Brain Typing, MBTI, and classifying people by mental/motor skills

[kdm1984]

There is a guy called Jon Niednagel who classifies all people into one of 16 groups, much like the MBTI. However, instead of relying upon subjective, self-reporting personality questionnaires, he types people on empirically observed mental and motor skills. Using his methodology, he believes the type distribution of the world is much more strongly in favor of intuition/abstraction/conceptualization than concrete sensing, for instance (though most people claim the opposite):

"In closing, here is a basic approximation of the 16 Brain Types. Again, this is an approximate, and subject to change.

1. #13 FCIR/ENTP – approximately 45% (perhaps even 60% or higher around the entire world!)
2. #1 FEAR/ESFP – approximately 15%
3. #3 FEAL/ESFJ, #7 FEIL/ESTJ – approximately 5-8%
4. #5 FEIR/ESTP, #9 FCAR/ENFP, #11 FCAL/ENFJ, #15 FCIL/ENTJ, #2 BEAR/ISFP – approximately 3-7%
5. Other 7 Back-brainers (introverts) – 1-4%"

http://braintypes.com/2012/03/36-what-are-the-percentages-of-each-brain-type/ (I believe only members can access this link)

As a side note, ENTPs are said to be the most likely to misclassify themselves as any of the other 16 types. Open-minded, they see possibilities everywhere, change their minds often, and can attempt to even justify their improper classifications with abstract logic rather than seeing the objective IS_J reality of their true type (Niednagel himself claims to be ISTJ and says his type, using motor skill evidence, is only 3% of the population, a far cry from the high numbers claimed by the MBTI).

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I know there will be ENTP naysayers who, using quick conceptual/abstract response strategies, will say "no" to these statements without prior knowledge or testing the intricacies and methodology of the system. ;)

[Marmie Dearest]

This is absurd. If most people were ENTPs the world would be spinning madly out of control, the cultures of the earth wouldn't be based in such practical structure (SJs) and aesthetic development (SPs) with a smaller percentage of the population contributing to new philosophies or scientific inventions.

I am a fan of Nardi's neuroscience of the brain, which is closely tied to MBTI, and by that I am an ISFP, an Fi dominant who is sensitive to the environment and very aware of my own values and desires, wanting social harmony, but willing to rock the boat if it offends my own values...also quicker to respond and moving to action more quickly than the "deeper listening" INFP.

There may be more Ns in the population than some MBTI followers speculate, but half of the population being ENTP sounds ridiculous, and if you understood Jungian cognitive theory, you'd know that sensors are more likely to balk at such outrageous claims without sufficient evidence to back it up than an ENTP would, who are "open to even outrageous possibilities."

[kdm1984]

Typical conceptual response - do you even know the concrete workings of the system, the motor skills? There is some free stuff on the site you could look up and test for yourself, or find it through Google.

If you were an ISFP, you wouldn't even be remotely interested in cognitive "theory," you wouldn't care to debate this at all, and you certainly wouldn't be interested in trying to dissect this logically from an abstract perspective. ISFPs live by their gut, in the moment, and have no interest in even discussing these kinds of issues.

Perhaps it would help to see some of their ISFP videos to see what real ISFPs are like. They certainly don't have the chutzpah to rock the boat occasionally - it's not "values" or empirical observations you are concerned with, but whether or not you imagine (intuitive) something as conceptually (intuitively) absurd (not logical).

NT - does this make sense in theory? does it seem dumb to my imagination or not?

SF - does it make me feel good? is it a sensory experience?

Other clues (this from their article, How do I convince my friend of his actual Brain Type?)-

"Your dilemma is only too common, especially among the #13 FCIR/entp. They ARE often people persons, so his insistence has some validity. Of course, for sake of argument (and this Q&A), I must assume your friend is indeed a #13 as you describe. By the sound of it, he likely is. Ironically (and humorously), one tell-tale sign that your friend is an Inanimate (thinker) is his insistence. Typically, Animate Feelers (ESPECIALLY dominant - ISFP, INFP, ESFJ, ENFJ) will more readily accept what you say, even if you are wrong (and if they disagree, they won’t tell you). Those who persist they are a certain Type most often are Inanimates. You may want to mention this to your friend."

"To be fair, the third Brain Type category or dyad (A vs. I, or F vs. T using old acronyms) seems to be the second most difficult category to pinpoint (behind E vs. C, or S vs. N). Remember that this third category has to do with how we process or critique information, which is either on a personal or an impersonal basis. The former usually places more emphasis on how the decision will affect the people involved, while the latter will place more emphasis on what is clear, what is logical, and what makes sense."

[Panopticon]

MBTI and motor-skills have little in common and shouldn't be mixed up. Sensors probably have a tendency to have better motor-skills than intuitives. They are definitely more prone to athleticism than intiutives f.e. However, it's not like you can type a person's personality on the basis of motor-skills; MBTI typing bases itself on the basis of the personality. It's just so incredibly stupid: why type MBTI types on the basis of motor-skills instead of the actual personality traits?

I think you don't have a proper understanding of MBTI. It's not that ISFPs are completely unable to think conceptually and to think logically, it's just that they tend to not do that, it's not what they prefer and get energized from. That someone sometimes acts in a way other than the typical "textbook" type doesn't mean that they actually are something else.

For the sake of curiosity: what would you type me as on the basis of this post?

[kdm1984]

I should add one important thing to keep in mind for both sides of this debate - theoretically, anyone can support any type assertions with confirmation bias, the Forer effect, and ad hoc hypotheses, just to name a few approaches that complicate typing and lead most scientists to dismiss the MBTI and related instruments as lacking falsifiability. One can no more completely "prove" he or she is a construct called "ESTJ" or "ISFP", et al. than completely disprove they are "ENTP," "INFJ" or whatever. Brain Typing is giving motor and mental clues to go beyond the often-vague terminology of MBTI, but typing in any form (Socionics, MBTI, etc.) isn't some genetic test we can take right now and prove beyond a doubt, nor can we prove/disprove that certain tendencies may be much more highly influenced by environment rather than nature (hence, the debate I have seen on many 16 type forums on whether or not one can "change" their type).

[Marmie Dearest]

Typical conceptual response - do you even know the concrete workings of the system, the motor skills? There is some free stuff on the site you could look up and test for yourself, or find it through Google.

If you were an ISFP, you wouldn't even be remotely interested in cognitive "theory," you wouldn't care to debate this at all, and you certainly wouldn't be interested in trying to dissect this logically from an abstract perspective. ISFPs live by their gut, in the moment, and have no interest in even discussing these kinds of issues.

