Author Archives: Garry Rodgers

About Garry Rodgers

After three decades as a Royal Canadian Mounted Police homicide detective and British Columbia coroner, International Best Selling author and blogger Garry Rodgers has an expertise in death and the craft of writing on it. Now retired, he wants to provoke your thoughts about death and help authors give life to their words.

THIRTEEN TERRIBLY CLOSE CALLS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPON ACCIDENTS

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever devised by human beings. By conservative estimates from ArmsControl.org and the Federation of American Scientists, there are 12,685 known nuclear warheads in the world’s arms inventory—probably far more. Although there’ve only been two actual combat nuclear deployments in history, hundreds of test activations took place. No one truly knows how many near-miss incidents happened, but we do know of thirteen terribly close calls with nuclear weapon accidents.

By definition, a near-miss is a “narrowly avoided collision, discharge or other accident”. In nuclear weapon terms, that’d be closely avoiding unintentionally setting off an explosion—an explosion with unfathomable consequences. So how is it that people get so careless when handling an instrument of Armageddon? The answer seems to lie in human nature.

The world has eight countries with known nuclear arsenals. By alphabetical order, that’s China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Three more states have active nuclear weapon acquisition and development programs—Iran, North Korea, and Syria. There’s a lot of effort by “responsible” nuclear weapon powers to curtail the rogue countries before they become more of a menace.

Two international agreements regulate the world’s nuclear-equipped countries. One is the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. The other is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996. They divide the countries into three categories: Nuclear-Weapon States, Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors, and States of Immediate Proliferation Concern. According to ArmsControl.org, here’s where they fit and what they apparently have.

Nuclear Weapon States

  • China — 350 warheads
  • France — 290 warheads
  • Russia — 5977 warheads
  • United Kingdom — 225 warheads
  • United States — 5428 warheads

Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors

  • India — 160 warheads
  • Israel — 90 warheads
  • Pakistan — 165 warheads

States of Immediate Proliferation Concern

  • Iran — No confirmed warheads but in active development
  • North Korea — Known to possess but unknown quantity estimated at 20-30 warheads
  • Syria — No confirmed warheads but in active development

Incidentally, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear bombs upon the Soviet Union break-up. They returned their stockpiles to Russia, but it’s feared some nuclear devices are unaccounted for and open to terrorist possession. South Africa had a nuclear weapon program with active warheads, but they disbanded it. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also stopped their nuclear development programs.

Different Nuclear Weapon Types

Before getting into the thirteen terribly close calls with nuclear weapon accidents, it’s worth a review of what these weapons of mass destruction really are. Most people are aware that nuclear weapons arrived at the end of World War II when America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. These were first-generation devices. Little Boy was a uranium fission atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, and Fat Man was a plutonium fission A-bomb that caused Nagasaki’s destruction.

Fat Man and Little Boy were basic A-bomb nuclear weapons that drew energy by splitting plutonium and uranium atoms through a fission process. They weren’t the tremendously-powerful thermonuclear hydrogen bombs that use a primary fission activation to cause nuclear fusion from hydrogen atoms. A fusion-activated H-Bomb uses a fission reaction to release massive energy contained in hydrogen gas.

The two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were puny compared to today’s extremely energetic thermonuclear weapons. The Japanese destructors held a power equivalent to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT each. Thermonuclear bombs start at about 1/10 million tons of TNT and go up. This energy gets measured in the terms of kilotons (KT) which is 1,000 tons of TNT and megatons (MT) or 1 million TNT tons.

Today, a small-yield nuclear bomb such as a W76 battlefield tactical nuclear weapon would have a 100 KT explosive power. A larger-capacity B83 nuclear bomb would release 1.2 MT in power. Big or small, both designs are enormously destructive and would be devastating if discharged. It’s certainly nothing to risk having an accident with.

Nuclear Weapon Accidents — Broken Arrow

But, accidents do happen with nuclear weapons. They have, and likely will continue, as long as there’s a human element handling them. The United States military has a public record of accidents they’ve experienced with nuclear weapons.

It’s called Broken Arrow. Officially, Broken Arrow lists 32 specific incidents where American nuclear bomb handling went beyond safe handling parameters. Some speculate there are way more—possibly hundreds that haven’t been reported or, worse, covered up. Here are the “official” parameters a nuclear weapon incident/accident must have to make the Broken Arrow list.

