Saw this thread containing a reference to Myers-Briggs and thought I'd have a go. A quick google turned up four or five online tests (such as this one) all of which put me as INTP. Apart from the career guidance such as this, suggesting that I would make a good assassin, I think I'm OK with that.

As clearly neither paying work nor writing have enough power to motivate me today, I was curious, what types are the rest of you? I would guess that most writers are I rather than E, for example, as there is quite a strong requirement to be motivated by yourself rather than by others. Am I correct?

G

Checking out my copy of the MBTI, an INTP personality profile comes out as:

"Quiet and reserved. Especially enjoy theoretical pursuits. Like solving problems with logic and analysis. Interested mainly in ideas, with little liking for parties or small talk. Tend to have sharply defined interests. Need careers where some strong interest can be used and useful."

I came out as an ISTP:

"Cool onlookers - quiet, reserved, observing and analysing life with detatched curiousity and unexpected flashes of original humour. Usually interested in cause and effect, how and why mechanical things work and in organising facts using logical principles. Excell at getting to the core of a practical problem and finding a solution."

....no, doesn't sound like me at all.



- NaomiM

We use MBTI in our work - teambuilding, leadership development and the like. One thing that has always fascinated me is the N/S dichotomy for writers. In Myers-Briggs terms that's Sensing (paying attention to the detail of what is actually happending in the world around you) versus iNtuition (imagining what it all means to you). For example, if you show someone a painting and then take it away and ask them to describe it, a strong S person will tell you what is there literally, the colours, the lines, what it depicts, and a strong N person will tell you what they thought about the painting, what mood it created or what memories it provoked.

To write about big underlying themes you need to be N, but to express that in a concrete (the old show don't tell) way you need to be S. Someone who wrote from a purely N perspective would be too abstract to engage the reader. Someone who wrote from a purely S perspective would not have the imagination to create great stories. As with so many matters, the writer has to be a chameleon. I wonder what MBTI type Saul Bellow was, or Scott Fitzgerald. Their detail and observation are fastidious, but they allude to great themes and background meaning too.

Blimey. Don't know where that came from. It's just something I've wondered about.

~Rod.

EEK!

Someone who wrote from a purely N perspective would be too abstract to engage the reader.

My first draft was criticised as being a "well-written documentary" which, after some digging to get a more complete and less politely worded explanation, became "utterly devoid of humanity". Yes, well. Forearmed, forewarned etc. This time around, I have taken the rash step of including one or two actual characters. It seems to be an improvement.

I thought for a brief moment of using the sixteen types as a basis for characters, but then I read some of the descriptions. There are one or two personality types in there who would be more accurately described as "cannon-fodder".

I thought for a brief moment of using the sixteen types as a basis for characters,

We had to do that as an exercise for the CW course I'm on, and I found it difficult because the groupings aren't set in concete - most people would be, say, 70% of one group and 30% of another.
I marked S and N down initially, but had to choose between them to get a character profile, so I guess that means I can describe a painting and tell you what it says to me - but you'd have to be careful to define your question, otherwise I'll take you literally.


- NaomiM

What interests me about these tests is: how much are they describing who you naturally are, and how much what you have been made by your experiences? Because natural Intuitives may be 'misled' by their family or social circumstances to deny that part of themselves and become Thinkers, or whatever, instead.
Susiex

I think it's a given that if you tell anybody something about themselves in a way that appeals to them, that trait will become more pronounced. Like the idea in business that measuring behaviour you either want to encourage or discourage will lead to a change purely because people think about it. The clue is to look at how strongly expressed each trait is.

For example, in my case;

Every test I have ever done has put me very strongly as I(ntrovert), taking my motivation from internal influences (eg: me) and the most recent test gave me 67% for this!

In fact, I disagreed with the first MBTI I did (during an MBA that proves pretty much how far I was off the mark with my self-image back then). I was convinced I was E(xtrovert), taking my motivation from others, but there is no way to understand the evidence of what I have done with my life to support anything other than I(introvert).

I am now self-employed, actively seeking (and attaining) specialist roles where I can work alone without interference, I am working on a novel in my spare time and focussing intently on horse-riding to the point that after ten years at a stables, my wife has made several groups of friends while I have just become quite good at riding horses.

