I’ve been interviewed on the Introvert Zone regarding my ebook The Personality Puzzle.

The Personality Puzzle: Interview with Hunter Nuttall, Part 1 – this is about whether our personality changes with age, or in response to significant life events.

The Personality Puzzle: Interview with Hunter Nuttall, Part 2 – this is about why it’s helpful to understand different personality types, and what advice I have for introverts.

Klaus @ TechPatio asked a question in the comments, but when I realized that my reply was way too long for a comment, I told him I’d answer his question here. Here’s what he asked:

“A week ago I took a 40-question test that gave me these four letters: INTJ
I: 75%
N: 55%
T: 55%
J: 55%
As you can see, NTJ is pretty close to the middle, I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, if I’m just “average”?

But then I took another 40-question test a few days ago, that placed me as ISTP and a bit ISTJ. So I think it’s quite confusing with all those personality types when they can change so much in tests depending on your mood when you take them, and how you understand the questions.

I guess my question is, Hunter, what is the *best* way to find out your four-letters?”

Great question! It’s not always easy to determine your type.

When I attended a full day MBTI workshop, I came away thinking I was an ISTJ. I actually tested as an INTP, but the facilitator explained that the test is not always accurate, and after going through all the exercises, I decided I was an ISTJ in spite of what the test said.

Looking back on that now, it sounds ridiculous to me, but it made sense at the time.

3 years later, I met with a career coach to talk about career options, and the MBTI just happened to come up. I said I was an ISTJ, and she seemed surprised. She asked me if fitting in was very important to me, and I said no, if anything, I’d want to be different.

She said, “Oh, then you’re definitely not an ISTJ,” and after a couple of minutes decided that I was probably an INTP. I told her that’s what the test said, and she smiled.

Now I can see why I misunderstood some things and concluded that I was an ISTJ. And when I take the online tests, I get INTJ/ISTJ/ISTP quite often, and I can see that it depends on how I’m interpreting the questions, and even my mood.

First you need to realize that even the official test isn’t perfectly accurate. Yet it’s been tested and refined over 40 million administrations, and it meets and exceeds the standards for psychological instruments for both reliability (consistent results from one test to the next) and validity (measuring what it attempts to measure).

On the other hand, the online knockoffs have barely been tested at all. And even tiny variations in the questions can make a difference in how you answer them.

When I see you’re testing as INTJ, ISTP, or ISTJ, I know something is way off. These aren’t just three different types – they’re three different temperaments.

The 16 types are organized into four temperaments, which are the most basic personality types dating back to ancient times. They represent the starkest differences you can have between different personalities.

So if the online tests are taking you across temperament boundaries so easily (even if you’re borderline on those letters), something is wrong.

The best ways to find out your type, in descending order:

#3 – Take the official test and attend an MBTI workshop. The test results will probably be accurate, and the workshop will provide additional info as well as being a lot of fun.

#2 – Read books and websites about the MBTI until your type becomes obvious. The official MBTI guidelines say that you are the best judge of your own type, regardless of what the test says. And I think that when you understand the different types well enough, you can’t fail to correctly type yourself.

And the #1 best way to find out your four letters…read my book!

While I’m at it, I’ll comment on this part too:

“As you can see, NTJ is pretty close to the middle, I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, if I’m just ‘average’? ”

You’re using a smiley, so you know that “average” isn’t a bad thing here. It just is what it is.

If you have split preferences, you can say you have a balanced personality. This might sound good, and of course it is in some ways. At the same time, it can lead to confusion. Imagine not being sure whether you want to be a hedge fund analyst or a panda ballet choreographer.

If you have very clear preferences, you won’t have this confusion. You’ll be pulled in only one direction, and you’ll be full speed ahead when you get to do what you want. The downside is that you’ll be a fish out of water when you have to act against your preferences.

There are always pros and cons. There are no bad types, nor bad preference splits. So just be who you are!

My post on mixed handedness generated a lot of interest, and I said I’d return to that topic after I had learned more about it. It turns out there was far too much information to put into a post, or even a series of posts. So I’ll be releasing it as an ebook in the near future.

