/sci/ - Science & Math

Introversion
iNtuition
Feeling
Judging

You want to help everyone and blame yourself when someone else gets hurt, even if it was impossible to prevent.

Good job, emo-kid

Wasn't Hitler an INFJ?

>>2767511

Ethically, the only person who can decide what they are is that person themselves, and Hitler never took the test....

But, yeah, so far, most people come up with INFJ for him, which is odd since it's, like, the rarest of the types

Pre-med material

>>2767518
Hitler transformed his nation from the bitch of the continent to a serious contender for world domination in less than a decade. Not many historical figures can attest to that.

If that isn't rare, I don't know what is.

>INFJ

Hey, welcome to the Club! Have you already started HATING everyone for making you love them?

You're an introvert
You think in the abstract
You base decisions on your feelings
You live your life based on making a plan on what you're doing next instead of 'going with the flow'

INTJ master race reporting in

>>2767572
Awwwww yeah muthafucka

>>2767572

Hey, "Master Race," how's that whole "ANTI-SOCIAL STUBBORNESS" working out for you?

Any good sites to take this test?

>>2767587
Someone appears to be quite jealous.

INTJ is like INTP but boring

you are all fucking retards. take this to /x/ or /soc/

and that's coming from a psych major

>fucking astrology 2.0 up in here

>>2767594

hey, man, not jelly, just jam.

ESFP laid-backers report in!

>>2767601
I would listen to you if it wasn't for the fact that the Myers-Briggs test makes perfect sense

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

>>2767616

i think when we're talking in regard to how people work

how we work as individuals

how we function

common sense is extremely valid

So you say psychology ain't a science. And then you eat up shit modern day personal psychology threw throws away because It isn't scientific enough for them.

>>2767550

You're thinking of Bismarck

Hitler fucked up badly, even though he had luck on his side and inherited an industrial juggernaut

Is there a site i can take the test to find out if i'm part of the master race?

google turns up nothing good

>>2767626

this is actually one of the few things psychology had that IS scientific

they threw it away because psychologists like their results to be 'interpretive' (and thus non falsifiable)

nice try psychfag

OP, be VERY CAREFUL.

Like it was said before, Hitler was an INFJ, but so was John Paul II.

You have the possibility to do great things because you believe they'll help the world, but you might also be killing thousands in the process. Just be careful you don't start adding and subtracting lives in order to find the best route.

>>2767624
>Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low. Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[13][15]

One study reports that the MBTI dichotomies exhibit good split-half reliability; however, the dichotomy scores are distributed in a bell curve, and the overall type allocations are less reliable. Also, test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when individuals are retested within nine months, and around 75% when individuals are retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type, and 36% remain the same type after more than nine months.[44] For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher (p. 163, Table 8.6).

In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half of people picked the same profile.[45] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.

Wheres the validity again?

>>2767630
DO WANT!

>>2767646


People dont change? gtfo noob.

>>2767596
intp-Einstein, Darwin and Jefferson
intj-Issac Newton, Bohr and Stephen hawking
Meh I guess we're even

>>2767639
I think you meant to say DO start adding/subtracting lives

>>2767655
introversion has to do with frontal cortex arousal
The test is a palette for the ranges between introversion and extroversion

>>2767639

John Paul was NOT an INFJ. I believe you were thinking of Mother T.

Here are the most famous INFJs:
•Aristophanes
•Billy Crystal
•Bob Dylan (Robert Zimmerman), folk singer
•Calista Flockart
•Carl Jung-Psychiatrist
•Carol Moseley-Braun (U. S. Senator, IL)
•Carrie Fisher
•Chaucer
•Eleanor Roosevelt (Wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt)
•Evangeline Lilly
•Fanny Crosby, (blind) hymnist
•Goethe
•Hitler-
•Mahatma Ghandi-
•Marg Helgaberger
•Mark Harmon
•Martin Luther King, Jr., civil rights leader,
•Mother Teresa of Calcutta
•Nathan, prophet of Israel
•Nathaniel Hawthorne
•Oprah Winfrey, talk show host
•Robert Burns, Scottish poet
•The Tin Man (lolwut?)

