ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.

Introverted (I) 61.9% Extroverted (E) 38.1%
Sensing (S) 61.54% Intuitive (N) 38.46%
Thinking (T) 67.74% Feeling (F) 32.26%
Perceiving (P) 58.06% Judging (J) 41.94%

Looks like I beat you both. I'm the mastermind. I don't see anything wrong with introverts. I have always been one, never regretted.

• Introverted (I) 90% Extroverted (E) 10%
• Intuitive (N) 63.64% Sensing (S) 36.36%
• Thinking (T) 69.44% Feeling (F) 30.56%
• Judging (J) 63.64% Perceiving (P) 36.36%

This is as good as saying that being a mastermind or engineer or author isn't a good thing. What is balance? Anyway, this is a rhetorical question. I'm the mastermind. I know it all and I prefer it this way. If you want to know too, ask me.

I guess as you get older you learn a few things. Probably taking this test at 20 produces different results than at 40 and/or 60. It should be the wisdom that comes with experience.

This reminds me of Siddhartha (here the movie "Little Buddha", a 1994 feature film by Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci), who after having spent years in meditation under a tree heard a man on a passing boat teaching to play an instrument to a kid and saying something like "if you stretch the string too much it would break, if you stretch it too few it would not sound". And then he quit trying to find illumination through asceticism end resumed walking around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB8j_9k-QzI&feature=relmfu
(minute 1:15)

And about "sensing" and "perceiving", it reminds me also of Yoda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GITb6rzpTWM

@Anne
Just to prove that I really am the mastermind, I'll tell the answer even without your asking. You seem to be under the misconception that introversion equals lack of self-confidence (you mention "cocoon", "ignore the world", "head in the sand"). Well, it doesn't. Introversion and self-confidence are distinct psychological characteristics. Introversion means preference on the internal world, not on the external world (any psychology textbook that fails to mention the internal world is a profound failure, written by a know-nothing extravert). Self-confidence means personal certainty and comfort with one's own preferences, whichever they are. So, it's quite possible to be a self-confident introvert. I am a living proof of this.

By trying to become extravert, it changes nothing with regard to your self-confidence. Self-confidence is a distinct characteristic, completely unrelated with introversion, and you need to target it specifically, if you want to modify it. Granted, you have had problems with self-confidence. It's definitely not introversion you have had problems with.

@Lorenzo
Of course when one has done a lot of tests, one is likely to know how to handle them. Some tests are so obvious that it's quite possible to squeeze a desired result out of it. And no, tests won't break no matter how you squeeze them. They always yield a result.

But why?
And here I mean WHY?

Actually I meant that you change your personality during your life, you lose something, you gain something else. Panta rei. I was not considering the fact that tests are limited and can be circumvented.

About the "mastermind" stuff, I quoted the above examples. The first seriously, the second as a joke.

Why to answer tests in a skewed way? Well, tests themselves are often skewed, and the rest of the time they make little sense.

I agree that it's actually a nice and even brave experiment to try to change one's own personality type during life. On the other hand, it changes anyway over time. What really matters is a sufficient knowledge of one's own personality type at all times. As per my experience, personality tests don't give that knowledge, even when they are on the mark.

Agreed. I mean, "personality tests" over the Internet are a sort of game. That is i was asking "why" you picked that topic.

In the past I took some "personality tests" that were aimed to define a profile in a corporate environment, related to managing styles, tactics and strategies. These "psychological" tools are of american origin and we have imported them along with many other things with the ongoing cultural colonization.
Anyway, the goal of those tests was to give you hints about how to manage single people or groups in an "efficient" way, that means to optimize the human resources to reach some (business) goal. They were supported by "typical case scenarios", taken from popular movies, that illustrated situations and different styles of leadership, the more and the less effective, given some premises.
BTW there are also the "other side" psychological tests, those performed on candidates and employees to determine if they are a good fit for some group or environment and/or to be managed.

I guess when you talk to Anne, who is american, you must consider some subtle cultural differences. For example, since Americans are taught that everybody is measured by his/her "success", being strongly "introvert" can be seen as a generic handicap or flaw, which leads to a "drop out" or "mad scientist" lifestyle. Even if Anne may not agree with it, still she speaks the "language" so she gives some meaning to words.

I was just about to mention that another American trait is to imply that when someone has it all figured out it is as if somehow a bad thing. I thought it's nicer to not say it, but now the truth must be stated.

Having it all figured out provides a consistent and immediate view to any life event or task. And I assure you that this is not a bad thing at all. Actually, isn't some kind of perspective or solution to your issues what you yourself are after when you take tests like this?

Moreover, kissing your anything is also a rather good thing

I have not mentioned that given the stats (1.5%, 2,1% versus 5,4%) you two are 4 times and 2 times more weird than me. So now I am a bit worried of you two weirdos.

Only stupid people need to learn. Only small and immature people need to grow up. Death awaits everybody, so better be ready for it. My sense of humour is quite weird and I also take it as a compliment when it's noticed.

Only stupid people need to learn

Whoa, this is a bold statement.
Since it goes against the famous "socratic" principle (from "The Apology" by Plato - As usual there isn't the english version so translation is mine):
"Perhaps the only way the oracle prediction can be true is while the others think they know but they don't, at least I know one sure thing: I know I don't know. And this awareness of not knowing is exactly the "sophia" (knowledge/wisdom) that gods gave me".

Socrates: "I know that I don't know." (emphasis mine)

The socratic principle poses a logical dilemma. This is on purpose, so that those who don't know can be revealed.

