Jung’s (Myers-Briggs) Personality Test

Jung’s (Myers-Briggs) Personality Test

c4u28A debatable personality assessment that illicits one’s personality traits or psychological preferences when relating to the world and how they make decisions. Some critics argue that the test “lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.” (Wikipedia). Nonetheless, the test is widely used, particularly by marriage counselors, in career counseling, personal development, group dynamics, etc.

The test is devised in a way that gives 16 various combined results based upon 4 dichotomies:

Extraversion (E) – (I) Introversion
Sensing (S) – (N) Intuition
Thinking (T) – (F) Feeling
Judgment (J) – (P) Perception

The greatest majority of people will possess a characteristic from each dichotomy, with the 4 most prevalent being the outcome, or the assessment of the person’s Type Indicator (temperaments).

It is stated that “some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low. Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.” [emphasis added] (Wikipedia). That is a rather large variance for the percentage of re-takers falling into a different type, so the overall validity of the test’s outcome should be considered by the individual taking the assessment, how many times they have taken it, at what intervals throughout their life they have taken it, who administered each assessment, and if they find the outcome to be reliable at all.

For me, I have taken the test multiple times over the years, both via therapists (upon my request) and online. While I find that we all do tend to have our good days and our bad days, and I do not rely on an assessment test to determine my overall makeup, the assessments have been the same result for myself each and every time. (INTP)

If you would like to learn more or take the assessment for yourself:

all links were taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

As an example:



In the creation of all life is a spark. Whether that spark is created from energy colliding with matter or an intelligent entity sending forth a thought, the beginning is created. It is a never-ending argument between science and religion – evolution vs. creationism. A nonsense war, really, for both are right in the core essence governing the Tree of Knowledge, and both are overlooking the one thing that ties them together; a third, bonding, and leading force that governs them both.

Before there was religion, before there was science, there was consciousness, thought, and a unity that saw no differentiation between belief and law. In order to try and explain why the sun came up in one location and set in another, stories began being told. Some deeper thinkers emerged on the scene and began further exploring those fables by using the same questions imposed upon the bards. For centuries it became a unification in such a way that the fables were recited so the masses could understand, while at the same time arose alchemists who were seeing the universe in more systematic, or scientific, way.

The greed for power overtook humanity and the one with power bestowed man-made laws that governed what the people were to believe, and thus the war began. Not a war between scientific intellectuals and religious idiocy, for both factions harbor intellectuals as well as idiots, and both left behind the one thing that bound them in the beginning.

Through the ages these wars saw the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and the Age of Enlightenment, until they reached this point in time, where now neither side even resembles a unifying factor. Instead, both sides prefer to be just as stubborn and closed-minded as they say other side they abhor is being. It is now a war between Atheists and Theists, Science and Religion. No longer does consilience exist, that linking together the principles from different disciplines that form a comprehensive theory.

Both sides have done away with completely, or even broadly, exhibiting a mental grasp of the unity of knowledge. To be an atheist or a theist is the same – both hold out a belief – God exists vs. God does not exist. Neither side can either prove nor disprove God’s existence. Science works on the premise that it must either prove it or falsify it, and when it comes to God, it can do neither. Science did not require the atom to be seen in order to believe in its existence before it perpetrated testing in order to find it. Religion does not require God to exist in order to believe that it does.

In the end, the ‘God-war’ has been the dividing factor between believers and non-believers, science and religion, atheists and theists. Once religion was the almighty power amongst the people, to the detriment of free-thinking and creativity. Today, science is the emerging tyrant, in that many push for science and mathematics upon our children shoving aside the necessity for reading and writing, again, doing away with free-thinking and creativity.

Free-thinking and creativity is what created both science and religion. It came first. One cannot expect to find the answers outside before the questions have been asked inside. Neither science nor religion will be able to answer all the questions man poses within, nor will either be able to prove or disprove all that occurs, no matter how much the believers wish their chosen system to be capable of doing so.

Consilience – the bridging of the minds through gained knowledge from every mind, both scientific and religious. Science and Religion, you cannot have one without the other, for both are reliant on the first creation – thought. Without mind, the body and the spirit both cease to exist. Without body, mind does not exist and the existence of spirit is not known. Without spirit, both the mind and the body fail to function for the betterment of mind and remain empty.


A rare experience of a moment at daybreak, when something in nature seems to reveal all consciousness, cannot be explained at noon. Yet it is part of the day’s unity.” ~Charles Ives

And suddenly, like light in darkness, the real truth broke in upon me; the simple fact of Man, which I had forgotten, which had lain deep buried and out of sight; the idea of community, of unity.” ~Ernst Toller

While the greatest majority of things referenced can be looked up with minimum effort, this is not a means to persuade nor condemn; the views expressed here are solely my own. I’ve grown weary of the stubbornness, the closed-minded behaviours, and the assumptions imposed upon myself and others like me, by those that refuse to acknowledge the most basic of truths – we are all human, prone to err, and there is no one, bar none, that has all the answers, right or wrong.

