thisintegrated

No, it's not. It's not meaningful in the slightest. It tells your absolutely nothing about how effective of a leader someone might be, or what kind of a personality someone may have. If I'm not compatible with someone in some way, I can often attribute it to the fact they're a sensor, for example. Sensors will think I'm impractical or naiive if I use Ne around them, so it benefits me to know their type when going into a conversation. This alone is invaluable, and gives me deep insight most never have access to. Most people would conclude that e.g. someone is "just stupid" or "just too different from me" or "just can't be reasoned with". But MBTI accounts for all the differences, without you having to judge anyone, or feeling superiority in some way. If I'm an employer and want to hire a team leader, none of the Big 5 results will tell me anything of value. The same, however, can not be said for MBTI types. Any affiliative, and non-systematic types (i.e. all the NFs) can immediately be culled, as MBTI allows you to easily identify anyone suitable/unsuitable for a given task, like leadership.

Then it's even more useless than I initially thought. Clearly types exist. If two people with the same Big 5 results have no meaningful correlation in their personality then that's a failure of the model. You'll never confuse an ISFJ with an INTJ. If you see two INTJs you're gonna see the similarities, and if you know one, you'll know the other. Types are real, and useful.

lol

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

If people regularly fall under both e.g. Spontaneous and Conscientious, that's a problem. Not at all. Good actors want their directors to be dicks. It means they take their job seriously. Carl is known for doing this. It's his inability/refusal to use Ti.

Some (most) people turn Blue in their early teens, and stay Blue until they die. While others, like @thisintegrated, are already Green by this point. Some would say it's because of your soul, but that's the low hanging fruit. Are there any better explanations out there? Is it literally just that some people are "smarter" or what?

Did you just assume her gender ?!??

Exactly. They're happy winning in their little game, and don't crave for anything more.

Don't be so quick to assume. I think Elon, Bezos, and most CEOs are pretty content with their lives. At least the calmer ones, without severe emotional issues.

But many are content?

True. But people only stay Orange if they're happy in Orange, in which case there's no problem. If someone achieves what they want in Orange, and has a midlife crisis or whatever, then they'll automatically start transitioning / looking for something different. Stress will build until they do something, be it rediscover religion, spirituality, drugs, or suicide.

He's curious about every subject imaginable, and is open minded. This is basically the definition of intelligence.

So.. the staff of 16personalities.com are scientists too? Was Carl Jung even a scientist or just a psychologist?? Well anyway, my point is the dichotomies could be more polarizing. "Even" on both extremes should never really happen, yet it seems to be very common. A good leader is one that gets results. If Steve wasn't such a dick, and wasn't such a neurotic perfectionist, Apple wouldn't be where it is today. Directors, too, must be assholes. They must make the actors do 100 takes, or whatever necessary to achieve their vision. Let's try to discuss, rather than debate. Debate can get tiring. The point should not be to win/lose, but to reach a middleground. The more you win, the more your ego wins, and the more you waste your time. The goal of these actualization-forum-conversations is, primarily, to overcome the ego, afterall.

bruh.. I was saying: Leo clearly tells you to embrace Orange, with all its flaws. So any problems you have are 100% on you. Spiral Dynamics never once suggests to act spiritual or above your level. If you're Orange, then act Orange. Chase money/women until you achieve what your Orange self feels is enough, and then you'll automatically end up in Green.

If you love someone, you give them the benefit of the doubt. You don't treat them with cold logic. You romanticise them, as a perfect person. If you're not biased for them, you're not romanticising them, and so it's not romance. When you flirt with someone, you're not talking to them like they're an ordinary person, you're addressing them as that romanticised image you have of them.

The Big 5 Company (or whoever they are) doesn't decide word definitions. But I'm 100 on both disagreeable and agreeable. 50 would mean average/passive on both. I'm very much disagreeable, and very much agreeable. I'm an ENTP, meaning I debate with logic. Carl's an ENFP, meaning he debates with personal feelings (Fi) and citations (Te). This would likely give us have different results.

Well you know your personality types? Not all are compatible. I'm in a relationship with multiple arab women atm, lol. Talk to new people and eventually drop the ones you don't like.

That's good. You need a large sample size to have opinions on any sign/type.

* Someone realizes they're actually an ENFJ?? * Humans aren't such complex creatures. Sure you can transcend your ego/intellect, but it doesn't change anything about the human you're playing as. The more aware you become of your animalistic patterns, the easier it becomes to transcend them.

You're gonna need to find the Philosopher's Stone. Once you have it, you'll want to lie down naked and place the stone on your skin. You will then start to shine bright, and begin the evolution progress and turn into a "philosopher", consuming the stone in the process, iirc. But this is as far as my Pokemon knowledge goes. Good luck.

My guess would've been ENFJ. I hope you're not assuming J = Judging and organized, and P = less judging and less organized. ENFJs, sometimes called "mentors", are the Fe users, and are more likely to want to "help" people, and feel "good" when being helpful. ENFPs are people like Carl-Richard.. yeah.. ENFPs are debaters, except they debate using personal feelings (Fi) and citations (Te) rather than logic.

Roughly half of the population is susceptible to this. (All the xxFx types, apart from SFP, and a few others). It's mostly a problem, and unhealthy. But I think it has its place. E.g. you're absolutely supposed to be biased when it comes to romance??

There is just you. Other people's thoughts/progress don't end up in your reality. You can only grow yourself. You're probably an NFJ and feel good when you believe you've helped others, but a belief is all it is.

omg dude.. Wikipedia: "Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly" How exactly is organized/careful the same as confident?? Wait.. so.. the best film directors, best actors, best CEOs, industry leaders in general, are known for their calmness and agreeability? Steve Jobs turned Apple into a success because of his high agreeability, and calm demeanour?? You realize how crazy you sound? He was even fired from Apple, so you could say his behavior is spontaneous, yet he's clearly also extremely conscientious. It's like every person has clear contradictions in the Big 5. I'm appealing to the fact I'm both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time. With or without the enneagram, I still fit the description of a 7w8. Forget the enneagram, and try to address how I can be both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time

Think of it like a computer program. Thoughts don't have a location variable. And that's it. Location just isn't a thing.