Perhaps it would help to see some of their ISFP videos to see what real ISFPs are like. They certainly don't have the chutzpah to rock the boat occasionally - it's not "values" or empirical observations you are concerned with, but whether or not you imagine (intuitive) something as conceptually (intuitively) absurd (not logical).

NT - does this make sense in theory? does it seem dumb to my imagination or not?

SF - does it make me feel good? is it a sensory experience?

Other clues (this from their article, How do I convince my friend of his actual Brain Type?)-

"Your dilemma is only too common, especially among the #13 FCIR/entp. They ARE often people persons, so his insistence has some validity. Of course, for sake of argument (and this Q&A), I must assume your friend is indeed a #13 as you describe. By the sound of it, he likely is. Ironically (and humorously), one tell-tale sign that your friend is an Inanimate (thinker) is his insistence. Typically, Animate Feelers (ESPECIALLY dominant - ISFP, INFP, ESFJ, ENFJ) will more readily accept what you say, even if you are wrong (and if they disagree, they won’t tell you). Those who persist they are a certain Type most often are Inanimates. You may want to mention this to your friend."

"To be fair, the third Brain Type category or dyad (A vs. I, or F vs. T using old acronyms) seems to be the second most difficult category to pinpoint (behind E vs. C, or S vs. N). Remember that this third category has to do with how we process or critique information, which is either on a personal or an impersonal basis. The former usually places more emphasis on how the decision will affect the people involved, while the latter will place more emphasis on what is clear, what is logical, and what makes sense."


All I see is that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Marmie Dearest]

MBTI and motor-skills have little in common and shouldn't be mixed up. Sensors probably have a tendency to have better motor-skills than intuitives. They are definitely more prone to athleticism than intiutives f.e. However, it's not like you can type a person's personality on the basis of motor-skills; MBTI typing bases itself on the basis of the personality. It's just so incredibly stupid: why type MBTI types on the basis of motor-skills instead of the actual personality traits?

I think you don't have a proper understanding of MBTI. It's not that ISFPs are completely unable to think conceptually and to think logically, it's just that they tend to not do that, it's not what they prefer and get energized from. That someone sometimes acts in a way other than the typical "textbook" type doesn't mean that they actually are something else.

For the sake of curiosity: what would you type me as on the basis of this post?


I grew up dancing and singing, and was preoccupied with art and now I enjoy cooking, and animals.

He also ignores the fact that many SPs (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Anais Nin) were novelists, not all SPs spend their days on a basketball court. Even Keirsey agrees with this.

Also, MBTI studies have show that ESFPs, for example, tend to excel at history in school because of the relevance of fact collecting, in relationship to culture, and relating those facts to people.

For him to say that I wouldn't be interested in MBTI if I were an ISFP is incorrect, and a brief glance at a forum like Personality Cafe will show that ISxx in particular seem to show more of an interest in personality theory than ESxx for some reason.

I'm also a feeling type because I'm values-oriented more than logic-oriented. Feeling type doesn't mean agreeable, necessarily.

[Marmie Dearest]

Sensors do have better motor proficiency than intuitives (SF with gross motor, ST with fine), but smoothness of movement is actually correlated with P, if you watch some of the Brain Typing videos. So there are many ENFP and ENTP athletes, too, whose lesser dominance in the gross and fine motor regions can make them very flexible and pliable (however, they must practice more). SJ athletes are rarer and more rigid, with the J process inducing inflexibility. (Niednagel's most famous success is predicting how Ryan Leaf, an ESTJ quarterback, would not fare nearly as well as Peyton Manning, an ESTP.)

Anyway, I have read many MBTI books over the years (since 1998) and participated on a wealth of forums, all where people (predictably) wax theoretically over the unfalsifiable system. (Incidentally, your post - like the previous, calling out something for perceived stupidity without empirically testing the system - shouts NT.)

Brain typing is actually more falsifiable - the types do have fairly predictable motor and mental skills (though still subject to some interpretation, which is why it is a protoscience at this point - more work needs to be done), and this is a much quicker, more efficient way of typing people than trying to assess a nebulous "personality," which can change a lot (if I had a dime for everyone who insisted they were a certain type on personality forums, only to adjust it weeks, months, or years later, I could make some nice purchases).

Anyway, you make a good point that someone can occasionally act in a way contrary to their type, especially personality-wise. But when they do it CONSISTENTLY, and it's an observable mental tendency, the type must be called into question.

Let's take Marmie. Looking at more of Marmie's posts to make sure her post here wasn't an anomaly, the fact that she could remotely consider ISFP as a possibility for her type is just mind-boggling. Just a few examples:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1011076&postcount=14
so much concern of logic for a supposedly dominant feeler/animate

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=926971&postcount=340
ooh, calling people morons under pressure! Great example of harmony?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=926647&postcount=64
big picture logical theorizing...sooo ISFP! NOT. *Textbook* NT response.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=926965#post926965
those who disagree, idiots for not using good abstract logic...where is the ISFP humble quietness, wanting to get along with others regardless of logic?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=924712&postcount=20
an SP majoring in an N subject like English lit...and of course calling the poster ignorant...nope, doesn't fit the ISFP mold at all, sorry

I could cite any other of her numerous posts constantly calling out people for perceived abstract logic faults, but this is more than enough. There is nothing SF whatsoever in any of her posts. Practice must fit theory for the theory to hold weight, and Marmie's practices are *anything but* SF.

What happens with Marmie is what happens to many people who misclassify themselves - they have clung to an *idea* (N) of what they *imagine* (N) themselves to be when the *concrete reality* (S) of their posts, actions, etc. consistently reveal nothing of what they *conceptualize* (N) and *theorize* (N) themselves to be. So in the case of Marmie, her mindset is so far from being a sensor and feeler that it's quite funny, but again, quite typical for outspoken NTs (especially ENTP) who frequently mistype themselves and look to argue just about anything regardless of close, introverted empirical observation of true sensing reality.

Speaking as someone who also grossly mistyped herself (by three letters!) and others for years, Brain Typing was an eye-opener - getting away from the majority's bent toward imagination and theory and instead closely examining self and others for what they really are, both motor and mental-wise.

I'm not an NT. A real cool logical NT would be OPEN to your "new theory" and would not call people morons when they were upset, they would be more theoretical (willing to discuss this) and they would behave more rationally.

GeistFaust is an excellent example of an NT. I think Mary might be one too, she never seems upset by anyone disagreeing with her and calling her a troll, despite her strong opinions...which are largely theoretical, massive systems she's created about relations between men and women.

F is one of my strongest letters.

I also have a feeling that you've never read Jung. If you'd had, you'd know that being humble or agreeable has nothing to do with being an Fi dom (IxFP).