I am neither scientific, nor religious, I am a human that operates as a realist that bridges personal experiences by asking, inwardly, questions first, then seeking understanding outside, via either validation or debunking, second. If there is no answer, for some things cannot be explained, then it simply is what it is, no matter what others ‘believe’. That is my consilience.




geopol_lgA human-prone fallacy that most do not wish to admit. For one to admit that their perception was incorrect would mean one admitting that there is a fault that lies within their own sense-ability to become aware of a situation or another humans thought, idea, or persona. In a general sense, it could be attributed to one relying on assumptions instead of putting forth an effort to acknowledge the other person for who and what they truly are or what they are saying.

Through many, and years worth, of experiences, it has become clear that most mis-perceptions are derived from another person’s inability to comprehend what is being put forth in front of them. The inability to comprehend usually stems from either not fully listening or reading what another person has said, or culminates from a static mindset that cannot negate its own perceptions in order to see another’s thought patterns in a different way. With the latter is a tendency to only see what one wishes to see within a situation and if a single statement or action is made that contradicts the mis-perceiver, that single act or statement is taken out of context in an ‘ah-ha’ moment in order to further prove the mis-perceiver’s already mis-perceived notion of who the other person is and what they are truly all about.

Mis-perceptions go both ways, though. Quite often a person does not fully explain themselves, believing that what they say is easily discernible by another who puts forth an effort to understand. In this situation, it puts the receiver of the less-than-forthcoming information in a position to misunderstand and thus, that person is perceived as being illogical, unlearned, or simply not at a level of comprehension that the one disseminating the information believes they should be, even when/if the receiver requests further explanation.

There are those that do not comprehend certain matters in life no matter how many times or how many different ways it is spelled out to them. In a sense, this is true of everyone. If it doesn’t fit into our already conceived perceptions, then it quite often doesn’t make sense and we walk away shaking our heads wondering what it will take to make another understand. That too, is a mis-perception.

Everyone walks through this life with their own pre-conceived ideas, thoughts, ethics, etc. No matter how hard some try to be open-minded, even when pushed up against others that are not, there is no one way, and in some cases no way at all, to make someone see our point of view or understand our own set of perceptions. The best anyone of us can do is to acknowledge that everyone has the right to be who they are, just as we have the right to either carry on a conversation with them or walk away, so long as we are also acknowledging that we too, have the right to be who we are.

In a worse case scenario we run up against people that refuse to be open-minded enough to see outside their own perceptions, and in turn they decide for themselves that our perceptions are either ignorant, ill-conceived, juvenile, or whatever. So be it. There is nothing anyone can do to change another person’s mind. All we can do is place our own perceptions on the table and leave it there for others to either partake in it at their will, or ignore, either way, it is their choice to make. Likewise, it is our choice to be either open-minded and give every thought, idea, person, a chance to present their perceptions that we can either partake in or ignore, or be as close-minded as we may perceive others to be.

It all comes down to us walking our talk. If others wish to continue viewing us as being something that we know we are not, that we have fully expressed we are not, then we should allow them their mis-perceptions of us. By trying to make someone see things our way, we are missing the point that our paths are our own, and to stop in order to overcome someone else’s misperception, means deviating from our own trip on life’s short road.

above image:
Birth of the New Man
Salvador Felipe Jacinto Dali
(11 May 1904 – 23 Jan 1989)

Label for Everyone

Label for Everyone

Spoken-like-a-true-realistDefinitions suck! In order to placate to the ideology of individualism, the most simple and basic of terms is broken down into so many variants that it completely loses its meaning while people trying to understand it all completely lose their minds. All the while these ideologies are creating nothing more than various sets of collectivistic phenoms which destroys the individualistic idea. The best part of it all… the individual doesn’t even realize it!

Whatever happened to the basics? Is the glass half full, half empty, or twice as large as it needs to be? The Optimist, the Pessimist, the Realist!

Apparently… Not good enough!

I like to occasionally look up words that people toss around like a frisbee in order to better understand what they are talking about. Today, I started with ‘realist’. Apparently there is no such thing anymore. Heck, with the multitude of sub-groups, each having their own defining position within what it means to be ‘real’, just about everyone can be classified as a realist nowadays. And any true realist knows that is not the case.