>>2767683
How do you people not see this is bullshit? They have historical figures and FICTIONAL people for their lists

>>2767683

Carl was an INFJ?

Funny, I won't have guessed... Though considering his later life, it isn't suprising.

Whenever I take one, it either says I'm INTP or INTJ

what the how

INTP reporting in.
You INTJs better be glad we exist, otherwise you'd be some lost motherfuckers.

>>2767697
Um, you can get a pretty good idea of a fictional character's personality. Or are you to autistic to understand fiction?

ENFP master-race here.

Sup?

>>2767736

You never plan ahead and you can justify evil acts.

>>2767747

I take it you're undeniably jealous?

>>2767751

Once again, ESFP

I don't give a shit about anything, but I love to point out pointless trivia.

INTJ here
INTJ FTW
* Augustus Caesar - Roman Emperor
* C. Everett Koop - former U.S. Surgeon General
* C. S. Lewis - apologist, author (The Chronicles of Narnia)
* Charles Rangel - politician, decorated war veteran
* Chester A. Arthur - lawyer, American President
* Chevy Chase - actor, comedian
* Dan Akroyd - actor, comedian, musician
* Donald Rumsfeld - former U.S. Secretary of Defense
* Dwight D. Eisenhower - American President
* Edwin Moses - Olympic gold medalist
* General Colin Powell - former U.S. Secretary of State
* Greg Gumbel - TV sportscaster
* Hannibal Barca - Military Commander
* James K. Polk - American President
* Jane Austen - author (Pride and Prejudice)
* Lance Armstrong - cyclist (seven Tour De France wins)
* Maria Shriver - journalist, wife to Arnold Schwarzenegger
* Martina Navratilova - tennis champion
* Michael Dukakis - former Governor of Massachusetts
* Orel Hershiser - baseball player (pitcher)
* Pernell Roberts - actor, activist
* Peter Jennings - journalist
* Raymond Burr - actor (Perry Mason), vintner
* Rudy Giuliani - former New York City mayor
* Sir Isaac Newton - Astronomer
* Susan B. Anthony - civil rights leader
* Thomas Jefferson - American President
* General Ulysses S. Grant – Union general, American President
* Friederich Nietzsche – philosopher
* Niels Bohr – physicist
* Peter the Great – Russian tsar
* Stephen Hawking – astrophysicist
* John Maynard Keynes –
* Lise Meitner – chemist
* Ayn Rand – philosopher, author
* John F. Nash Jr. – mathematician, game theorist
* Norbert Wiener – mathematician, founder of cybernetics
* Nikola Tesla – physicist, engineer, inventor
* Glenn Gould – Canadian pianist and composer
* Stanley Kubrick – film director (2001: A Space Odyssey)
* Helmuth von Moltke – German military general
* Lewis Carroll – author, logician, mathematician
* Franz Kafka – author
We got Tesla on our side , all your arguments are invalid

>>2767761

You also have Ayn Rand fucktard.

And is that von Moltke correct? I doubt that.

>>2767756

Then you and I are going to get along like a scandinavian sea bass in fresh water.

>Ctrl+F ENTJ
>0 of 0

Guess I'm the only one. ENTJ reporting in, how's everyone doing tonight?

>>2767782

You can't deal with the facts if they disagree with you

I think the myers briggs is bullshit. Are there any better tests than the 60 questions?

inb4 newfags thinking any person can be defined by one of 16 personality types.

There are those who wish to define humans as two types of people. Those people are called elitists, and everyone else thinks theyre full of bs. So if two doesnt work why the hell would 16 types work?
Stop classifying yourself with quizzes you find on the internet. You are either a unique gem in a sea of other unique gems. Or an ant with a colony of other ants.

>>2767787

Not so much. I'm quick to admit it if I'm wrong and adapt to the situation as is needed.