[Marmie Dearest]

I should add one important thing to keep in mind for both sides of this debate - theoretically, anyone can support any type assertions with confirmation bias, the Forer effect, and ad hoc hypotheses, just to name a few approaches that complicate typing and lead most scientists to dismiss the MBTI and related instruments as lacking falsifiability. One can no more completely "prove" he or she is a construct called "ESTJ" or "ISFP", et al. than completely disprove they are "ENTP," "INFJ" or whatever. Brain Typing is giving motor and mental clues to go beyond the often-vague terminology of MBTI, but typing in any form (Socionics, MBTI, etc.) isn't some genetic test we can take right now and prove beyond a doubt, nor can we prove/disprove that certain tendencies may be much more highly influenced by environment rather than nature (hence, the debate I have seen on many 16 type forums on whether or not one can "change" their type).

In fact I want you to show me how any of those posts were "theoretical" they were all about me placing my personal values upon facts. There was nothing theoretical about any of the facts I listed, and calling people morons and that sort of thing is a value judgment, it's a feeling judgment.

You're making a common mistake people make in type theory: that sensors are stupid. If that was true, then we wouldn't have had so many SJ and SP presidents. ESFP American presidents include Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

And ISFPs wouldn't have "chutzpah"? Have you ever read a description of the Keirsey Artisans who prize being bold and audacious, taking risks, who want to make a splash and impress others with grand speeches and clever language?

For you to say you even know me well enough to type me is pretty ballsy, especially when you're taking mostly posts that say things to do with facts (S) and values (F) and trying to say they are NT.

Sensors also may refute what they see as logic, because it defies what they consider to be factual or common sense.

Also, a Feeler may have some grasp of logic as they grow older and are educated. It doesn't mean that it's their natural preference or what they prefer to do all of the time.

[Marmie Dearest]

As you can see, I barely use my T functions at all, and while I have decent usage of N, my results point to ISFP here (and also in terms of being a Keirsey Artisan or a PTypes Hedonist i.e. Exuberant personality (ISFP)_

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)

extraverted Sensing (Se) **************************************** (40.2)
excellent use

introverted Sensing (Si) ********************* (21.6)
limited use

extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ***************************** (29.2)
average use

introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************************** (32.7)
good use

extraverted Thinking (Te) ************ (12.2)
unused

introverted Thinking (Ti) ********************** (22)
limited use

extraverted Feeling (Fe) ****************************** (30.1)
good use

introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************************** * (51.4)
excellent use

Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: ISFP

Lead (Dominant) Process
Introverted Feeling (Fi): Staying true to who you really are. Paying close attention to your personal identity, values and beliefs. Checking with your conscience. Choosing behavior congruent with what is important to you.

Support (Auxilliary) Process

Extraverted Sensing (Se): Immersing in the present context. Responding naturally to everything tangible you detect through your senses. Checking with what your gut instincts say. Testing limits and take risks for big rewards.

If these cognitive processes don't fit well then consider these types: ESFP, or INFP


I think my next best type might be INFP by cognitive functions (which may be the "intuitive" thinking developed in me) Or ESFP by temperament (like Keirsey temperament SPs).

[kdm1984]

All I see is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Based on what? Your conceptual biases? Again, have you even evaluated the motor skill assessments of Niednagel empirically? No, you dismissed it on a conceptual presumption without even testing its sensory aspects!


I grew up dancing and singing, and was preoccupied with art and now I enjoy cooking, and animals.

Anyone of any type can enjoy those things. They are not ISFP exclusive.


He also ignores the fact that many SPs (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Anais Nin) were novelists, not all SPs spend their days on a basketball court. Even Keirsey agrees with this.

What makes Keirsey a better typist than anyone else, empirically? Because he is popular and famous in typology circles? Doesn't prove he is better or more correct than anyone else empirically or logically.


For him to say that I wouldn't be interested in MBTI if I were an ISFP is incorrect, and a brief glance at a forum like Personality Cafe will show that ISxx in particular seem to show more of an interest in personality theory than ESxx for some reason.

You are operating on the assumption everyone types themselves correctly. Even if so, Personality Cafe et al is still dominated by conceptual types, if indeed these people are correct in their self-assessments (which we shouldn't automatically assume as correct - again, falsifiability, anyone?)


I'm also a feeling type because I'm values-oriented more than logic-oriented. Feeling type doesn't mean agreeable, necessarily.

Don't see that at all in your posts, either values or agreement orientation.


I'm not an NT. A real cool logical NT would be OPEN to your "new theory" and would not call people morons when they were upset, they would be more theoretical (willing to discuss this) and they would behave more rationally.

Based on whose perspective?


GeistFaust is an excellent example of an NT. I think Mary might be one too, she never seems upset by anyone disagreeing with her and calling her a troll, despite her strong opinions...which are largely theoretical, massive systems she's created about relations between men and women.

Good for her. Then again, why do you expect exact likelihood in all persons of the same temperament to act exactly alike? If so, MBTI would have been proved by science long ago.


F is one of my strongest letters.

Says you. This doesn't prove it in fact or practice.


I also have a feeling that you've never read Jung. If you'd had, you'd know that being humble or agreeable has nothing to do with being an Fi dom (IxFP).

Why is Jung the only authority? What makes him better than Keirsey, Niednagel, et al.?


In fact I want you to show me how any of those posts were "theoretical" they were all about me placing my personal values upon facts.

No. Discussing political theory and calling people morons in the process is not placing personal values upon facts - it's placing harsh opinions on ideas. Calling Brain Typing absurd without even checking it in a sensory or empirical fashion, i.e. assessing motor skills, is a conceptual, intuitive view of something you haven't even introverted on or understood in an empirical fashion. A sensory system that can be evaluated through sensing processes is out there, and you dismiss it based on vague presumptions without even reflecting on it or seeing how it works in the sensing mode. Yet you gravitate toward theoretical cognitive functionality naturally.


There was nothing theoretical about any of the facts I listed, and calling people morons and that sort of thing is a value judgment, it's a feeling judgment.

All versions of the 16 type system I have read say that feelers care about the effects of their actions upon people. Clearly you don't. Also, you like arguing too much to be an introverted feeler. Your values would, after a point, find this too energy-intensive and conflict-oriented to continue further, if you were a real ISFP.


And ISFPs wouldn't have "chutzpah"? Have you ever read a description of the Keirsey Artisans who prize being bold and audacious, taking risks, who want to make a splash and impress others with grand speeches and clever language?

They have physical chutzpah, yes, your Chuck Yeagers and Joe Dimaggios, et al. But off the physical and action side, they aren't debating politics left and right and theoretical systems left and right with strangers. Please.