Realism, Realist or Realistic are terms that describe any manifestation of philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers, whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences. In this broad sense it is frequently contrasted with Idealism. ~wikipedia [emphasis added]

“In this broad sense…” Yes, let’s ascribe more detailed senses to it then, shall we?

  • Realism in the arts concerns the depiction of subjects as they appear in everyday life.
  • Political realism is a dominant school of thinking within the international relations discipline that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions.
  • In ethics moral realism takes the view that there are objective moral values.
  • Scientific realism is the view that the world described by science is the real world and Mathematical realism a branch of philosophy of mathematics. (notice there are two nestled in here together)

But wait! What it means to be a realist doesn’t stop there, oh no… it goes on!

Philosophical Realism:

Realism as a philosophy of mind is rooted in the “common sense” philosophy of perception known as naive realism, which has been developed as “direct” realism when distinguished from representative realism, the view that we cannot perceive the external world directly. Critical realism is the philosophy of perception concerned with the accuracy of human sense-data. In epistomology realism is accounted a subcategory of objectivism. Hyper-realism or Hyperreality, on the other hand, doubts the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy. Transcendental realism is a concept implying that individuals have a perfect understanding of the limitations of their own minds

In metaphysics Platonic realism decribes a philosophy articulated by Plato, positing the existence of universals. Moderate realism is a position holding that there is no realm where universals exist. New realism (philosophy) denotes a school of early 20th-century epistemology rejecting epistemological dualism and Organic realism or the Philosophy of Organism, decribes the metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, now known as process philosophy. [Australian realism]] or Australian materialism is a 20th Century school of philosophy in Australia. Truth-value link realism is a metaphysical concept explaining how to understand parts of the world that are apparently cognitively inaccessible.

Cornell realism is a view in meta-ethics associated with the work of Richard Boyd and others.Quasi-realism is an expressivist meta-ethical theory which asserts that though our moral claims are projectivist we understand them in realist terms. In religious philosophy Christian Realism was advocated by Reinhold Niebuhr and Mystical realism, a philosophy concerning the nature of the divine, was advanced by Nikolai Berdyaev. Constructive realism and Entity realism are philosophical positions within scientific realism. Modal realism is a philosophy propounded by David Lewis, that possible worlds are as real as the actual world.

Did you count them all? I did – 19/20! That’s 19/20 subgroups of realism, and those are just under the subtitle of Philosophical Realism.

Let’s move on…

Socio-political Realism:

Legal realism is the theory that law is made by human beings and thus subject to human imperfections. Left realism and Right Realism are contrasting theories about the prevention and control of crime. Classical political realism holds that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies while Liberal realism or the “English school of international relations theory” centres upon the theory that there exists a ‘society of states’. Defensive realism is a theory that anarchy on the world stage causes states to increase their security while offensive realism takes the view that states will exploit opportunities to expand whenever they are presented. Neorealism or structural realism is theory that international structures act as a constraint on state behavior. Post-realism sees international realism as a particular rhetoric of international relations while Subaltern realism concerns the theory that Third World states are more concerned with short term gains.

For real? Well apparently so, since it all falls under the term ‘Realistic’, right?

Artistic Realism:

Realism in theatre denotes any movement towards greater fidelity to real life, as in Kitchen sink realism, an English cultural movement in the 1950s and 1960s that concentrated on contemporary social realism, or Poetic realism, a film movement in France in the 1930s that used heightened aestheticism. In the visual arts the term denotes any approach that depicts what the eye can see, such as in American realism, a turn of the 20th century idea in arts, Classical Realism, an artistic movement in late 20th Century that valued beauty and artistic skill. Literary realism particularly denotes a 19th century literary movement. Neorealism is a movement emphasising realism in cinema and literature while the New Realism is an artistic movement founded in 1960 by Pierre Restany and Yves Klein. Romantic realism is an aesthetic art term popularized by writer/philosopher Ayn Rand. Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel.

Forms of political realism in the arts have included Nazi heroic realism or the art of the third Reich, a style of propaganda art associated with Nazi Germany, Social realism, an artistic movement which depicts working class activities, and Socialist realism, a style of propaganda art associated with Communism.

Photorealism is a genre of painting that resembles photography, Hyperrealism (painting) resembles high resolution photography while Pseudorealism, is a term coined by American film critics to describe films in which digital unreal images are created and amalgamated with regular scenes thereby creating an illusion that is difficult to distinguish from reality, or a genre of art initiated by Indian artist Devajyoti Ray where reality is approached via abstraction Surrealism and Magic realism are artistic genres in which magical or impossible elements appear in an otherwise realistic setting.

