What Personality Are You?

[Peterkin]

43 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why do I now feel that I'm being ridiculed or persecuted for taking the test and sharing my experience?

I hope it's not because I suggested that you know more about yourself than the Briggs people do!

Initially, my question was simple aimed at whether the test revealed anything about you that was surprising. It was curiosity, not ridicule.  I only asked because my general impression is that people can tell you about themselves without long questionnaires.

But, when they have nothing to lose by it, people also like doing quizzes, enjoy having some aspect of their character reflected back. I'm not sure why that is - maybe it's like talking to the mirror on the wall. In that sense, it can also benefit the test-taker by reminding him of behaviours that could be modified.

I've never believed that these personality tests administered to prospective employees are particularly useful; I think they are an invasion of privacy, and I'm very much against them as a condition of being considered for a job. The applicant is qualified or not; their inner self, or self-image is no employer's business.

But I can see that such tests - in fact, now that I think of it, any of those quizzes they used to have in magazines  - may be helpful in starting a discussion among peers, colleagues, teammates, even families, to promote better understanding. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I gained some insight from this discussion.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Peterkin

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Why do I now feel that I'm being ridiculed or persecuted for taking the test and sharing my experience? (Sensitivity being one of the traits by the way) 

Does the Judging part of INFJ also include feeling judged?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Does the Judging part of INFJ also include feeling judged?

That's a very interesting question. Zapatos remarked early on:

Quote

Here I thought everyone would think sort of like me.

Do we all tend to assume that?

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Not sure the tests are or meant to be so direct or accurate that they can predict if someone is going to rape. I just took them to be a generalisation, after all there are around 8 billion unique people that the tests are trying to fit into what... 16 or so categories.  

Would you like it to know that you are likely to commit a serious crime?

I have never once stated that I like or dislike the result -personality type I have been categorised in. I just said that I was surprised by the results and their consistency and that the "group" I'm in are said to show certain traits that I definitely do. I'm sure I also display traits from other personality types, there is bound to be an overlap, else there'd be 8 billion categories. I thought whole point of the tests is to answer honestly, whether you like it or not. Point being you may have to face a difficult realisation about yourself that you don't particularly like. My point being I would hope, rather than the test being a waste of time, perhaps I could use some of the information and learn from it to help me accept, manage or exploit my traits.

Are any of the 16 or so categories negative?

As in something that you'd not want to be and actively seek to hide?

Quote

  Gees.. I took the test because I felt obligated to do so as part of a job interview request. From this it sparked an interest!!  I'm not advocating anything, I'm sharing my experience, one which surprised me.

Would you change your answers to the next job interview, if you knew the answer's to your last obviously lost you employment?

It all stem's back to @iNow's point about the astrology equivalence.

 

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why do I now feel that I'm being ridiculed or persecuted for taking the test and sharing my experience? (Sensitivity being one of the traits by the way) 

If it's a sensitivity to being judged, then they got it wrong, at least in this thread. 😉

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Quote

Here I thought everyone would think sort of like me.

Do we all tend to assume that?

Only when they tend to agree...

Edited October 28, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are any of the 16 or so categories negative?

No, of course not. They are all neutral. They're characteristics that all humans have, and what's being measured is the proportion in which the subject uses them in his approach to life. You can be Extroverted and good or bad. You can use Thinking for to benefit or harm others. You can be an equally faithful lover whether you're more Intuitive or more Perceiving. 

 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As in something that you'd not want to be and actively seek to hide?

You might want to present a different front to a potential employer if you know what they're looking for. Some people still wouldn't lie, out of pride or integrity or because it's not important enough to them, or because they really believe the test indicates whether they would be happy in a job. Some people might have an image of themselves that they consciously or unconsciously want to support, so they'll interpret the questions in the way they prefer to answer. The answers are on a sort of scale: you can agree strongly or weakly, and there are qualifiers like "a lot" and "regularly" and "often" that you can quantify for yourself. It's imprecise enough to leave plenty of room for variations.  