All your other conceptual arguments are just that - conceptual. Bias toward Keirsey et al. because that is what your intuition has told you. Not any openness toward experiential and sensory reflection of what Niednagel, a fellow IS--, has stated. In fact, you dismissed it without even bothering to read about it. At least I have read up on all the other guys you mentioned, and found them lacking.

[kdm1984]

Since you don't want to take time to evaluate anything Niednagel has said with a sensing eye, here is a good intuitive, generalized, abstract perspective of ISFP that should be up your alley and show you how absurd your assertion is:

http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfp.htm

"People with an ISFP personality are frequently described as quiet, easy-going and peaceful."

You are being anything but quiet, easy-going, and peaceful here.

"ISFPs are introverted. They tend to be reserved and quiet, especially around people they do not know well. They prefer spending time with a close group of family and friends. "

You are being anything but reserved and quiet here regarding your opinions.

"Sensing (S): ISFPs like to focus on the details. They spend more time thinking about the here and now rather than worrying about the future. They also prefer concrete information to abstract theories. "

You ignore details, preferring cognitive function abstract theory to the sensory details of Brain Typing, which you didn't even bother to research because it disagreed with your preconceived idea of type distribution.

"Feeling (F): ISFPs care more about personal concerns rather than objective, logical information. "

Yet you always call out people on logic, absurdity, etc.

I do not doubt you are a P. Moving onward:

"Individuals with ISFP personalities tend to have the following characteristics:

A strong awareness of their environment
Prefers concrete, practical information
Dislikes abstract, theoretical information
Reserved and quiet
Enjoys hands-on learning
Strong need for personal space
Loyal to values and beliefs
Dislikes arguments and conflict"

A lot of these are quite broad and can apply to many people (hence the Forer effect criticism of the MBTI), but you do not dislike argument and conflict - again, if you did, you would have bowed out of this discussion long ago, not make a zillion posts in succession to try and justify your views with some sort of conceptual reasoning. You also clearly do not dislike abstract, theoretical information - Niednagel's concrete, motor skill forward Brain Typing is less abstract and theoretical than anything those intuitives Jung, Keirsey, et al. have put forth.

"ISFPs are very private and keep their true feelings to themselves. In some cases, they may avoid sharing their thoughts, feelings and opinions with other people in their life, even their romantic partners. Because they prefer not to share their inner-most feelings and try to avoid conflict, they often defer to the needs or demands of others."

You haven't done this at all on these forums.

"ISFPs have strong values, but are not concerned with trying to convince other people to share their point of view."

LOL! DOES NOT FIT YOU AT ALL. All your posts here are trying to convince me to share your concepts and ideas!

"They are action-oriented and tend to show their care and concern through action rather than discussing feelings or expressing sentiments. "

Action oriented in the concrete sense means spending less time arguing your points and sentiments online and, coupled with the feeling aspect, more time being warm, cooperative, and quiet in your approach to things. You know, like actually bothering to learn about Brain Typing and its concrete, empirical, sensing traits rather than dismissing it outright and arguing about it in about six consecutive posts.

So, you happen to like animals and think you like value judgments, etc. Again, this doesn't "make" or "prove" you an ISFP any more than any other type. You have many traits that go firmly against ISFP tendencies as well, whether these traits are expressed in a general personality fashion or in terms of mental traits. I'd show you an empirical video of an ISFP, but I know you wouldn't be interested - your mind doesn't like such sensing details. :)

[Marmie Dearest]

They aren't debating politics left and right? REALLY? RONALD REAGAN DIDN'T DEBATE POLITICS?

You don't understand type theory, you are poorly educated in *facts* about personality theories: I actually don't prefer Keirsey exclusively. I happen to be educated about MBTI, Keirsey, and Jungian function theory, as well as lesser systems such as Nardi's neurotyping and PTypes.

My intuition didn't tell me anything: my stored library of facts and observation (and the observation of others) led me to my conclusion.

Your proposed theory is, quite frankly, insane in comparison to EVERY OTHER EXISTING SYSTEM.

No one thinks I'm a T, NO ONE.

I've had people argue that I was an ESFP or INFP, but no one has ever observed that I prefer logic over ethics and values.

I make value judgments. I contend that you still don't know what you're talking about.

In fact, you are probably an Intuitive because you are trying to cram your typing on me without knowing anything about me - you lack real, long-term empirical evidence - unlike me, who has known me my entire life, and the other people in my life who know me well.

I also think you're a jerk, and yes, that's a value judgment, in case you don't know what one is (because you apparently don't).

Nardi's theory of neuroscience is also based on physical observations, including brain ekgs.

I dismiss your theory as ridiculous because it conflicts with ALL existing theories, and it also conflicts with the history of mankind. Most people are clearly SJs.

[Marmie Dearest]

Since you don't want to take time to evaluate anything Niednagel has said with a sensing eye, here is a good intuitive, generalized, abstract perspective of ISFP that should be up your alley and show you how absurd your assertion is:

http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfp.htm

"People with an ISFP personality are frequently described as quiet, easy-going and peaceful."

You are being anything but quiet, easy-going, and peaceful here.

"ISFPs are introverted. They tend to be reserved and quiet, especially around people they do not know well. They prefer spending time with a close group of family and friends. "

You are being anything but reserved and quiet here regarding your opinions.

"Sensing (S): ISFPs like to focus on the details. They spend more time thinking about the here and now rather than worrying about the future. They also prefer concrete information to abstract theories. "

You ignore details, preferring cognitive function abstract theory to the sensory details of Brain Typing, which you didn't even bother to research because it disagreed with your preconceived idea of type distribution.

"Feeling (F): ISFPs care more about personal concerns rather than objective, logical information. "

Yet you always call out people on logic, absurdity, etc.

I do not doubt you are a P. Moving onward:

"Individuals with ISFP personalities tend to have the following characteristics:

A strong awareness of their environment
Prefers concrete, practical information
Dislikes abstract, theoretical information
Reserved and quiet
Enjoys hands-on learning
Strong need for personal space
Loyal to values and beliefs
Dislikes arguments and conflict"

A lot of these are quite broad and can apply to many people (hence the Forer effect criticism of the MBTI), but you do not dislike argument and conflict - again, if you did, you would have bowed out of this discussion long ago, not make a zillion posts in succession to try and justify your views with some sort of conceptual reasoning. You also clearly do not dislike abstract, theoretical information - Niednagel's concrete, motor skill forward Brain Typing is less abstract and theoretical than anything those intuitives Jung, Keirsey, et al. have put forth.

"ISFPs are very private and keep their true feelings to themselves. In some cases, they may avoid sharing their thoughts, feelings and opinions with other people in their life, even their romantic partners. Because they prefer not to share their inner-most feelings and try to avoid conflict, they often defer to the needs or demands of others."

You haven't done this at all on these forums.

