intellectual/ideological force among the minority, and the rest will more or less go along with the new status quo. That's doable. I don't know if that theory has any merit, but if so, could explain how a relatively small minority of intellectual neoconservatives, progressives, etc, could come to dominate the intellectual sphere, even though they aren't the majority.

At any rate, I don't doubt the political class has given a lot of thought to this question... why else would they be funding studies analyzing social patterns and democracy in animals, fish, etc? If you can find out how majority populations make decisions, there would be a lot of power in that, I would imagine.

Yep! You're spot on.

As far as political class trying to figure out this question; Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) created a profession based on it. Public Relations.

And specifically this book:

http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/obama/Crystallizing_Public_Opinion_Bernays..pdf

 

[BamaAla]

ISTP. Why am I alone?

 

[Carlybee]

Personality Type Indicator is: INTJ, the “Strategist”

Introversion: 60%
iNtutitive: 60%
Thinking: 70%
Judging: 70%

 

[opal]

new day.. new results
Your personality type: INFP.

Strength of individual traits: I - 36%, N - 2%, F - 40%, P - 26%.

I don't even know what I answered differently

 

[July]

Our enemies succeed because most of their arguments are manipulative and rely on emotional appeal. The INTJ's are incapable of that.

The majority are easily manipulated because, I think, they don't really care about political philosophy, social theories, or how society should be organized. They are more focused on their immediate lives, families, and individual circumstances. They will consider new ideas once when they start to become popular, but rarely will be early adopters. In other words, most people just want to live their lives, be left alone, and don't really care about re-arganing society, etc.

If the 80/20 theory is correct though, then it means it's not only worthwhile to try to convert other minority group intellectuals, these are also the individuals most likely to be open to considering new political theories and ideas...and most likely to go out and convince others once you've won them over.

Yep! You're spot on.

As far as political class trying to figure out this question; Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) created a profession based on it. Public Relations.

And specifically this book:

http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/obama/Crystallizing_Public_Opinion_Bernays..pdf

Thanks for the link.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The majority are easily manipulated because, I think, they don't really care about political philosophy, social theories, or how society should be organized. They are more focused on their immediate lives, families, and individual circumstances. They will consider new ideas once when they start to become popular, but rarely will be early adopters. In other words, most people just want to live their lives, be left alone, and don't really care about re-arganing society, etc.

If the 80/20 theory is correct though, then it means it's not only worthwhile to try to convert other minority group intellectuals, these are also the individuals most likely to be open to considering new political theories and ideas...and most likely to go out and convince others once you've won them over.

This is why it is always worth it, in my opinion, to argue with someone who is a socialist or communist. Because not only could you weaken, or change their position, but there are also 8 other no opinion people watching the debate and forming an opinion.

Thanks for the link.

Your welcome.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

new day.. new results
Your personality type: INFP.

Strength of individual traits: I - 36%, N - 2%, F - 40%, P - 26%.

I don't even know what I answered differently

The indicator tests are not terribly accurate.

 

[Czolgosz]

new day.. new results
Your personality type: INFP.

Strength of individual traits: I - 36%, N - 2%, F - 40%, P - 26%.

I don't even know what I answered differently

On or off the wagon, today?

 

[DGambler]

The indicator tests are not terribly accurate.

I flip between J and P but mostly land in INTJ no matter which test I take. I have seen my results plotted out before and I'm close to that line.

 

[opal]

On or off the wagon, today?

if the wagon holds coffee beans.. today..ON - last night.. worn off

 

[MaxPower]

INTJ in the house!



http://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html

http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

http://psychology-tools.com/myers-briggs-type-indicator/

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

“Your personality type: ENTP.

Strength of individual traits: E - 1%, N - 44%, T - 4%, P - 30%.”

 

[Danan]

INTJ
Strength of individual traits: I - 40%, N - 36%, T - 46%, J - 16%.

 

[MelissaWV]

Apparently I am an INFJ today.

 

[Danan]

http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

I believe that description fits very well for libertarians, so it's not very surprising that many of us here apparently are INTJs, although only 2% of the general population are.

 

[FrankRep]

ENTJ - The Executives

- Matt Collins


No surprise.

 

[Danan]

Just so. At absolute best, anything that so critically relies upon self-reporting is going to tell you nothing more than what people imagine about themselves (at the particular moment they self-report). And that's assuming they're being completely & absolutely honest about things. And even if we take that (often dubious) assumption for granted, there's still the fact that "honest" does not mean "true" or "accurate." Now add the fact that many of the terms & concepts used in such tests are vague, ill-defined, highly subjective and open to a vast range of impressions & interpretations. What you end up with is a whole buncha nuthin' - but it's a very impressive and "scientifficky" whole buncha nothin' ...

I'm sure most of my friends would agree that my personality fits the one in the description. But most descriptions of similar types would probably work too, to some extend (like what I've read about INTP in this thread).

That being said, I generally agree with you that one shouldn't care too much about those tests. It's just a fun way to waste some time, not entirely accurate, of course. But I guess there's also some truth to it.

Fun fact: Those two guys are comming up in the explanation as examples:

That makes me sad. ;(