  • Accidental or Unexplained Nuclear Detonation
  • Non-Nuclear Detonation or Burning a Nuclear Weapon
  • Radioactive Contamination
  • Nuclear Asset Lost or Misplaced in Transit
  • Jettison of Nuclear Weapon or Component
  • Public Hazard, Actual or Implied

The military loves its code words and phrases. They use Empty Quiver for having a nuclear bomb stolen from them. Dull Sword refers to minor nuclear arms incidents like a malfunctioning vehicle hauling a nuclear bomb. Faded Giant is a failing nuclear reactor. And NucFlash is an intentional or unintentional discharge that starts a nuclear war.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a watchdog keeping track of close calls with nuclear weapons. They say since the nuclear age started, political and military leaders faced a daunting challenge with their nuclear bomb program. They wanted it free of accidents but still wanted bombs immediately available when and if needed.

So how secure are nuclear weapons against accidental firings, incidental loss, and damage from careless root causes? Well, the good news, they say, is that there hasn’t been a single reported incident where a nuclear or thermonuclear bomb actually went off by accident. The bad news, they report, is there’ve been many, many close calls where accidents and errors nearly nuked us. Here are thirteen terribly close calls with nuclear weapon accidents.

Thirteen Terribly Close Calls With Nuclear Weapon Accidents

13. February 14, 1950 — A U.S. Air Force B-36 bomber en route from Alaska to Texas experienced catastrophic mechanical failure. Most of the crew parachuted out and survived, although the plane crashed and burned in the British Columbia coastal mountains. The one 1-MT Mark 4 nuclear bomb on board was jettisoned into the Pacific Ocean for safety sake. Despite a massive search, the operational nuclear warhead has never been recovered. It’s still out there, armed and waiting to go off.

12. March 11, 1958 — A U.S. Air Force B-47 Stratojet left Savanah, Georgia during a storm. It carried a 1-MT Mark 6 nuclear bomb, and the violent turbulence caused a crew member in the bomb bay to grab on for stability. He accidentally pulled the nuke’s emergency release pin which sent the bomb earthward. It landed at Mars Bluff in a children’s playhouse near three little kids. The bomb failed to detonate but caused a fire that burned down the family home. Fortunately, no one was injured although the children were stunned by the impact concussion.

11. May 22, 1957 — A U.S. Airforce B-36 bomber ran into bad weather over Albuquerque, New Mexico. It had a 10-MT Mark 17 hydrogen bomb in its bay that was accidentally released by a crew member who grabbed the bomb jettison lever to steady himself. The bomb hit the ground with enough force to leave a 12-foot deep by 25-foot wider crater in the desert sand. It didn’t blow up because the fissionable plutonium activator failed to activate. The official report noted that the Mark 17 was the largest nuclear bomb in the American arsenal.

10. March 10, 1956 — A U.S. Air Force B-47 left Florida for Morocco. Somewhere over the Mediterranean Sea, the plane simply vanished. It disappeared. There was no distress call, and no wreckage was ever found. In its bay was one 3.4 MT Mark 15 nuclear bomb as well as an undisclosed number of dismantled nuclear bomb parts. No sign of the plane, its nuclear bomb, or the spare parts ever surfaced.

9. September 19, 1980 — Near Damascus, Arkansas a military personnel working in a Titan Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) silo dropped a wrench down the tube and damaged the fuel tank on a Titan II rocket. The leak caused an uncontrollable fire which destroyed the silo and its contents. On top of the Titan missile was a 9 MT W-53 nuclear warhead. It failed to go off but was burned beyond salvage. Should it have exploded, the blast may have set off a chain reaction blowing up 17 other nuclear bombs in the silo complex.

8. January 24, 1961 — A U.S. Strategic Command B-52 bomber experienced a mid-air collision while attempting to refuel with a KC-135 Flying Tanker near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Both jets broke apart and crashed. The B-52 held two 3.4 MT hydrogen bombs that jettisoned under parachute control. One chute failed and the bomb hit the ground at 700 mph. The other’s chute worked and let the bomb down slowly where it got hung up in a tree. Neither thermonuclear device exploded, but the investigation revealed the arming sequence actually activated on the second bomb that was stopped by the tree. It was only a simple switch with two little wires that prevented a major nuclear disaster.

7. July 27, 1956 — At Lakenhearth AFB in the United Kingdom, an American B-47 bomber on a touch-and-go training mission lost control. It plowed into a UK missile silo containing three 3 MT Mark 6 nuclear warheads. The silo, or “igloo” as it’s called, caught fire and burned. Once out, the investigation team found that the warheads were still operational and one bomb’s detonator had been sheared off in the impact. No one could clearly explain why it failed to go off as it should have.