"ISFPs have strong values, but are not concerned with trying to convince other people to share their point of view."

LOL! DOES NOT FIT YOU AT ALL. All your posts here are trying to convince me to share your concepts and ideas!

"They are action-oriented and tend to show their care and concern through action rather than discussing feelings or expressing sentiments. "

Action oriented in the concrete sense means spending less time arguing your points and sentiments online and, coupled with the feeling aspect, more time being warm, cooperative, and quiet in your approach to things. You know, like actually bothering to learn about Brain Typing and its concrete, empirical, sensing traits rather than dismissing it outright and arguing about it in about six consecutive posts.

So, you happen to like animals and think you like value judgments, etc. Again, this doesn't "make" or "prove" you an ISFP any more than any other type. You have many traits that go firmly against ISFP tendencies as well, whether these traits are expressed in a general personality fashion or in terms of mental traits. I'd show you an empirical video of an ISFP, but I know you wouldn't be interested - your mind doesn't like such sensing details. :)


There is something wrong with you.

[kdm1984]

Anyway, that is more than enough for this thread. Hard to say how much of this was productive, but just thought I'd throw that out there.

You probably won't be receptive to any of this right now, and who knows who else might. But down the line, I won't be entirely surprised if you (or anyone else biased toward Keirsey et al.) get past your current concepts and ideas and reevaluate yourself at some point, or look at another system WITH SOME DEPTH (without dismissing it outright first) and see if it makes more sense. Again, so many people on personality forums insist and argue in favor of a certain type almost ad nauseam, only to change it a week, a month, or perhaps even years later.

So later, folks. Enjoy your life journey.

[Marmie Dearest]

Anyway, that is more than enough for this thread. Hard to say how much of this was productive, but just thought I'd throw that out there.

You probably won't be receptive to any of this right now, and who knows who else might. But down the line, I won't be entirely surprised if you (or anyone else biased toward Keirsey et al.) get past your current concepts and ideas and reevaluate yourself at some point, or look at another system WITH SOME DEPTH (without dismissing it outright first) and see if it makes more sense. Again, so many people on personality forums insist and argue in favor of a certain type almost ad nauseam, only to change it a week, a month, or perhaps even years later.

So later, folks. Enjoy your life journey.

You just tried to argue like you know me. In real life I am extremely quiet and don't force my opinions on others. I also dismiss your theory because I have collected factual details...which you have not, you attempted to type me via ONE CONVERSATION...no one...NO ONE ...who believed that type was really based in verifiable science would attempt to type a person they just met. I never do, I have to watch a person consistently over time. Because I collect facts. Like a sensor.

You do act like an obnoxious ENTP troll, though, so congratulations on finding your own type.

[kdm1984]

They aren't debating politics left and right? REALLY? RONALD REAGAN DIDN'T DEBATE POLITICS?

What proves empirically that Ronald Reagan was a feeler? Cuz some dude said so? LMAO!


You don't understand type theory, you are poorly educated in *facts* about personality theories: I actually don't prefer Keirsey exclusively. I happen to be educated about MBTI, Keirsey, and Jungian function theory, as well as lesser systems such as Nardi's neurotyping and PTypes.

lol, dearest, there are no "facts" in personality "theories." Ask any scientist. MBTI is not a "fact." If it was, we'd all be getting MBTI assessments for the betterment of all, like we get our blood types evaluated.


Your proposed theory is, quite frankly, insane in comparison to EVERY OTHER EXISTING SYSTEM.

Existing systems of ideas and concepts, of course. But you haven't even bothered to evaluate Niednagel's assertions - you just compared them to previous ideas and concepts, and didn't evaluate them in sensory mode. You are a weak sensor. Period.


No one thinks I'm a T, NO ONE.

Argumentum ad populum. So?


I dismiss your theory as ridiculous because it conflicts with ALL existing theories

ROFLMAO. Of course. Not because it doesn't make sense in the sensory realm, cuz dearest, it does, if you had only the introverted sensory patience to actually even LOOK at how it works.

But you don't.

Anyway, again, your conceptual biases are clear - you don't want to hear any other opinions. I predicted you well, and like I said in a previous post - best to bow out. You don't want sensory detail.

G'night!

[Marmie Dearest]

You are a moron. Take care.

[kdm1984]

You are deluded. Take care. :D

[Marmie Dearest]

What sort of person argues for an empirical system then tries to type a person they don't even know based on speculation?

Who thinks they're right, compared to legions of other people and the person themselves, and argues for it...all the while saying it is empirically provable.

If this person who created this thread wasn't entirely full of shit, they would have politely requested I take the test and then asked for my empirical results.

[kdm1984]

If you were ISFP, you'd bow out of the argument now. You keep trying to one-up me. Not gonna happen, fellow ENTP.

Also, your self-reported results do not prove you are one type or the other. Your actions through time, however, do.

[Marmie Dearest]

If you were ISFP, you'd bow out of the argument now. You keep trying to one-up me. Not gonna happen, fellow ENTP.

Also, your self-reported results do not prove you are one type or the other. Your actions through time, however, do.

I'm not trying to one-up you. I've shown you my results, I am showing you facts, and you are saying...pretty much nothing. Your argument - just like an Ne dom - is based on speculation and hot air, where as I am actually naming facts and established theories and posting test results.

You still haven't explained what kind of stupidity it takes to argue for an empirical system then to not even ask people on the forum for their empirical results.

[kdm1984]

Um, because again, your self-reporting results do not equal empirical facts. Again, self reporting questionnaires do not prove you are one type more than the other. This is MBTI, a notoriously unfalsifiable instrument, a THEORY, not a factual blood type. Results can change depending on years and months. Don't make a conceptual thing an empirical thing, no matter how tempting it is.

Now, prove you are an ISFP: bow out of the argument. :D

[Marmie Dearest]

Um, because again, your self-reporting results do not equal empirical facts. Again, self reporting questionnaires do not prove you are one type more than the other. This is MBTI, a notoriously unfalsifiable instrument, a THEORY, not a factual blood type. Results can change depending on years and months. Don't make a conceptual thing an empirical thing, no matter how tempting it is.

Now, prove you are an ISFP: bow out of the argument. :D

You said that brain skills/motor skills typing was actually based in science, so there must be an empirical test I can take, otherwise it is not different from any other theory, except just more insane.

Being an ISFP doesn't mean saying "you win" and the only argument you've made that I'm not an ISFP..is because you say I'm not one.

Not convincing.

However, I believe your self-typing as ENTP. You act like an ENTP, a really obnoxious one, I usually hate ENTPs ...and I don't hate everyone, so they couldn't possibly take up 50 percent of the population.