One thing that surprised me was how astonishingly hard it is to get reliable information on whether certain famous people are left-handed, right-handed, or mixed-handed.

What often happens is someone hears that so-and-so is left-handed, so he puts that in a book without checking for any evidence, and before too long it ends up on a million web pages. It’s kind of annoying when you’re just trying to find the truth.

Here we see 6 famous people who regularly appear on lists of southpaws, despite the notable distinction of not being left-handed. (Thanks to Chris McManus for bringing these people to my attention in his book Right Hand, Left Hand.)

Billy the Kid

First on the list is Henry McCarty, AKA Henry Antrim, AKA William H. Bonney, AKA Billy the Kid. He’s been the most famous southpaw outlaw since Paul Newman played him in the 1958 western “The Left Handed Gun.”

It’s actually understandable that we always thought he was left-handed. After all, we only had one photograph of him, and it showed him with a pistol on his left hip, steadying a rifle with his right hand.

The problem is that we only had blurry copies of the original photo. After discovering the original more than 100 years after his death, we found that it was made using a technique that reversed the image.

Furthermore, the original was clear enough that we could see that the buttons were on the wrong side of his vest, and his belt buckle was backwards. The corrected version appears above, showing Billy’s pistol on his right hip.

Pablo Picasso

We only had one picture of Billy the Kid, but we don’t have that problem with Picasso. Actually, we have thousands of pictures of Picasso, and plenty of videos as well. The only problem is, he isn’t using his left hand in any of them.

Albert Einstein

You’ve probably seen this picture before, with Einstein writing on the chalkboard right-handed. He may very well have been mixed-handed, but he sure wasn’t left-handed.

James Michener

Pulitzer Prize winner James Michener was once nominated by Southpaws International as one of their southpaws of the year. He wrote to them to say that the only thing he used his left hand for was occasionally scratching his right elbow.

Bob Dylan

If Bob Dylan were completely left-handed, you’d think it would be easy to find a picture of him playing a guitar that way.

However, he may have been mixed-handed. In David Hepworth’s 1986 interview with Bob Dylan, Hepworth noted that Dylan autographed his album with his left hand.

Benjamin Franklin

The confusion here comes from Benjamin Franklin’s essay a petition of the left hand. It’s written from the point of view of a left hand, complaining about how he’s treated differently from the right hand. But is that enough to mean that Ben was left-handed?

The portrait above was painted by Mason Chamberlin, from life (i.e., in person) in 1762. Ben Franklin is shown holding a quill pen in his right hand. I have to think that the artist wouldn’t go to the trouble of reversing the image since the model was right in front of him, and Ben would surely have noticed had he done so.

At any rate, there are many possibilities between completely left-handed and completely right-handed. Take this handedness test to see where you fall on that continuum.

Do you know any other right-handed “southpaws?”

For more handedness myth-busting, check out my ebooks Ambidextrous (for right-handers) and Ambisinistrous (for left-handers).

I always thought winning the Nobel Peace Prize was a big deal. After all, this is a prize that even Gandhi wasn’t good enough to win.

Barack Obama was nominated for it less than two weeks after his inauguration. The committee voted for him while he presided over two wars that have lasted longer than World War II. And he actually won the award on the day we bombed the moon. I don’t know where to start with what’s wrong with this.

The problem with handing out Nobel Peace Prizes like tic tacs is that it cheapens the award for the people who really earn it. You know, the people who actually do something for peace, like Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa, or Nelson Mandela, or the 14th Dalai Lama.

It’s entirely possible that Obama will earn it in time (ending these two wars would be a nice start). But even so, wouldn’t it have been better for everyone, Obama himself included, to at least wait until the end of his presidency, instead of hoping he’ll earn it someday?

###

In other news, the price of How To Be Rich And Happy has been dropped from $97 to $47. For people who have already bought it, don’t worry – Tim will be in contact with an offer to make it right.

Gordon Gekko has often been misquoted as saying “greed is good.” He did technically say “greed . . . is good,” but that snippet leaves a lot of the meaning out. Let’s look at what he really said:

“The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated…The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.”

Greed isn’t the right word because it’s an extreme version of what he’s really talking about. The opposite extreme is apathy, and both extremes are bad.

