Do Personality Tests Mean Anything?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2017
- Like most quizzes on the internet, personality tests aren't what you would call "reliable."
Hosted by: Brit Garner
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters-we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Kevin Bealer, Mark Terrio-Cameron, KatieMarie Magnone, Patrick Merrithew, Charles Southerland, Fatima Iqbal, Benny, Kyle Anderson, Tim Curwick, Scott Satovsky Jr, Will and Sonja Marple, Philippe von Bergen, Bella Nash, Bryce Daifuku, Chris Peters, Patrick D. Ashmore, Charles George, Bader AlGhamdi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/manuscr...
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED1...
psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/ty...
skepdic.com/myersb.html
www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pe...
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10....
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1...
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/1...
apsychoserver.psych.arizona.ed...
www.theguardian.com/science/b...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/...
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1...
www.researchgate.net/profile/...
epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/...
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream...
jwalkonline.org/docs/Grad%20Cl...
www.researchgate.net/profile/...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/...
www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Artic...
cnx.org/contents/Sr8Ev5Og@5.7...
----------
Images:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
She's so expressive and conveys points clearly
Yeah this lady pretty much destroys anyone claiming people don't like olivia due to misogyny. This lady knows how to do it.
She doesn't rush the information and make pauses to emphasize her points.
iptik is Olivia the long braid one with glasses?
Nasa P olivia is the irritating one on the main sci show channel. the one who dresses like a hobo and mumbles incoherently in a valley girl accent for the duration of her videos.
I hate the frequency of Olivia's voice.
I really like this host. Scishow definitely did a good job with finding someone who is perfect for the position. Expressive enough for it to be clear that she enjoys talking about this stuff and do it in an effective manner, but not too much to where it seems like she's trying to force the knowledge into your brain. Great job overall. This is easily becoming my favorite channel on youtube right now.
+
I agree, she is enjoying being the host too, judging from her body language and gestures. But I do sometimes feel a little bit being forced, cause her gestures gave me a message that, she want her message loud and clear across the monitor ; which in fact her tone and voice have made it clear enough.
+
Michelle Neblett I feel like I've been misunderstood somehow. I never said that anything was wrong with how she was doing anything in the video. I said that the host was expressive enough to get points across without going too far. Other people tend to be drastically over-expressive and seem fake, but Brit is doing a good job of appearing relatable and natural with her presentation of the facts.
+
How about the Hogwarts Sorting Hat? Is it reliable?
Nope. It doesn't care if you cheat!
Spandyne - The sorting hat should be abolished. If you really needed to divide your students, at least wait until their 4th year.
Wasn't the _entire point of the series_ that dividing the children into four groups based on arbitrary BS was not just dumb, but actually harmful and dangerous?
“You know, I sometimes think we Sort too soon...”
- Albus Dumbledore
shingshongshamalama
Pretty much
Scishow Psych? They should change the name to "Psy-show"
The distinction between Scishow and Psy-show would be lost in oral communication.
@@TuringMachine001 But... but puns!
or.. psych- show?
So you say my personality doesn't actually show I would be a unicorn if I was a mythical animal. That's sad.
oh you are green too?
none of them told a christian that they have a believer and religious personality
I was a dragon! I feel your pain!
Oh boy, i really like this presenter. Hank has some competition :3
Unfair Competitions
Yeah even the very first episode she did was stellar. She's very professional!
Chris R. Witt I know right?
Lady Crowley ayyyyyy. btw thats true though :D
Username checks out.
0:10 "These are all real quizzes on the internet..."
And I assume they are all on Buzzfeed.
You're doing an amazing job at hosting, Brit. Love this, I'm a huge MBTI nerd so had a lot of fun watching this. I will say you left a lot out - MBTI is supposed to be about cognitive functioning, so if you test based on that you will likely get a more accurate score, you are best of doing reading about the functions if you are into personality types. Like, me being an INTJ for example doesn't mean I am 100% introverted, it means because I use a introverted function as my dominant function it's how I first perceive the world before looking at it through my dominant auxiliary function. Everyone is an 'ambivert' but MBTI is just trying to tell you your preferences..
It IS all just for fun, though, and if I ramble more I wont shut up lol.
I agree. I'm an INTJ too, and the description was almost perfectly spot-on. I understand that for many people, it is not that accurate, but when it is, you actually get a lot out of it
Yeah! I'm really late to the comment party, but happy to see that other people brought up the same point I did regarding functions. Not many people seem to know about those, and I have a hard time explaining them simply.
Charlie G Yeah I agree with you actually. When Mbti is combined with the understanding of the cognitive functions, it becomes a powerful tool to developing yourself, and could tell you a little about others preferences and why they behave the way they do. The thing is, MBTI depends heavily on the way you use it for. For example, ever since I started being an mbti nerd, my personality got much much more developed, because I was finally able to tell.. why do I behave the way I do? I'm an ENFJ, and it is literally obvious that my dominant function been always Extroverted feeling. Well maybe the Big 5 is more scientific. However, I don't really think it is as powerful as mbti + cognitive functions when it comes to personality development, because it is too broad, and it relies on qualities rather than how the brain is wired.
If it's about cognitive function then just take the Jungian test. At least his ideas are still somewhat respected. No need for the absolute psudointellectual garbage that it MBTI.
I always score ENTJ or INTJ and I'm the most useless and anxious person I know, while the Jungian personality test seemed to understand me in one test, giving me a mix between the innocent and the old man archetypes.
Also, bringing up that MBTI SUPPOSEDLY covers cognitive functions doesn't matter when the test itself doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, bucko.
@@helmaschine1885 I am an INTJ and my son is an INTP. I've discovered that most people initially seem to mix up either thinking and feeling function stacks or they are really a judger or perceiver and get that wrong. You sound like my son who is an INTP. Useless is defined in the INTP world as lack of motivation which is much more charming than useless, lol.
i don't see MBTI as a definition of who i am but as a tool to understand how i process information, i find it weird that you guys have received different results every time and i strongly believe that the problems are on the questions asked to find the thinking style and not the method itself.
Juan Gonzalez It's more accurate to say that mbti measures how we currently process information.
I'm an Fi-dom, so it's hard for me to not look at my type as a definition of who I am.
I wonder if different results come from not knowing oneself.
Juan Gonzalez Agreed. I'm an INFP, but there is so many diverse characters I found with each INFP I know. There are happy, joyful INFPs and at the other side of the spectrum there are the depressed INFPs. However, the reason why we were grouped in this way was because of our internal perspective and imagination. I found that I could easily relate with other INFPs despite our interactions being different.
right? 16personalities is a horrible test but it really doesn't mean anything about the typing, mainly because Myers-Briggs isn't even the original work
This is a heavy oversimplification of how MBTI actually works and what it describes. What underlie the individual letters are cognitive functions. Whether you are introverted or extroverted is determined by the direction of your dominant cognitive function. As INTJ, mine is introverted intuition. When I engage with my auxiliary or inferior functions (extroverted thinking and extroverted sensing), I am actually extroverted...but ultimately my tendency is to be introverted because I am using that dominant cognitive function most of the time.