I just gave the most lukewarm responses I truthfully could, and ended up with

INTP-T ; 84% Introverted, 55% Intuitive, 54 % Thinking, 74% Prospecting, 61% Turbulent,

Quote

Logicians are innovative inventors with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

I mostly agree with that, and would have chosen all of those designations except Prospecting, which is a category that seems to contain elements I would designate differently. I disagree with some of their percentage calculations, based on insufficient information. And that's the weakness of the test: it's far too limited, both in the scope of the questions and in the categorization of traits.

If I hired an assistant on the basis of this test, it might warn me that they're sensitive to criticism, but not that they'd retaliate with verbal abuse. As a predictor of behaviour, it's useless, because behaviour is individual and situational.   

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, of course not. They are all neutral. They're characteristics that all humans have, and what's being measured is the proportion in which the subject uses them in his approach to life. You can be Extroverted and good or bad. You can use Thinking for to benefit or harm others. You can be an equally faithful lover whether you're more Intuitive or more Perceiving. 

That might be true as a baby (generally) but time + circumstances = me now, and me now has a percentage of good over bad, and we all think we know what that is; definitely above 75%. An extrovert would broadcast any good information about him/her, while an introvert would just hide the bad information about her/him.

The point is, there's no such thing as neutral in a human.

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If I hired an assistant on the basis of this test, it might warn me that they're sensitive to criticism, but not that they'd retaliate with verbal abuse. As a predictor of behaviour, it's useless, because behaviour is individual and situational. 

Indeed, which leaves me wondering why you'd quote me?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The point is, there's no such thing as neutral in a human.

Maybe so, but good/bad, positive/negative are not what personality tests are for. Extrovert and Introvert do not mean indiscreet and secretive, they just refer to how sociable one is by inclination. They're equally capable of lying and keeping secrets.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, which leaves me wondering why you'd quote me?

Because you asked a question I thought I could answer - about the personality test.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Maybe so, but good/bad, positive/negative are not what personality tests are for. Extrovert and Introvert do not mean indiscreet and secretive, they just refer to how sociable one is by inclination. They're equally capable of lying and keeping secrets.

Because you asked a question I thought I could answer - about the personality test.

Fair enough...

[Intoscience]

On 10/27/2022 at 3:58 PM, Peterkin said:

I hope it's not because I suggested that you know more about yourself than the Briggs people do!

Initially, my question was simple aimed at whether the test revealed anything about you that was surprising. It was curiosity, not ridicule.  I only asked because my general impression is that people can tell you about themselves without long questionnaires.

But, when they have nothing to lose by it, people also like doing quizzes, enjoy having some aspect of their character reflected back. I'm not sure why that is - maybe it's like talking to the mirror on the wall. In that sense, it can also benefit the test-taker by reminding him of behaviours that could be modified.

I've never believed that these personality tests administered to prospective employees are particularly useful; I think they are an invasion of privacy, and I'm very much against them as a condition of being considered for a job. The applicant is qualified or not; their inner self, or self-image is no employer's business.

But I can see that such tests - in fact, now that I think of it, any of those quizzes they used to have in magazines  - may be helpful in starting a discussion among peers, colleagues, teammates, even families, to promote better understanding. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I gained some insight from this discussion.

No, not at all. (my bold) i did learn something about myself which is why I found it interesting. So in this respect, the experience was useful. 

+1 for the post by the way

On 10/27/2022 at 4:40 PM, Phi for All said:

Does the Judging part of INFJ also include feeling judged?

Not sure, INFJ's are said to be unsure how people perceive them so I guess so.

On 10/28/2022 at 1:45 PM, dimreepr said:

Would you change your answers to the next job interview, if you knew the answer's to your last obviously lost you employment?

I wouldn't know how to. I answered with honesty and sincerity to the best of my knowledge, as I mentioned some of the questions left me wondering "well it depends" which I then proceeded to tick either a neutral or very slight lean towards. I don't know how the tests results are formulated and what type a test may produce. I might be able to have a good go and guess which obviously would change the result. But whether the result would be of benefit for employment, I'm not sure what type they are looking for, if any in particular. 

We are all aware that the tests are ambiguous and open to interpretation. What did surprise me during my own experience, and what raised my interest, was the fact that such ambiguous tests resulted in the same outcome on 4 independent occasions. 