I’m not sure what a better word would be. Desire? Ambition? Drive? Mojo? Life force? Evolutionists call it selective advantage. Academics call it a thirst for knowledge. Economists call it rational self-interest.

Whatever you call it, it’s not bad. Surely there’s plenty of room between one extreme of preying on innocent people, and the other extreme of being a spineless jellyfish.

I’m bringing this up now because I just saw Michael Moore’s new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” While I liked it, I thought it was far weaker than “Sicko” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.” I totally agree with him about all the corruption at the top, but I disagree with him about what’s happening at the bottom.

We see several people in the movie being evicted from their homes. Is it sad? Yes. Being poor is awful, no question about it.

But while I saw people who weren’t happy about their situation, I didn’t see anyone taking personal responsibility for it, or coming up with a plan for how they’re going to fix it. They just think they deserve to stay in their house whether they’re making the payments or not.

Their logic seems to be “I’m poor, therefore someone should give me a free house.” If it were me, I’d be thinking “I’m poor, therefore I better make more money so I can pay for this house.”

One family looked out the window as several police cars pulled up to their house to evict them. But they refused to open the door for them. Instead, one family member called the Sheriff and said they weren’t going to resist, but the cops were going to have to break the door down.

I actually found this guy more offensive than the “condo vulture.” He thinks he’s Gandhi in a noble fight of nonviolent resistance? No, he’s just a jerk who’s wasting the cops’ time and causing someone else’s property to be damaged.

To be fair, we didn’t get any information about how all these people ended up like that. There could have been tragedies that put them in that situation through no fault of their own. (Though minor economic fluctuations such as this recession are far from being tragedies.)

But there were hints that they became homeless only through absence of greed, for lack of a better word. Thinking that money is evil isn’t going to help. If you’re not making enough to pay the bills, then you have to either reduce your bills or make more money.

Are there no jobs where you live? You might have to move. Does your occupation no longer pay well? You might have to change fields. Do you not have any skills that employers want? You might have to develop some. This might not be fair or convenient or what you wanted, but it’s sometimes necessary.

When I got laid off in the dot com bust, I had to move to where the jobs were, learn new skills, and take a big pay cut. Did I want to do that? No, but it was a lot more constructive than sitting around in an area with no jobs, waiting for Michael Moore to put me in a movie.

And if I had stayed, I certainly wouldn’t have claimed the right to live there without paying for it. I would have sooner starved to death than default on my mortgage.

One person in the movie says there are only two kinds of people: the ones who have nothing, and the ones who have everything, with no one in between. Where is he getting that from?

I’d guess that almost everyone who’s reading this post is in between. The ones who have nothing sometimes truly lack the ability to move up, but usually they just refuse to evolve.

If someone doesn’t want to have moderate greed, I think that’s their right. But they have to accept the consequences of the path they’ve chosen.

Michael Moore says capitalism is the enemy of democracy. But the problem isn’t capitalism itself, just the kind we have.

Most people are outraged that the top 1% makes as much money as the bottom 95%, but that’s not the problem per se. If they create that much value, they should make that much money. Why should the people who don’t create any value make as much money as the ones who create a lot?

However, the problem is that the broken system allows some of the top 1% to make that much money without creating that much value. In fact, some of them destroy value.

And some of them have gone to jail for it, but many more are still out there and up to their old tricks. Why wouldn’t they keep doing it, if they have no sense of ethics and no one’s going to stop them?

Moore says the top 1% fear the bottom 95%, because they have 95% of the votes. But he says they won’t take back the country with their votes, because they believe that if they keep working hard, they’ll be in that 1% someday.

I don’t know where he’s getting that from. Why would anyone think they’ll magically jump up like that? No, the problem is that there’s no one to vote for. No one stands for eliminating corruption because being a politician requires being all caught up in it.

True capitalism doesn’t guarantee that everyone is equally good at the game, just that we all get to play by the same rules. And while there should be a safety net to help people stay in the game when they’re down on their luck, we don’t want a system that fixes everyone at the same level. Eliminate greed, and you eliminate progress.

Moore unwittingly gives us an example of the good kind of greed: Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine. He did a great thing and didn’t patent it for personal gain, because he didn’t need the money.