6. January 17, 1966 — The Palomares Incident occurred when an American B-52 bomber had a mid-air collision with its fuel supplier over Palomares, Spain. Both crashed and burned, but the bomber made a controlled jettison of its four 1.5 MT hydrogen bombs. Two parachuted safely to the ground. One’s chute failed and its fission nuclear ignition device exploded. However, the actual fusion nuclear reaction didn’t happen. The preliminary fission nuclear blast caused massive radioactive pollution. The attempted cleanup effort was enormous, and the site still radiates today. Searchers eventually recovered the fourth nuclear bomb from the sea after a long and expensive venture.

5. January 21, 1968  — Four 1.1 MT B23 thermonuclear hydrogen bombs were on board a U.S. B-52 when it caught fire near Thule AFB in Greenland. The situation was hopeless, so the crew set the plane on an autopilot descent towards the open ocean and then bailed out. Every crew member survived, but the bomber did something unexpected. With a mind of its own, it crash-landed itself on the Greenland ice causing the primary fission nuclear ignition material to explode. The main warheads didn’t follow suit. However, the radioactive contamination from the small nuke blasts caused an environmental nightmare for the Greenland area. One investigator said, “It was like four dirty bombs went off.”

4. August 29, 2007 — Although no damage was done, this is likely the most embarrassing nuclear accident the United States Air Force ever experienced. They lost six live AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles equipped with W80-1 variable-yield nuclear warheads for a 36-hour period. Yes, they lost them. The bombs got mistakenly loaded at Minot AFB in North Dakota for transport to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.

These six thermonuclear hydrogen bombs were wrongly taken from a stockpile that were live rather than the decommissioned ones that were supposed to be the day’s cargo. The unguarded nukes sat on a runway all night and then arrived in Louisiana where the ground crew treated them like duds. This SNAFU caused heads to roll right up to the Secretary of Defense because of lax nuclear bomb safety policies.

3. October 03, 1986 — The Russians aren’t without their nuclear bomb accidents. However, they’re usually very tight-lipped so who knows how many they’ve had. This one was impossible to conceal as they rescued their sailors from the Russian K-219 nuclear-powered attack submarine. The sub was near Bermuda when a hatch cover failed. Water leaked in and mixed with nuclear-grade fuel which is not a good thing. Despite all efforts to save the ship, most of the crew was saved.

The submarine fared otherwise. It was put under tow by a Russian freight and taken towards the motherland. Once over very deep water in the mid-Atlantic, the sub broke free and went 18,000 feet to the bottom. With it were two nuclear reactors and 34 operational nuclear-tipped missiles. None of them have been recovered.

2. March 01, 1954 — Not all nuclear accidents come from near misses. This one came from a live and planned thermonuclear hydrogen bomb test the Americans pulled off at remote Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific. This was in nuclear bomb research infancy, and the United States military was going for the biggest and best bomb they could build. This day, they tested a project called Castle Bravo which engineers designed for a five MT yield. Somehow, they miscalculated.

The controlled blast was at least three times the expected force—somewhere between 15 and 20 MT. Observers placed outside the expected danger zone were radiated like they’d entered a blast furnace. Twenty-three pour souls on a Japanese fishing boat perished immediately with hundreds of native dwellers on nearby atolls consequently dying of radiation poisoning. Some were children who played in white fallout ash which they thought was this thing called snow.

The radioactive area was enormous. One analyst stated, “If ground zero had of been Washington, DC every resident in the greater Washington-Baltimore would have been instantly dead. Even in Philadelphia, 150 miles away, the majority of inhabitants would have died within an hour from radiation poisoning. In New York City, half the population would be dead by nightfall. And, all the way to the Canadian border inhabitants would be exposed to lethal radiation.”

1. October 30, 1961— Leave it to the Russians to do something really big and radically brazen. They built a gigantic thermonuclear hydrogen bomb—a magnificently monstrous bomb. They called it Tsar Bomba but used the creative code-name Ivan. This was the most powerful nuclear weapon ever made. However, it doesn’t appear they intended Ivan to be this large.

Soviet RDS-202 Tsar Bomba was 26 feet long and 7 feet wide. Ivan’s static weight was 27 tons, and it needed a specially-modified Tu-95 bomber to carry it. The Russian crew detonated Ivan on a deserted island far in the barren north. The area was mostly uninhabited by Siberian terms which seemed like a good place for destructive nuclear testing.