[kdm1984]

You can submit your video for observation and analyses and check out the videos yourself. In addition to motor skills, there are also mental skills and syntax/diction patterns. I am typing you based on the latter.

In regards to your last paragraph. what would you say if everyone told me I was INFJ two years ago? Now everyone says I am ENTP or INTP, including you. How did that happen? Types are not supposed to "switch."

[kdm1984]

Btw, I gave a lot of evidence that was not consistent with ISFP a few posts ago, including a link from about.com. You just ignored it.

[kdm1984]

And whether or not you hate most people has no logical empirical bearing on their type. I've hated and liked traits of people who claim all sorts of types.

[Marmie Dearest]

You can submit your video for observation and analyses and check out the videos yourself. In addition to motor skills, there are also mental skills and syntax/diction patterns. I am typing you based on the latter.

In regards to your last paragraph. what would you say if everyone told me I was INFJ two years ago? Now everyone says I am ENTP or INTP, including you. How did that happen? Types are not supposed to "switch."

INFJs share Ti and Fe with ENTPs. They're also both N dominant.

It's possible that you are imitating an ENTP as an INFJ, because you think being an ENTP is cool. I really do not like ENTPs.

I can show you a video of me. People on personality forums have seen my typing video, and I have been typed as ESFP or ISFP on the Keirsey forum, ISFP and ENFP on another.

Someone observing a video isn't more empirically sound than Jungian function theory, or Keirsey, which are both based on watching people too.

So you're totally full of shit, or you're just really not very bright. How can you miss the fact that people are given Jungian and Keirsey types based on observation as well as testing?

Dario Nardi is the only person involved in personality theory that I know of that has actually hooked up machines to people's brains.

And the percentage of introverts also cannot be that small, since they've discovered clear brain patterns for introverted brains (which get overwhelmed more easily) and extroverted brains (which need more stimulation to "light up.")

Overall I'm very unimpressed with anything you've said.

[Marmie Dearest]

Btw, I gave a lot of evidence that was not consistent with ISFP a few posts ago, including a link from about.com. You just ignored it.


No that's not evidence. About.com is not a good resource for personality theory.

Here's my type:


Characteristic Traits and Behaviors


The following ten traits and characteristics are typical of the Exuberant personality type.

Mood swings. Those of the Exuberant temperament tend to experience a greater range of emotion than those of any other type. They are very emotionally reactive.

Artistic inclinations. The Exuberant type is the most inclined of all the types to be involved with the fine arts, music, or literature (Keirsey, 204). They take an artistic approach to all aspects of their lives.

Independent work. Like "the majority of poets, novelists, composers, and to a lesser extent, of painters and sculptors," those of the Exuberant type "are bound to spend a great deal of their time alone (Storr, ix)."

Relationships secondary. Those of the Exuberant temperament "are quite likely to choose relationships which will further their work rather than relationships which are intrinsically rewarding, and their spouses may well find that marital relations take second place (Storr, 107)."

Great productivity. Persons of the Exuberant type are highly disciplined, gifted with superior powers of concentration, and capable of producing great quantities of high quality work; they also enjoy frequent periods of recreation and inactivity.

Disinhibition. They are hedonistic and impulsive; "they live Epicurean lives in the here and now, and as gracefully as possible (Keirsey, 204)."

Keen perceptions. The Exuberant temperament is especially attuned to color, line, texture, shading - touch, motion, seeing, and hearing in harmony. The senses of Exuberant individuals seem more keenly tuned than those of others (Keirsey, 205).

Kindness (Keirsey, 205). Although those of the Exuberant type may adopt an aggressive, tough exterior, they are remarkably gentle, kind, and generous.

Extroversion and introversion. The interpersonal conduct of those of the Exuberant type alternates between the greatest extremes of sociability and social reticence.

Love of nature. In many individuals of the Exuberant type there "may be found an instinctive longing for the natural, the pastoral, the bucolic. They are quite at home in the wilds, and nature seems to welcome them (Keirsey, 206)."




http://www.ptypes.com/artistic.html


You WILL NOT tell me who I am. That is a very obvious trait of Fi types (FPs) and you're so ignorant of Jungian function theory that you don't even recognize Fi or value/ethics judgments when you see them.

Never once did you argue for any of the cognitive functions in anything you said. Instead, you quoted...about.com? As if it's some reputable academic source?

[kdm1984]

I can show you a video of me. People on personality forums have seen my typing video, and I have been typed as ESFP or ISFP on the Keirsey forum, ISFP and ENFP on another.

That would be fine. Keep in mind, however, that just because most people think one is something, doesn't mean they are. Ad argumentum populum, remember. Most people believe in some sort of religion, but atheists insist that doesn't mean religion is really true.


Someone observing a video isn't more empirically sound than Jungian function theory, or Keirsey, which are both based on watching people too.

They do watch people, but they do not connect types with motor skills, as Niednagel has. Niednagel grouped people first on motor skills, and then found a correlation with mental skills and traits, consistent with what Dr. Walter Lowen posited decades ago. This theory didn't come out of thin air, and it's based more soundly on sensing patterns than conceptual personality ones, which change with the wind, as my ENTP/INFJ traits demonstrate, just to name one example. Even in this thread, your personality has taken many turns, too.


So you're totally full of shit, or you're just really not very bright. How can you miss the fact that people are given Jungian and Keirsey types based on observation as well as testing?

Those types are based on observation, but the methodology is very nebulous. People can change their personalities if they want to a degree (again, INFJ/ENTP here!), but not their motor skills.


Dario Nardi is the only person involved in personality theory that I know of that has actually hooked up machines to people's brains.

Actually, Niednagel has, too, with PET scans, if you had bothered to look. Divyen Patel of Genome Explorations has also done testing to confirm some of his hypotheses.


And the percentage of introverts also cannot be that small, since they've discovered clear brain patterns for introverted brains (which get overwhelmed more easily) and extroverted brains (which need more stimulation to "light up.")

Tests with dopamine receptors in the front of the brain call this contention into question. There is some evidence for what you posited, but it hasn't been proven.


Overall I'm very unimpressed with anything you've said.

I haven't been impressed with much of what you have said, either. So?

[kdm1984]

No that's not evidence. About.com is not a good resource for personality theory.

Here's my type:



http://www.ptypes.com/artistic.html


You WILL NOT tell me who I am. That is a very obvious trait of Fi types (FPs) and you're so ignorant of Jungian function theory that you don't even recognize Fi or value/ethics judgments when you see them.

Never once did you argue for any of the cognitive functions in anything you said. Instead, you quoted...about.com? As if it's some reputable academic source?

LOL. That thing you quoted reads like a horoscope - everything is vague and ad hoc. At least the about.com link actually attempts differentiation.

