Personality tests - any good?

Specifically, the Jung/Myers-Briggs personality test. If you haven't come across this before, the basic idea is that you get classified as Introverted or Extraverted, iNtuitive or Sensing, Feeling or Thinking, and Perceiving or Judging. The result is a four letter 'code,' like ESFP or INFT. I did this version today and got this cool badge with my result:



The second part of the badge is my result for a multiple intelligence test that was on the same site. I'm not really sure what that is meant to tell me, but it was easier to do. So apparently I'm an INTP (although very close to being an INFP), which puts me in the same category as Darwin, Einstein, Socrates, and 7 of 9, amongst others. I could be in worse company! I actually thought the description of the INFP I nearly got was at least as accurate as my actual result.

INTP - The "Engineer"

INTPs are logical, individualistic, reserved, and very curious individuals. They focus on ideas, theories and the explanation of how things work. They are especially adept at discussions and debate. They have the ability to focus intently on a subject. They appreciate and respect intelligence in others.

INFP - The "Dreamer"

INFPs are introspective, private, creative and highly idealistic individuals that have a constant desire to be on a meaningful path. They are driven by their values and seek peace. Empathetic and compassionate, they want to help others and humanity as a whole. INFPs are imaginitive, artistic and often have a talent for language and writing. They can also be described as easygoing, selfless, guarded, adaptable, patient and loyal.

There was quite a bit more descriptive stuff. Most is very positive, which makes me wonder if these tests have an element of the Barnum about them. You know, when all the descriptions are the kind of thing everybody likes to think about themselves. E.g. 'you have a better than average sense of humour.' Is there anyone who thinks they have a worse than average sense of humour? The writers of (the wonderful) Skepdic take issue with the test for this reason, amongst others. I suspect an awful lot of the description that goes with tests like these is a load of crap. However, some bits seem useful. I really like the idea that some people find socialising energising, while others find it draining and need to be alone to 'recharge.' I'm definitely in the second category and knowing that is handy - it lets me rationalise buggering off from a social event for a while to feed my inner introvert!

But anyway, I'm curious to know what other people think, so take the test or do some googling (there are a lot out there) and leave me comments! I think they're fun, but that's probably because I'm a curious, analytical introvert. ;-)

Booking Through Thursday

Suggested by: Superfastreader:

Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?

I got so excited when I saw this question. Unfortunately, I have orchestra on Thursday evenings so I usually only have time to look at the BTT question before I have to leave. On the other hand, I get time to ponder it before answering.

Yes, I look for different things choosing a movie than choosing a book. I read fantasy, but am hesitant about choosing fantasy movies. Maybe this is because the mind's eye is better at producing cool magical stuff than movie special effects? As in, it just looks better in your head. Maybe not, since special effects are definitely improving in leaps and bounds. And there seem to be a lot more fantasy movies being made lately, often based on books. I guess credit goes to J. K. Rowling and Peter Jackson for that. =) None of my favourites have made it to the big screen yet, but I'm still holding out hope. I'd especially love to see Tamora Pierce's Tortall stories as movie(s).

Anyway. Back to the question. If I'm picking a movie I go for romantic comedy or Bond/Indianna Jones-type action. I've never really read either romance or action novels. I mean, not strict, genre romance or action. What I do read generally has elements of both. I suppose fantasy novels and the above-mentioned movie genres have being a little bit escapist in common: romantic comedies end with neat happily-ever-afters; in action films not only does the good guy kick ass, but he/she does so infinitely more suavely than I can do anything; in fantasy good triumphs over evil and you get happily-ever-afters. Maybe escapist isn't the right word. Comforting? Cathartic? Supplying vicarious easy answers and/or suavity? Haha I didn't think suavity was a word, but there's no little red line...

The difference between a book and a movie? If it's the same story in both forms, then length and detail come to mind as major differences. Movie adaptations have to leave so much out! Other than that, I think a huge difference is in how well you know the characters. Books let you read minds, whereas in movies (generally speaking) you're restricted to body language, dialogue and actions. Not that you can't learn a lot about a character from those, but it's not nearly as intimate. Movies are more like real life in that sense I suppose, although in real life people aren't as easy to read as they are in movies! I like the reading minds thing

In both cases though, I want something that's really engaging (ugh, I hate the way that sounds, but I can't think of a better way to put it): I want to be staring really hard at the screen/page, immersed in the story world, doing the *gasps and points at screen* thing, laughing involuntarily, thinking... I'm happy to cry over a book, but I'm done with crying at movies. When I was a kid I cried at just about every movie I saw, and it got embarrassing. If I'm gonna cry, I'd rather do it in a dark movie theatre, or the privacy of my own room where I read. Come to think of it, I tend to avoid tear-jerker movies now. The animal ones were the worst. Homeward Bound, Milo and Otis, The Lion King, some film about a lost Panda... I cried myself silly not that long ago at Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. Maybe that's why I go for the lighter stuff now. BTT: good for developing self-knowledge, lol.

Man, this is a ramble. I'd pare it down, but I've already spent half an hour longer on this than I meant to. Bedtime. =) And happy BTT everyone!