Now please, don’t get me wrong, I understand, in a forced laborious way, that there are realistic issues within every single facet of life. Sure, the realistic properties of legal realism is that there are laws and guidelines, as well as blood sucking parasites that carry briefcases (ever wonder why is it called a ‘brief’ case? ;)). But what is the meaning of breaking it down so far that it no longer holds any value for one to call themselves a realist? Now, whenever I see someone say that, I am going to be prompted to ask them, “What kind of realist are you?”

I was going to do a little quip about realism vs. idealism vs. surrealism, but let’s be realistic… the lines are so blurred thanks to everyone wanting so badly to be their own individual title that there is little to no difference anymore. Give you one guess as to which ‘realistic category’ this last statement falls under.


P.S. With reference to the half-n-half glass: one must not forget about the opportunist who drinks the glass’ contents while others debate the glass’ status.


Other fields

  • Depressive realism, a theory that individuals suffering from clinical depression have a more accurate view of reality
  • Ethnographic realism, a writing style, in anthropology, which narrates the author’s experiences and observations as if they were first-hand

See also

Oh yea, it went on….

Narcissistic Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder

MASKS-1024x423As if one disorder was not bad enough to cope with, the combination almost seems unbearable, if not borderline psychotic, at times. Having grown up with a family member that possessed both these disorders to a minute degree, life was not easy. There never really seemed a moment when ‘everything was okay’, for the pain someone with NPAPD inflicts is not easily remedied or healed.

Most times it is not totally the fault of the one with NPAPD, for they often do not realize how their behaviour is detrimental to others. When confronted with how they have hurt someone, or how they seem to be neglecting someone, they most times make excuses for their behaviour and/or truly believe they have done nothing wrong. In that event, they will usually become defensive and lay blame on the receiver of their actions, and the receiver most times begins feeling guilty.

After growing up with someone who possessed both Narcissistic Personality Disorder as well as Passive-Aggressive Behaviour, I ended up in relationships that mimicked the one I grew up with. First getting involved with someone that was P-A, then with someone that had NPD, then someone, who again, possessed both, but to a more serious degree.

As with all mental and physical disorders, not everyone can be lumped into an umbrella category for there are various stages or levels ranging from acute to chronic or minor to major.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.


A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

  • React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
  • Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
  • Have excessive feelings of self-importance
  • Exaggerate achievements and talents
  • Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
  • Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
  • Need constant attention and admiration
  • Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy
  • Have obsessive self-interest
  • Pursue mainly selfish goals


Passive-Aggressive Behaviour:
…a chronic condition in which a person accepts the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry. This affects almost all interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a method of dealing with stress or frustration, but it results in the person attacking other people in indirect ways. This disorder can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or intentional failure at doing requested tasks.

There are certain behaviors that help identify passive-aggressive behavior. 

•    Obstructionism 
•    Procrastination 
•    Resentment 
•    Resisting suggestions from others 
•    Sullenness 
•    Ambiguity 
•    Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness 
•    Blaming others 
•    Chronic lateness and forgetfulness 
•    Complaining 
•    Not expressing hostility or anger openly 
•    Fear of competition 
•    Making excuses and lying 
•    Fear of dependency 
•    Fear of intimacy 
•    Fear of authority 
•    Fostering chaos 
•    Intentional inefficiency


The main problem for someone who lives with those inflicted with NPAPD is believing that they can help the other person. It is well known that the first step to receiving any help is the person inflicted needs to admit, believe, and understand they have a problem. If there is no admittance, no amount of help a spouse, a child, a friend, offers is going to do either party any good. On the contrary, it can cause a much more harmful and hurtful relationship, for the receiver may begin to feel victimized. Once that occurs, the NPAPD will feel a sense of victory and the victim could end up either depressed and/or resentful.

Another problem for someone who lives with another who is inflicted with NPAPD is being too compliant. It is necessary for one to understand what disorders their loved one is experiencing and try to remain calm at times when the other person begins acting out their disorder. But for a person to placate every whim of someone inflicted with these disorders also places that person in an unhealthy submissive position.

Is there a happy median, then? For those that are strong at heart, calm in demeanor, and resilient, yes. What that happy median is can only be felt by one capable of being so, for I have found the best way for me to cope with others who are inflicted with Narcissistic Passive-Aggressive Disorder is to always be open, honest, calm, and firm in all verbal communications. It behooves neither person to get into an all-out verbal war. Most often, the best remedy is to walk away and allow those with NPAPD to continue living their lives with the hope that they will someday passively learn their own lessons, for inside they are aware of most of their wrong-doings but either too afraid or too staunch to change their ways. Either way, it is not a benefit for others to suffer at their hands, for if we continue to hold out too much hope by sticking around and watching as the NPAPD goes about destroying their own lives through the vitriolic destruction they impose on us, we forever remain victims without a will to carry on.