Your cognitive functions, again, are very Ne-forward. You love theories and debating about them. Cognitive functions are THEORY, dear. I already discussed this. Yawn.

[Marmie Dearest]

So, I'm not trying to convince someone else of their personality type, or that my personality theory is best.

I never once pushed my views on you about you, or said any one personality theory is best.

Just that yours is highly likely crap if it claims that fifty percent of people are ENTPs. There is too much - much too much - in the world which requires strict attention to detail for that many people to be Ne dominant.

Ne dominants reject Si, which means they are poor with details and memory.

I actually have an excellent memory, people who actually have observed me for long periods of time claim they say I can memorize things nearly verbatim, conversations, posts, etc.

The difference here is that you are trying to impress me. I am not trying to impress you.

I am just telling you that you are wrong about me.

And that I do not think your theory is sound, and I have explained why, and I will not entertain your arrogant stupidity any longer.

[kdm1984]

So, I'm not trying to convince someone else of their personality type, or that my personality theory is best.

You told me I fit ENTP, that your ideas are better, etc. You. Are. Trying. To. Convince. If you weren't, you would have bowed out long ago. LOL.


I never once pushed my views on you about you, or said any one personality theory is best.

Um, yeah, you did. You said the Niednagel assertions were absurd without even checking out his methodology, you claimed Keirsey and Jung were better, and it goes on and on...


Just that yours is highly likely crap if it claims that fifty percent of people are ENTPs. There is too much - much too much - in the world which requires strict attention to detail for that many people to be Ne dominant.

Maybe your THEORY of Ne, along with others, is a bit too narrow in scope. Remember, most scientists dismiss MBTI outright.


And that I do not think your theory is sound, and I have explained why, and I will not entertain your arrogant stupidity any longer.

You haven't even learned about its methodology, yet you dismiss it as unsound. Calling it unsound, or that I have arrogant stupidity, does not make it so. You haven't proved a damn thing, dearie.

[Marmie Dearest]

Your method of arguing actually seems quite Fe. You are trying to attack me as a person and you keep calling me "dearie" sarcastically. All of this "yawn" etc. betrays a feeling insecurity. You are not a logical thinker, you are a volatile, butthurt, value-judging Feeler.

You also haven't taken into account the fact that IRL - not in writing - I am very quiet and unobtrusive.

Not that I care what you think. No person I know who is actually educated about Jung would call me a T, I cannot stress this enough, and your arguments are speculative and unsound, and don't seem based in any FACTS.

You simply are not presenting any facts to me, you aren't naming functions or quoting sources...you are simply trying to win.

[kdm1984]

You attack me as a person by calling me a moron, lol. Guess it's only okay when YOU do it.

Anyway, nice to see a quick re-assessment. First, I was a sure ENTP because you hate them, now I am a sure INFJ.

You sure are reliable.

You also said you would not entertain my alleged stupidity any longer, yet you keep posting.

I already gave you the fact that MBTI is not a fact at all - it is a theory. No scientists agree that any of this is factual. Just because you self report a conceptual construct of an "ISFP," does not make you some kind of "ISFP." People are all over the place on how they view me depending on the year - doesn't "prove" I am one type more than the other.

Again - MBTI. Is. A. Theory. Not. A. Fact.

Hope that sinks through to you one day.

[Marmie Dearest]

You attack me as a person by calling me a moron, lol. Guess it's only okay when YOU do it.

I never said it was good or bad, I said it's more of a feeling trait. You seem to be a feeler, the longer we talk, you seem to lose this thin sheen of rationality you were pretending to have.


Anyway, nice to see a quick re-assessment. First, I was a sure ENTP because you hate them, now I am a sure INFJ.

Yes because I don't know you. At first I agreed with your self-typing because YOU SAID YOU ARE ENTP...and also because you were mimicking one quite well.

But now it seems you are becoming very wrapped up in the personal element of this argument, you don't really care about proving your theory to me in a factual or abstract manner. You're definitely not being rational.

You are trying to be persuasive. That is a feeler trait.


You sure are reliable.

I don't know your type. I wouldn't say your type definitively. I don't know you at all. For all I know you're playing a part, trolling, or in a bad mood.

I don't know you. And you do not know me.


You also said you would not entertain my alleged stupidity any longer, yet you keep posting.

I already gave you the fact that MBTI is not a fact at all - it is a theory. No scientists agree that any of this is factual. Just because you self report a conceptual construct of an "ISFP," does not make you some kind of "ISFP." People are all over the place on how they view me depending on the year - doesn't "prove" I am one type more than the other.

Again - MBTI. Is. A. Theory. Not. A. Fact.

Hope that sinks through to you one day.

MBTI, Jung, and Keirsey contain facts inside that theory. Of course they are theories, and I've never called them anything but.

But they have facts that you reference inside the theory, it isn't just something pulled out of thin air, there are factual elements to look for to correctly identify parts in that theory.

And unless you are planning on giving me a brain scan, your theory is not any better, in fact in my opinion it is less sound.

You and I could have had an entire conversation about your theory had you been open and honest (that it's really just based in opinion too, that no one has actually scanned your brain, or watched you in a science lab performing different tasks...I presumed that there might be some test that actually tested motor skills, like an IQ test, but there isn't) and also had you kept your opinion of what my type is out of it.

But you are not that rational. You are a feeler, and I feel very sure of this.

Let's say right now that your type is xxFx.

That's all I would guess about you.

[kdm1984]

I never said it was good or bad, I said it's more of a feeling trait. You seem to be a feeler, the longer we talk, you seem to lose this thin sheen of rationality you were pretending to have.

And the more you talk, the more you contradict yourself. Read the posts above - contradictory typings, saying you were done and then continuing, saying theories are facts...you are all over the place. But your high self opinion won't let you see any of your stupid statements - only my alleged ones.


MBTI, Jung, and Keirsey contain facts inside that theory. Of course they are theories, and I've never called them anything but.

But they have facts that you reference inside the theory, it isn't just something pulled out of thin air, there are factual elements to look for to correctly identify parts in that theory.

What facts? Name them, and give sources that prove they are facts and not conjecture, like function theory, which is pure conjecture.

Anyway, my friends who know me the best, who have known me the longest, all agree I am _NTP.

According to your logic, then I must be NTP, because that is the same logic you used to justify your type - "most say I am _SFP" (which which I responded, most people claim religion, too, but atheists say, that is ad argumentum populum).

[Marmie Dearest]

And the more you talk, the more you contradict yourself. Read the posts above - contradictory typings, saying you were done and then continuing, saying theories are facts...you are all over the place. But your high self opinion won't let you see any of your stupid statements - only my alleged ones.

At this point I'm convinced you are ISFJ.