My point being from the start that, what I thought was a total waste of time turned out to be an interesting and thought provoking experience, which I thought I share on here.

Some people are engaging in the discussion on the subject, others seem to be playing games. For  what ever reason I'm not sure about other than either ridicule or some other agenda I can't ascertain. If I was posting here advocating or promoting these tests then I'd get it, I'm just sharing my own experience... gees guys.     

On 10/29/2022 at 2:58 PM, Peterkin said:

Maybe so, but good/bad, positive/negative are not what personality tests are for. Extrovert and Introvert do not mean indiscreet and secretive, they just refer to how sociable one is by inclination. They're equally capable of lying and keeping secrets.

Because you asked a question I thought I could answer - about the personality test.

I guess if I was to use these tests to ascertain a person's likely personality and how this would fit into the system I intend to engage in with them, then all I could do is to assume the very basics traits to see if there was any in particular that I thought would be of benefit or not. But in reality a person should be given a chance to prove their worth and not necessarily limited to what the test results indicate.

What will be interesting is to see if, whether I get the job or not, the personality test played any key part in the decision making. Maybe this is a form of discrimination? positive or negative. 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I might be able to have a good go and guess which obviously would change the result. But whether the result would be of benefit for employment, I'm not sure what type they are looking for, if any in particular. 

You usually have an idea what kind of job you're applying for. I might pretend to be more consistent, more persevering and to focus more on work than I actually do. I might be tempted to lie about my strong tendency to procrastinate and my general aversion to other people. Only about half a dozen questions. 

But I could tell those lies more glibly in a verbal interview than on a scale of agreement, and maybe that's the point: you can't charm or bamboozle an impersonal test.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What will be interesting is to see if, whether I get the job or not, the personality test played any key part in the decision making. Maybe this is a form of discrimination? positive or negative. 

They're not likely to tell you - if the personnel manager even knows. I guess all candidate selection is discriminating (like selecting a meal from a menu) and some companies may have a poli8cy of discrimination for or against a minority, but that wouldn't show up in a personality test. They may want to exclude loud, fun-loving extroverts who could be disruptive, or look especially for innovative, curious people. Most commonly, they just want good 'team players'. (Or used to... Back in my working days, that was the most used phrase in managerial parlance, just in front of 'user-friendly' and behind 'result-oriented'. They have their boxes, too.)   

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You usually have an idea what kind of job you're applying for. I might pretend to be more consistent, more persevering and to focus more on work than I actually do. I might be tempted to lie about my strong tendency to procrastinate and my general aversion to other people. Only about half a dozen questions. 

But I could tell those lies more glibly in a verbal interview than on a scale of agreement, and maybe that's the point: you can't charm or bamboozle an impersonal test.

They're not likely to tell you - if the personnel manager even knows. I guess all candidate selection is discriminating (like selecting a meal from a menu) and some companies may have a poli8cy of discrimination for or against a minority, but that wouldn't show up in a personality test. They may want to exclude loud, fun-loving extroverts who could be disruptive, or look especially for innovative, curious people. Most commonly, they just want good 'team players'. (Or used to... Back in my working days, that was the most used phrase in managerial parlance, just in front of 'user-friendly' and behind 'result-oriented'. They have their boxes, too.)   

Yeah, I can see how one might want to influence a test in order to gain what they may perceive as an advantage. Honestly, it never crossed my mind during my test. My mind set being that if I remain honest and end up successful in getting the job then I can be confident that I can just be my true self during my employment. This in my mind takes some of the stress out of the job role. The job I've applied for is quite a challenging role and ultimately responsible for nearly 500 staff, so the last thing I want is to try and be someone I'm not. 

I think most employers (I've been one myself in the past) just want people who are productive and not disruptive. Basically people who are easy to manage, don't complain much and just get on with their task at hand. Not all people function well as a team, but they can still add value to a system independently. My personality is such that though I'm ok with social environments, and can work as part of a team, I generally prefer my own space to work on problems independently.       