People who claim that you're 'always' introverted because your first MBTI letter is "I" are oversimplifying the system. It's a tendency and depends on which functions you're engaging with the most.
5:25 “One thing is for sure, your MBTI personality type doesn’t tell anyone much about you”
There you have it. Mbti is just for funsies
The Big 5 translated to MBTI:
Low openness level: Sensing
High openness level: Intuition
Low conscientiousness level: Perceiving
High conscientiousness level: Judging
Low extraversion level: Introversion
High extraversion level: Extraversion
Low agreeableness level: Thinking
High agreeableness level: Feeling
Low neuroticism level: Turbulence
High neuroticism level: Assertiveness
I'm guessing Turbulance is rather high Neuroticism and Assertiveness is rather low neuroticism.
She's a very good presenter.
My main problem with Olivia is how slowly she talks and for how long and how often she takes a pause between sentences. She's been getting better, though.
metalhead2508 I like Olivia better. Maybe it's just me
Yup, I have nothing against Olivia but her voice. Sorry, but thats not the type of voice I like hearing for explainations.
As soon as I see Olivia is going to be in a video, I instantly click away. I cannot stand her voice and the way she talks with constantly raising her inflection at the end of every single sentence. I love Brit here though, she's great
human behaviour is much more complex than displaying 4 poles of traits all the time
ding ding ding!
anjuli chaudhary You obviously only have a surface level understanding of mbti.
1OOMileMedia I never really found my self in the mbti puddle to become protective of it what else do you want even after watching this video please share your opinion on why you think its still accurate rather than just telling people that they lack knowledge.
anjuli chaudhary I'm still figuring out how to formulate my counter-argument in way that embraces brevity. I will get back to you shortly.
But people really like having simple, easy, four letter acronyms that define their entire existence.
Like a horoscope, basically. It's a nice neat little sticker you can wear that says "I'm cool because I'm in a club."
So some of the issues that have been brought up about the Meyers-Briggs have been addressed especially if you go to 16Personalities website, and they even tacked on a 5th letter to indicate if your type seemed more stable or more dynamic. The questions are on a spectrum and your score has a solid type but with an added percentage to how much you lean on that side. It also does a far more in depth read into how those personality types tend to behave, and even my career counselor said that you are supposed to answer reflexively as that your default but did say it will change a little depending on the environment.
So I feel some of the info in this video may be a bit dated from older versions of the test.
Completely agree with you, from my personal experience (INTP-t !). However, I have to admit that, even though I disagree with how she depicts the test, I've got mixed feedback from friends to whom I've recommended the test:
One friend of mine who is an ESFP (If I remember correctly) really enjoyed the results and found them accurate; I've correctly predicted two more people's results from what I knew about them. On the other hand, I've got a friend, who I believe is an ENTP, who got typed as an ENFP, and he found most of the results completely inaccurate, along with a couple of other people.
Also, I have in mind the test is just a reference, not a complete guide of how people will behave. In fact, I believe I have changed some stuff in my behaviour (but not in my natural tendency, which would probably still be the same as before): I'd believe that, if I answered according to my habits, not my preferences, I could possibly be typed as an ENXP(-t), since I frequently talk to people, whereas, I know I only do it as much as I do because I feel confident around those people, who are my friends and such, and, if they weren't, I'd probably be much less "social" than I am.
Well and that is why I said it is supposed to be used as a default state, because friends will bring out different things and so will a work environment or a home environment. So it really should be what you naturally tend towards. So even if you are with friends eventually you still would like to go and spend some alone time, yes? It is just that friends are less draining than other people
Exactly. In fact, I believe the biggest problem with people that complain about the test have is understanding this. The test isn't precise because it can be influenced by your situation, but the type should theoretically be constant. Again, a lot of people either take the test too seriously, or simply disbelieve it at all
I think there is more to it than just that, some people do not have a set personality because they are so adaptable to a lot of situations, also you have the people who sit and think through it rather than answering reflexively/instinctively.In college through the Career counseling center I got INSJ, where I was just barely on the sensing side, and the cool thing was is that there, it broke it down into it components and gave percentages, and also highlighted the one where your answers fluctuated the most because they do try to control for people just randomly answering by asking similar questions but phrasing it differently, though for the past several years, I have been more consistently INTJ though the percentages change over time. I am almost certain the people who have issues getting consistent results with the Meyers-Briggs might see a similar issue with the Big 5, which would be an interesting study unto itself. Unless it has already been done.
Actually if you use the basis of the MBTI, the cognitive functions, then it makes much more sense. Don't simplify it like the rest of the Internet. Do a function test rather than an MBTI test. The big 5 can correlate really well with Carl Jungs function theory. I get INFJ almost every time, but my functions aren't exactly the perfect stack as the typical INFJ. My big 5 results totally match. People say MBTI lacks the neuroticism scale but that can be explained by function interaction like the Ni Ti loop. Im on my way to being a psychologist so I'm not an idiot. So yeah rant over
PotionsMaster007 THANK you, I was just seething about that while I watched this. Functions are everything.
16personalities.com added a 5th binary that addresses neuroticism, and yes, every type has their own neuroses. I, as an INTP, often find myself in TI NE or TI SI loops. Knowing the cognitive functions can really add nuance to "big 5" type information. MBTI is better.
PotionsMaster007 the functions are super interesting and can help you understand the way your brain works and help you grow :)
Then you should quit and find another profession. We don't need more people like you in psychology.
Myer Briggs test isnt accurate and is just something you can do for fun. It had a good idea that it was going for, but the way the actual test plays out: it sucks. Horribly. It can be a fun thing to put on your dating profile but ultimately means nothing and cam have a lot of people passing over ypi profile because it would be better to deal with someone that cares about horoscopes and their star signs than that test.
