Myers-Briggs / MLPTI personality-type conversion chart
post by PhilGoetz · 2011-11-01T20:08:15.110Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 48 commentsContents
48 comments
While psychology wonks have been going on for years about the statistical rigor and calibration of the Big Five, most people have just carried on using the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI), which may not be statistical or scientific but is able to categorize people without insulting them.
A serious critique of the MBTI is the Myers-Briggs entropy distribution paradox (or, "Why are there 16 personality types when everyone I know is an INTJ?") A new personality test which has been gaining ground recently, the MLPTI, does not break up the INTJ into multiple categories; but does reduce the number of bothersome non-INTJ personality types and thus ameliorates the entropy paradox. For those not yet familiar with it, here is a rough translation between MLPTI and MBTI types.
| MLP type |
Traits | M-B types |
| TS | conscientious, introverted, self-conscious |
INTJ |
| RD | impulsive, activity-oriented, high stimulation threshold |
ESFJ, ESFP |
| PP | creative, un-self-conscious |
ENFP |
| AJ | pragmatic, disciplined, outcome-oriented |
ISTJ |
| FS | introverted, empathetic, anxious | ISFJ, INFJ |
| R | extroverted, creative, status-seeking |
ENFJ |
The loss of half of the MBTI categories is not a serious problem, as demonstrated by the fact that you can't even name the ones that were left out without going back and looking. Seriously, when was the last time you met an ENTP?
48 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by ArisKatsaris · 2011-11-01T23:16:18.268Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is about 20% cooler than Myers-Briggs.
comment by Steven_Bukal · 2011-11-01T22:45:02.974Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The accuracy has been doubled!
comment by Multiheaded · 2011-11-04T12:33:40.859Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The loss of half of the MBTI categories is not a serious problem, as demonstrated by the fact that you can't even name the ones that were left out without going back and looking.
On literally any other website, or coming from literally any other poster, I'd be absolutely certain in dismissing this as aggressive trolling. Wait... damnit... is it all just some joke about that damn annoying girls' cartoon? Pshhht.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-11-09T12:30:04.843Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
is it all just some joke about that damn annoying girls' cartoon?
I don't watch enough girl cartoons it would seem. Last one I saw was 'carebears'. Let's see... yup. Pinkie Pie. Fluttershy. Whatever. Not especially funny. If he did one with Jedi, X-Men or Buffyverse characters I might be interested.
comment by Prismattic · 2011-11-02T00:06:30.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Why are there 16 personality types when everyone I know is an INTJ?"
This strongly suggests that "everyone you know" is a nonrandom sample of the population.
Putting the cognitive pieces aside, in the US extroverts heavily outnumber introverts, for starters.
Replies from: PhilGoetz↑ comment by PhilGoetz · 2011-11-02T01:55:26.346Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or it just seems that way, because the introverts stay at home.
Replies from: moe↑ comment by moe · 2011-11-09T12:02:18.059Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or it just seems that way, because the introverts stay at home.
doesn't seem internally consistent with
"Why are there 16 personality types when everyone I know is an INTJ?"
I'd be inclined to believe that
"everyone you know" is a nonrandom sample of the population.
is true of everybody.
The numbers I've seen with reference to introvert/extrovert ratios are 1 introvert to every 3 extroverts in the US. Unfortunately I've seen it in several books that don't provide a direct reference for the ratio. It seems to be treated as common knowledge in that way. Anyone know where it came from?
comment by Scott Alexander (Yvain) · 2011-11-01T20:20:23.372Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ohhhhhhh.... (quietly deletes previous comment)
comment by wedrifid · 2011-11-09T12:35:51.589Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The loss of half of the MBTI categories is not a serious problem, as demonstrated by the fact that you can't even name the ones that were left out without going back and looking.
Maybe an ESFJ couldn't. Any INTP with an IQ above 50 who is vaguely familiar with the system could write them down after a few seconds thought and a glance at the ones you provided. It's a set of four flipping axis with each extreme given a letter. The names are a plain enumeration.