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My mind set being that if I remain honest and end up successful in getting the job then I can be confident that I can just be my true self during my employment.

That's a high level of self-confidence. Most people can't afford to be cocky about whether they're accepted by an employer or not; they just need the job. So they'll pretend to be that non-disruptive, manageable team-player the company is most likely looking for, and will usually try very hard to be that kind of person, at least at work. And that's why they drink, yell at their kids, sleep poorly, get ulcers and early heart attacks.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yeah, I can see how one might want to influence a test in order to gain what they may perceive as an advantage. Honestly, it never crossed my mind during my test. My mind set being that if I remain honest and end up successful in getting the job then I can be confident that I can just be my true self during my employment. This in my mind takes some of the stress out of the job role. The job I've applied for is quite a challenging role and ultimately responsible for nearly 500 staff, so the last thing I want is to try and be someone I'm not. 

I think most employers (I've been one myself in the past) just want people who are productive and not disruptive. Basically people who are easy to manage, don't complain much and just get on with their task at hand.

Is it me, or does that sound religious; in a way, that is often used to deride religion?

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My personality is such that though I'm ok with social environments, and can work as part of a team, I generally prefer my own space to work on problems independently.

So, your a human like me; if you were an ant, you'd be lost without me... 😉

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's a high level of self-confidence. Most people can't afford to be cocky about whether they're accepted by an employer or not; they just need the job. So they'll pretend to be that non-disruptive, manageable team-player the company is most likely looking for, and will usually try very hard to be that kind of person, at least at work. And that's why they drink, yell at their kids, sleep poorly, get ulcers and early heart attacks.

I'm in a fortunate position and count myself very lucky that the job role is a promotion. If I don't get the position no harm no foul I will remain doing the role I am currently. If i do then it is the last step in furthering my career (I guess).  

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is it me, or does that sound religious; in a way, that is often used to deride religion?

So, your a human like me; if you were an ant, you'd be lost without me... 😉

It is definitely you, in what way whatso ever is it religious, sounds religious, derides religion...? I was being honest, should I lie?

 

Yes, I am human, or at least I believe I am, you never know (I have often being accused of being an alien). 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It is definitely you, in what way whatso ever is it religious, sounds religious, derides religion...? I was being honest, should I lie?

Yes, I am human, or at least I believe I am, you never know (I have often being accused of being an alien). 

The point is, we are human and given the right conditions we are all capable of lying, being religious and deriding, those other, religion's; and at some point in our lives, we all fit into every box described by a humanity test.

Ants and alien's couldn't...

[Intoscience]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The point is, we are human and given the right conditions we are all capable of lying, being religious and deriding, those other, religion's; and at some point in our lives, we all fit into every box described by a humanity test.

Ants and alien's couldn't...

No doubt that we all share traits that fit into each category. As i said before there is bound to be overlap and likely that each of us would qualify as more than one type certainly as we progress through life and our attitudes and experiences change.  

My point was that, I took the test/s with little to no knowledge of them, no experience and definitely no other agenda but to "tick boxes". What surprised me was that over a selection of independent tests (I repeat myself once again) I received the same result. I would have expected (suspected) that since the tests are rather ambiguous then the tests would yield differing results, placing me in similar but different categories. this was not the case in my own experience. 

Maybe being an ant has its advantages, aliens... well we may see one day.  

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I would have expected (suspected) that since the tests are rather ambiguous then the tests would yield differing results, placing me in similar but different categories.

I can see why you'd expect that tests devised by different teams would yield different results. But then, on further consideration, might we not conclude that they are all designed for the same purpose, and perhaps the questions are probing for the same kind of answer. I have a quite old book of aptitude tests, that are supposed to spot what a student's talents are, and they tend to come up with much the same result for the same student. So I'm guessing they're all accurate n the same way, and for the same reason: You know who you are; you know what you prefer - all they're asking is that you list your likes and dislikes. The employer could do so directly, but they use the indirect method of giving you a test, for the appearance of scientific objectivity.  