I love the MBTI but I am well aware that it is highly flawed. I just think its fun 😄
Ekaekto Exactly. It may not mathematically and categorically predict real like, but, if taken with a grain of salt and the understanding that personality is REALLY complicated, it can join together like-minded people and equate and predict others reactionary responses to each other. I have seen many MBTI tests which contain a spectrum, and more thorough analysis of the system itself has revealed certain functions behind each type. (internal intuition, external feeling, etc.) It is not totally one or the other. One's Myers-Briggs type, when placed as a foundation of an individual's personality, not its entirety, and when given a lot of room for the nuance and complexity of the human experience, can be a reasonable approximation of the traits that make us, us. It is a frequent reminder/disclaimer on many MBTI sites that the system does NOT measure behavior, but how one views the world. An MBTI in the backbone, but is not unwavering. One can overcome the "shyness" often associated with introversion, given that no person, given that the spectrum analysis of the personality types and the functions of MBTI mean that no person is truly 100% introverted. We are both. One may simply be more dominant, or they may be in harmony, meaning that ambiverts have a place in Myers Briggs. There have been MANY improvements to Myers Briggs over the years since its fabrication. It may not be quantifiable or exact, as is science's preference, but it is pretty gosh darn applicable to the needs many have to belong, and to have a shorthand for the millions of adjectives we use to describe our tendencies as people. And, frankly, it is quite fun.
This should be classed as a role-playing system.
it's about as reliable for joining like-minded people as finding others who share the same favourite colour. you can hide behind saying things like "it's just fun" and "i take it with a grain of salt" all you like, it's still misleading. you wouldn't find value in it if you didn't think it had scientific rigor behind it. unfortunately it merely has the appearance of scientific rigor, and you would do just as well to find like minded people who share the same horoscope as you. your self-perception is an important thing, and using a test you know is unable to be accurate is like learning math with the personal belief that sometimes 2+2=5.
Yep. This is why it should be fun only as a role playing game. It is not good to think it has any scientific rigor while your having fun with the system. Saying "I know it's very flawed" still means you hold it to reality.
I never took it too seriously but it can be fun to think about and some people (like me) are at rather extreme ends of the 4 traits measured and always get the same type.
In all honesty, is frankly just a bunch of bull because it doesn't consider the cognitive functions at all, but Jung does. I'm surprised they didn't incorporate them in some way. Or maybe I'm misinformed and Myers and Briggs did, but no one talks about them because it can be confusing at first. Unfortunately. virtually all MBTI tests don't take cognitive functions into account, which is one reason why the reliability is so poor.
Also, before I begin talking about the cognitive functions, I'd like to mention that I personally find MBTI (using cognitive functions) is more of a way to determine how we think, rather than who we are. To me, MBTI is more of a map that shows you "You think like this because of this."
There are 8 cognitive functions- introverted thinking, extroverted thinking, introverted feeling, extroverted feeling, introverted sensing, extroverted sensing, introverted intuition, and extroverted intuition
Each type has a cognitive functions stack, and each cognitive function acts differently depending on where it is on the stack. We usually focus on the first four functions in the stack, because the latter four are generally referred to as the "shadow functions." Forgive me for not remembering what role they play! But the first four functions in our stack are what we use most. They also can't be ordered willy-nilly, as there are some rules you have to go along with! It's pretty simple, honestly
1. You can't have an introverted function and an extroverted function next to each other
2. You can't have a thinking function next to a feeling function, and you can't have a sensing function next to an intuition function
So this functional stack would be impossible:
Fe Te Ni Si
But this functional stack would be possible:
Fe Ni Te Si
Does that make sense?
There's a LOT more to cognitive functions, but this is a youtube comment, not a novel, so I think I'll stop there xD
It's really difficult to figure out your MBTI type using the functions. Hell, I'm still trying to figure my own out! I personally find the Enneagram is a MUCH more reliable and accurate way to determine your personality, but of course it's not the same for everyone!
1bookfisher Honestly, all things considered, we're technically all of those 8 types. Jung was huge on complementary(?), and believed that everything has its opposite and exists within us (Personas have Shadows, Ego had the unconsciouses, etc etc). To say we're both introvert and extrovert would technically be correct, but that doesn't include information like which of the two's the dominant trait.
But the MBTI isn't intended to tell you who you are, it's just a guide that gives you a general idea of how you think, which is incredibly helpful to analytical psychologists. Speaking as a Jung geek tho, there are no internet tests that really describe who you, specifically, are--there are too many unconscious processes and quirks that can't be uprooted without the help of a psychologist. Not to mention these quizzes are plagued with people that answer based on "what I want to be like" instead of "what I actually am."
jung consider it in a age that we did know next to nothing about the brain compared of what we understand today, we know now that we can't jump in to conclusion so quickly, and there is a lot of brain mapping to be donne to fully understand it.
I think Myers and Briggs did incorporate cognitive functions; the four dichotomies are actually based on them. However, nobody ever talks about it.
Holy shit. Read the comments! Its a miracle; someone on the internet getting good reviews.
Charles Robinson the end is nigh! it is the apocalypse
Love the host! Brit, you're doing a great job of delivering information in an enthusiastic yet organic way! Great job!
i'd like a link to take this improved personality test if that's possible...
Match Ashes You usually have to pay for it, get tested by a professional, or take it through a university. I'll see if I can find a link.
thank you very much! :3
Caleb Ramsier leave a comment here pls :3
I've taken what I think is that on a Swedish dating site, gave you a % score on those 5 and explains them. It then also matches people up based on this and how they've perceived the importance of similar or different traits in partners. That part of the site is also free.
Match Ashes It's called HEXACO as far as I know.
I am personally quite a big fan of the MBTI. I don't think that it is supposed to tell you too much about your personality, and in that aspect it is often quite unreliable. Instead, I think it helps you understand the way you view the world and make decisions.
I personally think how you view the world and make decisions is part of your personality
It’s more about your cognitive “preferences”, certain ways of viewing and acting in the world that you tended to prefer. Therefore you’re more comfortable and skilled using them, and less in others. It’s honestly great - especially for types who aren’t favoured or feel alien a lot.
Great video - keep up the good work!
Good job! Really like your presentation style.
The version of the MBTI test that I repeatedly took did have hundreds of questions and it also gave percentages for each of the traits instead of lumping you to one extreme or the other so what is said here is not true for every version of the test.
My opinion on personality tests is something I'd like to share in a video someday soon... Sneak peek: I've come to the conclusion that their results aren't something one can follow blindly, but that (depending on how you use them) one can certainly derive a lot of value from them.
I have yet to take any kind of personality test that told me something new and didn't just parrot back the answers I just finished telling them.
Jim Harmon That's true Jim. A lot of what a personality test tells you one already knows since, after all, who know you better than yourself? But learning something new about yourself isn't the only use tests like these have. For example: I've always been very good at using my imagination to process the world around me, and be empathetic with others, but my emotionally abusive parents saw this trait as a weakness so: they attacked it constantly. But then at 15 I was able to use one of the results that I got most often in the MBTI (INFP) to assert myself and let them know that (like the host mentioned in the video) some traits have been consistent throughout all my life and, even though they would like me to drastically change, some of these traits would never go away because they're part of the core of who I am/choose to be; and this tactic certainly helped deflect some of the abuse.
