G Morgan wrote:
Tryed Googling it but all the results were of people other people considered ESTJ rather than telling me what it is. Considering the fact that I didn't know any of the people mentioned and attempt to avoid relativism whenever possible (obviously not including GR but thats different to relativism in terms of description of character traits) I would prefer a site which gives terminology rather than one that tells me Harry Truman was a ESTJ.
Anyway (while I still contend that an abstract field based on a complex and little understood model can have only limited scope and usually will only include things you already know yourself) if anyone has a link to a decent site on the topic I'd be grateful.
EDIT- I've just found and done an online test. However it basically asked the same 7 question set about 10 times worded differently. I ascribe this particular test (if not the theory in general) to have the value of Astrology. You certainly can't tell much from essentially 7 questions. Didn't come out ESTJ though and most of the characteristics were moderate rather than any strong inclination to a strong trait.
Well done for trying to find out. Most folk wouldn't bother.
I am sorry the test you did was a bit pants - the questions can be a bit repetitive, but should not be so much as you'd really notice. The point of the questions is to expose the subtle shifts in response - sometimes it is better to look at the definitions and see how well they describe your preferences. The key work here is preferences, not classifications...but more on that later.
My ESTJ comment was a bit tongue in cheek, actually (as, for the record, was my comment to camp3r). There is no way I can know that, as I don't know you well enough (obviously). ESTJ folk (if I remember correctly) typically have little time for this kind of apparently subjective, naval gazing stuff .
Gosh, I could go on for ages, but I won't. Two things I do want to say though:
First, anyone with a healthy suspicion of 'personality typing' is quite justified in being so. As has been said, there is a lot of garbage out there (most of which comes as corporate training courses) - way to simplistic, unhealthy and damaging to folk forced to do it. MBTI (and I suspect a few others) doesn't fall into that category. While it is true that Jung's theories were just theories, with an almost insignificant amount of genuine research, MBTI is a well manages application of his thinking. It (seemingly) has an enormous research base, which is tightly controlled in order to ensure its accuracy (hence the difficulty in getting hold of a proper test). Also, it is not 'science' by your definition - its is more akin to statistical research.
Secondly, the 'classifications' are more descriptions of preference, and they exist on a continuum. There are four sets of dipoles: Extrovert-Introvert, Sensate-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, Perceiving-Judging (the last one is poorly named in my view, as it is confusing). As AndySonOfBob rightly points out, there are not just sixteen classes of people, but each person can describe their preferred behaviour (which, of course may vary with context - work or home, for example) as lying at some point along each of these four dipoles.
The brain is a complex thing, as is the personality of the individual. They can be modelled and analysed, but never fully understood. Any decent psychologist or councillor would tell you that. MBTI is an attempt to understand why and how we are different, and how we can relate together with better understanding.
Anyway, here are some web sites to look at:
http://www.myersbriggs.org/ - Smiley faces and the usual corporate stuff.
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-ar ... -simpl.htm - Some helpful definitions (including ESTJ etc.)
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html - A sceptical view of MBTI. Healthy to have the other point of view and, after a brief read though, this one seems well argued.
Enjoy!