Okay finished the Typology 101 test? And I suggest you head over to Personality Hacker and do that one. It's a better test. Personality Junkie - typed me as INFP, (I got 60% P, so barely) and to get more info? You have to pay. While Personality Hacker gives you a complete workup for free and only asks payment if you want to use it for personal growth.
Go here: http://www.personalityhacker.com/
Here's the youtube video on INFJ and how the brain is wired, which I've never seen anyone do before. Usually they just give a general overview of each type like the Personality Junkie site did.
Thought it was rather fascinating and fit.
Depending on the test, I jump between INFJ and INFP, which according to this site can happen a lot, because people get confused about the types, and sometimes the tests aren't accurate in their questions. This one has an added question section that includes comments. And it's a lot more thorough. Also the questions are clearer and less ambiguous.
So much of psychological typing and diagnosis is dependent on how questions are phrased and answered. And how the test is administered. (I know this because I've had professional psychologists run tests on me at various points. And done it myself in psychology courses. So much of it is pattern analysis. I remember when I was in law school, one psychologist almost misdiagnosed me as ADD, but another, who was trained in the field, said, uh no, you're a normal law student struggling with a visual coordination disability. Don't fret about it.)
It's a called a soft science for a reason -- there's no hard facts or proof of anything. And a lot of the hard sciences make fun of it because of that. Philosophy gets the same flak. As does quantum physics. So it's in good company. People who like concrete facts and figures, and proof, tend to get annoyed with the softer sciences or so I've discovered. While I prefer them, because I tend think that nothing is set in stone and everything is variable. So for me, the softer sciences are more interesting and more honest. ;-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2016-09-05 03:30 am (UTC)Go here: http://www.personalityhacker.com/
Here's the youtube video on INFJ and how the brain is wired, which I've never seen anyone do before. Usually they just give a general overview of each type like the Personality Junkie site did.
Thought it was rather fascinating and fit.
Depending on the test, I jump between INFJ and INFP, which according to this site can happen a lot, because people get confused about the types, and sometimes the tests aren't accurate in their questions. This one has an added question section that includes comments. And it's a lot more thorough. Also the questions are clearer and less ambiguous.
So much of psychological typing and diagnosis is dependent on how questions are phrased and answered. And how the test is administered. (I know this because I've had professional psychologists run tests on me at various points. And done it myself in psychology courses. So much of it is pattern analysis. I remember when I was in law school, one psychologist almost misdiagnosed me as ADD, but another, who was trained in the field, said, uh no, you're a normal law student struggling with a visual coordination disability. Don't fret about it.)
It's a called a soft science for a reason -- there's no hard facts or proof of anything. And a lot of the hard sciences make fun of it because of that. Philosophy gets the same flak. As does quantum physics. So it's in good company. People who like concrete facts and figures, and proof, tend to get annoyed with the softer sciences or so I've discovered.
While I prefer them, because I tend think that nothing is set in stone and everything is variable. So for me, the softer sciences are more interesting and more honest. ;-)