@Trumpeter I don't just feel like nobody....IamNobody !!!

Lord Dark Helmet: Who made that man a gunner?
Maj. Asshole: I did, sir! He's my cousin.
Lord Dark Helmet: Who is he?
Col. Sandurz: He's an Asshole, sir.
Lord Dark Helmet: I know that! What's his name?
Col. Sandurz: That is his name, sir. Asshole. Major Asshole.
Lord Dark Helmet: And his cousin?
Col. Sandurz: He's an Asshole, too, sir. Gunner's made first class Phillip Asshole.
Lord Dark Helmet: How many Asshole's we got on this ship, anyhow? [All Asshole's stand up and shout "YO!"]
Lord Dark Helmet: How many Asshole's we got on this ship, anyhow? [All Asshole's stand up and shout 'YO!']
Lord Dark Helmet: I knew it, I'm surrounded by Asshole's. [Dark Helmet pulls down mask.] Keep firing, Asshole's!

@PondartIncbendog Actually I was going for Humanist.

@itsmedammit That doesn't start with an A.

@itsmedammit I think I will refer to myself in the future as Animalist.

I just need to ask. Do you also sell auto insurance?

@ChurchLess Eternal life. For a buck two eighty, I can guarantee you a spot in Heaven (or possibly Hell).

[agnostic.com]
is the link on this site about agnosticism not merely being a weak atheist.

Fellow INTP (for more than 30 years) ... Hello!!

I am an atheist and I admit I don't know--I simply do not believe in any gods.

Hold on!
I don't know, am quite sure 'god' is not an entity, but will be open to a 'god' by some other definition. Maybe a "collective superconsciousness," (or something).
To there's very few things I rule out.

Why does it matter? Life goes on as it does without consulting any of us as to our god belief. No amount of belief equates to truth. However things really are is not something we can know,IMO. Despite that belief, I still revel in the beauty of many of life's pleasures. Like Percy Shelley, I am an atheist.

@ToolGuy I disagree. I have experienced some utility from it personally, if nothing more than in how I have learned to communicate with certain kinds of people I struggled to understand before.

@ToolGuy Understanding a person's type allowed me to understand facets of her personality that she would have been otherwise unable to express. This has happened more than once, and for directly measurable reasons that have everything to do with what I studied in MBTI. That being the case, I am not as ready as you to discount the utility of it.

Psychology is an incomplete science with a lot of guesswork involved. Therefore, any approximation that provides some level of utility without harm and without violating the scientific method is good enough for me. Thankfully it is nothing like a religion.

@ToolGuy For the record, I'm not suggesting MBTI is "real psychology." What is "real psychology" seems to be up to some pretty wildly differing interpretation. Any so-called science of the mind should be approached with healthy skepticism. Plenty of charlatans out there.

That said, I would suggest the problem you've experienced comes from the greatest fault that can be attributed to any self-assessment tool - it's only ever as accurate as the assessor chooses it to be. If I decide I want to answer a question one way, I'll do so. A person who attempts to be absolutely honest with himself while he completes the assessment will have results that are more accurate than someone who projects wishful thinking into it. And then again we're only talking about the measurement of a person's obviously biased opinions of himself. So those sorts of factors have to be weighed in. Some level of error checking is still possible and the approximations aren't going to be too far off the mark in most cases.

I still see utility in it, and stand by my assertion that it has been helpful to me. You disagree, and that's fine, but you've yet to say anything that convinces me to toss it out as garbage, professional social worker or not.

@ToolGuy If someone wished to use my opinion for his/her marketing efforts, I'd be pretty surprised. I'd better see some residuals.

Out of curiosity, which other tools are you referring to?

@ToolGuy Both of the tools you mentioned try to arrive at the same sorts of approximations claimed by Myers Briggs and other temperament assessment systems. I sort of classify them all the same. I would wonder how you personally single out the "validity" of one over another. Perhaps some other time.

@ToolGuy It's much easier to "validate" the psychology of an infant than an adult, particularly when there isn't much in the way of conclusion to be drawn (e.g. 3 possibilities), as admitted by Ms. Chess herself. Whatever the case, your argument that there is enough consensus to consider the temperament classifications they've developed "validated" is somewhat contradicted by the vast, easily-googled literature calling it into question.

Nor am I suggesting MBTI is the be-all end-all of temperament typing. Most type systems, as I've already suggested, are based on research that is still relatively subjective by its very nature. At least Myers and Briggs based theirs on a respected, leading psychoanalyst's methodologies that even an average layman has actually heard of: Carl Jung.

Whatever the case, discounting MBTI as "not valid" without any reasonable argument against it strikes me as rather rash. Good for you that you feel that way, but don't expect anyone to just take your word for it.

@ToolGuy That's a little better. But please, do not expect me to assume your use of "argument from authority" all over this thread is compelling enough. Logical fallacies may work on people less educated in them, but they don't work on me.

The point of my comment on this thread was to get the poster to elucidate on his assertion that MBTI can be used to determine that an atheist must be extroverted. Knowing that isn't true, I called it into question. But your rash interjection of "MBTI is invalid!" just isn't compelling enough. Psychoanalysis in general is pretty "foo-foo," if you'll pardon the term. I am skeptical of anyone who claims to have solid answers as to how the adult human mind works, as should you if you are indeed an expert in the field.

MBTI, just like Chess and Thomas and any other attempt at temperament adjudication, is all approximation. Don't even get me started on Aron, which I would think would embarrass you to even bring up.

"Jung made some valuable contributions..." would seem rather dismissive coming from a psychologist. Archetypes are foundational to the field, and far more "in situ" than anything Chess and Thomas could have dreamed up, in my estimation. But to each his own.

@ToolGuy By the way, I could tell you I'm a 30-year expert in motorcycle repair and show you a photo of a bunch of motorcycles in an attempt to prove my authority on the matter. And I would fully expect you to laugh at me for it.

@ToolGuy I'll remind you that my original comment we're threading on right now was not addressed to you, and I didn't address you in any of the other comments you made here asserting authority on the matter. It's only when you decided to address my comment that I responded to you. Likewise, if you're not interested in my opinion, don't address my comments. I'm not going to just bend over because you think your opinion is more valid or important than mine. I might actually challenge your supposed authority on occasion. So take note. Good day.

@ToolGuy I addressed my comment to the original poster, not you. You addressed your comment on my comment directly to me. And got a direct response in the same thread, as one should reasonably expect. Thus began what I thought was light-hearted debate. I'm sorry that you're not happy about how it turned out, but you engaged me first - let's be clear on that.

@ToolGuy You said, "If you do not want my opinion do not engage with me." But it is you who interrupted my comment with your opinion. It was not asked for. Do you see now? I certainly hope so. If you didn't like my opinion, you shouldn't have engaged with me.