But while he wasn’t greedy for money, his greed for a cure is what made him work hard enough to find it. He wasn’t the kind of guy to sit back and wait for someone to hand him a cure, or buy him a house.

Evil people are often obsessed with money, but that doesn’t mean that money is evil. It’s just a resource, and it works for its owner.

When good people refuse to play the game, that just means that only the evil people will have it. Isn’t it better to see it in the hands of people who will use it well? That’s why we need a healthy dose of the good kind of greed.

I usually roll my eyes whenever I see a title containing the word “rich.” That goes double for the word “happy.” So why on earth would I use both the words “rich” and “happy” in a post title? Because this is about the new book How To Be Rich And Happy by Tim Brownson and John Strelecky.

I know, a title like that makes you want to ask “What the hell were you thinking?” (It’s actually my first question to Tim below.) But this is actually a book of substance and not hype. Instead of writing a normal review, I thought it would be better to interview Tim about what being “rich and happy” means.

But very quickly, here’s what you get. This is an electronic book delivered to you by instant download, but its 218 pages have the look and feel of a “real book.” It contains a tremendous amount of information, a great variety of material, and it keeps things fun. You can download the first three sections for free, and it’s backed by an amazing 12 month money-back guarantee.

It also includes:

- #1 Best Selling author John P. Strelecky’s inspirational book “Life Safari.” John’s works have been translated into nineteen languages and been best-sellers around the world.

- Tim Brownson’s critically acclaimed book – “Don’t Ask Stupid Questions, There are no Stupid Questions.”

- Access to an ongoing library of video tutorials in which John and Tim explain the exercises and findings in How to be Rich and Happy.

Update 10/9/2009: Due to numerous complaints, the price has been dropped from $97 to $47. However, it no longer comes with the two additional ebooks.

Go check it out now. Well, if you can wait a bit, read my interview with author Tim Brownson first.

Hunter: First things first, Tim – there’s no way we can avoid talking about the title. You know you were setting yourself up for ridicule by calling it “How To Be Rich And Happy.” If your book were a kid on the first day of school, it would be the one with a bowl haircut, the latest pocket protector with the memory expansion pack, and a t-shirt with a bullseye labeled “aim fist here.”

I’ve noticed that a lot of the fluffy self-help books use certain trigger words in the title to magnetically pull people in. The problem is that often there’s not enough substance inside to make it worthwhile. And readers find that an irresistible title has made them buy a book containing nothing but recycled platitudes and sales pitches for overpriced workshops.

So, when I heard that your upcoming book is titled “How To Be Rich And Happy,” well, let’s say it’s a great credit to your reputation that I didn’t immediately vomit in terror! But while I was mocking the title for the first few pages, I have to say that by the end of the book I was actually a fan of the phrase “rich and happy.”

Tell us about rich and happy. What does that mean to you?

Tim: Relieved to hear you didn’t vomit in terror, that wouldn’t be a good thing. Interestingly enough my reaction to the title was very similar to yours. When John told me he was planning a book called “How To Be Rich and Happy” I barely managed to control my mirth, as I was about to drive off the first tee.

If I hadn’t known John I would have dismissed it out of hand. Even when he sent me the draft I didn’t even read if for over a month, but when I did, I thought, wow!

The title will definitely raise a few eyebrows and some people will think it’s a scam to help me and John get Rich and Happy, but we’re prepared for that.

The point is we couldn’t think of a better way to describe what we were doing and to go all coy and bashful because we were worried about what others would think wouldn’t have served anybody. And at the end of the day who doesn’t want to be rich and happy?

Hunter: I’ve known you through your blog for a long time, but I hadn’t heard of your co-author John Strelecky. How did you decide to write it with him? What do you each bring to the table?

Tim: How I met John is really weird. I had a copy of his book “The Why Café” and wanted to ask a question. I shot him an e-mail and he responded with a reply almost immediately saying “let’s meet for breakfast.” I thought, “What the hell is this nut job talking about?” I had no idea he lived only a mile down the road, he could have been anywhere in the U.S. for all I knew!