Now, ten years later, my parents have learned to accept those aspects of my personality that they weren't big fans of when I was a teenager.
if you actually look into jungian cognitive functions and the typology you know its more useful than knowing which food or color you are according to a quiz and the big 5.
Molting & Headway yes, but now you're getting into more in depth measures where things like shadow functions arise... not the cutesy buzzfeed-esque type of myers-briggs tests that permeate the internet
Molting & Headway This video definitely undermines the usefulness of this test from a Jungian perspective.
It also disregards two important things:
1) (legit) MB tests DO have percentages. And it should be obvious that the lower the percentage is, the more likely you are to jump in between types (so someone who's at 10% in Perceptive can be darn sure that that might switch in the next 24 hours).
2) This kind of typology (and least how it's presented on the internet) is a generalization. It's intention isn't to say "THIS IS WHO YOU ARE, it's intention is to say "this is probably what you're like and how you're likely to think." It's more about how you think than who you are. Two INTJs could be parallel opposites personality-wise, but have a similar way of thinking/analyzing. It's all about life experience.
As a Jungian fanboy, I'm kind of disappointed with this video--Scishow normally takes a much more reasonable/logical approach. Big 5 is alright, but it's not even intended to show you what typology is meant to show, even if that's what's mainstream right now.
I land solidly on the INT part, Introversion, iNtuition, and Thinking. The last letter can change, but I prefer Perception over Judging. Sometimes I will switch to Judging when determining things for myself, but I rather would want to know the full story first. I guess I am an odd bird in both cases, INTP and INTJ.
Molting & Headway A lot of mbti videos on UA-cam completely ignore functions and it's frustrating as an mbti nerd
Brit, this is the second video I've watched you host and you're quickly becoming my favorite. Thank you for your work!
So glad they started this channel... So interesting!
MBTI is greatly helpful for personal progress, but only when you stop viewing it as a four letter combination. You have to dive deep into the combinations of which are introverted/extroverted and in what order.
You can quite directly find out what you should do a lot more in your life, and figure out how to get out of slumps to be at your best potential as often as you can. Amongst other things.
...you just gotta leave 16personalities dot com to stop making it so superficial and calling it invalid. Who seeks personal progress via understanding themselves, MBTI has a way.
Your score for openness was high, at 95%
Your score for conscientiousness was 60%, which is in the moderate range.
Your score for Extraversion was low, at 28%.
Your score for Agreeableness was low, at 55%.
Your score for Neuroticism was high, at 55%.
Great, a personality test to remind me I'm neurotic and unlikable. Just what I was looking for.
Hey, at least openness is good! I don't think the Big Five test is that accurate, either, so don't take it too seriously. :-)
It told me that I was extroverted, but not "open". : /
But the most prominent feature was the 3% in Neuroticism. Apparently I'm emotionally dead.
And don't forget, there's also something wrong with you if you're not an energy leach.
Great subject, great host, great channel !
Everything on this channel so far has actually been really interesting. 10/10
Myers Briggs is amazing for writing fictional charactera and establishing how they'll react to different enviornments
I disagree. Fitting my characters into stereotypical personalities makes my stories lack a diversity.
@@FootLettuce Well there are stereotypical personality types and not-so stereotypical. Many people of a type do admit to resemble the stereotype, but many other do not... It's just like writing a Russian or a Mexican character, you can make them to be stereotypical or not stereotypical.. Your argument sounds like "I'm not going to write a Russian character because I don't want him/her to be stereotypical."
I don't know if you did any research on this, but MBTI is not just about the 4 pairs of polarities. The real way of analyzing the MBTI type is to judge whether 1 of 4 main functions (Feeling, Intuition, Sensing, Thinking) is expressed outward (extroverted) or inward (introverted). That way, each and every person has 2 extroverted functions and 2 introverted functions. If their most dominant function (ie the one they use the most) is extroverted, they lean more towards extroversion, and so on.
For example, I'm an INFP, and my 4 corresponding functions are in order: introverted feeling, extroverted intuition, introverted sensing and extroverted thinking. It means when faced with any situations, my first instinct is to rely on my /personal/ feelings. And so on.
You guys should really do more research on this before dismissing it all as irrelevant.
I'm so glad scishow made this channel! Psychology was always the topic I'm most interested in :)
Thank you Brit for an outstanding presentation!
I took the Myers-Briggs several times over the past years and the results are extremly consistend for me. Also all explanations to my type describe me perfectly. But maybe I'm just an easy case. A friend on the other hand has problems with most questions. He seems to sit in the middle of definitions and can't even reliably tell if he is extrovert or introvert. His test results are very different every time.
But besides the validity of the test: It was very interesting to take the test with friends and talk about the questions and results. I learned a lot about my friends and their inner workings and it changed the way I interact with them.
Reading through this comment section is very interesting. People with my trait INFJ has consistent results, the same goes for people with INTP. These are uncommon and well-defined traits and this would indeed explain the consistency.
I wonder what are the results for the people saying they always get different results? Are these always the edge cases? Or are there cases of wildly different results?
Have to say, having done a lot of analysis of MBTI over the years, whilst it is valid to say that Myers and Briggs is simplistic and blunt, especially as it is most commonly interpreted, that doesn't mean their system didn't have promise. It's just often badly described. In particular, combining the letter combinations with functions lets you break down cognitive concepts really well. You need to think about how each of the functions (internally directed feelings, externally directed feelings, etc) play a role within your thinking.
Each function (T, F, S and I) is a spectrum and it does tend to play a role in how much you focus in each direction (internally or externally). For example, people who are very clear on the importance and loudness of their own feelings (Fi) tend to not be as good at listening to and anticipating the feelings of those around them (Fe). If you've put a lot of effort into developing one of those, it is more difficult to be convinced of the validity of its opposite. If you've developed strong Fe (empathy, social norms, external social structure) it makes sense to consider putting your own feelings first as more selfish. Similarly, someone who's developed a strong sense of self (Fi) might find these existing social structures restrictive or not accommodating of the individual, but be much better at having the ability to fight for a cause (think civil or LGBT rights campaigners). You need someone with a strong sense of self and not too much awareness of others to break down the barriers, which is where strong Fi comes in, but you need someone with strong Fe to take advantage of that and provide the empathy and awareness to make compromises and the best solution for everyone. Similarly, people who are good at breaking down concepts into detailed pieces have a strong sense of internal focus with an emphasis on rationality (Ti) and while they can learn to organise their external world (Te) it's not their first port of call, whilst strong external organisers (Te) are less likely to see the reason in slowing down to geological speed to go through the minute details of a complete theory - their specialism is in finding the most relevant details and putting them to efficient external use. That's the beauty of MBTI when described with fluid functions - everything has balance and everything has a place.
