# What composer are you? Find your match.



## tokatila (Sep 5, 2014)

First you need to do Briggs-Myers personality test. For example here:
http://www.16personalities.com

Then check your results here:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/tools/infographics/composer-personality-classicalmpr.pdf

INTP and Beethoven here.


----------



## Red (Sep 5, 2014)

INFP. And SCHUBERT. 

Maybe i've fallen in for the marketings.... But my description is spot on!!!

As much as i'd hate to admit it.... There might be some credibility to this test


----------



## Red (Sep 5, 2014)

Jesus. Now i know why people believe in horoscopes....
Great post btw +1


----------



## TMRodrigues (Sep 5, 2014)

Such an interesting test (and results)! Thank you for sharing!  

Apparently I'm a INFJ and my personality matches Dvořák.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Sep 5, 2014)

Red @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> INFP. And SCHUBERT.
> 
> Maybe i've fallen in for the marketings.... But my description is spot on!!!
> 
> As much as i'd hate to admit it.... There might be some credibility to this test




Another INFP here. And yes, there is a bit more scientific validity behind the MB Personality Test than in horoscopes.


----------



## shapeshifter00 (Sep 5, 2014)

ENTP - Richard Wagner


Cool that I have the same first name


----------



## TGV (Sep 5, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> And yes, there is a bit more scientific validity behind the MB Personality Test than in horoscopes.


Actually, there isn't. It's almost complete bollocks; the whole idea of capturing personality in one or two numbers is ridiculous. Just read the descriptions and see how many actually fit you. I count 10. MB only should not grace the pages of anything with more stature than Cosmo.


----------



## Allegro (Sep 6, 2014)

And another, INFP. Not sure about me = Schubert. I am me, for better or worse :D
And this friends, is how you ruin an interesting thread.


----------



## JSmit (Sep 6, 2014)

And again. INFP Schubert type. That's fine with me. I love Schuberts' music. :D


----------



## jcs88 (Sep 6, 2014)

ENTJ - Bach!

Pretty accurate description as well, though that could be me associating. I've always been known as the leadership/straight/streamlined type, which is why a lot are surprised I'm trying to pursue a creative career.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Sep 6, 2014)

TGV @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, there is a bit more scientific validity behind the MB Personality Test than in horoscopes.
> ...



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I stand by my statement, especially given the specific way in which I stated it, "a bit more." The fact that there's any science behind it puts it one up on horoscopes.

MB test has as its basis the works of Carl Jung and his theories on personality types. I think even the most ardent opponent of the MB test would concede at least that we all have different personalities, but there are some personality traits we may share.

I'd be happy to agree that surveys and questionnaires in general are among the least valid methods of gathering data. But I do feel that the MB does have at least some scientic basis behind its intent and construction. At least more so than horoscopes.


----------



## Arbee (Sep 6, 2014)

INTP/Beethoven - my adorable, very sociable and extroverted wife can verify the characteristics :lol: 

Is MB "bollocks"? No, it's just a tool.

.


----------



## autopilot (Sep 6, 2014)

As a Taurus I am naturally suspicious of arbitrary personality groupings.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Sep 6, 2014)

Arbee @ Sat 06 Sep said:


> INTP/Beethoven - my adorable, very sociable and extroverted wife can verify the characteristics :lol:
> 
> .



Ditto. It's all about balance.


----------



## HD Audio (Sep 6, 2014)

=o =o


----------



## TGV (Sep 6, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


It's not just my opinion. I've got a PhD and postdocs in cognitive psychology and neuro-science, and it is the result of quite a few evaluations of personality testing. It has no place in modern psychology.


> MB test has as its basis the works of Carl Jung and his theories on personality types. I think even the most ardent opponent of the MB test would concede at least that we all have different personalities, but there are some personality traits we may share.


The last bit is absolutely correct, but Carl Jung's work isn't scientific at all, and never has been.


> But I do feel that the MB does have at least some scientic basis behind its intent and construction. At least more so than horoscopes.


If I designed a personality test on 4 different fruits, and validated a test on it, you would get assigned the same fruit consistently. People that would fill in the questionnaire in a similar way, would also get assigned your fruit. But does that make you that fruit?

There is nothing in personality tests that has an objective relation to the criteria on which they are assigned. They are just based on a vague understanding of random concepts and mapping a bunch of numbers onto one or two dimensions (like in the fruit example). E.g. why sensing-intuition? It's not even a dichotomy. In short, the Meyer-Briggs personality test is unreliable and meaningless.


----------



## tokatila (Sep 6, 2014)

TGV @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> > You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
> ...



You must be INTJ. :wink:


----------



## Astronaut FX (Sep 6, 2014)

tokatila @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> TGV @ Sat Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:
> ...



Advanced degree and all, you seem too hellbent on refuting any usefulness whatsoever of the tool to read carefully what I am saying. MB as a tool for assessing personality has more of a scientific basis than horoscopes. Yes MB lacks in the areas of validity and repeatability. That said, I've seen it used in the workplace for team building and relationship building. It can be quite useful in aiding people in understanding what makes each of us tick, and how to more successfully interact. Like any tool, it's how you use it.