That was over 3 years ago and we became good friends sharing a very similar outlook on life. His book “The Big 5 For Life” is one of my favorite business books of all time and one I’d encourage anybody to read.

So as I was reading the draft of the book I kept thinking “I want in on this project!” So I asked him if he’d consider letting me co-author and he said yes. Easy when you ask!

In terms of what John brings to the table. He was a very successful consultant and independently wealthy by the time he hit his early 30’s. He’s also had a lot of experience living the Rich and Happy life and spends upwards of 6 months per year traveling because that’s what he loves to do.

I’ll let you judge what I bring! A funny accent maybe?

[Hunter's comment: Tim is being a bit modest here. You can read more about him on the About page of How To Be Rich And Happy.]

Hunter: Your book’s introduction is bound to remind people of Napoleon Hill’s classic Think And Grow Rich. That’s a book I enjoyed very much, though like most classics, it’s sorely dated. In what ways would you say your book is similar to TAGR, and how is it different?

Tim: John loves TAGR and I am more ambivalent toward it probably because it is so dated now and I can’t remember it that clearly.

There has been a conscious effort by us both to make this a process that people can follow easily. We did 6 or 7 rewrites in the last 3 or 4 months to make sure the book “flowed” for people. In that way I guess it is a bit like TAGR. I actually received a DM on Twitter from one of my own favorite authors in the UK, a guy called Michael Heppell saying he thought it was like TAGR for the 21st Century.

[Hunter's comment: Darn, he stole what I was going to say in my testimonial! ]

The differences are tricky because it’s about 4 years since I read TAGR, but I have no recollection of the importance we place on values and understanding what your own core values are. I could be wrong on that though because I have read one or two books in the meantime.

Hunter: Who is your book meant for? If you come across a burned out lawyer who just can’t take another day of work, a single mother who dreams of the day she can spend more quality time with her kids, and an aging idealist who never figured out what he wants to do with his life, who are you going to recommend your book to?

Tim: Are you ready for a huge cop out? All of them! Because what we do starts at the level of identity and ascertains what drives somebody at an unconscious level it can work for literally anybody that applies the formula to their life. Obviously the path will be different for different people, but I would be lying if I said it would benefit one type of person more than another and that is quite deliberate.

Actually scratch that, it will benefit anybody that is actually prepared to do what is necessary. Anybody thinking of buying it and hoping they will get Rich and Happy purely by reading it, is in for a huge let down and I’d advise them to save their money. One of the positive side effects of the price is we know we’ll get a higher than average percentage of people doing the work.

Hunter: I know you’re an NLP Master Practitioner, but my knowledge of NLP is pretty much limited to what the acronym stands for – neuro-linguistic programming. Does your book teach any NLP techniques, or is that something you need to hire a high-priced shrink for?

Tim: LOL, not many high priced shrinks use NLP although some of the processes are starting to be picked up and move into the main stream.

There is plenty of NLP in there although it may not always be visible as NLP to the casual observer. There are some obvious techniques like anchoring, reframing and using submodalities to help the reader change their subjective experience about an event and there is also some subtle use of language patterns designed to get people to do the work!

Hunter: Many parents tell their kids they can grow up to be president if they put their mind to it. Is that true?

Tim: On a local level I think it’s perfectly true. However, on a global level it obviously cannot be true, there is only one President. I think it’s important to encourage kids to believe anything is possible within physical reason.

I much prefer clients that come to me have outrageous goals than puny simple goals that will probably happen by default. The latter have usually had their dreams knocked out of them as kids by constantly being told to, “be more realistic” As one of the chapters says, “realism is for accountants,” and in my opinion it stifles creativity and kills hope.

Hunter: How do you know your formula can work for someone who is sincere in their desire to apply it? Don’t we all vary dramatically in our strengths, interests, assets, connections, opportunities, etc? So how can there be one formula that works for everybody?

Tim: Because the formula is dynamic and will vary from person to person. Our starting point is to say “Look, we don’t know what Rich and Happy means to you. We don’t know what your core values are and we don’t what your belief system is like. However, we can show YOU how to find that stuff out and start to lay the foundation for moving forward.” What we do that in my experience a lot of self development books don’t do, is explain how this stuff works and we back up a great deal with a lot of cutting edge medical and scientific research.

