Do you think people of certain temperament are more likely to play Go or other board games? Curious to hear what you think, and I thought it would be fun to share.

I'm INTP - Love Go and currently learning Chess (this is harder than Go for me).

Note: Interesting so far. Looks like most people are I-N-X-X heavy, which i guess makes sense.

Hi,
I don't have an MBTI, but I've been classified as "blue" by one psychologist (among the four main categories blue, red, yellow and green), and as "Left brain / Cortical" by another (in the left/right + cortical/limbic classification).

I think that the first characteristic needed in order to play go is the ability to sit down and be quiet for three hours.

It's been way too long since I took a Myers-Briggs assessment. I think I was INTJ or INTP, but I'm not sure.

I'm INTx, with the first three values almost off the extreme ends of their respective spectrums. The value in the remaining spectrum fluctuates between moderately P and moderately J depending upon my mood.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

OK, I'll play. I'm INFP. Maybe unusual for go players?

I found this I had posted somewhere else in July 2007:


That says ESTP, but looking at the numbers ESTJ as well.

_________________
Offending ad removed

INFP

I also thought that this may be unusual for Go players... but perhaps not?

My guess would be that most go players a T rather than F, but of course Fs can be go players too.

If I would have to guess the most common combination between all go players, it would be ISTJ.

_________________
Offending ad removed

ISTJ may be a good guess. A quick search suggests that they are the most abundant of the 16 personality types.

However, I do wonder in what way personality affects our learning and playing of Go.

I also wonder about the accuracy of MBTI theory...

Seeing this video, I am glad I didn't pay to take the MBTI test. It doesn't mean that personality types don't exist, but I doubt that a small list of questions can determine that accurately.

IMO, characteristics of people who are interested in go are:

• ability to stay concentrated for a long time (although I've seen people walk around in tournaments 5 minutes before entering byo-yomi, and in the midst of a fight...)
• ability to stick to an activity for several years.
• being competitive.

Characteristics of people who are proficient in go: I guess I should list qualities that I feel I am lacking.

• willingness to analyze weaknesses and correct them.
• paying attention to details.
• disliking mistakes.
• good visual memory (or at least memory adapted to a representation of the board).

Probably the MBTI classification is too crude to have a good correlation with the above.

P.S. I wonder if Google, Facebook, etc. have already determined our personality from our internet activity...

Entp here

And I found “16 personality types” a remarkably accurate outcome based on the input I gave

Fulfilling holidays everyone; this is long multiplied by a little off topic so:

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

In 2016, mirrors of certain elements of style in two professionals with the way of play of relative beginners. One way and style was methodical and balanced; the other way and style good at chaotic fighting and endgame calculations. Shocked by it's constancy over the greatest possible chasms of strength, I now realise where the roots of these opposites may lie.

It was as it would be if a perfectly planned concerto came up against the organised chaos of a jazz band; as they relate to go, one amateur was good at discrete, one-by-one logic such as algebra, while the other excelled in continuous, fractional logic such as probability or perhaps zenoic concepts such as 0.9¯ (recurring) = 1.

It is only now, having suddenly realised that some of these elements may also be determined on sight (although I perhaps should have guessed so from the start) that I wonder if there might be overlaps with currents personality typing and raw coding. Another personality typing device placed me as 'type 5'. If only I had known sooner, as I may have avoided disconnected chaos of it's . Yet it still didn't fully explain patterns that could not be passed of as illusions; I kept at it until fearing mistaken identity was more than fearing the possible catastprophe of failing to make a note in time; at the same time, if I became ill enough so that winning became the least of my concern compared to playing the best I can (realising what is important for a weak amatuer, perhaps!), many would only then start thinking that I want to win most. This has repeated countless times with more serious issues to the point where I consider most other of life's practical jokes inconsequential. Just when I was about to submit this text, a PC turned off. Retyping this from—ironically—memory, I do not find it at all upsetting, but completely comical. I did play in a manner that was quite scatological at one time which may have been a hidden diagnosis on the go board.

It had been raised before by those much wiser whether improving one's play would mean changing one's general perspective, and if so, by how much? I never had online-go anxiety much (only perhaps the fear of sandbagging by accident after doing so when i was a beginner), especially in recent times to the point where I was forced to be grateful for being able to make a good move, yet it is there that I found a possible tool to counter it. K1 is the point; K2 is the group around the star; K3 the entire game; K4, the set of games. K5, parallel games and challenges in life. Shifting—occasionally—ones attention down to the life and death of groups and stones rather than the result of the game or a set of them might halt negative thinking and even be useful for amateurs anyway.

A few years ago I checked my MBTI and found it to be infj*. Recently I found a pro who may have some coding overlap in the sense of hatiuses, suggesting ideas, playing deliberately difficult moves early on with the intent of coming back in the later stages the same coding of which probably also responsible for setting ambitious goals be it in business or five won games or dans. . . Another may be seems to be showing problems of disconnected neurons. But this brings me to another point: if mindsports (where humanity is moving towards no matter what people do, the main thing to do may be to prepare for it); or if you'd rather, strategic arts in .0 orchestra and real universe orchestra**.

*With a capital letter to denoting a leaning of over 80%, a lowercase a leaning of over 60% and a - denoting any leaning less.

**Based six stages of this reality. Stage zero . One would be sub-atomic such as EM waves upon which visual art relies and would also introduce probabilty. Two would be atomic movement of sound (and movement); here it seems possible to think of four suits of instruments struck (including drums, triangle and pianos), and closely connected strung (like guitars and harps), bowed (such as violas) and blown through (such as wind, brass, and voicebox). And four suits of perfect mindsports Xianqi and janggi, Go (which is ancient and the most complex) and perfect-information backgammon-like games (which are also ancient and the most simple) (mancala, etc), Shogi (the most complex capturing game) and checkers (the simplest), Chess and other close variants. The sixth stage is human-only reality which overlaps in absolute terms with stage zero and is the basis of dual dual days.

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

Isn't the Myers Briggs test on a par with the flying spaghetti monster?

It is based on Jung's theory of types. Jung was a superb writer, but crap scientist. For example, he believed in the collective unconscious and the paranormal.

I aim for Stocicicism in my life. Anything which encourages introspection should be discouraged. The answer is not within me, I am a bloody idiot if I think it is. Myers ,Briggs definitely encourage navel gazing rather than actually taking positive external action. For example, if I want to get better at Go I should study an play more; my personality type is a load of irrelevant nonsense.

My work keeps on giving me these tests. I completely dis-regard their results, and look on anyone trying to make me take it seriously as a fool, fraud or charlatan. They seem to get grumpy when I tell them this, though.

These tests: I completely dis-regard their results, and look on anyone trying to make me take it seriously as a fool, fraud or charlatan.

+1

People with a certain temperament more likely to play go? Board game lovers!

Any time Myers-Briggs comes up in conversation, I always find it interesting that some people feel the need to discredit it.

Love this quote. Thanks for sharing Elom.






I think this is why we are likely to find a greater number of "introverts" than would be reflected in the general population.

My results are INFJ.

Our sample size is quite small, and putting biases aside (which I think are quite strong here), we seem pretty heavy on the I's and N's

My educated take is this. Psychology is full of dichotomies, nearly all of which are matters of degree. In terms of personality, a person's place on these scales tends to persist over time, so the dichotomies are valid in that sense. The Myers-Briggs makes use of four such dichotomies. What is problematic is the implications of these differences. Even generalizations which have been tested in certain populations may not be valid in other populations. And, OC, their application to any individual has very limited validity. For instance, tall people tend to be more successful than short people, by a variety of measures — and then there's Napoleon Bonaparte.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.