Myers-Briggs

[Brazen]

EFSP. Not what I was expecting, but I suppose I did become a journalist to be Slightly Famous On The Internet.

[Gups]

ESTJ

[garbon]

EFSP. Not what I was expecting, but I suppose I did become a journalist to be Slightly Famous On The Internet.

And accounts for the transposition error?

[garbon]

Not sure how the fact that there are different methodologies to determine the same thing somehow invalidates the underlying measure system.

I am unaware of any methodology for M-B other than the multiple-choice question one. 

The test predicts strength and weakness, in particular from a professional and inter-personal perspective, with a useful level of accuracy. I suspect it assumes that the native is relatively mentally stable so that his or her natural response tendencies are not distorted by psychological disorders, though.

Correct.  The test isn't a diagnostic tool, it is a generalized "character sorter" that uses the similarities and differences between the 16 archetypes as a practical, if imperfect, measuring stick.  As you note, it does seem to possess a useful level of accuracy.

My only issue would be that if this particular iteration of the test has a useful level of accuracy, it would suggest that I've adopted a whole new personality.

[Razgovory]

Correct.  The test isn't a diagnostic tool, it is a generalized "character sorter" that uses the similarities and differences between the 16 archetypes as a practical, if imperfect, measuring stick.  As you note, it does seem to possess a useful level of accuracy.

Sort of like a horoscope.

[Martinus]

Correct.  The test isn't a diagnostic tool, it is a generalized "character sorter" that uses the similarities and differences between the 16 archetypes as a practical, if imperfect, measuring stick.  As you note, it does seem to possess a useful level of accuracy.

Sort of like a horoscope.

Short answer: no.

Long answer (not for Languish): kinda, but then a horoscope is actually a relatively accurate early psychological tool provided that certain caveats and reservations are made, the nature of which I will not get into, this being Languish and all.

[Razgovory]

Unfortunately it is very much like a horoscope.  If you were to give one these tests to say a group of 12 year old, does it have any predictive qualities?  No.  Most of the results are couched in vague positives, very much like a horoscope.  The test is popular amongst laymen for precisely this reason, it's flattering and vague.  The tests themselves ( of which I've seen many variants) often give contradictory results.  This shouldn't happen.  There are serious psychological tests, but they aren't as popular on the internet or Human Resources.  Things like the MMPI have mechanism to spot dishonest answers, unlike this test. Unfortunately it's a really long fucking test with hundreds of questions.

[Habbaku]

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/im-an-entj-destroyer-of-worlds-36075

[grumbler]

My only issue would be that if this particular iteration of the test has a useful level of accuracy, it would suggest that I've adopted a whole new personality.

Useful accuracy doesn't mean complete accuracy.  If you are closer to the line dividing two archetypes then a few different answers would change your category.  that wouldn't mean treating tyou like you were in the other category would suddenly be bad, because you'd be close to being more interested in, say judgement, even if this time you seemed were slightly more interested in perception.

The test isn't telling you what personality you've adopted, it is telling your co-workers what approaches and rewards worked best in dealing with you. 

The archetypes are the extremes, not the exemplars.  Like most extremes, they are pretty much purely theoretical, except in cases involving pathology.

[Martinus]

I agree with grumbler. I think DISC is probably more useful in work situations as it is simpler to remember, though.

[grumbler]

I agree with grumbler. I think DISC is probably more useful in work situations as it is simpler to remember, though.

M-B works better as a fad, though.

[Martinus]

I agree with grumbler. I think DISC is probably more useful in work situations as it is simpler to remember, though.

M-B works better as a fad, though.

True. That being said, DISC was great for me in adjusting my style at work. We had a workshop with a psychologist/coach and I found out I am dominant D and I shouldn't consider those who aren't morons.

[garbon]

My only issue would be that if this particular iteration of the test has a useful level of accuracy, it would suggest that I've adopted a whole new personality.

Useful accuracy doesn't mean complete accuracy.  If you are closer to the line dividing two archetypes then a few different answers would change your category.  that wouldn't mean treating tyou like you were in the other category would suddenly be bad, because you'd be close to being more interested in, say judgement, even if this time you seemed were slightly more interested in perception.

The test isn't telling you what personality you've adopted, it is telling your co-workers what approaches and rewards worked best in dealing with you. 

The archetypes are the extremes, not the exemplars.  Like most extremes, they are pretty much purely theoretical, except in cases involving pathology.

Wouldn't that suggest then that I am on the borderline in every single dichotomy given that my most recent result was the opposing one on each of the 4 groupings? Not sure if that would help my colleagues know the best approaches to take with me.

[Razgovory]

I agree with grumbler. I think DISC is probably more useful in work situations as it is simpler to remember, though.

I am not familiar with DISC.  What is it?

[Valmy]

Dominant-Influential-Steady-Compliant.