ISFJ

(This one's for M. Sinclair Stevens and GenX Theorist)

I just took an online personality test based on both Carl Jung's theories on psychological types and on Myers-Briggs research on personalities. I have to say that while some of this seems totally right on target, I found the test irritating because for much of it there was an either or choice where my answer would have been right in the middle. I can't help but wonder what it indicates if the possible answers to the questions don't fit with reality. There's a whole slew of questions that try to place you in either the emotional or the logical thinker camp. I'm neither. When I weigh problems or thoughts in my head I try to take both into account at all times. I am a very emotional person but I'm also a very good critical thinker and I know when emotion is leading my feelings, I always try to figure out if those emotions are anchored by good reason. They are not mutually exclusive.

I rely heavily on my instinct to guide me. Instinct is no more than a finely tuned extremely sensitive emotional response to outside stimulation. Often, I have found, my instinct is based in good reason. It senses when I'm dealing with a dangerous situation and if I respond accordingly, I am responding to my emotions, but later, upon examination, I often find that those feelings were based on calculable probabilities. Ooh, that sounds much me scientific than I am accustomed to sounding. I am on rocky territory when I start trying to sound intellectual.

What I'm trying to say is that I object to anyone who tries to suggest that being emotional and being logical are oxymorons. A person who takes pride in never making decisions emotionally, who takes pride in only being logical, is (in my opinion) a fraud. I am a pretty good debater and the whole logic versus emotional angle that gets thrown out in debates is a pet peeve of mine. It reminds me of my dad and my Grandpa Tom saying things like "It's not personal, it's just business" or "You can't be so emotional when making decisions" or how about this one "You're a bleeding heart like the rest of those liberals". All of these kinds of statements put a premium on using your head rather than your heart.

As though the heart was a weaker organ than the head. My head, however, is only good at processing the incoming information, my heart is quicker to recognize a fraud. My heart, my nerves, my spider senses are much quicker to point out danger, to see curves ahead, and to register a faulty argument. My head sorts out all this information, but my heart gets there first every single time.

It's my opinion that the strongest person, the best scientist, the most powerful business person is a person who uses both their head and their heart in tandem. I'm not suggesting that they make decisions that benefit anyone besides themselves, using your heart doesn't automatically mean you're not acting in an ass-hole capacity, only that you use your instinct as much as your head. Emotions aren't automatically positive, consider greed, anger, revenge, a drive for personal power, all these are emotions or actions based strongly on emotions. A desire for power is ultimately an emotional need, not a logical one.

So in taking this test, I am being guided to put myself in either the logical camp, or the emotional camp. I'm supposed to either enjoy social life, or be a loner. But what if I'm more complicated than that? I love to talk to new people, I enjoy people in general, I love hanging out with friends, but at the same time I need way more alone time than I get in order to recharge, and I hate parties. HATE PARTIES. One question asks if I consider myself a "social butterfly" or a "loner". I don't consider myself to be either. I find certain social situations easy and enjoyable to experience, but I also like to be by myself. I'm not one or the other. I have a certain measure of both.

So, how do I know if these test results are an accurate reflection of my personality? Is it possible that I just can't see the accuracy because I don't see myself as I really am? I always wonder about that. My sister recently said how we always see ourselves so differently than others do. But I'm not personally convinced of this, but is it arrogance on my part to think I often know other people much better than they suspect I do? I am a good reader of people, though often I don't tell others exactly how I read them because most people really dislike feeling like an open book. Is it possible I read others much more accurately than I read myself? Or am I actually not reading anyone well at all?

I would especially love to hear from M.S.S. and GenX on this subject as both of you have studied the Myers-Briggs system and are quite interested in this subject. Tell me your thoughts. Anyone else is welcome to give their two cents too. What do you all think about these questions? How wrong do you think I am? What are your own questions or thoughts on this?