Monday, November 24, 2008

Backreacting Personality

Via David Berenstein, via Clifford Johnson, I've piped our blog into the Typealyzer, which allegedly “is able to guess which personality type a text represents” based on a statistical analysis of words and sentences. Here is the result:

INTJ - The Scientists

The long-range thinking and individualistic type. They are especially good at looking at almost anything and figuring out a way of improving it - often with a highly creative and imaginative touch. They are intellectually curious and daring, but might be pshysically hesitant to try new things.

The Scientists enjoy theoretical work that allows them to use their strong minds and bold creativity. Since they tend to be so abstract and theoretical in their communication they often have a problem communcating their visions to other people and need to learn patience and use conrete examples. Since they are extremly good at concentrating they often have no trouble working alone.


This show what parts of the brain that were dominant during writing.

Which is quite good actually, my personality type is inded INTJ. I can assure you however, that I am not “pshysically hesitant to try new things”.


Rae Ann said...

Wow, that's pretty cool. I tried it and got ISTP "The Mechanics." Well, the description fits I guess, but I thought I was more imaginative than it says. ;-) And I actually got the same result for all of blogs (public and private). So I guess that means something.

Uncle Al said... got "The Thinkers." Perhaps it was the comment about sand in the opening disclaimer.

stefan said...

Dear Bee,

oh, that's interesting :-).

So, we are officially approved "scientists" - but we are completely lacking "Feeling, Spirituality, Rhythm, Harmony"? Hm, that must be my fault, blame it on the few "100% male articles" I am contributing ;-)

Cheers, Stefan

Plato said...

Imagine "a layman here" to show that such "a attribute" just goes to show what scientists can do to influence the general public?

Plato said...

INTJ - The Scientist-ya that's what I said.:)

So I think appearance and the notion that what is being represented can be held in contrast to what you think it should represent? How "unscientific it may appear for others?" Or, how scientific you think it should appear and you show yourself as the mechanic like Clifford?

Just some thoughts about it, although I do have knowledge of the "Jungian typology test schematic" that can be represented here for some as well other personality types of others who visit here occasionally too.

What is the algorithm( can it be called that) that "directs the result" to a specific trait?


Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

Was there any doubt that you are indeed an INTJ? Actually, as a consequence of you doing that piece “It’s a Man’s World…” I stumbled across this along with the writing style analyzer, so I was aware of the result a little before hand. In terms of my own result, after submitting both my own ham handed attempts at blogging they consistently indicate me as being an INTP, which disturbed me since one of your delisted bloggers came up as being the same. I guess I’ll just have to seek out someone that can perform a personality adjustment :-)



Jorgon Gorgon said...

sadly, I didn't make the cut, only getting a "thinker" consolation prize. But it did happen on all my blogs, including ancient LJ and such.

However, I am more puzzled by the strange equation floating next to the scientist's head. It appears to be neither especially challenging nor particularly meaningful...

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Jorgan,

“sadly, I didn't make the cut, only getting a "thinker" consolation prize”

It depends what you mean by it being a consolation prize for the following are judged to have been or are INTP's also; Socrates, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and of course the most impressive of them all Tiger Woods. I’d rather win the Grand Slam of golf rather then a Nobel Prize any day. Hell I’d be grateful to qualify as his caddie:-) That’s not to say that either of us should attempt to compare as all we share with them is personality type, which is what this is simply considered as a measure of.



Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

This attention you have drawn to the personality types as well as your earlier post on gender has had me to wonder if different types suggest a gender bias or not. For instance in relation to our corresponding types, with INFJ'S for example they listed five women while for INFP'S they listed only one. I then looked to the genders of the authors of the descriptions in an attempt to discover if this might account for the difference. I found this to be somewhat inconclusive.

I was just wondering since recently it's been put forth that all human brains in there initial stages of fetal development, as what is considered the default one(gender neutral) are female and only after the first eighth weeks are the ones to become male subjected to testosterone (some might say scalded by it) that this may account for some of the differences as to how sexes are represented among the types.

In this way it might be suggested that although Jung split from Freud to disenfranchise sex from the equation he over looked that it might still play a role in a different manner. Freud’s approach emphasized the external environment in this regard and I’m suggesting the inner environment is what may have been missed in Jung’s assessment. This of course relates back to the eternally persistant nurture vs. nature arguments and I have often wondered when if ever this will finally be resolved?



Plato said...

Hey Phil,

.....maybe a polarization with the external world, as male or female in gender move from a internal state to external manifestation. There would be no distinction before this? I am not sure.

A lot of times I would think about the information and what we may find prejudiced by our "up bringing in characteristics," but before this, it is never clear who wrote what, from what gender.

Science does not care? Why should it?

So it is about information, not the substance of character that we should be concerned with. A lot of science people have this problem in separating between what is information, and what is prejudiced by their upbringing? What is prejudice by belief, faith, and mystery in their own life? So they give names to each other about crackpotism and such, while ignoring the the need for expression of truthfulness inherent in the work and expression of theoretics.

This is why one has to look past the characterizations and look at what is being transmitted from the internal expression. Then it raises the idea of a energy in expression and what it solidifies itself as, as the personality forms.

So you are defining a "symmetricalness existence" before the body is formed. Before the personality is formed.

Why one should grant patience, forgiveness and the sort when looking at ideas generated within the field of science with out denigrating each from prejudice positions. We are all not without it.?


Plato said...

Oh Phil,

I should reprint this here for consideration as the Typealyzer does specify that, "writing style on a blog may have little or nothing to do with a person´s self-percieved personality." :)

Any "additional info" is for "entertainment purposes only" as expressed in choice of "label" assigned to blog posting of Bee's.

"Self diagnosis" could be hazardous to one's health "unless" the algorithm is specific to display all human characteristics and personalties type expressed in a "multiple personality choice of habitations," defined. :)How many of numbers of people on this planet?


John G said...

The only difference gender-wise in tests is that women are two to one more likely to be Fs than Ts and men two to one more like to be Ts (stereotypes act like most all men are Ts and women Fs, I'm an INFP questor so I guess physics is more like a mythical quest for me).

As for nurture vs nature, twin studies show personality type to be 50% genetic, the other 50% is presumed to be bouncing around in-utero effects. You can actually determine the I/E and J/P preferences in babies (it worked quite correctly for my son who is now 10). The other traits don't show up until 4 or 5 since every baby/toddler seems like an SF (the nurturer) even if they aren't. Nurture comes into play for maturity levels for all the traits, everything else being equal you do tend to end up more mature in traits you are biased towards but education, career, peer pressure etc. can help or hinder maturity too.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

“I guess physics is more like a mythical quest for me”

I think despite the differences in personality that for many this all is somewhat a grail search of sorts. It’s expressed as grand unification or theories of everything; a little too lofty perhaps, yet the direction is clear. I hope it’s not thought that what I’m curious to discover is what would serve as divisive, rather its how better to understand what might be in common.

I find this approach of Jung’s more of interest in being a means of relating to other people, to serve for our mutual benefit in maximizing our personal and collected potentials. Bee for instance is very interested as to how science might be more fully accepted, appreciated and then ultimately incorporated in to our everyday lives and for me something like the Jung perspective might serve as being a lynch pinch in such an endeavour.



Personality Types said...

Nice to meet another INTJ. I must admit, I love the idea of Typealyzer. Yet I found it pretty funny when I put my INTJ page through it and it got it wrong. Still a great idea though.