> not least because I took the test once every month for three months and got different results!
That's interesting, I had the opposite experience. I must have taken the test 5 times over the years, and I got ENTP every time. I didn't expect it to be the case, but I was surprised by its precision.
Just because you took the same test five times and got the same results doesn't mean the methodology isn't pseudo-scientific.
Actual psychologists have studied Myers Briggs and found that the likelihood of getting a different result on the exam after taking it more than once is about fifty-fifty, which is pretty much the definition of pseudo-science.
> doesn't mean the methodology isn't pseudo-scientific.
I didn't claim otherwise. I simply provided one data point that was different from the one expressed by the person I was replying to. I didn't claim the test was scientific or accurate. (Note: Precise != Accurate. And it was only precise in my case, not in general.)
Surely the answer there is that it depends on your exact scores?
Each factor won't be a clear binary but a continuum between the two. Your answers will depend on mood, sure, but will also give a result on that continuum and with a margin for error.
You might've got ENTP consistently. I've had both INTP and ESTJ in fairly quick succession without any intention to mislead. The idea that the test is anywhere near perfect, foolproof and likely to produce absolutely consistent results for all appears unsupported by anecdotal evidence here.
That's interesting, I had the opposite experience. I must have taken the test 5 times over the years, and I got ENTP every time. I didn't expect it to be the case, but I was surprised by its precision.