Seriously, when was the last time you met an ENTP?
I saw my sister last week.
comment by shokwave · 2011-11-02T09:20:07.516Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Seriously, when was the last time you met an ENTP?
Hi, nice to meet you. I believe the answer to this is now, "today."
Replies from: Gondolinian↑ comment by Gondolinian · 2015-01-05T01:35:14.861Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And now it is a much later now and today, as I too consider myself an ENTP.
(I tested as INTP for a while, but after reading more about the functions and types themselves, instead of just the heuristics that the tests use, it seems like ENTP fits me best, though I don't identify with all of the stereotypes.)
comment by Unnamed · 2011-11-01T22:51:23.903Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I thought that INTP was the type that inhabited Less Wrong. Where do they go in the new system?
Replies from: wedrifid, James_Blair↑ comment by James_Blair · 2011-11-01T23:58:45.301Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
INTPs seem to match "conscientious, introverted, self-conscious" and no other group of traits. This would file them under TS along with INTJs under the old system.
I still don't know what that means, though.
Replies from: mindspillage↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-11-02T02:40:01.920Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know that "conscientious" is a good descriptor for INTPs; it's not a P strength in general...
comment by erratio · 2011-11-02T00:14:01.042Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
ok, I think I get the joke but I still can't work out what the new type letters stand for. Anyone care to fill me in?
EDIT: Well, that wasn't my theory at all. No wonder I had so much trouble getting the letters to match up to anything plausible!
Replies from: Nornagest, ArisKatsaris, FiftyTwo↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-11-02T00:16:32.376Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
By posting this I feel a little bit like I'm ruining the joke for everyone else, but what the hell. Don't decipher if you're sensitive to that sort of thing. Do decipher if you're not on speaking terms with pop culture, unless the bare invocation of it will set your teeth on edge for weeks or something.
Vg'f na rkgraqrq Zl Yvggyr Cbal ersrerapr.
GF: Gjvyvtug Fcnexyr
EQ: Envaobj Qnfu
CC: Cvaxvr Cvr
NW: Nccyrwnpx
SF: Syhggreful
E: Enevgl
Replies from: PhilGoetz, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by PhilGoetz · 2011-11-02T01:59:05.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I love how rot13 makes all that sound like something you would say to summon Cthulhu.
But I'm sure that's just a coincidence...
Replies from: Nornagest, shminux↑ comment by Shmi (shminux) · 2011-11-02T03:00:04.406Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That explains Yvain's comment. Also, I wish you saved it for Apr 1.
Replies from: PhilGoetz
↑ comment by ArisKatsaris · 2011-11-02T13:41:28.293Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had felt pretty confident that you'd be wrong in your guess, since matching up the letters is easy if one has actually figured it out. But either way, may I ask what your (wrong) theory was? ROT13 it, if you want.
Replies from: erratio↑ comment by erratio · 2011-11-02T15:22:03.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Zl gurbel jnf gung ZYCGV fgbbq sbe fbzrguvat yvxr Zrlref-Oevttf Yrff Cebpenfgvangvat Glcr Vaqvpngbe, onfrq ba gur snpg gung zbfg bs gur zvffvat glcrf ner gur zber pbzzba glcrf ba Yrff Jebat
I'm glad that I asked though, because the correct answer isn't even close to anything I usually think about.
comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-11-01T23:50:17.310Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) . . . is able to categorize people without insulting them.
I am not as certain as you appear to be that this is a good thing.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-11-09T12:38:24.574Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Because insulting people is fun?
Replies from: Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-11-09T21:34:27.041Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Because some personality traits are disadvantageous to people who have them, and some people have personality traits that they would self-modify away from if they were rational actors, etc.
On a meta level, classification systems that have "not labeling anyone as better than anyone else" as a selling point sometimes sacrifice precision or accuracy to do so.
Replies from: lessdazed↑ comment by lessdazed · 2011-11-10T16:56:47.435Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
classification systems that have "not labeling anyone as better than anyone else" as a selling point
They would avoid doing that, but they're told that not labeling anyone as better or worse is just as worthwhile as precision and accuracy.
comment by Shmi (shminux) · 2011-11-01T23:05:42.788Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most people I know who took the test were either ENTP or INTP, with an occasional ENFP, so whatever this unnamed mysterious ungooglable MLPTI thing is, chuck it. Did you just make it up?
Downvoted due to lack of references.
Replies from: Vaniver, KPier↑ comment by Vaniver · 2011-11-03T13:10:21.709Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Downvoted due to lack of references.
Oh, there are references. You just didn't get them. ;3
Replies from: shminux↑ comment by Shmi (shminux) · 2011-11-03T16:13:03.631Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't I know it... now.
↑ comment by KPier · 2011-11-01T23:37:16.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Seconded. I'm ISTP, and don't know any INTJs - the "everyone is an INTJ" phenomenon seems to be pretty obviously a selection effect.
Replies from: MattTagg↑ comment by MattTagg · 2012-06-06T09:50:51.748Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Indeed. Out of 1000+ people I've met, I've never met another person that uses Ni and Te predominantly until 3 months ago.
I walked up to someone in a bar in Mountain View (who was talking to two girls) and said, your an INTJ. His data was just so obviously congruent. That is how Ni works. The next day we were friends and spent 9 hours discussing models and concepts. We got completely lost and because of our repressed Se and being in Ni Te "mode" we forgot to eat.
I keep a database of people and their cognitive functions. Self selection and self reporting biases are the biggest barriers in this game. Something I hope to solve in the next few years.
A test means nothing. It simply tells you what you tell it. The true test is in a person's actions and they way they take information in, make decisions etc.
comment by vi21maobk9vp · 2011-11-02T14:45:17.929Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, people who divide everyone in 2^N classes.
I remember one fellow student tried to classify me.. He said that my being in a random place between some of the categories shouldn't be possible, but agreed that it apparently was.
Of course, creating middle ground on every question resolves every problem you can have with classifications except applications of classification.
Replies from: Pavitra↑ comment by Pavitra · 2011-11-02T15:26:32.217Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not everyone is black, white, or gray; some of us come in blue and orange.
Replies from: PhilGoetz, Oligopsony↑ comment by Oligopsony · 2011-11-02T15:49:09.114Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Clearly the exponent just needs to be higher.
comment by Celestia · 2011-11-02T16:15:10.702Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I approve of this system.
Under MBTI I'm an INTJ, but I think that INTPs better fit under TS than under any other category; they're simply farther from a typical TS.
Also, I propose also putting ESTP under RD. I think the ESP is more important/has more weight than the ESF.
Replies from: ArisKatsaris↑ comment by ArisKatsaris · 2011-11-09T12:13:47.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I approve of this system.
With that name, how could you not? :-)
comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-06-06T11:21:10.003Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Seriously, when was the last time you met an ENTP?
This thing says I am one.
comment by zntneo · 2011-11-08T05:21:17.169Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I still can't get over how much MBTI seems to work on the foyer effect.
comment by James_Blair · 2011-11-01T22:57:07.026Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What does MLPTI stand for? It's hard to look up without knowing that much.
Replies from: PhilGoetzcomment by AKH · 2012-01-09T02:31:54.371Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm gonna go out on a limb that most of you wouldn't climb the tree for. You see I have a severe problem with all of this categorization of traits to determine one's personality type. 6, 9, 16...? It's ridiculous. And limiting. What if I told you that there was a bonafide personality type theory that consists of just 3 personality types based on how we perceive the world? Of course they include the traits listed above, but just not as rigid. All of the old-time personality type theories need to be brought into the 21st century. If Myers and Briggs were alive today I think that they would most certainly change much of their theory.
To learn more please visit: http://wakefielddoctrine.com/about-2/
I would be more than interested in what anyone thinks or has to say.