Thread: Types of Human Personality or Human Character

In Love Hina anime, Naru is identified as type 2-D (if i still remember it correctly). I do not know if that personality/character identification (or watsoever u call it) is just a made-of, i mean anime-exclusive only, or derived from real psychology terminology (or watever u call it). Im still looking for it in the net dat kind of chart but I only end up finding different: Raymond Cattell's 16 Personality Factors; Big Five Personality Traits; and Revised NEO Personality Inventory. But there were not the one im looking for. If u can help me, I will really appreciate it.

Any suggestions to read the psychology of an individual?

Myers-Briggs personality types?

That chart looks like an Astrology Primer. Maybe it's a test?

No, its a chart of the Meyers-Briggs personality test results. As noted in the post.....

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No, its a chart of the Meyers-Briggs personality test results. As noted in the post.....

Good.

Isabel Briggs Myers, a researcher and practitioner of Jung’s theory, proposed to see the judging-perceiving relationship as a fourth dichotomy influencing personality type [Briggs Myers, 1980]:

• Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

Seems about right then

I have made an error of misrepresentation, which at first seemed innocent enough, but zinjanthropos has shown to be not insignificant.

That image I posted above (post #3) is not the Myers-Briggs Personality test. It is a knockoff. It's from a site called 16 personalities - which rips off the Myers-Briggs test for the sake of popular appeal.

You were right to be skeptical, zinjanthropos. The 16personalities test results are the personality-equivalent of "sound bites" - i.e. small enough to be digested in one bite.



MB has a huge amount of scientific cred and takes the test and the assessment extremely seriously - not something that can be done in a vacuum of an anonymous website with no oversight.

MB does not assign labels to the various types - as you see the above one (post #3) does. Labels are very unscientific, and defeat the purpose of taking the test, since they take a very detailed analysis of the varying traits that lead to individuals personalities and reduce them to single-word cliches that - by the very nature of cliches - carry both positive and negative baggage.

So, for the record, this is the MB personality types:

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

MB has a huge amount of scientific cred

Not that much...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

MB has a huge amount of scientific cred

Not that much...

Yeah. Still, more than knockoffs.

duplicate post

Not sure if this post went through....

February 17th, 2018, 08:13 AM

That first chart looked like something from the desk of a guidance counsellor but sugar coated as to be flattering or non offensive to whomever fell into one of those category boxes.. It reminded me of the old newspaper horoscopes, thus the astrology comparison. When I saw Field Marshall listed as a personality type I nearly hit the floor laughing. I suddenly imagined Erwin Rommel taking a personality test only to find out he's an Inspector.

So with this new information I decided to take the test as if I had put the chart together. I came up with ESTJ which seem to fall in line with the flowery description associated with it. I then looked at the remaining 15 types and realized my newfound personality could fit into any box. Then I tried to imagine if some wino on the street had come up with the 16 types. Hell, our personalities are such that we probably don't take him/her seriously or maybe there isn't a nice complimentary description for the poor bugger.

But that's just my two cents. People can disagree, call me crazy or insinuate I don't have the right to an opinion and that's fine. Not looking for enemies, just answers. I'm sure a lot of hard work was put into the study but my personality allows me to be skeptical or give an alternate view, even if I only imagine it for the sake of learning more.

Edit: Should the individual be deciding their own personality type? My gut feeling is that anything perceived in that test as a negative might be cast aside......or...... perhaps judging oneself forces a person to be honest.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So with this new information I decided to take the test as if I had put the chart together. I came up with ESTJ which seem to fall in line with the flowery description associated with it. I then looked at the remaining 15 types and realized my newfound personality could fit into any box.

The most obvious one is introvert vs. extravert.

I'm an introvert. When in a group of people, I have to retreat to my own head to recover my energy. I get my energy internally.
Others are extraverts, they get their energy from the presence of others.

True, everybody falls on a bell curve, you might be near the middle.