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I can see why you'd expect that tests devised by different teams would yield different results. But then, on further consideration, might we not conclude that they are all designed for the same purpose, and perhaps the questions are probing for the same kind of answer. I have a quite old book of aptitude tests, that are supposed to spot what a student's talents are, and they tend to come up with much the same result for the same student. So I'm guessing they're all accurate n the same way, and for the same reason: You know who you are; you know what you prefer - all they're asking is that you list your likes and dislikes. The employer could do so directly, but they use the indirect method of giving you a test, for the appearance of scientific objectivity.  

Yes, so maybe (objectively speaking) the tests do exactly what they are designed to do - categorise people by personality? This was my point, I expected the ambiguity to yield differing results, turns out all the results were the same. In my feeble mind is this then not objective enough? Would a person asking the same questions not form an opinion based on their own emotional bias, be that intentional or non intentional? They are surely bound to use themselves as comparison to make a judgement. A test doesn't care, it's just a computer program that uses a set of universal algorithms to yield a non emotionally biased result.   

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In my feeble mind is this then not objective enough?

Oh, it's completely objective. At least to the degree that candidates are candid. To me, that's what also makes it meaningless, exactly because it's vague and general. This might be a good way to select the correct size and type of  cement mixer, but it doesn't tell you how a person will behave in a given situation, any more than it predicts how soon the starter switch on the cement mixer will short out: manufacturers list the specifications in the catalogue, not the design flaws. It tells you personality types , not individual weaknesses, quirks, how individuals will interact with the particular environment. It tells the personnel officer nothing that the candidate could not tell her - and does it in less revealing terms.

Does the result of the test actually determine who is hired? Is there a policy of taking only ESTJ,s or filling an INTP vacancy? Or do they file away the test, and hire someone on the basis of his resume, recommendations and the impression he made on the interviewer?  

Edited November 3, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

Just a few quick thoughts on the general matter and my apologies if they have already been discussed. A fundamental challenge in psychology is that the questionnaires are often used to categorize folks into something. These categories are often proxies for something else. The challenge is that while it is often easy to test whether a measure is robust (e.g. does a particular score change with age, do folks end up consistently in the same category). But it is often much more difficult to fully understand what the essence of these categories really are.

IQ tests are such an example, where low scores do often indicate cognitive challenges. We also see overlap in e.g. IQ test score and income, and here the question is whether the score is a proxy for wealth (which creates an environment where it is easier to get high scores) or whether it is proxy for intelligence which then creates the wealth effect (newer studies are more dismissive about the latter interpretation).

Same issues goes for personalities. After all, it is clear that personality categories are constructed (there are many different scales with varying number of personality traits). While the test can create robust outcomes and categorizations, it does not mean that the categories themselves are meaningful. Or perhaps they are meaningful in certain contexts but useless in others.

And I think here is where much of the opinion goes apart. How meaningful is a categorization with a given set of personality traits? There is a lot of divergent papers on it out there but in cases where there is some empirical data (e.g. outcomes of hiring processes) the use of it does not seem to have a robust benefit.

 

 

[Peterkin]

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a lot of divergent papers on it out there but in cases where there is some empirical data (e.g. outcomes of hiring processes) the use of it does not seem to have a robust benefit.

"Use" of them seems to be a general fashion. But do any studies have data on whether the tests are a decisive constant in candidate selection? My suspicion - without ever having been privy to the deliberations of a personnel director - is that, while outliers (test results that are extremely lopsided) may flag candidates they don't want to take a chance on, they'll generally glance at the test, say, "Another EFSJ, but how fast can she learn a new platform?" and thumb through the references. 

[CharonY]

They are being used and quite a few assessment centre's use it as part of their package. In the past I have come across papers studying their impact, but I don't know if they are as influential or popular as, one or two decades ago.

[Intoscience]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Does the result of the test actually determine who is hired? Is there a policy of taking only ESTJ,s or filling an INTP vacancy? Or do they file away the test, and hire someone on the basis of his resume, recommendations and the impression he made on the interviewer?

I don't know, and maybe I will never find out during my own experience. I would hope that it doesn't play a significant role in the hiring process, mainly because I agree that the tests don't necessarily represent a person's true capability or potential. 

So why are they used at all?  

