sometimes these tests seem goofy--like they're describing someone else. this one seemed pretty reliable. so here you go. apparently, i picked the wrong field. should'a been an architect.
(wait...does this mean i'm like that dude in
The Matrix?!?!)
anyone want to be my "romantic partner"? i am playful and start things with great energy, but don't follow through....
| INTP - the Architect
You scored 9% I to E, 21% N to S, 66% F to T, and 78% J to P! |
| You are more introverted than extroverted. You are more intuitive than observant, you are more thinking based than feeling based, and you prefer to go with the flow rather than have a routine. The single word to describe your type is the Architect, which belongs to the larger group of rationals. You wish to sculpt the world around you. Others often find you arrogant, yet you have no desire to direct others, only to inform them. You must know the structure of things, and have a voracious appetite for knowledge. You are very rational in everything you do, and probably consider yourself smarter than most.
As a romantic partner, you can be playful with great energy to get things started, but not quite as good on follow through. You may have a tendency to hurt the more emotional types unintentionally by not sharing your own reactions and feelings as you can get swept up in your own ideas and projects. You want to be appreciated for your ability to respond quickly and to fix problems creatively. You need plenty of time to yourself - therefore your parnter must respect your need for independence and originality.
Your group summary: Rationals (NT)
Your type summary: INTP
|
|
|
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 9% on I to E | | You scored higher than 16% on N to S | | You scored higher than 73% on F to T | | You scored higher than 88% on J to P |
|
7 Comments:
I've taken Myers-Briggs probably six or seven different times in my life, over the course of several decades, and in several different settings. I keep trying to change who I am, but I never do, since I always end up with the same results. And who I am appears to be:
INFJ - The Counselor
You scored 0% I to E, 0% N to S, 9% F to T, and 42% J to P!
Your type is best summed up by the word "counselor", which belongs to the larger group of idealists. Only 2% of the population share your type. You are so empathic that you often know what others need before they know themselves. You are a complex person who can deal with complicated issues and people, almost prefer to, as you love problem solving. You can be something of an idealist or perfectionist, and should try to take yourself a little less seriously.
You are a supportive and insightful romantic partner, encouraging your mate to have dreams and work hard to make those dreams come true. Because you are so creative, you have a wealth of ideas to help them toward those goals. You need harmony so much that you are driven to resolve conflict quickly, as long as the terms don't violate your ethics. You feel the most appreciated when your partner admires your creativity, trusts your inspirations, and respects your values. It is also vitally important that your partner be open and emotionally available - in other words, that they be willing to share themselves completely.
Your group summary: idealists (NF)
Your type summary: INFJ
This is better than any horoscope. I also believe that this is the Jesus personality type. Okay, if I must: :-)
Are you kidding? Jesus was an Aquarius!
But that brings up an interesting point: did Jesus have a "personality type" or a "psychological profile" the way we assume we all do?
The theological ramifications of this question seem pretty large. If "yes"...? Well, it seems that we use our personality types to explain why we usually do and say the things we do and say. But I suppose I've always thought Jesus to be somewhat unrestricted psychologically, being God and all. Yet if we then answer the question "no", don't we make Jesus somehow unlike us (and perhaps unable to relate to us)?
Well, I've always heard the Myers-Briggs categories explained in such a way that they're all appropriate at certain times and in certain conditions.
So maybe Jesus, being fully man and fully God, was able to be the perfect Myers-Briggs guy in whatever situation he found Himself.
On the other hand, I really do see Jesus as being more of an NF rather than as ST kind of a guy. It could be my inherent NF bias showing, but I just don't see Jesus getting hung up on a lot of details and minutiae. Although He does have a Father who has numbered the very hairs of our heads (not that difficult in my case). Hmmm.
So maybe He is the perfect MB guy after all.
It's a difficult question and it's unfortunate that we don't have a big ol' ecumenical council that could theologically debate this stuff, rather than just focusing on the historical jesus stuff.
But--just to provoke--given the number of other religions that have classified Jesus as a "philosopher" of some sort, I would have expected him to be an "NT". He certainly thought deeply about issues and, with the exception of the Lazarus affair, took extreme emotional pain with relative stoicism.
So how bout that?
Nah, Jesus is an NF. He wept at his friend Lazarus's death, wept over the city of Jerusalem, groaned in mental/emotional agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, and got pissed off at the money changers in the temple. He's an effin' F F F.
Just like me. :-)
I think the metaphor of 'Christ's Body' to describe the church is instructive here. Jesus could be all things in all situations. We, as individuals, can't. We need each other to all make up one big Jesusy organization.
Obviously Jesus limited himself by taking on human form. But being all-God gave him special interpersonal skills/capacities that none of us as individuals can ever possess.
Or at least that's my take on it at this point.
Hey Erik, I noticed that you're reading Madison Smartt Bell. I thought I would point out that he made a really great album called "Forty Words for Fear" a couple years back with poet Wyn Cooper and North Carolina musicians Don Dixon and Mitch Easter. It was along the lines of Tom Waits and Lou Reed in that exists in the strange half-spoken/half-sung late-night diner world that those artists inhabit. Musically it was real and raw, and it had the type of literary lyrics that you would expect from those two. I bet you'd enjoy it.
Post a Comment
<< Home