The big five suffers terribly from strong bias and a lack of flexibility and balance. For instance, why extraversion and not introversion? You can't criticise the categories of MBTI for bluntness without also seeing the profound limitations of the big five. It has a massive danger of setting out how people should be rather than how they are. Extroverted, open, conscientious and agreeable all sound a lot like what people - particularly but not limited to Americans - think the ideal person in society should be like. Neuroticism is another highly stereotypical trait which is often picked out as a common challenge people should get over. While there are probably spectrums within those traits, naming them entirely after one idealised end of the spectrum has the potential to be immensely damaging. Look how not extroverted you are! Why aren't you more open to new experiences? The world needs people who sit everywhere on those spectrums and the big five is far from making that clear.
MBTI using Carl Jung's functions is a wonderfully flexible system with the ability to describe many different functions. It is a highly specific lens through which the rest of your life is processed. Which functions you focus on are a product of your genetics and experiences, and their effect on your perception has a strong impact on how you perceive and act when confronted with situations. They develop fluidly as you get older and learn to use functions you didn't initially. For instance someone with strong Fe learning to make time for themselves (Fi) or a thrill seeker (strong Se) learning to slow down and find some of those sensations within (Si).
Of course a brief online test won't get all the nuance of this. And why only test twice? Any scientist knows you take the test many times and then observe the information to see where the patterns lie. Not to mention, of course theorisers from 70 years ago or more (Jung, Myers and Briggs) have their flaws. They were breaking new ground in a problematic academic environment. We should develop on their theories and move the nuances of MBTI into the modern age.
In the mean time, having an idea of where you sit in the web of MBTI interactions can be hugely helpful in sketching how you can interpret the actions of others. It's particularly helpful for those on the autistic spectrum in setting out a framework where, based on traits within yourself and envisioning their opposites, you can start to set out the basis of empathy in a tangible and grounded way. It's also very helpful for people more broadly. If you can accept that introverted or empathetic people are a valid form of personality, you're much more likely to include them and make the most of their skills whilst being open to their limitations.
Cool but u forgot intuition function
An interesting take on these personality tests! Thanks for sharing to inspire my MBTI channel. Randomly discovered your channel through the UA-cam algorithm! 🤟🤟🤟
Spot on video
I know no personality test is truly reliable when it comes down to it, but I still personally like the MBTI. I find it to be a general useful _tool_ and _guideline._ I don't use it or any other test as 100% ironclad fact especially in the real world. But I find it as a particularly useful tool for writing and character analysis in writing.
are you an INTP as well? Apparently, at least 75% of people here describing to find the test accurate (Including myself) are INTPs. I can only wonder why. (on a sidenote, I also find it considerably accurate, but I'm being a bit redundant with this digression ...)
This isn't delegitimizing the MBTI system, simply the method used to determine one's type. Namely, online tests where participants have little to no knowledge of the underlying mechanics and cognitive functions, which *do* have scientific backing.
I do love looking into personality, and seeing how they change over time and how heritable some traits are, are quite interesting.
YO this host is soooo engaging!! It felt so natural like she memorized this whole thing and was like presenting it in class! I love her!
I feel lucky since the MBTI type that I got the first time I did one of these tests (INTP) stuck every time I did a test, even years later. As some comments have suggested, it seems that MBTI is more about you you think than about determining a general personality. As such, many people with the same type can be very different from one another.
As to the Big 5:
1) Honestly, it's not that much different than MBTI - the four MB spectrums correlate quite well with four of the Big 5 categories.
2) I don't like how the Big 5 scores are often presented with high or low scores presented as good or bad (especially neuroticism).
Nice avatar
I'm intp too! :D
Yaaas thank you for covering this. I know too many people who use their myers briggs result for almost everything. They wear it like a badge or put it on their dating profile. Every time I take that test, I get a different result.... which speaks to its low reliability.
Meh, I get the same result everytime.
Kelly totally agree while some people get the same result,even I got different results after a few tests.MBTI is a useless trend.Human behaviour is much more complex than displaying poles of 4 traits all the time.
I've been getting the same result (INFj, coincidentally) consistently ever since I first discovered Meyers-Briggs eight years ago...
Quick personality test.
Do you say "yass"? Y/N
If you answered "Y" it means you're basic
Take the Big Five test, because according to this video if you get different results there as well, it ain't the test that's something wrong with but you.
I really like how they focused on the failings of MBTI as a test, which is where the problems mostly lie. In terms of the descriptions of each type and what they're supposed to be/mean, that's the only part really based on Jung's work and has some validity to it with how the functional stacks of each type work, but most people are too freakin' lazy to go into that much depth into the system. I delved into it personally and a few friends of mine that are into MBTI too have as well and those people who really are into it understand the functional stacks matter more than the test. The only problem is self reporting because many are not honest with themselves and want to be more special than they are, but their actual behavior doesn't match the type description. Friends I have have mistyped themselves that way and I can tell that they're not particular types because they don't act like the description of what that type is. They're friends so I know them better because I know more how they're like so I can tell that they're not doing the test or research honestly. The test is more of a starting point into reading and getting the idea. After that it's more self-awareness, which still makes it scientifically unusable because it's an uncontrolled factor. That's a huge frustration, but someone who is self-aware could get some personal insight and help with the descriptions. Maybe not base all your life decisions on it, but trying to understand yourself is always worthwhile as an exploration.
Thank you Brit. I've known about most of the problems with the Myers-Briggs test, you brought up, for a few years now. But, I'm glad to see another well presented critique; evidenced by a very thorough list of sources. :-)
IMO, most of the perception problems that psychology suffers center around the clinical psychology branch of the field and with the way many pop-psychology 'experts' incorrectly and incompletely aggregate and communicate findings.
I am an INTP, and I'm usually very skeptical about tests and just make them for fun. However with this test everything it said about me was true, from how i socialize to what sort of stuff i am good at(INTP is "the scientist" and i wish to study physics). This is probably(at least partially) because my score was around 90% on every aspect. A few months after i first took the test i looked at the things it said about me again, and i found that i did stuff nearly exactly the way they said i would, since than i started to "follow" their advise. I know it doest work for most people and (on the grand scheme of things) is very inaccurate, but it really works for me.
it seems to be very accurate for INTP's. scarily so.
(greetings from a fellow INTP :3)
Maybe is reliable only if you fall in the extremes in every category, I'm an INxP, my scores in the T and F category always change from 51% to 49% and since just one letter change the whole concept of your personality this test is not reliable for me.
