Kiraly wrote:
It's not like the horoscope, really. For one, this test is based on the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) that was established by Jung after working as a psychiatrist for years. I'm quite a fan of it. Only one of the 16 types covered by it will fit you. This test is probably not that accurate of a pointer to to which you belong, but neither is any other one; the only 'sure' way to establish your type is to read the profiles and find which one fits you best (a good site is typelogic). The test isn't THAT bad, though (basic MBTI tests aren't hard to write), but your type shouldn't be too off (common big misses are usually INFJ -> xNTP and F males testing as T). Of course, the Forer effect is in action, but I can promise you one of the 16 types will fit so perfectly you'll be wondering whether someone did a case study in you XD and if go you into the explanations behind the system, the deeper you go, the more sense it makes. Bad traits are covered too: INTP, for example, are lazy, unmotivated, over-analytical slobs. ENFP aren't 'too nice for their own good', they're the type of people who'll lend their car to perfect strangers, then whine to their huge circle of friends (over a round of beer they're paying for) that it was stolen.
I wasn't referring to the nature of the test resembling horoscopes but rather the way in which they are taken. There's some sort of truth in every personality test (and the MBTI is the most valid, given the layering structure), but people will fixate themselves on compliments as an (unintentional) means of skewing the effectiveness of their results. Some things are considered equal in most circles, such the top level of introversion and extraversion. But, when you get into whether someone is creative or not, nearly everyone will say they are, of course, creative.
One issue is designing a test that will disguise questions as to leading to one result or another. If a subject were to be aware the effects that one question would have on the results and considered that result undesirable, they are likely to avoid going that route. As such, while the test can be infallible, it requires complete honesty. Personal bias when confirming results will always come into play, and I am still of the opinion that people will agree with a positive assessment of themselves so long as at least the top level is correct.
For example: I took an Abnormal Psychology course as a freshman where our teacher asked us if we would participate in taking an MBTI-based personality assessment on the very first day. Everyone consented, and off we went. He gave us the results the next class period, verbally, and gave some of the common, amusing statistics about compatibility and such. Nearly everyone, including myself, agreed that it was a fair assessment of us. Everyone had varying types and such. Then, during the last week of class, he asked us to take another one of similar design. He yet again handed out the results, and, yet again, nearly everyone, including myself, agreed that it was a fair assessment of us. It was only then that he revealed he had taken our results from the beginning, changed them from the top-level down, and let us evaluate them. Despite it being completely different, they were still complimentary and due to that, no one minded enough to say, "Hey, wait, I'm not perceptive!" (the actual results had changed from the first part of the semester as well, but not in an overwhelming manner).
As for it covering bad traits, again I consider some of those to be good traits. Many scientists are considered INTPs, which is a field (obviously) associated with intelligence. Avoiding social situations or keeping to themselves to pursue their own lines of thoughts and testing theoretical pursuits on their own is positive for some, so it's not really something we can consider "bad." And again, if someone were to tell me I had the personality type of a scientist, I can't say I'd have to hang them high for it.
So really, while I don't disagree with you on the idea behind the MBTI or any other remotely legitimate personality test, I do think that--while it may be a fair gauge of getting a general outlook--considering it anything more than that can lead particularly susceptible people into a false state of misplaced belief (a problem much larger with astrology than anything else, of course, but we do know all the good women's magazines do for certain ladies). There's another subject that goes right into this, but the forums of a fansubbing group are not the right place to discuss it, methinks.
In short: Personality tests by nature bear a concomitant burden with the natural curiosity of humans to define themselves, and if it's in a wholly positive manner, that goes doubly so.
P.S. I also resent you calling my ENFP mother an alcoholic.