By contrast, for T(hinking) / F(eeling), I am marginal. The last test I did gave me 1%! I can think of several occasions where I express F(eeling) characteristics but always revert to T(hinking) when the going is tough. In this case, I suspect that the attitudes of my family / peers probably does influence and modify my behaviour as I come from a strongly rational family where argument based on anything other than the logic of the T(hinking) trait will be roundly squashed.

But to come back to the nature / nurture question, no, I don't know whether I would have been quite so I(ntrovert) if I had grown up on a farm in the Yorkshire dales with two younger sisters rather than in a semi-d in Southampton with three older brothers. It seems quite unlikely, to me, that any personality trait is purely the result of genetics.

Gaius

PS: When thinking of characters, you tend to ask "what made them that way?" rather than "what traits did they get from mummy and daddy?". Given that I share something like 99.99% of my genome with my three brothers, and that there is a fair range of personality types between us, I don't think genetics can really be much more than a minor factor.

Well our CW tutor said the majority of writers, in her experience, were naturally introverts - observing the world rather than actively mixing with it. I think it's true that a lot of introverts learn to put on a front, and appear extroverts, but thetest would probably pick out their true natures. And you can be an intovert and a natural leader, or an extrovert and a natural team player, and vice versa, so at the end of the day does it really matter? The tests are only so the employer can place you in a position where you'll feel cofortable within the company, and it takes all sorts to run a company.


- NaomiM

you can be an intovert and a natural leader

Remembering that "Introvert" here doesn't mean what it means in the dictionary, but what it has been translated to for the purposes of the MBTI, I would almost say that it is _essential_ to be an introvert to be a natural leader.

I would be very suspicious of a leader who was more motivated by the approval of his peers than by the naked ambition of doing something well. "The lady is not for turning." etc.

Of course, this leads to one or two problems of how you get there in the first place...

G

<Added>

PS: By "Leader" I mean TOP of the pile. Not "team leader" or "manager" but de facto dictator, overlord, s/he who must be obeyed. My liege. Etc.

Interesting. I don't think that 'nature' is just a matter of genetics, but we'd go off down the spiritual route, so will stop there.
This extravert/introvert thing is also interesting in the way it's interpreted. I'm most definitely a long way down the introverted side (prefer to live alone, do solitary things like writing and painting, think a lot about inner world etc.) but I'd also say that I'm very motivated/influenced by other people. My own definition of introverted is someone who gains energy from being alone, whilst an extravert gains energy from being with others. But, like sexuality, it's a continuum rather than an either/or polarity.
Susiex

It's definitely a continuum, and I wouldn't disagree with your definition in general, but for MBTI, the terms are quite specifically defined and have earned quite a bit of criticism as a result. For example, Introversion has negative connotations in general use, but not within the definition assigned to it in MBTI. A better term might be "self-motivated", but then they wouldn't be able to have the nice letters to make it look good. (Marketing has a lot to answer for.)

but we'd go off down the spiritual route

Woo! I started this thread for amusement rather than for work anyway, I don't see why we have to be too bothered about sticking to the subject...

How do you define "spiritual"?

What influences the spirit?

Bearing in mind I'm an atheist, do I have one?

Bearing in mind I'm an atheist, do I have one

?
I don't know - do you?
'Spiritual', to me, is almost impossible to define - which is why it 'falls down' when faced with scientific reasoning: it IS the indefinable. Which is the joy of it. It's what goes beyond the physical, the rational, the pin-downable. And it goes beyond the religious, too (so atheists could be kind of restricting themselves by defining themselves as such).
Ooh, how did I get into this???
(I s'pose that's a spiritual question).
Susiex


<Added>

What influences the spirit?
- Expansion.

It's what goes beyond the physical, the rational, the pin-downable.

Ah, the unknowable unknown.

I don't know - do you?

I don't know that I believe in anything outside the here and now, although there are doubtless things we don't fully understand yet.
So, no, no evidence for it as far as I can see.

What you describe sounds like one's relative state of well-being... and expansion improves that, in my experience. I wouldn't go back to being a teenager because that level of ignorance feels very constricting, but that doesn't mean I think I lacked spirit!

G