I feel the same way. Also I'm an INTP and a physics major :)
That's basically the same thing people who believe in astrology say. "I don't believe in it, but Gemini fits me perfectly"
This is simply the effect where people felt they relate to something strongly. Take for example your star sign or your gemstone. People feel they relate to something more if they're categorized into it, and tend to think of it as factual. However, these "aspects" that the tests portray tend to be very open ended, meaning that almost anyone can relate to that aspect, even if they're a Sagittarius or a Cancer. The MBTI simply follows the same rule, so you've fallen into the trap of conceiving something relatable as factual.
Guys, there are some big qualitative flaws with this presentation. First of all, it seems to conflate the Jungian four-letter type code with the MBTI instrument (or "test" as some call it), and also mixes in elements of the MBTI model. Regarding the type code, you can get a type code with higher accuracy, validity, reliability, and consistency if you use another instrument like the Majors PTi, and there are many, many instruments out there. With regards to the MBTI model as compared to Big Five, there is a very good (I'd even say scientific) reason why Big Five is not popular on the internet in the way the Jungian type code is. Big Five does not lend itself easily or naturally to typologies, so it's like pulling up at a stop light, but instead of a three-color stop light, there's a huge multicolored orb which is capable of showing billions of combinations. For example, it might be showing you "proceed straight at 5.556 mph if you have collision-avoidance radar manufactured in or after 2016/04," but right now a flashing yellow light is qualitatively a less costly / less psychologically energy-consuming solution. Stoplights are a typology and are thus quite unscientific, but given the system at hand, they work quite well. If you are going to argue from science, you must have a way to also argue from a qualitative angle about MBTI or prepare for the internet at large to ignore your arguments. There are people on the internet modifying and creating derivatives of MBTI-based models every day, and they, like Jung and the Myers dyad, are getting extremely good results without running strict quantitative studies. If quantitative science cannot account for and grapple with this reality, it is not going to solve much by wrapping up the same old complaints in a new video.
Keep the good work.
As a clinical psychologist, I have a few thoughts about SciShows assessment of the MBTI.
1) There is only one MBTI; all the variations are simplified.
2) The scales on the MBTI are bipolar and continuous, not dichotomous, so everyone IS rated as a percentage of each type, so it is more sophisticated than just four letters.
3) Yes, a person CAN rate the same on both ends of each axis, and so are considered an X, as in INXJ. And you can be undifferentiated in these functions, as in 10% on each, or sophisticated, as in 90% on each.
4) While for serious assessments psychologists use the very established MMPI and MCMI, in speaking with clients the MBTI has great utility in being relatable and valid enough to help with self-understanding and working with others.
5) Over great lengths of time, the scores are meant to change as we mature, hopefully to where we score higher on all functions. From month to month, however, significant changes likely have to do with the state of mind of the test taker, which has to be taken into account.
5a) With 30 years experience using the MBTI, I can usually determine a person's score within 10 minutes or so of directed conversation, which is a form of both validity and reliability. Also, the MBTI rates highly on inter-rater reliability.
6) I don't give the test myself, especially since I can deduce the "type" quickly, but I do use the terminology with clients who have taken the test, or I will suggest they go online. But again, for serious personality assessment, other tests are utilized.
7) I find the MBTI helps most in relationships, aiding couples to see significant differences in their behavior and thinking and how to work with them. And btw, the PJ axis has most significance in assessing if a relationship is going to work.
8) The MBTI, based on Jung's comprehensive survey of psychology texts, literature, and story telling, is not about pathology but normal variations in being human, so it is immediately relevant and not shaming.
9) The Big 5 has a bias toward extroversion.
And 10) My gripe with debunkers (and I am a dyed-in-the wool skeptic myself), is that they take a cursory look at something and then believe they have the credentials to judge it. I was not a fan of starting the Psych branch of the Scishow, which I value enough to support, because the human being is the most complex thing in the universe and usually cannot be accurately summarized or described in two or three minutes.
I really want to believe her on this one, but this is such a shallow description of MBTI I really can't. First of all, she does not cover the cognitive functions, which I think is the main point of the entire theory. And if does explain how we both have thinking- and feeling functions, sensing- and intuitive functions, etc. She also does not explain that personality type DOES NOT mean personality. Yes, they affect one another, but I have seen people typed as the same (and display the same functions), yet have very different expressions of personality. I really want to find someone who actually critize this theory, not just the tests, but people either seem to dismiss MBTI before they get to the function part, or they get so obsessed by it they are "blind" to critizism.
And also, I believe the "major study" she is refering to is pretty old, like from the 80s. Apparently the test-retest value has reached about 90 percent at this point. (I can see if I can find sources on this one, I don't really remember).
If you want something out of MBTI, which can be somewhat fun, don't take the cheap online tests. Read up on all the types and cognitive functions, ask yourself and your friends what you are like, and then see if you can come to a conclusion. Do not use this in a work environment or to find a partner tho. I don't think the types on their own are robust enough for that (yet, maybe?).
Jonas Sundquist I've observed several INTJ&ENTP relationships. Every time I've seen them they work astonishingly well together. Definitely two pieces to a whole.
My Dads an INTJ and my mum is an INFJ. They do have a few fights though since my mum isn't exactly logical, >.>apart from that they get along. I'm an E/I NTJ myself. I was half and half for my Extravertedness, and the big 5 test showed the same thing.
I find this video a little too negative towards MBTI. Of course, it has problems but I find it can still be useful.
exactly. It does help me to understand myself and others more. And I CAN predict how someone will behave using MBTI.
Maybe they are just judging the 'test', and it really doesn't work. The test is useless, MBTI (if you understand your type without the test) is not.
4:51 I wish you would elaborate on this. My problem with the Big 5 is knowing those percentages don't tell you much. Which is the opposite problem of the one that you mention for the MBTI
Finally! An answer to the question i had 4 videos ago. Keep it up.
These common pop personality tests are as valid as Freudian psychoanalysis.
L Galicki Got em
Sooo, good idea as a primer but never use as your sole source of analysis?
Personality tests would be far less popular if they were based around Freud's theories.
Every result: "You secretly think about dicks, all the time."
Nothing secret about it.
L Galicki So psychoanalysis is invalid now?
I know someone who takes the MBTI test sooo seriously.
The bit about being different in different settings is spot on. I remember taking the Big 5 Test in co-op class and the teacher was really rude and told me my answers were "faked". I answered based on how I would act in general, like with my friends or by myself, and not at school where I acted differently due to rules or social pressure or bullying.
