15 ms·

There are probably 16 different types of programmer. ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers (Data Analysts/Code Monkeys) ESTJ - The Guardians (Sysadmins) ISFJ - The Nurt

There are probably 16 different types of programmer. ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers (Data Analysts/Code Monkeys) ESTJ - The Guardians (Sysadmins) ISFJ - The Nurturers (Devops/Builders) ESFJ - The Caregivers (Devops) ISTP - The Mechanics (Code Monkeys) ESTP - The Doers (Builders) ESFP - The Performers (Builders) ISFP - The Artists (Hackers) ENTJ - The Executives (Sysadmins) INTJ - The Scientists (Hackers) ENTP - The Visionaries (Architects) INTP - The Thinkers (Architects/Builders) ENFJ - The Givers (Data Analysts) INFJ - The Protectors (Sysadmins/Devops) ENFP - The Inspirers (Hackers/Builders) INFP - The Idealists (Architects)

saraid216 13y ago
I like that you claim there are 16 types and then proceed to show there are actually only 7.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  For example: Visionary Architect Thinker Architect Thinker Builder Giver Data Analysts Protector Sysadmin Protector Devops Inspirer Hacker Inspirer Builder Idealist Architect If you use the First Term, or the Archetype Predicate, as a Qualifier to the Second Term, or the Programmer Type/Subject, you get 21. I rushed through this, so I'm probably missing Programmer Types. Be constructive. Do the rest yourself.
willeh 13y ago
Jungian personality types are not a good way to look at personality. Just having a number of categories fails to capture something so complex as personality. The Five-factor model of personality is much better in this sense as it places people on a continuum rather than attaching pseudo-scientific labels to people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Invento...
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  You can say that about any model. Reality is complex, and sure, it doesn't have to be complicated. Every scientist from Chomksy to Bohm knows this. You do get the point. It is the function of making communicable and increasing integration-potential the data to higher cognitive modes of thought (Folk Thought). The simpler your model, the greater the difficulty of exposing its rules to the audience. Generally, it's about "constructivistic myth-building". I'm not claiming Jung is the Law, and systems always stand in need of refactor (Quine's talk on the Ship of Theseus). High Extraversion Programmer versus Low Openness Programmer. High Extraversion Hacker versus Low Agreeableness Architect, etc. Reductionism abounds.
  - willeh 13y ago
    You have a valid point regarding complexity as such. However, I don't think the model itself is useful at all. It is hardly more than a deck of tarot cards. People take the test, which of course has poor test-retest reliability, then they start applying the predictions to themselves getting caught up in a wave of confirmation bias. I don't think it is useful to teach people that personality is a set of labels. We all have a intuitive understanding of personality, which is much deeper and gives a more nuanced picture.
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      I generally agree with your criticisms and understandings on these matters.

saraid216 13y ago

I like that you claim there are 16 types and then proceed to show there are actually only 7.

thenerdfiles 13y ago
For example: Visionary Architect Thinker Architect Thinker Builder Giver Data Analysts Protector Sysadmin Protector Devops Inspirer Hacker Inspirer Builder Idealist Architect If you use the First Term, or the Archetype Predicate, as a Qualifier to the Second Term, or the Programmer Type/Subject, you get 21. I rushed through this, so I'm probably missing Programmer Types. Be constructive. Do the rest yourself.

willeh 13y ago

Jungian personality types are not a good way to look at personality. Just having a number of categories fails to capture something so complex as personality. The Five-factor model of personality is much better in this sense as it places people on a continuum rather than attaching pseudo-scientific labels to people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Invento...

thenerdfiles 13y ago
You can say that about any model. Reality is complex, and sure, it doesn't have to be complicated. Every scientist from Chomksy to Bohm knows this. You do get the point. It is the function of making communicable and increasing integration-potential the data to higher cognitive modes of thought (Folk Thought). The simpler your model, the greater the difficulty of exposing its rules to the audience. Generally, it's about "constructivistic myth-building". I'm not claiming Jung is the Law, and systems always stand in need of refactor (Quine's talk on the Ship of Theseus). High Extraversion Programmer versus Low Openness Programmer. High Extraversion Hacker versus Low Agreeableness Architect, etc. Reductionism abounds.
- willeh 13y ago
  You have a valid point regarding complexity as such. However, I don't think the model itself is useful at all. It is hardly more than a deck of tarot cards. People take the test, which of course has poor test-retest reliability, then they start applying the predictions to themselves getting caught up in a wave of confirmation bias. I don't think it is useful to teach people that personality is a set of labels. We all have a intuitive understanding of personality, which is much deeper and gives a more nuanced picture.
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    I generally agree with your criticisms and understandings on these matters.