Same -- I've rated INTJ, INFP, and I think ENFP once.
I do think it's interesting to interrogate the fundamental assertion behind the MBTI and similar tools: that people possess a complete, consistent, and quantifiable internal state. Most of the psychological and psychographic literature I've read takes this for granted, and in fairness it's difficult to make headway otherwise, especially in the latter field. But the atomic "I" can also be conceived as a label of convenience that hides the complexity of a unique and ever-changing assemblage, as in some strains of post-structuralist thought. Tools which take self for self, or rigorously systematize constituent parts à la Freud or Jung, can only badly and inconsistently approximate a portion of what that "I" represents at one point in time -- even if the "I" is the one using them, because the "introspection" on offer requires that you first see yourself from the outside!
The real trick of the MBTI et al is that they actually borrow from the horoscope-writers when it comes time to tell you what the letters mean. Their explanations are extremely general and framed positively in all cases, which makes it easy to want them to apply to you. Of course I put a lot of stock in my intuition and ability to contextualize and discern patterns! But if you switched the N out for the S without telling me, I'd be primed to think about my attention to detail and getting fundamentals in place before getting fancy.
Tarot as a tool for introspection, now....
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.