Crazily enough, there was an EC video right next to this talking about the Myers Briggs test in my recommended
Calling MBTI a ''personality test'' is double incorrect: it doesn't try to meassure personality:instead it looks for cognitive preferences (big difference and shocking that they simply overlooked that). 2nd: it is not a test but an indicator (tests can have correct or incorrect answers). My advice is to get the hell out of ''four-letter-behavior-land'' and start studying the functions before jumping to conclusions. MBTI IS NOT MUCH LESS RELIABLE OR VALID THEN THE BIG5 IS!!! PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT IT IS JUST SHOW THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
MBTI and big 5 measure 2 different things. MBTI is the flavor of ice-cream and big 5 or enneagram are the topping. Even then, the flavor dictates a range of toppings. For example, an orange sherbet is less likely to get chocolate chip and more likely to get gummy bears or fruit (depending on influences). THEN you may add chocolate syrup or whip cream in the form of a personality disorder, ADHD, bipolar disorder, etc... Personalities are sundaes, lots of varieties based on 16 flavors.
Jasper Kleefstra I strongly agree with you. I'm MBTI nerd, and when I did dive more into the theory... I got to learn more about the cognitive functions. Ever since, it is started to be a very powerful tool for my personality development. I started learning, it isn't about the 4 letters, it is much much more sophisticated than that. Like I'm an ENFJ, and people who do not know much about the cognitive functions, may think that an ENFP is just 1 letter different than me, while the cognitive functions for an ENFJ and ENFP is totally different and more complex than just 1 letter difference. A whole new personality.
(>85%) INT, ~60% P
Testing the same for 2 years.. Very, very consistent.
I'm 90+% introverted.
NolePtr I'm an INTP as well, everything over 85%
I am an INTP too, and always, always hit that result no matter how many times I take the test or how long in between. I think the test is actually a bit more accurate for certain less common personality quirks, but it's not that great at telling apart people who fit into the more "common" types.
Huh...INTPs seem quite consistent. cool
INT are consistent for me, but I vary between P and J.
NolePtr Same here
Good video, and quite informative for all those people hooked on those quizes! I'd love to see a video on malingering, and since we're talking about personality tests it would be nice too see one about Rorschach-Exner test (I'm not sure if the Exner coding system is used in the US though...)
I always saw the mbti as a basic starting place for understanding yourself a little better, it may not convey a spectrum, but we all know and feel where we are on a spectrum, so for younger people it may just make it a little easier to start understanding who they are and what they really like and how they would really interact in situations and what not
This is a bit silly. MBTI also tells you about individual aspects of your personality (Intuitive thinking, extraverted feeling, etc). The big five do it slightly differently, but neither test can predict what one person will do in a given circumstance. And neither was ever meant to. They were both meant to give generalized ideas at one's personality types. Its the whole type vs trait idea.
While I don't think either test is overwhelmingly valid, each has its benefits.
Another critique that doesn't even look at cognitive functions.
Most psych professors I've known never even brought up that it had cognitive functions as part of the theory, and when asked about them basically had little to no clue about them.
I blame the test makers for for not mentioning them.
No cognitive functions in every critique video is what the Jungian Typology community has to deal with--thanks to those who try to monetize the MBTI idea...
Rafael Molina What do you mean there?
I tend to agree. Trait based personality perspectives is only 1 type, there are a lot more perspectives. Even in the trait paradigm there are ideas outside the Big 5 such as the HEXACO model. Also in terms of situationism, she touches on saying that personality predicts behaviour is not a proven concept as behaviour can be highly contextual. As far as cognitive perspectives I assume you are referring to concepts such as schemes, memory and prototypes (as examples). It's very easy to oversimplify personality psychology by looking at only trait based perspectives, but you leave well documented areas such as behaviourism and vicarious learning which are also well researched. The last thing I want to add is that validity and reliability are broken up into different areas such as external validity, construct validity and face validity (as a few examples) her examples are not correct. For example external validity is how valid a test can transfer over to a real Life situation.
thank you for this video.
I love your presentation
She is cute, and very good explainer.
Some years ago when I tried the myers briggs test I thought it would be just another one of those dumb personality tests, but when I finished it I found the description of me scarily accurate. I suppose it was just a fluke then :)
love the new sci show hosttttt
I wish this came out last week! I just wrote a paper on the mmpi-2, mcmi-iii, and 16pf.
Also, validity refers to how well the test measures what it says it measures.
Actually, I always get the same results on my test - INFJ - even after taking it multiple times on different occasions
I took the Mayer-Briggs test three times in my life: In my teens, in my early twenties and in my late twenties. And got the same result - INTP. Most of my friends are INT, and for 4 out of 5 I guessed their type, for one I judged P when they were J.
Now, the percentages have changed over the years, but my personality changed as well. I just took a big 5 test, and it was way off, and not that informative; I'm messy, go figure.
Weirdly enough, INTP (my type to) despite being one of the rarest types, seems to be the one the test can predict accurately over and over without changing. I think it's some weird quick about that particular personality type, or the way the test is set up that makes it so consistent compared to others.
Last time I took the test I was an INTJ, though I used to be INTP, and I've switched between the two over and over.
I'm about 98% introverted, so that's quite definite, rest are in the 60 - 70% range, except for J/P which is pretty much exactly 50%.
I'm the same way, INT P/J. However, based on just reading descriptions on the those two different categories and the way they think, I know the INTP (based on how I think) fits me way better. I tend to also agree that its the questions that are the problem. However, of course you can also be closer to the 50% mark, causing you to change "personalities" when you take the test. However, just being aware of what traits are close to 50% for you and what aren't tells you something about yourself. I felt like the big 5 personality traits have told me nothing. Conscientiousness? It doesn't depend on me as much as it depends on the day and circumstance. I'm more conscientious about a task, event, or myself when it is something I care about. Same with agreeableness. I would say generally I am an agreeable person. However, I feel the degree of agreeableness generally depends on the circumstance more than it depends on Me as a person. Openness? I can say that my sister is usually pretty open minded, but at the same time as closed minded as possible when it comes to certain topics like religion or politics. Just this tell me something about her personality? No, because most people are Exactly the same. Extraversion? This is the one trait in the list I feel generally stays about the same throughout your life. It also just so happens to be on both tests. All I am saying is that there is no perfect personality test, including the big 5. However, that doesn't mean that certain personality tests can't tell you something about how you are as a person "at the time of the test". If this tends to be consistent throughout your life, this just means that those aspects of your personality are consistent. And by the way, "consistent" is totally different than being at 50%. You can consistently be at 50%.
ginemginem I took the "Big five" test and it wasnt as accurate or insightful and the mbti test
Same, I have always got INTJ. With around 80% introvert, 40% intuitive, 50%thinking and 20% judging.
I love this host, she’s just so great!