I don't see any logical dilemma once you define "knowledge" as an ongoing process, coherent with the principle that everything flows and changes, you and everything around you. Not only changes in a passive way as water that flows as you sit by a river but changes as result of interaction, communication, learning and teaching in the same time.

Socrates opposed the idea of unique knowledge and absolute truth, he stated instead the importance of the "Dialogue", not only as a tool but in the sense that the only important thing, the only real value is the process. Master and student are on the same level, both teaching and both learning through the Dialogue, finding only "temporary truths" that are immediately put in question.

Your above sentence should be translated "only dead people don't need to learn".

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

Socrates opposed the idea of unique knowledge and absolute truth, he stated instead the importance of the "Dialogue"

Let's just say that our interpretation of Socrates simply differs here. As per my interpretation (which is of course not merely mine), Socrates had a very clear idea of unique knowledge and absolute truth, and dialogue had a role in figuring it out.

Referring to the topic, in Jung's description of psychological types, the different functions of knowledge - termed in the test sensing, intuitive, feeling, thinking, judging, perceiving - are strictly hierarchical, intuitive being the topmost. Other mechanisms follow the intuitive function in order, having their more limited role in psychology. Most compilers of "Jung's tests" don't pay any attention to this fact.

The same way with Socrates: Dialogue has its role, namely, to figure out the truth. The truth doesn't care about the dialogue nor should it, but the dialogue should care a lot about the truth. No vice versa. But it's quite expected that the readers who love dialogue more than the truth won't see it this way.

Yes, in fact you have just ONE dialogue, find the truth and quit.

Well, It is a pity nobody knows you have already learned all the possible truths. If you published them in a book, it would save all us lots of pain in further looking.

Jung died in 1961. Now we are in 2012. I am pretty sure people interested in psychology have moved forward since then. Like Jung moved from Freud. Like Plato moved from Socrates.

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

Well, It is a pity nobody knows you have already learned all the possible truths.

Some things that make a huge difference here. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean that I am left with "nobody". Then, "all the possible truths" is a telling choice of phrase. We obviously differ in our definition of truth. As per me (and not just me), truth is just one.

Truth is simple and absolute. On the other hand, formulations of truth (i.e. "dialogue") are many, limited, and relative. As it appears, you already read books about it, namely Plato's, but you only chose to see the relative half. So, read them again and try to get the whole meaning. Not many books are needed to grasp the truth. They only need to be well chosen and read properly.

Ersi, the only way out of this is to suppose you did not mean "only stupid people need to learn" seriously.

Sorry, but I meant it seriously. Namely, I don't hesitate to count myself among the stupid. From your part I can see the hesitation well enough.

Instead, I was kind of joking when I said I know it all. Still, about Jung, I really do know it all. And the test says I'm the mastermind. I can live with this, no problem.

I do not think to be "stupid", on the contrary, by observation I guess to be well above the average. That doesn't mean I am always right. It just means that I have some above the average abilities and tools of analysis plus a relatively large base of information.

I do think most people are stupid, some because of hardware limitations, some, I would say most, because of education. This means they have insufficient abilities and tools of analysis and/or an insufficient base of information to work with.

Unfortunately Ersi, in my personal universe somebody who states that "only stupid people need to learn" falls in the group of stupids.

So, since it appears improbable that you are actually stupid, my other guess is that you are stating a nonsense for some irrational reason. Basically the theory is you aren't stupid but you have got some personality issues that push you to take a paradoxical stance.

That is fine with me.
It just makes coexistence a bit problematic. It is like to talk to the character instead of speaking to the actor.

Compare this:

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

in my personal universe somebody who states that "only stupid people need to learn" falls in the group of stupids.

with this:

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

I do not think to be "stupid", on the contrary, by observation I guess to be well above the average.

Question: Which way is it - are you observing the average or are you deciding things as per your personal universe? You can't have it both ways. I'd recommend you to not be a hypocrite (someone with one standard for oneself and another standard for others), but even if you prefer to be a hypocrite, be consistent. A person like you who says he cares about logic should work on inconsistencies seriously.

I don't see any logical flaw.

It is the scientific method. I observe and collect data. I make a theory and verify it with experiments. The theory, when confirmed by experiments, remains valid until it is invalidated. Note that a theory can be included as special case of a more general theory, so it can be valid only when some conditions are met. I could be Newton observing the universe and explaining everything with mechanics then there can be some Einstein saying I am generally wrong but right when some particular conditions are met. Or I could be just wrong.

I observe a guy who comes on Anne's blog stating an obvious nonsense like "only stupid people need to learn". There are side considerations on why the guy drops atomic bombs to kill a fly.

The most simple hypothesis is the guy is stupid and for the razor of Occam it should be preferred. But in our case experiments show it being improbable, so another hypothesis follows, the guy takes a paradoxical stance for some non-apparent (irrational) reason that involves his own personality.

Please note also that, even if there was some inconsistency in what I wrote (and we can spend years discussing on each single word), at least I am here speaking in first person. It is not like I am impersonating a role, which would make any communication futile, just an exercise of acting.

Here you only elaborate on statistical method and you look entirely past the other method you used - categorical logic or type theory. I'm not disputing either method of judgement. They are internally consistent. However, they are diametrically opposed to each other, and the way you used them (choosing one for yourself and another for me) is hypocrisy, which is a concept in moral philosophy. Since you placed yourself among the wise, I'm leaving it to you to look it all up and figure out the meaning of all of this.

I haven't chosen anything for you.
You chose what to write as "Ersi" here.

Mmmmm.....balance.....
Will come back later to take the test.