Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!db
From: db@cbosgd.UUCP (Dave Bursik)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: re: the Personality Test
Message-ID: <1023@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 21:55:24 EST
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1023
Posted: Fri Apr  5 21:55:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 03:46:48 EST
References: <5097@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus
Lines: 25

I too, took the Meyers-Briggs test years ago (about 5 yrs. ago, whilst
in grad school) and found it to be fairly accurate (INTP for the curious).
I took it again about 1.5 years ago (as part of an affirmative action
program at work) and found that although I fell into the same classification,
the numbers came out closer to the midpoint of the two extremes for each
measurement (e.g., at the zero point between introversion and extroversion
instead of significantly introverted as in the earlier test).

So, in answer to the person(s) who commented on the "once-and-forever"
nature of such classifying tests, I don't think they should be interpreted
that way: they are merely a snapshot of your preferred modes at the time
of the test.  If you are going through (measurable) changes, then later
retesting should reflect those changes.  The person who administered the
second test said that people tend to drift toward the middle as they grow
older as the result of experience (at work, in social situations, etc.),
though I imagine persons at the far extremes of any of the traits may never
find it easy to operate in either mode (extroversion/introversion, thinking/
feeling, etc.).

With respect to choosing a MOTAS: the information from such a test sure would
be handy, but I don't think you'll impress anyone by starting the first date
with a multiple-choice questionnaire.  Society has yet to catch up with
psychology on this one (or is it the other way around? :-)

db