Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Hey, I dunno how much the topic of MBPT interests you guys, but for those who are interested, what do you think of the typing of these characters:

Paul: INTJ
Leto II: ENTJ
Scytale: INFJ
Most Bene Gesserit: ISTP
Most Reverend Mothers: ESTP
Alia: ENTP

If I am off, its due to my knowledge of the MBPT, which is a new topic to me.

Cheers for your post, but I'm far too lazy and full of abscesses and painkillers to be bothered.

hihihi dunecat10193

Man, I want some painkillers.

Maybe if you could tell us what the different types of personalities are it would make it easier for us to choose.

MBPT ?

I'm afraid to ask...

lotek wrote:MBPT ?

I'm afraid to ask...

Mayers Briggs Personality Type

(It's up there in the topic title )

It's interesting only in that it might help someone connect with one character over another. I think part of the point of Dune is to not fit yourself into any "type". We must be flexible enough to evolve should the situation demand it.

I'm partial to the MMPI myself, it's mutiphasic!

Good Day to you dunecat10193!

Freakzilla wrote:

lotek wrote:MBPT ?

I'm afraid to ask...

Mayers Briggs Personality Type

(It's up there in the topic title )

Michael Mayers ?

@Nekhrun
quite so, remember what the BG says about patterns, they make you predictable...

I completely agree on not typing characters in Dune. I usually feel humanity is far to advanced in that series for the MBPT to be applicable anyway. Im still impartial using on regular people. I still find it interesting though.

We LOVE making things fit. It's what our brains do. When we can make something fit to ourselves, we feel the insight is that much more important and interesting.

This effect can be measured - from a scale of 0 to 100, any vague bullshit will be given an average score of ca. 84. Consistently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

We love our little boxes, and - as has been pointed out above - this is one of the failings Dune points out.


Me, I personally prefer the ancient four humours theory of the greeks and the middle ages. All people with ADHD have too much blood

Might as well assign astrological signs to the characters of Dune...


Can I just recommend this: http://web.archive.org/web/200502150148 ... rology.htm
It tells you which astrological sign you actually fit the best. The categories are still bullshit, of course, but it is still a fun debunk of astrology.

According to my calculations, the Baron's an Aries (with a 83% match)

Lundse wrote:We love our little boxes, and - as has been pointed out above - this is one of the failings Dune points out.

put your personnality in the goddamn box !

Lundse wrote:We LOVE making things fit. It's what our brains do. When we can make something fit to ourselves, we feel the insight is that much more important and interesting.

This effect can be measured - from a scale of 0 to 100, any vague bullshit will be given an average score of ca. 84. Consistently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

We love our little boxes, and - as has been pointed out above - this is one of the failings Dune points out.


Me, I personally prefer the ancient four humours theory of the greeks and the middle ages. All people with ADHD have too much blood

Might as well assign astrological signs to the characters of Dune...


Can I just recommend this: http://web.archive.org/web/200502150148 ... rology.htm
It tells you which astrological sign you actually fit the best. The categories are still bullshit, of course, but it is still a fun debunk of astrology.

According to my calculations, the Baron's an Aries (with a 83% match)

Don't most good psychologists bear in mind that systems for measuring personality are rather constructed? It doesn't mean they aren't useful. It helps to have a set of concepts for communicating ideas about personality without the vagueness of individual commentary. Two people with closely matching personalities might use very different words to describe themselves if they spoke in their own words.

SadisticCynic wrote:Don't most good psychologists bear in mind that systems for measuring personality are rather constructed? It doesn't mean they aren't useful. It helps to have a set of concepts for communicating ideas about personality without the vagueness of individual commentary. Two people with closely matching personalities might use very different words to describe themselves if they spoke in their own words.

True. We need categories to communicate, and of course psychologists should be allowed their categories and terms for human nature, tendencies and pathologies. I've seen such categories used the right and the wrong way - and have done both myself.

But one should always - always - be aware of how constructed such categories are. And self-diagnosing after whatever is most popular right now (four humours, bloodtype, sign, MB-tests) is never a good idea. Corporate HR departments who think they have found the right take on human nature and uses it to filter, sort and compartmentalise people are as ridiculous as phrenologists, IMHO.

Humanity is context-dependent...

Lundse wrote: Humanity is context-dependent...

I like that.

SadisticCynic wrote:

Lundse wrote: Humanity is context-dependent...

I like that.

Are you saying that humanity requires a backdrop, against which they perceive reality?

D Pope wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:

Lundse wrote: Humanity is context-dependent...

I like that.

Are you saying that humanity requires a backdrop, against which they perceive reality?

Of course it does!

Lundse wrote:Can I just recommend this: http://web.archive.org/web/200502150148 ... rology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It tells you which astrological sign you actually fit the best. The categories are still bullshit, of course, but it is still a fun debunk of astrology.

It matched me to sign. As expected, the miraculous powers of astrology have proven themselves.

D Pope wrote:

Lundse wrote: Humanity is context-dependent...

Are you saying that humanity requires a backdrop, against which they perceive reality?

The other way round; to evaluate and understand humanity (or the individual human) is a process that is contect-dependent. Any set of categories you set up to slot everyone into, will be (at best) only right from a certain viewpoint, given certain parameters and premises.