The Russian military, being the secretive bunch they are, never declassified the intended design yield they built into Tsar Bomba. It certainly wasn’t the 57 MT thermonuclear explosion that ensued. This bang was so big that the flash was seen for 630 miles distant. The mushroom cloud extended 40 miles up and spread out hundreds of miles with radiation spreading over multi-thousands of square miles. Windows 560 miles away blew out from the concussion.

Western observers monitored the Tsar Bomba blast and confirmed the energy. They equated Tsar Bomba as using more energy than all the munitions expended by all sides during World War II. That included the nukes on Japan. There are no verified records of how much environmental damage Tsar Bomba accomplished or how many people perished in its aftermath.

The Future of Nuclear Weapon Accidents

It’s naïve to think the world will rid itself of nuclear weapons any time in the foreseeable future. The NPT countries continue to cooperate in reducing their nuclear inventories—within their parameters of trust. Many monitoring protocols keep participating countries “honest”, but it’s the non-NPT nuclear weapons possessors and the immediate proliferation countries that present a high risk for accidents—never mind using a nuke with intention.

Allowing irresponsible, belligerent countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran to possess nuclear weapons is a serious mistake. It’s an unacceptable threat. It’s not just their instability in aggressively firing the first nuclear shot. It’s the chance they’ll make a terrible error and inadvertently activate a bomb.

The “responsible” nuclear community avoided intentional thermonuclear bomb-throwing since the lesson learned at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus the close call in Cuba. But they, too, still haven’t got the safety memo. As long as there’s human involvement with nuclear weapons, there’ll always be a potential accident.

It’s human nature to be careless with things like instruments of Armageddon. But, close calls with nuclear weapon accidents have terrible consequences. Just think of the innocent atoll kids who played in the snow.

WERE YOU—A HUMAN BEING—DESIGNED BY A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE?

I never came away from an autopsy without a scientific, and somewhat spiritual, reflection on the human body’s phenomenal design. I don’t know how many autopsies I attended over the years as a cop and a coroner. Lots. It’s not something you score. But I always looked at postmortems as a scientific—almost spiritual—systematic exercise in examining the intelligence behind human design.

There are twelve major systems in your anatomy—all interlinked to ensure your survival. Remove any system (except your reproductive one) and you’ll die. And these systems go about their intermingling business—day after day—year after year—without you having to consciously think about operating them.

Think about it.

All that’s required to live is fuel plus a bit of maintenance and, when things go wrong, modern medical science usually knows how to patch you up. Today’s practitioners can replace your organs, your limbs and joints, your hair, your eyes, your nose, and your teeth.

But what modern science and medicine doesn’t know is how all this came to be. What force of nature—call it a higher intelligence or infinite intelligence—laid the laws that result in you, a conscious human being, to exist and function?

I recently read a riveting paper written by William  A. Dembski, of the Access Research Network titled Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information. The intelligent design, or ID, idea has been around since the ancient Greeks, who did some deep thinking about where they came from and where they were going.

Some of intelligent design was explained by mythology, some by theology, and some by analogy. But the central question—did some intelligent being or force intentionally design you—remains unanswered today. Or did you just randomly happen through eons of evolution?

Personally, I believe there’s a unified source of infinite intelligence—a first cause—that guides evolution. A force we’re not capable of truly understanding, comprehending, or explaining. But still, a force that allowed our design and encouraged it.

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature’s entirety shows tangible signs of being designed by a pre-existing intelligence.

The most famous version of the design argument is found in the work of theologian William Paley who, in 1802, proposed his watchmaker analogy. His reasoning went like this:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever. … But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think the answer which I had before given would be sufficient.

To the contrary, the fine coordination of all the watch parts would force us to conclude that it must have had a maker—that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for some purpose. We’d struggle to comprehend its construction and designed its use, just as we’ve struggled to understand ourselves.

Paley argued we can draw the same conclusion about many anatomical objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch’s parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing and relaying information to the brain that processes it and relays it back for the body’s welfare. In each case, Paley argued, we discern the marks of an intelligent designer.

Although Paley’s basic notion was sound and influenced thinkers for decades, Paley never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design in nature. Detecting design depended on such vague standards as being able to discern an object’s “purpose.” Moreover, Paley and other “natural theologians” tried to reason from the facts of nature to the existence of a wise and benevolent God. They tried to prove God from the perception of perfect products.