>>2767813

>adapt to the situation
>Got ENTJ on the test

....I think you answered some questions untruthfully.

To the people saying it's bullshit:
One of the best tests for a scientific theory is "does it have predictive capability?"
They Meyers-Briggs does. For example, it predicts that scientific types will be INTJs, or INFJ, or INTP. Lo and behold, most scientists turn out as one of those three, disproportionately, anyway. The same is true of /sci/.

>>2767816

Not really. I've taken it a couple of times, each with a fair bit of time in-between them, and I always get ENTJ. The description of ENTJ seems to fit me quite nicely as well.

Maybe I misunderstood, in what context do you mean I can't deal with the facts? If I'm wrong about something, and someone irrefutably proves me wrong, I can handle it and I'll learn from my mistakes.

>>2767854
The thing about the Meyers-Briggs is you can be an ENTJ, but be, like, 75% E, and 51% T, so there is a planned for deviation from the norm.

Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low. Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[13][15]

One study reports that the MBTI dichotomies exhibit good split-half reliability; however, the dichotomy scores are distributed in a bell curve, and the overall type allocations are less reliable. Also, test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when individuals are retested within nine months, and around 75% when individuals are retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type, and 36% remain the same type after more than nine months.[44] For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher (p. 163, Table 8.6).

In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half of people picked the same profile.[45] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.

fucking read the thread. there is no validity for this test

Just took it and got INTJ.

>>2767862

>already posted those wiki-articles.

>>2767864
Welcome to the master race.

>>2767587

refer to >>2767864

>>2767865
re-read the post tard
>fucking read the thread. there is no validity for this test

Reading comprehension must be lacking to believe this pseudo science

>>2767558

all the labels are misnamed. The criteria have absolutely nothing to do with the names. This is unnecessarily misleading.

fuck myers briggs bullshit.

OP, prepare for ALOT of disappointment, unless you go the hitler route.

>>2767829

> One of the best tests for a scientific theory is "does it have predictive capability?"

That's an awfull view on science, and belongs back in the 1920's toghtere with similar thinking among the logical positivists. Look, it's based upon Freud, and Freud is BS, he even made some of his cases up. It's like how Young Earth creationists never will be correct because in the end, it's based on false premises (A sky magician caused it).

> A better thing would be saying "How do we know this test is wrong"? Well the shit is so vague and lacks any real way to falsify it. And if someone scores something and does falsify it, people would scream "You weren't honest when you made the test".

Serious people working in Human Resource department don't use it unless they're consults just doing "common sense psychology". It's based on introspective among the tests instead of observations, that alone should make a red light go off in your head. The test is a scam, deal with it.

Also this;

> For example, it predicts that scientific types will be INTJs, or INFJ, or INTP

That's circular reasoning, you're suppose to prove that these types are "scientific types", not stating them and just say that you've proven them. That's like writing a book and say what's in it is true because it says so.

>>2767637

> baseless accusations
> "Yea, that'll show em!"

Just telling you that it's unscientific, no need to get mad about it. I'm sure you enjoy tarot reading as well.

Just completed the test:
Introverted (I) 83.87% Extroverted (E) 16.13%
Sensing (S) 50% Intuitive (N) 50%
Thinking (T) 90% Feeling (F) 10%
Perceiving (P) 50% Judging (J) 50%

So my results are INTJ / INTP / ISTP, nice to know they all fit well an aerospace engineering student.

I looked in the paper today about my astrology horoscope and everything it said about me fit perfectly! Then I realized I was looking at the wrong sign but then everything my actual sign said about me fit perfectly! It can't be a coincidence!

>57 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>/sci/ believes in astrology like a demented soccer mom
>/sci/ - pseudoscience

You can call this bullshit if you want, I just find it too accurate.

I am an introvert, I can't question that
I use abstract thought most of the time, I find it extremely difficult to convey my thoughts through speech
I don't let emotions hinder my decisions
I plan ahead of what I'm going to do for almost everything

Scorpio:
Determined and forceful
Emotional and intuitive
Powerful and passionate
Exciting and magnetic

you can call it false if you want, but I'm just so emotional and intuitive.