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

They are being used and quite a few assessment centre's use it as part of their package. In the past I have come across papers studying their impact, but I don't know if they are as influential or popular as, one or two decades ago.

The company whose job I have applied for considers itself to be a modern, diverse and inclusive business, committed to people, the environment and sustainability. A sales pitch I know, so why are they using a personality test as part of the employment selection process?

I assume that they may attribute certain personality categories to be beneficial for certain job roles. I can't fathom for what other reason they may want to do these tests other than they may also consider certain personality types to fit better with the company's ethos and culture? 

I also assume that they place some faith in the results of the test, else why conduct them, other than to tick boxes?

 

By the way, I have progressed to the last stage in the interview process, which is encouraging.  

Edited November 4, 2022 by Intoscience

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So why are they used at all?  

Fashion. Executives are so trend-driven that anyone can sell them the next-and-latest software, the next-and-latest book on leadership skills, the next-and-latest security protocol... Every buzz-word rips through whole industries like a dose of salts, reliably, every three years. Not using a personality test would be like using Windows 7 (the one that worked without crashing half your other programs or popping unwanted suggestions in your face every ten seconds*) or posting memos on a cork board instead of sending out a blanket email to the whole department - nobody does that anymore. Testing looks and feels scientific; it proves you've been conscientious and non-discriminatory in your hiring practice; the company can wear it like a scout badge. 

Does the head of the department to which a new employee is assigned know what type that new personality is arriving? Does he make any preparation or accommodation for that special type? Does he warn the team what behaviours to avoid? Unlikely.

But - and this is a surprise to me - I have learned that these tests are useful in several ways: to individuals as an aid to self-analysis, perhaps even self-realization; to working teams as a base for discussion when they have obstacles to communication and co-ordination, and to leaders (all kinds - parents, teachers, managers, coaches) to help track down the source of weakness in performance, without being overly intrusive or personal. Very possibly, such a test can even identify persons in need of support or counselling, before they go off the deep end.

(* sorry! on-going issues with Microsoft....)

Edited November 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

To add to that, companies like to have shiny things that might increase productivity by even a tiny sliver. Management feels great about those initiatives as it becomes something that they can add into their reports. 

Often, they are precipitated by some genuine study finding some sort of positive effects, consulting agencies snatch it up and roll with it, leading to a boom of the shiny new method. Over time folks do some sort of meta-analysis or have larger data sets and quite frequently the purported advantage is diminished or evaporates. It basically follows the reproducibility crisis in psychological research. If you go back in lit, you'll find studies in the 90s showing mostly modest positive correlation between personality measures and job performance ratings ( e.g. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.). But there are also numerous follow-ups when these effects were not observed.

One of the disadvantages of personality testing is that there it seems to lead to hiring biases. The issue is (similar to issue in machine learning in other areas) is that as many human models, the personality scales were built based using data from predominantly white young folks. There is the running gag that we will soon be curing cancer but only mice and understand the human mind, but only from psychology undergrad students.

Depending on study, there have been various degrees of differences between groups, depending on race and/or gender. Now, if personality tests become a proxy for race of gender we do run into all kind of issues, especially if we do not understand where those traits come from. And again, it is likely that the tests are set up to have a certain distribution/categorization based on a limited set of cultural and other backgrounds, making it potentially biased.

 

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But - and this is a surprise to me - I have learned that these tests are useful in several ways: to individuals as an aid to self-analysis, perhaps even self-realization; to working teams as a base for discussion when they have obstacles to communication and co-ordination, and to leaders (all kinds - parents, teachers, managers, coaches) to help track down the source of weakness in performance, without being overly intrusive or personal. Very possibly, such a test can even identify persons in need of support or counselling, before they go off the deep end.

This is to some extent true, but I do feel that this is a bit of a placebo effect. I am not sure whether it really matters how your personality is categorized, but it seems to me (again, from a layperson's perspective) that the introspection part is what is helpful. With regard to counseling that should not apply to personality tests. Mental states are not a personality trait and are not targeted by those questionnaires. Or conversely, if the tests would be affected by current mental states, they would not effectively test for what is assumed to be invariant traits.