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So with this new information I decided to take the test as if I had put the chart together. I came up with ESTJ which seem to fall in line with the flowery description associated with it. I then looked at the remaining 15 types and realized my newfound personality could fit into any box.

The most obvious one is introvert vs. extravert.

I'm an introvert. When in a group of people, I have to retreat to my own head to recover my energy. I get my energy internally.
Others are extraverts, they get their energy from the presence of others.

True, everybody falls on a bell curve, you might be near the middle.

The most common (or famous) expression of personality type probably occurs when your friend sets you up for a double date and tells you your potential love interest for that night has a 'nice personality'. Then again I can't find one of those 16 types that isn't complimentary, so maybe Myers-Briggs was thinking along the same lines

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I can't find one of those 16 types that isn't complimentary

There isn't a Good/Evil letter among the types.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

... I can't find one of those 16 types that isn't complimentary, so maybe Myers-Briggs was thinking along the same lines

I've explored other personality tests. One was in book form, and contained a 98 question test.

(I converted the entire thing - questions and descriptions and test - into an online program. (Author is long dead so I haven't had any copyright complaints.)
It got kind of popular. I have 14,000 sets of test results in a database from 14,000 users. It's actually still online, though it was built so long ago that it no longer works.)

Anyway, one of the things I concluded from all my dealings with this personality test is that personalities tend to work best on the traits of people as they are when they are empowered and motivated. Presumably, this is their ideal state, when not hampered by adversity.

The negative aspects of personalities tend to occur due to trauma (whether major or minor) - simple as 'stuck in a crappy job/relationship' or as deep as childhood abuse. They tend to be defenses - artificial barriers and coping mechanisms that don't represent who the person is 'naturally' (quotes intended). Because of this, they don't really make for good indicators of someone's personality.

I guess, in a nutshell, my experience is that people are not - by nature - mean, miserable or evil. That's an overlay on top of their personality.

(Actually, the test accounts for that. Some people manifest as "type n with a red overlay" meaning they have been ... damaged.)

What the heck are you talking about? MB pop-science test associated with evil, or damaged?

How many of these test results/conclusions reflect all or some of the personality traits of the tester(s)? How would a tester maintain neutrality and not be influenced by their own personality?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

How many of these test results/conclusions reflect all or some of the personality traits of the tester(s)? How would a tester maintain neutrality and not be influenced by their own personality?

How do you mean?
The administrators don't influence the answers, they merely provide control, context and perspective.

But they write the questions... Carrying out a questionnaire like this it is difficult to write the questions to exclude biases...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

But they write the questions... Carrying out a questionnaire like this it is difficult to write the questions to exclude biases...

That's where the years of scientific research comes in. They don't invent these types of tests over beers in a pub.
Avoiding bias is a very large part of designing and testing - and redesigning and retesting - such systems.

Depending on how you count it, the authors took 28 years from concept to publish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%...icator#History

Yes, but it's still imperfect. Every questionnaire has biases no matter how well designed....

Dave .....IMHO ... The tester can't win because of their own test. They would have to be one of the 16 personality types if test legitimate. Go ahead and pick one at random and then explain how that person does not put their stamp on the test or influence it. I'd be interested in your take.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Dave .....IMHO ... The tester can't win because of their own test. They would have to be one of the 16 personality types if test legitimate. Go ahead and pick one at random and then explain how that person does not put their stamp on the test or influence it. I'd be interested in your take.

Yeah, I guess the entire science of sociology is a lie.

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Yeah, I guess the entire science of sociology is a lie.

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe you're looking at the wrong science. Since I'm an evolutionist I think personality belongs in the science of evolutionary psychology. Personality traits would be adaptations in this case, enabling the species to cope, live, survive etc relative to their environment and always subject to change. Anyway that's just my two cents, gotta go, busy day ahead.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Yeah, I guess the entire science of sociology is a lie.

I wouldn't go that far.

I was being facetious.

The concerns about bias are endemic to the entire branch of science, and are well-known.
To suggest a particular test is at the mercy of bias says no more than that the entire branch of sociology is.