I love the more psychological personality tests (ie. MBTI) as a tool to help me understand and discuss how others work, but I do understand that these are never be-all-end-all analyses. Always a bit of fun and a good conversation tool :D
o wow
I may be completely wrong in this, but the only people who seem to have gotten the same results on the myers Briggs tests are the INTPs
R SAMs I can confirm
intp here and yep. first time i got INTJ but ever since then i've always gotten INTP
R SAMs i always get intp
I really do like this host. The energy combined with a little bit of humor and not taking the role far too seriously make it a pleasure to watch
you’re so nice to listen to. :)
Looking at the comments section, I see that MBTI has garnered many followers and enthusiasts, but I trust in the psychologists and in their suggestion to use the Big 5. 'Cause hey, they're the ones spending time and effort studying personality.
Nah.... it would be a good argument if the description of MBTi had been quoted accurately. As all good practitioners will know it isnt about boxing people... its designed to promote discussion around your response in different situations. about your map iof the world. I find this information given in the video just propaganda.
Interesting topic, lots of patterns with behaviour but so many differences too.
Great host, fist time seeing her, though that hair would tickle my shoulder haha I wanted to flick it off so bad, but great clear speech and expressive, subbed to this channel
As someone that has sort of gotten into MBTI, and likes to be open to the idea of things being wrong or right, I don't think that you can simply entirely dismiss it. But I find that's more for the good things it's done in my life and the more numeric and sliding scale versions of the test that I've come across and enjoyed personally. I've also found with the sliding scale tests that I've never actually changed in result after taking the test multiple times over the course of 3 years. (Even if the numeric values mildly vary.) That being said I know there are flaws in any personality or cognitive test, especially considering even more solidly considered tests like IQ tests and such can have wild variations based on environment.
What I want to primarily get across here is that my personal view on things like MBTI is to look at them not as some solid pillar of correctness in a black and white way but to look at them as a point that may tell you somewhat about yourself. Use them as a diving point for self discovery and perhaps even, like in my own personal case, to discover others that might share some tendencies that you felt ostracized for. Curb some loneliness and discover yourself, it's a grand thing truly.
With that advice given, and my personal thoughts on the variety of tests briefly mentioned, I will say this: Psychology is a consistently gray area. Observations are not always consistent across everyone, and there are so many factors that play into the variations in human behavior; environment, culture, education, finances, social interaction. All of these things change the mental functions of a person over time, and they themselves change over time as well.
So instead of making a million arguments in the comments about people "lacking knowledge" because you think they're wrong perhaps you could give a wider consideration to the information as a whole. This is a point of view for many psychologists and there are others that disagree. So if we're going to go against each other in comments let's be civil and debate.
That's what Sci-show is all about anyway right, learning and sharing knowledge?
ok so the MBTI that people take online is BS but the real test has like 80 to 100 questions and does give percentages and therefore is much more reliable even thought more modern test have improved on it they are still flawed. it's like everything, people on the internet like to blow things completely out of proportions, and the MBTI wouldn't be perceived as so bogus if that didn't happen. once it's on the internet in a 10 question 2min test it's just as reliable as telling you you're a cheesecake type of guy no matter what the test was originally.
Take a test that's measure the 8 cognitive functions.
I'm in the military (Air Force) and when we are training to be NCO's, we take a personality test called the Four Colors. It's treated as almost fact and is what our personality is. Whether you are Gold, Orange, Blue, or Green. It is taught to us that it's important to recognize which color our subordinates are so we can better train and lead them. Because each color personality type learns and reacts to certain situations differently. Haven't heard of the Big 5 but thought it might be interesting to share which personality test the Air Force uses as a tool when training it's own new leadership. (This is not a viewpoint of the Air Force)
I agree with many others on this presenter; I was doing errands as I was listening to her and found her really easy and enjoyable to follow.
for anyone looking to take the big 5 personality test: www.truity.com/test/big-five-personality-test
I took it and liked it a lot better than myer-briggs
Thank you!
Although it is better in reliability, this specific test is not very valid (as in it cannot be generalized or used for predictive purposes). I recommend the test I provided in my comment.
Caleb Ramsier - please provide the link here, I couldn't find your comment :)
I'll just put it here too.
A nice, free personality test using the Big Five:
www.personalityassessor.com/ipip300/
This is much more accurate, reliable, and valid than the MBTI or 16Personalities site though this one isn't the best, but hopefully it will be good enough for a free online test. Hope it helps!
I know that myers briggs isn't very reliable or accurate, but if people (like myself) feel like a certain type actually does represent them relatively well and they get consistent results, you don't need to hate on them okay? I understand it can get a little annoying when you see people like this EVERYWHERE and you don't agree with them, but it's just sometimes easier to use existing personality descriptions than write an entire biography.
Calm down okay?
ToaOfAwesomness "calm down"? Who are you talking to lol
ToaOfAwesomness there is so much Fi in this comment I can't
Same thing is said of homeopathy. Then people die.
I really enjoyed this show and topic. The only thing that might be helpful would be a warning for the flashing red lights. I have epilepsy set off by different types of lights, especially flashing. A heads up would be helpful so that I could avoid that episode or just listen. You guys are just great! Thank you for all you do!
Wow this is the exact question I asked you guys!! I can't believe you actually read my question! Thanks guys your awesome!!!
This vexes me. In MBTI there is no such thing as "you are extroverted." Or, "you excel at thinking." What are you saying?
Extroversion and introversion in regards to MBTI are combined with a function. Introverted thinking/extroverted thinking and so on. Every person has two extroverted and two introverted functions. You are making the whole theory superficial and making it seem like a 16personalities dumbness.
This makes me sad.
I think they used their own biases and wikipedia to judge MBTI. I was HIGHLY skeptical at first (total INTP trait) and did my own studies and tested friends. It is completely valid and applicable. It's ALL about the cognitive functions. If you don't know that you completely miss the point.
hurray, new data, fuck the old believe. :D I am looking forward to explain it to HR specialist and some old school psychologists.
yeah. I had problems back then to find a job, because the psychologists said, that I am not suitable for the company. Using woo psychology. When I told them, that this methods are at least very inconclusive and I was told, that if I do have a degree in this. It is damn fight with idiotism,
This host is awesome, and so is the theme chosen for this video
Great new host! Expressive, but not silly, over-the-top expressive, with a nice, radio-style voice. She's the tops!
She's just jealous that she didn't invent the MBTI test. I redid this test after years and still got the same result. She's probably a personality type that questions everything that doesn't come out of her own mouth and wants to convince others of her opinion.
heck last time i came this early i ended up having twins
Aksel Davidsen well that escalated quickly...
Wow, I didn’t know about the Big 5. I took it and learned a lot. Thank you!
I went to leave a comment about how much I enjoyed watching/listening to Brit - but I scrolled down and that's all anyone's talking about! lol :) Great job Brit!