Is it a perfect tool? No. Is it more useful than horoscopes? Most definitely. Is it 100% scientifically sound? No. Meaningless? Maybe in your circles, but in mine, I've seen it used first hand with a fair measure of usefulness.


----------



## TGV (Sep 6, 2014)

tokatila @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> You must be INTJ. :wink:


Nope, Brahms!


----------



## TGV (Sep 6, 2014)

Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> Advanced degree and all, you seem too hellbent on refuting any usefulness whatsoever of the tool...


The two are not necessarily incompatible, IMO.


> MB as a tool for assessing personality has more of a scientific basis than horoscopes. Yes MB lacks in the areas of validity and repeatability.


Then it is as scientific as phlogiston and aether.


> That said, I've seen it used in the workplace for team building and relationship building. It can be quite useful in aiding people in understanding what makes each of us tick, and how to more successfully interact. Like any tool, it's how you use it.


And that's where it goes wrong. There are better ways to find out what makes someone tick, and there are other ways to learn to interact. What does it matter if someone is an ENFJ or an INSJ? You get a more useful evaluation of someone's personality in the work place by asking colleagues. Why go all the way via personality testing? Because it sounds scientific, that's why. And interacting is a matter of behavior, and that can be taught, no matter your "personality". MB is not a tool to make a team more cooperative.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Sep 6, 2014)

TGV @ Sat Sep 06 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Sat Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced degree and all, you seem too hellbent on refuting any usefulness whatsoever of the tool...
> ...



I understand where you're coming from, but again, I've seem it used firsthand to some success. An intact working group spend a day in a workshop. They all take the test, are given their results and the materials that attempt to describe each personality type. Then through discussion and voluntary sharing of results, a discussion is facilitated in which preferred working and interaction styles are discussed. The team the returns to the workplace where this understanding can be leveraged to modify behaviors. 

No this may not muster up to the scientific method and there are no white lab coats involved. But as a tool to identify a general personality type for the purpose of facilitating discussion I've seen it used to some success. Certainly with more success than simply saying everyone born in the same month can expect the same experience a la horoscopes. 

I absolutely agree with you that MB does not stand up to the criteria of the scientific method. I also agree that there are better tools available. But to dismiss it all together as having no usefulness at all is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I cannot dismiss what I've seen firsthand.


----------



## JPQ (Sep 7, 2014)

ISFP i think. and John Tavener. Some (About 2) questons are hard becouse i must translate them to my native tongue using some free tools form net. and composer is someone what i never heared before.


----------



## chibear (Sep 7, 2014)

I took the test on two different days, so depending on my mood I'm either Brahms or Ives 0oD


----------



## pixel (Sep 8, 2014)

INTP - Beethoven. Unfortunately it's just about character, not talent


----------



## tokatila (Sep 9, 2014)

pixel @ Tue Sep 09 said:


> INTP - Beethoven. Unfortunately it's just about character, not talent



Out of curiosity, do you revise a lot? Or are you satisfied with anything?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 9, 2014)

ENTP here = Wagner.

funny!


----------



## AC986 (Sep 9, 2014)

ENTP whatever that means here.

TGV is right. These things are rubbish party games.


----------



## Vin (Sep 9, 2014)

ENFP - Verdi :D


----------



## impressions (Sep 9, 2014)

:shock: verdi also, and i'm pretty sure i am not fit to any managing or "charismatic" profession. this is bullocks.
(yes i answered truthfully)


----------



## SterlingArcher (Sep 9, 2014)

INTP and Beethoven :D


----------



## dcoscina (Sep 9, 2014)

There wasn't a Mahler choice but I will say I am most like him personality wise at least. insecure, slightly manic depressive and not a career composer. 
I'm more like Webern as far as composition length is concerned.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Sep 9, 2014)

What a good little bit of fun in between fixing guitar parts.

ENFP - Verdi - very interesting, and thanks for putting this up.

Cheers!


----------



## rJames (Sep 9, 2014)

More than a party game, less than a diagnostic test.

MB is a widely used tool in business practices around the world. One of the blatant problems with it is that many people try to answer the questions in the way that they think other people would want them to answer. This is just human nature (for some people).

Another problem is that people do not really fit into discrete categories. To say that this test is as valid as astrology is foolish. I could as easily say that psychology is nonsense... which would also be foolish. When dealing with human nature, a test is not easily constructed.

INTJ

(also a great party game)

BTW These composers never took the test! Someone categorized them from biographical information.


----------



## newbycomposer (Sep 18, 2014)

ISTP STEVE REICH


----------



## Carbs (Sep 19, 2014)

I took this last week.

Apparently I'm INFJ...

....I have never heard of the composer whom I align with personality wise. Don't know if that's good or bad!


----------



## Piano & Strings (Sep 19, 2014)

I came up as another INFJ... less than one percent ay? ANTONIN DVORAK it is, though I was hoping for Satie, had he been on the list


----------