All of these things made design an easy target for Charles Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution.

Whereas Paley saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature’s imperfections and brutishness. Although Darwin had once been an admirer of Paley, Darwin’s own observations and experiences—especially the cruel, lingering death of his 9-year-old daughter Annie in 1850—that destroyed whatever belief he had in a just and moral universe.

Following Darwin’s widely accepted theory of evolution, the notion of design was all but banished from biology.

Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin’s theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims that “intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.”

Like I said, I never came away from an autopsy without a scientific, and somewhat spiritual, reflection on the human body’s phenomenal design.

What do you think?

Were you—a human being—designed by a higher intelligence?

Or did you just randomly happen?

WHAT’S YOUR MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TYPE?

“The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) is the best known and most trusted personality assessment in the world. It’s helped develop effective work teams, build stronger families, and create successful careers. The MBTI assessment improves quality of life for you and your organization. Giving you this personalized way to take the assessment fulfills our mission: bringing lives ‘closer to our heart’s desire’.”

This descriptor is from the home page of the Myers-Briggs Foundation—an organization that furthers the 1940’s work of psychologists Katharine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs-Myers, who furthered Carl Jung’s theory. They categorized people into four principal psychological functions by which humans experience the world—sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking—and that one of these four functions is dominant for a person most of the time.

Sounds familiar… I took this personality test a few years ago and jotted the score in my notebook. Hmmm… might make a good blog topic so I’ll take it again and compare to the old score… lemme take another look at what this thing’s all about.

Myers & Briggs developed an “introspective, self-report questionnaire designed to indicate psychological preferences and typing how people perceive the world and make decisions”.

Paraphrasing from Wikepedia (this is not-so-exciting stuff—promise it’ll get livelier), “Carl Jung’s typology theories postulated a sequence of 4 cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having 1 of 2 polar orientations (extraversion or introversion), giving a total of 8 dominant functions. The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives.” I hope so because this is a pretty wordy explanation.

The theory’s essence is that seemingly random variation in behaviors is actually quite orderly and consistent, due to basic differences in the ways individuals use their perception and judgment.

Wiki goes on “Perception involves ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves ways of coming to conclusions about what’s been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive, and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for them to differ correspondingly in their interests, reactions, values, motivations, and skills.”

Okay. Starting to make sense to me. Tell me more about these 8 functions.

“In developing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the aim was to make the insights of type theory accessible to individuals and groups. They addressed 2 related goals in the developments and application of the MBTI instrument:

  1. The identification of basic preferences of each of the 4 dichotomies specified or implicit in Jung’s theory.
  2. The identification and description of the 16 distinctive personality types that result from the interactions among the preferences.”

Whoa. 16? Thought there was 8? Not following the math.

“Stick with us,” they said. “We evolved — 4X4=16.”

Huh?

“We took Jung’s base and turned it into 4 questions:

  1. What’s your favorite world? — Do you prefer to focus on the outer world, or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).
  2. How do you absorb information? — Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in, or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).
  3. How do you make decisions? —  When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency, or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).
  4. How do you structure? — In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided, or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).

When you decide on your preference in each category, you have your own personality type, which is expressed as a 4-letter code. The 16 personality types of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument are listed here as they are often shown in what is called a “type table”. Casually, they’re grouped into 4 personalities:

Analysts

INTJ — Architect —  Imaginative & strategic thinkers with a plan for everything.

INTP — Logician — Innovative inventors with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

ENTJ — Commander — Bold, imaginative, and strong-willed leaders who will find or make a way.

ENTP — Debater — Smart and curious thinkers who cannot resist an intellectual challenge.

Diplomats

INFJ — Advocates — Quiet and mystical, yet very inspiring and tireless idealists.

INFP — Mediator — Poetic, kind, and altruistic, always eager to help a good cause.

ENFJ — Protagonist — Charismatic and inspiring leaders who are able to mesmerize followers.

ENFP — Campaigner — Eager, creative, and socially free-spirits who always find a way to smile.

Sentinals

ISTJ — Logicistian — Practical and fact minded individuals who’s integrity cannot be doubted.

ISFJ — Defender — Very dedicated and warm protectors, always ready to protect loved ones.

ESTJ — Executive — Excellent administrators, unsurpassed at managing things and people.

ESFJ — Consul — Extraordinarily caring, social and popular people, always ready to help.