>>2768001

How did you reach those answers?

Test or just entering in your birthday?

>>2768015
>take a test
you think a test knows about my personality? please. I'm too powerful and exciting to be understood by simple questions

>>2768043

....It's been this long, and I JUST now realized you're a troll.

>>2767813

No way. I did the test and got ESFP. I´m not like that at all.

OP, would you be so kind to supply the link to this test. Or anyone who has the link.

I came up ISTP, although I'm only slightly introverted and exhibit a lot of extravert qualities.

One thing that really bothers me is when people complain about not being able to detect sarcasm on the internet. I have little to no trouble picking out sarcasm and intent based on context and the personality of the person typing it.

I came up as INTP. I'm basically schizoid so it's pretty accurate...

# 29 January 1987 – 16 February 1988: Fire Hare

Fire Hare master race reporting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_%28zodiac%29

http://www.astrology-online.com/aquarius.htm

Aquarius here, ya niggers mad as hell.

>>2770136
Fuck you, Intp > rabbits

Hey guys, I got Infj what does that mean?


does this mean I'm better than everyone else yet? I mean it all makes perfect sense that these good qualities would match my personality. How else would I get such a result! right!?

>>2770131
>Feb 06, 1989 – Jan 26, 1990
>Yin Earth Snake

More like fire hare happy meal race.

This thread is now also about astrology!

Leo here!

Hey guys, my Id and superego keep battling it out on whether or not to rape, this is okay right?

>>2770143
All types have a ton of associated good and bad qualities, you doofus. It's about which qualities you are more inclined to.

No type is technically superior, although some types are more likely to be successful in life, love, crime, etc.

Types aren't set in stone, either. If you were suddenly forced into becoming a monk, your type might end up changing as a result. And in the short term, mood or even how tired you are can influence the result.

i, for one support pseudo science

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY

who cares if you can't actually objectively test the personality!

It's a pretty useful test. Some vocal people in /sci/ just have irrational hate for it.

>>2770175
Where is it? It's not irrational to be pissed about pseudo science from 1920's psychology pissing up the board. Seriously tho, just read the wiki, this test confers incorrect or mismatched results on a very regular basis (by it's own standards rolf) not only that but it fails to meet falsifiability. You can't test this shit, there's not objective meter for how much of a faggot you are in social situations, or if you're more idealistic or grounded. It's not much better than basic astrology or any other crappy facebook personality test.

I repeat, little to no reliability for this test, even for re-takers. even if there was it's still not science because subjective personality traits can't be objective tested with 1920's psychology (lol jung, student of shit freud). Maybe one day with neuroscience they'll be able to give you a scan and tell you what you're inclined to do, but as far as a "personality test" there is no current evidence to support it.

>ITT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

ITT autistic faggots don't know that nothing to do with psychology is 100%

>>2770214
Nothing necessarily wrong with subjectivity. Scientists need to make subjective judgements all the time. Your problems with the test's rigour are far more important.

I feel that the test described me pretty well, but that's just an anecdote. I know nothing about it's accuracy.

Actually doing psych

>>2767601
It's fine. Let kids have their fun. It doesn't say anything meaningful about personality. Danger arises when they infer meaning and incorporate it into their belief system/personality.

>>2767637
Get out.

>>2767646
This. +1

I couldn't be bothered reading the rest.

>>2770322
I had to come back to respond to you.
Subjectivity + scientists? Doesn't work. It either works, or it doesn't. We can't cast subjective claims into the literature (unless you're talking about philosophy or some bullshit) and actually think that you'll receive anything but criticism. You need to have substantiated, falsifiable claims.

Also, you said it described you pretty well? Do you know how true that is for horoscopes too? Do you know what the confirmation bias is? It has at best, face validity. This is it. It looks good but there's nothing going on bar some hocus pocus.

Fuck it, I'm out