You don't think in web cognition enough to be able to accept contradictory statements - you are too linear in thought - and you have a very literal interpretation of the word "facts" even though I explained the concept of facts inside of the theory.

You also keep talking about me as a person, you great big F.



What facts? Name them, and give sources that prove they are facts and not conjecture, like function theory, which is pure conjecture.

Anyway, my friends who know me the best, who have known me the longest, all agree I am _NTP.

According to your logic, then I must be NTP, because that is the same logic you used to justify your type - "most say I am _SFP" (which which I responded, most people claim religion, too, but atheists say, that is ad argumentum populum).

Okay then you are an NTP, and I'm an SFP.

Because to me you seem ISFJ, or maybe INFJ, and to you I seem...ENTP.

[kdm1984]

ENTP, INFJ, ISFJ...gee, perhaps in a few more posts, I might be ISTP or ENFJ, or perhaps ESTJ or ESFP. Ah, the lack of falsifiability of the MBTI! Great "facts" there.

This thread might be a source of amusement for folks, or it might get them thinking...either way, it's past midnight now, and I gotta get to bed. Think whatever you wish, and have a nice life.

[Marmie Dearest]

ENTP, INFJ, ISFJ...gee, perhaps in a few more posts, I might be ISTP or ENFJ, or perhaps ESTJ or ESFP. Ah, the lack of falsifiability of the MBTI! Great "facts" there.

This thread might be a source of amusement for folks, or it might get them thinking...either way, it's past midnight now, and I gotta get to bed. Think whatever you wish, and have a nice life.

You apparently didn't get my point...you could make absurd conjecture for someone's type based on the very small window you see of them in a single conversation, or through limited information...and give them several different types.

Therefore my typing of you as ISFJ is no more valid than your typing of me as ENTP, because really if you wanted to build an argument for a certain type out of silly conjectures, you can argue for several types.

But only the person themselves, and people who either know them well and/or have watched them for a long time, can really be typed.

The psychiatrist Carl Jung, father of personality theory, knew his patients for years before assigning them a type, you probably didn't know that.

The fact that you'd waltz in here and say you know my type by a single conversation, or a few out of context posts where I was angry about something that strongly crossed my core values, is utterly asinine.

Just as asinine as me saying you're ENTP...no wait you're INFJ...no wait ISFJ...when I know NOTHING about you...except that your thread makes no sense, it still doesn't, because you claim your theory is based in hard science, but from what it sounds like, it's no more "hard science" than Jungian or Kerseian observation, and the only difference is in the measurement of what the person who created this theory calls each type.

However, I still stand by my belief that you are some kind of xxFx. You keep telling me to have a nice life, this conversation is personal for you, like conversations tend to be for Feeling types. There was nothing cool, detached or rational about my discussion with you, and you allowed whatever I said or did to affect you far too easily.

[kdm1984]

I still stand by my belief that you are some kind of NT. You kept dodging the chance to read about the sensory implications of Brain Types, you went off on a zillion conceptual tangents, and you acted as though it's some kind of fact that you are ISFP, Reagan is a Feeler, or any other theory you have read.

See how easy this is?

Actually, you missed MY whole point - to show you the shortcomings of your own system once you jumped in here and acted as though the constructs and percentages of S and N, etc. are some sort of fact, and that this guy's system is inherently more absurd just because he has some reasons for why he thinks ENTP is more common (not that you ever bothered to want to hear it - you have a theory that you want to stick to, naturally). There is nothing that makes MBTI any more legit or factual than Brain Typing. Try going to skepdic.com and looking up both systems - they are both protosciences at best. Might there be something more to them? Perhaps, but neither is at the stage to be proven 100%, or else we'd be able to identify our MBTI types like we do blood types. When it all comes down to it, this is all still conjecture. Brain Typing is trying to make types more concrete, and they have their own methodology, but there is no absolute proof of it, either.

And my comments about have a nice life were sarcastic. That you somehow correlate that with "feeling" and being "personal" in some tenuous way is pretty funny - it was poking fun at your moron and idiot insults that you threw around like a little child. I didn't take any of your comments personally or affect me - I just jokingly threw back insults for you to see how pointless your moron comments were. That could be construed as a one-upmanship tactic. You only choose not to see any of the many points I made as rational because of your confirmation bias of MBTI, your confirmation bias of my type (which you were so insistent was Ne and ENTP a few pages back until you used confirmation bias for other traits you hypothesized as inconsistent with it, etc etc etc).

[kdm1984]

http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html

The most important point to note:

"Furthermore, no matter what your preferences, your behavior will still sometimes indicate contrasting behavior. Thus, no behavior can ever be used to falsify the type, and any behavior can be used to verify it."

[celtics]

brain typing, mbti, it's all hogwash.

with brain typing, i fail to see how motor movements dictate a certain 'type' over the other. fine and gross motor skills are developed through practice and drills. some people might have more athletic genes than others, but everyone can improve their motor skills with time and effort.

with mbti, the personalities of people i know, including myself, cannot be neatly boxed into arbitrary categories. i was very introverted as a child, but now i am very extroverted. i can use intuition, i can sense. i can feel, i can think. i can judge, i can perceive. personalities can adapt and change. it's regrettable that many people simply choose to see themselves as only one way. if you seem one way more than the other, remember it can just as easily change. these things are not set in stone.

the skepticism of these overly rigid typing systems is warranted. we should spend less time trying to box ourselves in and fighting over what box we are in, and spend more time working at being a well-rounded person. we are not a fixed 'type,' we are individuals capable of being any 'type' we want at any moment if we just give the effort.

[Frigga]

Guys, try to refrain from the personal attacks, even if they are subtle. Keep it cordial if you please.

[Curtis24]

This is absurd. If most people were ENTPs the world would be spinning madly out of control, the cultures of the earth wouldn't be based in such practical structure (SJs) and aesthetic development (SPs) with a smaller percentage of the population contributing to new philosophies or scientific inventions.

I am a fan of Nardi's neuroscience of the brain, which is closely tied to MBTI, and by that I am an ISFP, an Fi dominant who is sensitive to the environment and very aware of my own values and desires, wanting social harmony, but willing to rock the boat if it offends my own values...also quicker to respond and moving to action more quickly than the "deeper listening" INFP.

There may be more Ns in the population than some MBTI followers speculate, but half of the population being ENTP sounds ridiculous, and if you understood Jungian cognitive theory, you'd know that sensors are more likely to balk at such outrageous claims without sufficient evidence to back it up than an ENTP would, who are "open to even outrageous possibilities."

I think Niednagel's system is accurate. He is a full-time consultant for the Boston Celtics, paid six figures annually. His system has been verified by neurological scans.

ENTPs(or "FCIR"s) are from 45%-60% of America's population.