Not only that, but it’s the blueprint I use with clients so I have first hand experience of knowing it can work across all types of people.

Tim Brownson is a Life Coach out of the UK but now living in Florida and with clients all over the globe. He runs the blog The Discomfort Zone where he takes a light-hearted, left field approach to self-development and refuses to take himself too seriously.

His latest book How To Be Rich And Happy is now available for the bold and daring.

“Draw a crazy picture,
Write a nutty poem,
Sing a mumble-gumble song,
Whistle through your comb.
Do a loony-goony dance
‘Cross the kitchen floor,
Put something silly in the world
That ain’t been there before.”

- Shel Silverstein, “Put Something In,” A Light in the Attic

Yesterday was Shel Silverstein’s birthday. He died ten years ago, but his words live on.

Think of what you can do today to put something silly in the world. Then tell us what you did.

Hot off the press, it’s Jonathan Mead’s free ebook The Zero Hour Workweek. Boy, the workweek keeps getting shorter and shorter, doesn’t it?

Actually, the zero hour thing means that when you love what you do, work doesn’t feel like work. Jonathan says that he can no longer tell whether he’s working or playing. How cool is that?

What’s inside: how he gained over 10,000 blog subscribers, became a regular writer for a top 50 blog, and created a full time income online. And then, of course, how you can do the same with what you love to do.

He also includes case studies of Danielle LaPorte, Chris Guillebeau, Glen Allsopp, Nathalie Lussier, Cody McKibben, and Charlie Gilkey. It’s hard to imagine someone not liking this ebook.

Erica Douglass recently released her free Blog Success Manifesto, where she shares thirty tactical tips to help you gain your next 1,000 subscribers in record time.

These tips certainly seem to have worked for her, taking her to 4,000 subscribers in 18 months. Even better, she did it while posting on average just once every 10 days.

I’ll be honest, there’s a pretty significant risk that you’ll be so mesmerized by the beautiful layout that you won’t be able to actually read the ebook. But assuming you can break that spell, you’re bound to pick up at least a few tips you haven’t heard before, no matter what level you’re at.

One of her tips that I implemented immediately was the “Tweet This” plugin. You’ll see the button for it below, replacing the old one that I didn’t like. She also has good tips for finding an angle, blog design, writing content, promotion, email lists, and more. Did I mention it’s free?

P.S. While you’re at it, you can read my own tips on how to get more blog subscribers.

Erin Pavlina has an ebook out called 10 Ways to Raise Your Vibration in Under 10 Minutes. It’s free, but you have to sign up for her newsletter “Spiritual Wisdom for Conscious People” (you can unsubscribe at any time).

It’s a very quick read, with 10 tips you can put into practice right now to “raise your vibration.” If that sounds too mystical for you, you can substitute the phrase “put yourself in a good mood.”

Are you feeling depression, anxiety, fear, anger, guilt, gloominess, shame, grief, apathy, or helplessness? If so, you’ll learn ways to instantly trade all that in for strength, happiness, vibrancy, cheerfulness, delight, elation, euphoria, hopefulness, lightheartedness, and peace of mind. (Wow, the thesaurus is sure getting a workout!)

After reading When Logic And Intuition Fail, someone asked me about a related paradox you may have heard about.

Let’s say you drive to work at 40 mph, and come back at 60 mph. What was your average speed?

It’s natural to think your average speed was 50 mph, but it was actually 48 mph. It would be 50 mph if you spent the same amount of time at both speeds. But since you’re spending more time at 40 mph than you are at 60 mph, your average speed has to be less than 50 mph.

If you’re driving to the beach, you might try to hold steady at 60 mph. But you won’t be able to stay exactly at that speed. You’ll sometimes be going a little faster, and sometimes be going a little slower. Even if the fast periods perfectly cancel out the slow periods, your average speed will still be less than 60 mph.

If you use cruise control, you not only save effort and gas, you also save time. That’s what slow and steady (emphasis on the steady) does for you.

And it’s one reason why you’re more productive when you do things at a steady pace, instead of slacking off and trying to make up for it later. It’s better to put your efforts on cruise control.