Basically anyone who can do this kind of thing falls into INFP or INFJ in Myers-Briggs. They're just incredible at reading people. Based on the article I'd be shocked if Jessica wasn't an INFP.
False. First, one person’s Myers-Briggs score can drift over time. Any of those letters can flip; being an “empath” is learnable. Second, people like Jessica and other evaluators do a lot (both reported and unreported) to set and move the goalposts that define success.
What this article and discussion shows is less of a “some people are magic” phenomenon and more of a “a lot of evaluators and leaders have huge blindspots” phenomenon. Most all panels bias towards false negatives; there’s a lot of support for having too narrow a perspective on any given candidate.
There's a lot of sources out there on this topic, but Psychology Junkie is way better than I would have expected from the name. Two articles that mention these traits:
I've tested as INFP and INTJ. I'm not going to deny the Introvert theory part. The rest of it, I don't know how seriously to take it. I haven't studied the academic literature, and the occasional pop-psych writing about it bears some similarities to astrology writing (e.g., appeal to being special, being deep, having powers, navel-gazing, etc.).
If you're not sure about the tests, you can use this quick framework in this comment to help you find your letters.
Extraverted (E) vs Introverted (I)
“E” generally means gaining energy from other people, while “I” means people drain your batteries. This one is not always immediately obvious for people. In general "E"s talk more when with groups of people and "I"s think more. Even though I spend a lot of time at home with my wife, I'm an E - I get energy from social interactions.
Sensing (S) vs Intuiting (N)
This is about how you process new information. S people see what's actually in front of them - they think and talk more in specifics. In general, S types are better at detail oriented work.
N types intuit things, so they sometimes aren't great at focusing at what's in front of them, but are great at coming up with ideas and next steps based on what they see.
Feeling (F) vs Thinking (T)
Everyone feels and everyone thinks. A good way to judge this is people's reactions to situations. Feelers react with empathy first, thinkers react with problem solving first.
Very basic example: Your friend comes in with their arm bleeding. Is your very first reaction?
"Oh no! What happened?" - Feeler
"You should go to the hospital!" or "Let me get something to wrap that", etc etc.
In general feelers are more likely to feel empathy for someone, even if they they think they are dead wrong or disagree with them.
Judging (J) vs Perceiving (P)
This is about how you make decisions. And it has nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of judging and perceiving.
Some defining traits of Js:
Achieving the goal is more important than the process.
You are comfortable making decisions with limited information.
For Ps:
Being true to your moral system is more important than achieving the goal.
You prefer to collect more information before making decisions.
The side effect of these two things means Js tend to have steadier lives with more commitment, while Ps tend to have a broader range of experiences and a bigger variety of life experiences.
---
Lastly, the temperaments:
ExxJ - Organizes people
IxxJ - Keeps systems running, also good at absorbing and teaching information.
ExxP - Collectors of experiences, achievements, pleasures, etc.
IxxP - Being true to your convictions
---
Now, people who study function stacks are going to shit on this comment, saying the letters don't mean anything, its all about functions like Extraverted Thinking, etc. But I find these letter rules make a great shortcut for 97% of people.
> Sensing (S) vs Intuiting (N). This is about how you process new information. S people see what's actually in front of them - they think and talk more in specifics. In general, S types are better at detail oriented work.
What about someone who is strong intuitive, but starting the next moment they're very detail-oriented, and also the person you'd most trust for meticulous coding that had to work?
> But I find these letter rules make a great shortcut for 97% of people.
Do we want to try to hire people who have qualities that would spanning these headshrinker buckets? If so, maybe we're dealing a lot with that missing "3%", so trying to pigeon-hole people would frequently be counterproductive?
It's like being right or left handed. And you wouldn't want to box against George Foreman even if he uses his off hand.
Intuitors just start with the big picture as their basic instinct, then fill in the details. Sensors start with detail and build up to the big picture.
Is that closer to the actual cognitive mechanics, or closer to a myth that's nevertheless useful for classifying people?
For example, in some empirical behavior research, person A seemed to have better snap decisions but poor at follow-though, and person B seemed to be asking about details... Has that nailed some key innate difference in how A and B actually think, or merely -- for purposes of, say, assigning military conscripts to jobs, or a huge corporate hiring machine that can't care beyond commodities -- at least it's a classification?
Maybe it's better than chance at predicting exhibited behavior (absent training), and we don't know that it reflects the actual cognitive mechanics?
