Personality types of characters

[Ameraka]

MBTI is kind of a range too. You can look at it that way, anyway. Like, I am borderline P/J. I thought I was INFJ. But INFP really does describe me better. Although there are probably different dimensions you can look at...
Big five--I tend toward the negative aspects of each one. Except maybe conscientiousness. no matter how you look at it, my personality is not to be envied.

[Richard Maxwell]

Whit - ENFJ
Connie - ESFP
Eugene - ENTP
Tom - ISFJ
Bernard - ISTJ
Blackgaard - ENTJ

Donna Barclay - ESFJ
Robyn Jacobs - ESFP
Jessie Morales - ESTP
Rodney Rathbone - ISTP
Isaac Morton - ISTJ
Lucy Cunningham - INFJ

Richard Maxwell - ISTJ

[TigerShadow]

MBTI is kind of a range too. You can look at it that way, anyway.

Eh, I'd be more prone to agreeing with that if the individual letters were outright referred to in the official terminology as a "dichotomy", implying that you're one or the other in the end. Personality types of characters are fun, of couse; I love looking at online charts for them (even just for the aesthetics), and it's a nice way to analyze characters. It's just that the types really aren't a much of a science as they're claimed to be.

@Richard: I agree with most of those (especially since, according to the Harry Potter MBTI, Dumbledore and Whit coincide), but I'd argue that Eugene is more of an INTP than an ENTP; he tends to have more of the "pursue intellectual studies over other people" aspect.

[Richard Maxwell]

I didn't do Eugene's, I just quoted his for another comment. (I was just adding a few more names to the list.)

[Ameraka]

MBTI is kind of a range too. You can look at it that way, anyway.

Eh, I'd be more prone to agreeing with that if the individual letters were outright referred to in the official terminology as a "dichotomy", implying that you're one or the other in the end. Personality types of characters are fun, of couse; I love looking at online charts for them (even just for the aesthetics), and it's a nice way to analyze characters. It's just that the types really aren't a much of a science as they're claimed to be.

How much of a "science" is psychology? I mean, Freud. I like Jung better--I like his personality theory. Why do we even have MBTI if it's not useful? I don't think it's as random as something like a horoscope. It seems to be pretty accurate. When you read the descriptions, they describe how you think and act to certain situations. Of course it doesn't describe all that you are, or that you don't have contradictions or sometimes act like a different type. But it's nice to know there is a reason you act like you do. And how to relate to people who seem to be thinking on a whole different plane (I mean, T vs. F can be pretty divergent).

The book I read DID have a scale for indicating how Introverted vs extroverted you were, etc. It's just that if a certain type describes you best, that's what you are.

I just like it, Ok? That's how I feel. (F). I try to come up with logic to back up my feelings, not the other way around, and it doesn't always work.

The Big Five seem to have primarily positive vs. negative aspects. I mean, how is being prone to stress, or wariness around others, a good thing? Then again, you can see MBTI that way too. I mean, how many people think introverts are more desirable than extroverts? (getting drained by interacting with others--how is that a positive thing?)

Maybe we should find another test.

sorry i'm having problems right now. Also my computer doesn't like this site because it gets really hot when I put it on so I have to type real fast so if this doesn't make any sense--or less sense than normal--

[TigerShadow]

Whoa, slow down, I'm not attacking you personally; I'm simply suggesting that there are better and more accurate ways of determining personality than the MBTI—psychology is a science, and science changes over time. If you want to continue to use it, that's fine; I'm just saying that there are other ways of determining your personality; the reason we're even having this conversation in the first place is because underseasie brought up the fact that you don't have to be defined solely by what one test tells you.

Re: Negativity in the Big Five, I don't think it's so much that the spectrum itself is positive vs. negative as it is how they couch it—for example, I think it would be better to have, say, an "outgoing vs. reservedness" scale rather than an "affability vs. aloofness" scale.

[Ameraka]

Whoa, slow down, I'm not attacking you personally; I'm simply suggesting that there are better and more accurate ways of determining personality than the MBTI—psychology is a science, and science changes over time. If you want to continue to use it, that's fine; I'm just saying that there are other ways of determining your personality; the reason we're even having this conversation in the first place is because underseasie brought up the fact that you don't have to be defined solely by what one test tells you.

That's ok--I know that somewhere in the recesses of my mind, the tiny, underdeveloped logical part--I tend to overreact when there is something I like and I take it personally even if I shouldn't--I see F as a weakness though it doesn't have to be; it is in my case and I suppose I'll have to work on that--not doing the thing that's my first reaction. If possible. I'll never be cool and aloof from feelings and what I believe in (a la Jason/Connie....).
and yes, we sometimes do forget that science is supposed to change, be dynamic rather than static. Psychology is a pretty new one at that.

Re: Negativity in the Big Five, I don't think it's so much that the spectrum itself is positive vs. negative as it is how they couch it—for example, I think it would be better to have, say, an "outgoing vs. reservedness" scale rather than an "affability vs. aloofness" scale.

Yes, how it's worded can change how we view things. However, it's not just in the terminology. It's a bias in society. We naturally have a positive perception of people who are outgoing vs. reserved (and the other examples), and these people have a clear advantage, a step up. The others have to work harder for what's second nature for some.