Personality Questions

Just for fun, and because I had never done it before and had always wondered just what sort of person I am (you’d think by this point in my life that I’d have some idea, but then again, who knows? Maybe I would be more fulfilled as a rock star or a maker of scrimshaw art for tourists. Or maybe I just need to nail down my dissertation topic. Any suggestions?), I took this online version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test. As with most people, the test largely confirmed some things I already knew about myself, but came with a few surprises. It turns out that I am an INTJ, otherwise classified as a pragmatist or mastermind (sounds impressive, doesn’t it?) It also appears that my personality type is fairly rare, shared by only 2% of the population.

According to the article to which the test results link, “INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.” Some of that is true of me, I think—actually I think the pragmatism toward which I tend is part of the problem that Dave and I have been talking about recently. The short version is this: I can see and appreciate the pragmatics of teaching college students to think clearly and write effectively. This activity involves an obvious social good, both to the students and to the professional and social communities they will eventually join. Therefore, I have no trouble seeing myself doing it for the next 20 or 30 years. I am having a more difficult time understanding the pragmatics of doing research in literature (though Dave’s advice and encouragement has been helpful). Particularly, I want to know how best to use the abilities I have to serve the church and participate meaningfully in the society to which God has called me. Is writing articles that will be read by an average of 2 people the best way to accomplish these things? Is spending hundreds and hundreds of hours writing a dissertation (again, read by few, if any, people not on my committee)? Maybe. Stanley Fish, for example, has said recently in his NYT Blog (and in contrast, though not direct contradiction, to my efforts to find value in my work) that the whole point of academic work is that it cannot, and should not, be justified in anyone else’s terms:

If the point of liberal arts education is what I say it is – to lay out the history and structure of political and ethical dilemmas without saying yes or no to any of the proposed courses of action – what is the yield that justifies the enormous expenditure of funds and energies? Beats me! I don’t think that the liberal arts can be justified and, furthermore, I believe that the demand for justification should be resisted because it is always the demand that you account for what you do in someone else’s terms, be they the terms of the state, or of the economy, or of the project of democracy. “Tell me, why should I as a businessman or a governor or a preacher of the Word, value what you do?” There is no answer to this question that does not involve preferring the values of the person who asks it to yours. The moment you acquiesce to the demand for justification, you have lost the game, because even if you succeed, what you will have done is acknowledge that your efforts are instrumental to some external purpose; and if you fail, as is more likely, you leave yourself open to the conclusion that what you do is really not needed. The spectacle of departments of French or Byzantine Studies or Classics attempting to demonstrate that the state or society or the world order benefits from their existence is embarrassing and pathetic. These and other programs are in decline not because they have failed to justify themselves, but because they have tried to.

Interesting to think about… though it doesn't solve the problem, exactly, of justifying it to myself. But I'll save that for another day.

Anyway, since we seem to be too busy to post much these days, why not spend five minutes taking the online knock-off of the Myers Briggs? We could learn something about each other, and what’s easier to talk about than yourself?

Other highlights from my new-found “Mastermind” self:

“INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect…” [Hmmm… reminds me of that song Steve wrote about my Kodon experience]

“Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship.”

Other Famous INTJs

Jane Austen
Peter Jennings
C. S. Lewis
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rudy Giuliani
Donald Rumsfeld
Colin Powell
Lance Armstrong
John F. Kennedy

Fictional INTJs

Gandalf the Grey
Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs) [hmmm… is this a good sign?]
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Hamlet)