Are they considered accurate?
Are they considered accurate?
Where are these descriptions?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types. Her SEE description is particularly horrible.
I do very much relate to her ILI description though.
But all the details about the INTj's behaviour can be found in biographies about Kant. Reading a biography about Kant is like reading an LII type description. Almost the same phrasings are there. And it was the same situation, perhaps even more accentuated, when I read a two volumes biography of Balzac. Balzac is chosen as the protype INTp (even though he clearly is not a typical INTp, and maybe even not an INTp at all), and everything described in the ILI profile has happened to Balzac in real life.
Yes, many times. In fact, one of my most often used expressions when I was a kid -- and thus still young and stupid -- was "I don't know". But the more I have studied through the years that has passed since then, the less appropriate I have found the expression to be. Nowadays I only use it on special occasions ...
What do you think of the MBTI profiles at this site:
http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html
Would you say they are good or bad compared to other MBTI and socionics profiles you have read?
They are not the best ones. I haven't evaluated and ranked every MBTT type description, but those at personalitypage might be worse than average. Hard to tell. I have read so many of them that they tend to blur into each other. My understanding of the types is based on many such descriptions. I can't say for sure which is the best I have seen.
OK. I asked because I think they are easy to read and kind of concrete. I don't know if the information content is good though. I am kind of exploring whether the MBTI type descriptions could be somehow useful to me. Socionics type descriptions often seem so weird and difficult to apply to yourself.
One more question: Why do people some say "MBTT" instead of "MBTI". Is it about being a snob or is there some better reason behind it? Do they mean the same thing or slightly different things? Where does the "T" come from? "Theory"?
Try this site: http://www.murraystate.edu/secsv/fye/m-b.htm
The descriptions there are at least slightly better than those at personalitypage.
Yes. MBTT stands for Myers-Briggs Type Theory. MBTI stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.One more question: Why do people some say "MBTT" instead of "MBTI". Is it about being a snob or is there some better reason behind it? Do they mean the same thing or slightly different things? Where does the "T" come from? "Theory"?
Compare #34: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...t=19461&page=4
If we are to believe Rick about the types of the people that are mentioned, it is almost excluded that the author was speaking about socionics INTjs, OR had any idea of what he was talking about.Best guesses of famous INTJs include Thomas Edison (who was given to almost daily inventions, upon which he was always improving); Richard Nixon (whose political genius made him a man ahead of his time, but whose grasp for control ultimately undid him); and Katherine Hepburn (whose private nature belies her take-charge, I'll-do-it-my-way style).
Rick:
Edison: ESTj
Nixon: ISFj
Hepburn: ENTj (seems to be removed from his page, but used to be there)
Edit: in response to the MBTT profiles that were posted; not Filatova's work
I think they're good, giving an insight on types from a particular point of view.
Yes; if it is taken to mean that SEEs are going to really always behave in that precise way. I think, however, that even the SEE description is good in the sense that it gives an insight on how SEEs may come across to others at times.
I think that Filatova's descriptions should be read along with those of socioscope.com and Stratievskaya's.
We discussed his descriptions with him in Duesseldorf - not INTj in particular. He was more or less "assigned" the task - or saw it as his assignement - to write the first full set of socionics descriptions. I don't think he thinks he'd write them again like that, today.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied