Tag Archives: Fresh Perspective

What’s Your Jung Typology: The Answer May Surprise You!

After having majored in psychology during my undergrad and then specialized in transpersonal psychology during grad school, it’s fair to say that I’m curious about the make-up of humans from a psychological perspective. A few weeks back, I wrote a post about how I scored on . In light of this post, I thought I would continue to write posts about how I scored on other tests.

For today’s post, I thought I would do some tests that claim to be able to accurately assess one’s :

These tests are based on the work of Carl Jung, David Kiersey, Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs. They are similar in underlying theory to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Kiersey Temperament Sorter. They measure four bipolar factors, Introversion/Extroversion, Thinking/Feeling, Intuition/Sensing, and Judging/Perceiving.

Having been a psychology student for as long as I have, I’m familiar with the MBTI and have taken the actual test on a couple of different occasions enough to know where I usually score on the four bipolar factors. In fact, part of my interest in taking the few tests with this was to see if the assessment was accurate.

The first test I took was a . Initially, you enter your gender and then you are taken to a page with 36 pairs of words wherein you are asked to select the position between the words (5 spaces) where you exist between the words. I thought that this was rather interesting. I’d never taken a paired word test to assess my before.

At the conclusion of the test, I was a little surprised by the results. The system assessed me as an ENTJ. Extroverted, iNtuitve, Thinking, Judging. I found this surprising because I’m almost always an ENFJ when I take tests like these (Feeling instead of Thinking). The mini-description for ENTJ:

ENTJ – “Field Marshall”. The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 1.8% of total population.

After reading the “quick” description, I’d say that’s a fair assessment of who I am (or who I want to be). Then, I read the :

decisive, fearless, planner, thrill seeker, engaged, social, self-centered, comfortable around others, image conscious, likes to be center of attention, adventurous,outgoing, manipulative, emotionally stable, leader, ambitious, hard-working, dominant, prepared, hates to be bored, confident, opinionated, analytical, prepares for worst case scenarios, organized, orderly, clean, driven, resourceful, finishes most things they start, achieving, risk taker, desires fame/acclaim, image focused, narcissistic, arrogant, perfectionist, driven, academic, scientific, critical, avoids giving in to others, does not like to compromise, skeptical. [Emphasis added]

I’ve bold-faced the words that I do feel strongly about (in that they do describe me) and I’ve italicized some of the negative adjectives that I’ve heard used to describe some of the things I’ve done in the past. When I inquired with those who thought I was arrogant, I learned that this had more to do with the way I conveyed information. With regard to manipulative — this is a word I remember being tossed around when I was a kid. I was told that I was quite good at getting my way (I don’t remember, really!) And lastly, “avoids giving in to others” – translation: stubborn; yes, I can agree to this one. I know that I can be, at times, stubborn.

I then proceeded to look for some other tests that were meant to assess the same measure. . This test, like the first, had the participant enter in their gender. Then, there was a page of 48 statements that the participant was to rate on a scale from very inaccurate to very accurate (5 choices). At the conclusion of this test, I was greeted by familiar results:

ENFJ – “Persuader”. Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be. 2.5% of total population.

I then went onto read the long-description of the ENFJ:

outgoing, social, attention seeking, emotional, loving, organized, comfortable around others, involved, open, hyperactive, complimentary, punctual, considerate, altruistic, easily hurt, religious, neat, content, positive, affectionate, image conscious, good at getting people to have fun, easily excited, perfectionist, assertive, ambitious, leader, hard-working, seductive, touchy, group oriented, anti-tattoos. [Emphasis added]

With the ENTJ description, I highlighted 10 adjectives that I agreed with (and 3 adjectives that I have heard people refer to me in the past) for a total of 13. With this ENFJ description, I’ve highlighted 17 adjectives that I feel accurately describe me at the present moment.

So, I decided to take one more . This test was very different from any other Jung typology test I had seen. On this test, (you had to select your gender, of course), there were 48 adjectives. Under each adjective were two rating scales (each with 5 spaces) where the participant is asked to rate their ideal selves and their real selves. In effect, the test is trying to gauge where you are and where you wish (or want) to be. I thought that this could be interesting, so I took the test. My results: ideal type – ENTJ; real type – ENFJ.

How interesting. So, maybe the first test I took wasn’t off like I thought it was. Maybe it was just a better measure of my “ideal” self. Either way, I thought it was pretty cool to take this last test and get a result that validated my first two results. In the end, I am glad that I found this site with these tests because it gave me a different window into my Jung Typology. For as long as I can remember, I’ve always scored as an ENFJ on these sorts of tests, but it’s interesting to now have a different perspective in that maybe I really wish I were an ENTJ. If you only have time to take one test, I’d advise taking the . The results may surprise you!

Spirituality From an Unlikely Source: Will Smith

I was on YouTube like I had been a and on the sidebar, I noticed a video under the suggestion heading by the title of: . I’ve always subscribed to the theory that our words and thoughts have an effect on the world around us (check out our or , and you’ll see some of the kinds of books that I recommend discuss these principles in their books), but I didn’t expect this kind of wisdom from a famous actor.

It’s not that I don’t think that Will Smith has the capacity to understand or even believe these kinds of things, it’ s just that with entertainers, it’s harder to imagine them outside of some of the roles they’ve played. After watching the almost 10-minute video of many clips spliced together where Will advocates the theory that our thoughts have a decided effect on the outcome of our lives, I couldn’t help but write a post here about it. In fact, I’ve even included the video at the end because I really think it’s worth the 10 minutes it takes to watch it.

One of the interesting perspectives that he offers is on talent and skill. He says:

Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft.

I think that there is definitely truth to this and it is backed up by the work of in his book . In it, Gladwell purports that to be over-the-top successful at something, you need to spend upwards of 10,000 hours doing that something. Gladwell cites an example of , explaining to the reader that for 4 straight years, The Beatles were able to perform live in Germany. In this time, Gladwell claims that The Beatles accumulated over 10,000 hours of (practice) at their craft and that when they came back to England, they were an instant-hit. Gladwell also cites the example of Bill Gates who, when in high school, gained access to a computer. Gates spent nearly all of his free-time on this computer, accumulating hours and hours of (practice), which eventually led to .

Another interesting quote from the video:

You don’t try to build a wall. You don’t set out to build a wall. You don’t say I’m gonna build the biggest, baddest, greatest wall that’s ever been built. You don’t start there. You say, I’m gonna lay this brick, as perfectly as a brick can be laid. And, you do that every single day, and soon you have a wall.

I’m sure this concept is not new to anyone, about “,” but it’s something that I think is worth repeating, and I think it’s also adds a different level of authority to hear someone like Will Smith say it.

I want to do good. I want the world to be better because I was here.

Wouldn’t it just be fabulous if we all walked around with this attitude: wanting the world to be better because we were here. Performing acts, volunteering, making a difference – making the world a better place.

I just believe that. I believe that I can create whatever I want to create.

Around of the video, he begins talking about how our thoughts are physical things in the universe.

Our thoughts, our feelings, our dreams, our ideas — are physical in the universe. That, if we dream something, if we picture something, if we commit ourselves to it, that is a physical thrust towards realization that we can put into the universe. That the universe is not a thing that’s gonna push us around. That the world and people and situations are not something that’s gonna push us around. That we are gonna bend the universe and command and demand that the universe become what we want it to be.

Celebrities can be a mixed bag. They can run the spectrum from those that are having a hard go of things, like , to those like Will Smith who use their celebrity for other means. Whenever I learn that a celebrity is involved in the kinds of thinking that Will Smith is, I can’t help but smile just a little bit, knowing that maybe our world really is changing faster than we know.

The Next Facebook: We’re Asking The Wrong Question

I wonder what it is about humans that make us so eager to find the next something. Awhile after eBay made it big with their online auction site, there were articles that popped up in newspapers, magazines, and other writing outlets, positing what would be the next eBay. Even though eBay has been around for nearly 15 years, there are still articles written about what will be the next eBay (a sampling: , , and ). The confusing thing for me is, why are we looking for the next eBay, shouldn’t we be looking for the next big thing — in general?

The same question that was asked when eBay made it big is being asked about Facebook now that it has gotten so big. “What’s going to be the next Facebook?” (Again, a sampling: , , and .) I can even remember an article about how one of the original investors in Facebook, , thinks that . How, or maybe more accurately, why are these people trying to figure out what the next Facebook is going to be? I wonder if it’s more a stature thing. They are asking about what is going to be the next big thing rather than what will bump these internet companies from atop the food chain.

Some of the articles I’ve read about this area really trying to figure out what is going to usurp eBay or Facebook from their status as an online auction site (or social networking site, in Facebook’s case). To my mind, there really won’t ever be a next eBay or a next Facebook. The technology that knocks Facebook off of its pedestal will not be seen coming as the next Facebook. It might even be something totally different. It could be something more scientific, really, that garners support and slowly starts to grow across a few industries. I think it’s ludicrous to think that there will be a next anything with regard to the kinds of technology and organizations that we have today.

Facebook is too smart (and beginning to be too powerful) to let a start-up come up with an idea that is slightly off-center of Facebook, but that could siphon off Facebook’s users. They have more than enough money to dedicate to R & D that will have the company expanding upon itself for quite some time.

Companies like Facebook and eBay succeed because they have found a ‘sweet spot.’ In the Venn diagram to the right, the ‘sweet spot’ would be characterized by the triple intersection of A, B, and C, in either the top left portion, highlighted by a bright green color, or in the bottom portion, highlighted by a mix of red, green, and blue. This triple intersection can vary from (revolution) to (revolution). I think one of the main reasons for the success of eBay was in part due to the Western world’s undeniable urge to shop. As the internet started to grow, people began seeing the internet as a legitimate place to buy things. As eBay was a place to buy things, naturally, people flocked to the site. As they learned they could also sell things to, well, then it just took off.

For eBay, and more importantly in the case of Facebook, the development of their company (or product) filled a desire in the population that the population didn’t otherwise know existed. People didn’t really know (before Facebook came) that they wanted to spend countless hours on the computer interacting with their friends. I think that articles that try to pinpoint what the next anything is going to be are a little near-sighted. If these people were really curious as to what the next big thing was going to be, they should be trying to identify desires of the population that haven’t already been satisfied. I suppose if they could do that, they’d probably not be writing articles about it.

What Do You Do? Asked and Answered

When I meet people for the first time, invariably, one of their first few questions (if not their absolute first), “What do you do?” As in, what do you do to make money — earn income — so you can eat and pay your bills. There is nothing inherently wrong with this question, but I wonder at what point in time did our society become so wrapped up in what we do. Where was it in our history that it became imperative for us to discuss our occupation?

It’s an interesting topic and maybe someday I’ll do a post on that, but for now, I’m going to talk about my answer to that question. As what may come as a surprise to some, my answer to that question varies depending on who is asking the question. Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Doesn’t it just make sense for the answer to my question to be different given who is doing the asking? While the words of the question may be the same from person-to-person, invariably, there is going to be a different underlying question that is being asked and this is what I am answering.

When someone asks me the question about what I do, often, I am hearing the answer for the first time, too. I don’t have a rehearsed elevator speech like most people advise, but if I happen to be in an elevator and someone asks me, I seem to have an answer that fits. This is usually either because we’re in an elevator, so they’re not deeply interested in what I do or because something in what I said has sparked their interest, so we’ve gotten off on the same floor and continued our conversation.

Some of my favo[u]rite answers to the questions about what I do usually involve my talking about going beyond the systems and organizations present in our planet. When I am able to get into the nitty-gritty of this kind of answer, I usually get really excited. Sometimes, it’s even appropriate for me to reference the fictional universe of in how in that time period, there is no more conflict (external, at least) and the focus is no longer about accumulating monetary wealth. The focus has shifted to that of exploratory, somewhat similar to the way that explorers of the 1500s like Magellan and Columbus are fantasized about through history. Of course there are differing opinions as to what the explorers of that time were really interested in, but in some history books, they were really ‘seeking out new life’ and ‘boldly going where no one had gone before.’

In a fictional universe like Star Trek, I would relish the role of someone who would be an advisor on intergalactic relations. That may sound a bit “out-there” and of course it is because at present, we don’t have intergalactic relations (publicly, at least). Regardless, I think it is immensely important for someone in the room (ship?) to be present to the idea of the macro. Someone who is focused on the implications of not just the next step or the third step, but what it will have on twenty iterations down-the-road.

While I may not be assigned to the anytime soon, I still feel deeply called to be that guy in the room. To be that guy who is focused on the macro-view of the organization. To be the outsider eyes looking in at the organization, business, or company, identifying ways in which success — in all senses of the word — can be increased.