Edit: Ok, so I didn't go to bed. I thought of more stuff:

Books based on movies (or tv shows) don't seem to have come up much. I guess there aren't as many, but I was just thinking about Star Trek novels that transfer characters from screen to page. I find them fun, but weird. It's weird getting a look inside the minds of characters when normally their thoughts are as hidden as the people you know in real life. Except for the occasional log entry in the case of Star Trek. ;-)

Just some rambling

Word of the day: indubitable. I've been reading about skepticism (basically the idea that it's impossible to know anything, or even if it is possible, then we can't prove that we know it) and came across this sentence, which I dare you to say out loud with a straight face:

"Descartes argues that God's existence is indubitable, and in addition he argues that it is indubitable that God would not permit the indubitable to be false."

Is it just me, or is 'indubitable' a funny word? My thinking so indubitably has something to do with this...

I was also reading Philosophy Goes to the Movies, by Christopher Falzon, which is an introduction to philosophy using examples from movies. The section on Descartes' 'how do you know you're not dreaming/being deceived by an evil demon?' idea, for example, talks a lot about The Matrix and also mentions The Truman Show, Total Recall and eXistenZ, amonst others. It's a great book - easy to read and understand, and it doesn't matter if you haven't seen the movies. It also looks at how the film-makers create the effects that relate to the philosophical ideas so there's an element of film analysis as well which I find interesting.

* * * * *

I know I said I'd blog about Coraline and Fantasy and Mimesis but I really don't have much to say about them...

Coraline (by Neil Gaiman) wasn't nearly as disturbing as I expected, although some others in my class apparently did find it creepy. Ok, some bits were very weird, but I was never worried that it wouldn't end happily. I actually kind of liked it.

Fantasy and Mimesis, by Kathryn Hume, has a lot of stuff in it. It's non-fiction, and about fantasy in literature: what is is, and how and why it's used. I like Kathryn Hume's definition of fantasy, which goes something like this: fantasy is anything that departs from consensus reality. So, rather than a genre, she treats fantasy as an element that can occur in any story to a greater or lesser degree (with the opposite being mimesis, or imitation of reality). That makes sense to me. Even though there are plenty of books I'm happy to label genre fantasy, there are so many others that are fantastic in ways less obvious than sword-and-sorcery. I also read the other day that genre-blending is on the rise, so perhaps genre terms like fantasy are only going to become more problematic.

I haven't forgotten The Dresden Files' DVDs. I'll get to them when I've seen more episodes. =)


Sometimes I believe in fate,
But the chances we create
Always seem to ring more true.

If I was hungry you would feed me.
If I was in darkness you would lead me
To the light.
If I was a book I know you'd read me
Every night.

(from 'If You Were A Sailboat,' on Katie Melua's album Pictures)

Why I read

This is my response to Trish's post Why do you read? I started writing a comment but it got kinda long, so... Here's why I read. To the best of my knowledge anyway.

I read primarily for the transportation/escapism effect. My favourites books have always been the ones where, like Trish described, I'm only aware of the story, not the words and pages. The phrase 'forget myself' never made sense to me until I applied to it reading, but that's what books let me do. I love being 'in the know' about a world, having whole other universes in my head to think about. =)

Until recently, (probably because I reread over and over the books that make good escapism) reading something that didn't transport me seemed like it defeated the purpose of reading in the first place. But in the last couple of years I've become more used to it, probably thanks to university making me read a lot more non-fiction. So now I read a lot more to learn (even occasionally when it's not required reading!) and books that are interesting for the language or ideas rather than just a good relaxing vacation in another world.

I don't read to connect with other people much, but I can see that changing too. I like talking about the mechanics of a story, the ideas in a story...I'm not sure how to put it...I like analysing stories from a detached, kinda academic perspective (which I guess is a good sign, being an English student and all!) but I'm not so keen when it comes to the 'inner world' of the story. Probably because of the escapism thing - I kind of like keeping my fictional vacation spots to myself ;-) - and also because I've hardly ever met (in person) people who are fans of the same books I am. Let me know if that didn't make sense. =)

By the way, I'm in the midst of preparing an essay on why texts with supernatural content are popular, so I'd really love to hear anyone's reasons for reading stories with supernatural elements of any kind. =)

Why have I been using the word 'vacation'? In New Zealand we say 'holiday'. I suspect American television (and books probably) is affecting my vocabulary... I'm going to nip this ramble in the bud and stop here.

Reading is thinking with another’s head instead of one’s own. Arthur Schopenhauer

Beware TTDs!

One of the (worryingly many) essay assignments I've got due (worryingly soon) this term is on texts with a supernatural content. Specifically, on why they are so popular. So I spent most of today and yesterday doing some (hopefully) relevant reading, and came across this comment from Jane Yolen which I think is pretty cool:

"Literature is a textually transmitted disease, normally contracted in childhood." (Jane Yolen, in Touch Magic)

Yep, that's the entire point of this post. I'm now off to start reading Twilight by Stephanie Meyer, a supernatural-themed book apparently very popular with teenagers. From what I've seen already on the web, I get the impression the appeal of the book lies largely with the Mr Darcy-esque allure of the leading man, but I'm hoping that reading it will shed some light on the reasons behind teen interest in the supernatural.

Not-so-distant-future blogs intended about Fantasy and Mimesis, Coraline, and The Dresden Files DVDs. =D


To finish with, another quote I liked today:
“Fantasy is like an exercise bicycle for the mind. It might not actually take you anywhere, but it does exercise the muscles that will.” Terry Pratchett, in The Wand in the Word, Conversations with Writers of Fantasy.