Explorers

ISTP — Virtuoso — Bold and masterful experimenters, handy with all kinds of tools.

ISFP — Adventurer — Flexible and charming artists, always wanting to explore or experience something new.

ESTP — Entrepreneur — Smart, energetic, and highly perceptive people who truly enjoy living on the edge.

ESFP — Entertainer — Spontaneous, enthusiastic, and energetic people; life is never boring around them.

Interesting, I thought. I’ll take the test again and show DyingWords followers what makes me tick. So, I googled around and found 3 different FREE approaches to the M-B test. I took them all:

  1. Humanetrics — http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
  2. My Personality Test — http://www.my-personality-test.com/personality-type/?gclid=CM2N_4CetsgCFQhsfgodXiEGjw
  3. Truity Type Finder — http://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-research-edition

I also checked the Myers-Briggs site at http://www.myersbriggs.org/ but they want $150 to sign-in, although it comes with an hour of shrink time if anyone’s interested.

So, how’d I make out?

INTJ — Every frikkin’ time, including the one I did a few years ago.

How accurate is it? You be the judge. Here’s my INTJ psychological diagnosis from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

The INTJ personality type is the Introverted Intuition with Extraverted Thinking type. Individuals that exhibit the INTJ personality type are knowledgeable, inventive, and theoretical, whether they’re working on long-term personal goals or creative projects in their professions. They are “big-picture” thinkers, creating constructive ambitions and planning for them accordingly. Myers-Briggs test INTJ types hold a clear idea of what they would like to accomplish in their future, and they use that vision as motivation to complete all of the necessary steps to obtain their dreams. This dedication to their visions and their ability to find ways to achieve them make INTJ types high-functioning employees:

  • Their looking-towards-the-future mentality helps them to create original and inspiring ideas for companies, as well as a well-thought-out plans for achieving these goals.
  • Value the intellectual ability of themselves and those of others, and place a high importance on it.
  • Can be adamant and commanding when the professional environment requires a certain level of authority.
  • Because of their ability to think long-term, they are often placed in (or place themselves in) authoritative positions in business and groups.
  • Quick to find solutions to challenges, whether that requires basing their solutions on pre-conceived knowledge or finding new information to base their decisions off of.
  • Can relate newly gathered information to the bigger picture.
  • Enjoy complicated problems, utilizing both book and street smarts (logical and hypothetical ideas) to find solutions.

They’re Strong Planners With Great Follow-Through

INTJ personality types are long-term goal-setters, creating plans to bring their goals to completion, and then following this plan using thought-out approaches and procedures devised by the INTJ. They are self-reliant, individualistic, and self-secure. INTJ personality types have a large amount of faith in their own competence and intelligence, even if others openly disagree or the opposite proves true. This also makes Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-assessed INTJ types their own worst critics, as they hold themselves to the highest standards. They dislike turbulence, perplexity, clutter, and when others waste their time and/or energy on something unimportant. This MBTI type is also succinct, analytical, discerning, and definitive.

In their personal lives, Myers-Briggs test INTJ types exhibit many of the same behaviors that they do in their professional lives. They expect competence from their peers and are more than willing to share their intelligence or ideas with those around them. Occasionally, INTJ personality types may find it difficult to hold their own in social situations, whether that is due to their actions or their opinions. To others, MBTI Assessment  Test -assessed INTJ types seem set in their ways or opinions because of their high respect for themselves, but oftentimes reality is just the opposite, with the INTJ type taking in new tidbits of information at all times, evaluating their own opinions and ideas accordingly. They are also often seen as a tad distant, closed off from others emotionally but not intellectually.

Sometimes INTJ Types Are Too Confident

This distance associated with this MBTI test-assessed personality type can occasionally progress to the point of negativity. INTJ types can close themselves off so much that they stop revealing what they are thinking/how they are coming to certain conclusions, which can make it seem as though they are simply rushing through a task. They can often do just that—jumping to underdeveloped endings without considering all new or present information. This flaw can also cause Myers-Briggs test assessed INTJ types to overlook important data and facts necessary to achieve their goals.

Their high level of competence coupled with their big-picture way of thinking can sometimes cause problems for this Myers-Briggs type. Because so many of their ideas are long-term, INTJ type ideas can occasionally lack the ability to fully come to fruition.

In their relationships with others, MBTI Test-assessed INTJ Personality Types may come off as judgmental, especially to those who aren’t as openly enthusiastic about the INTJ types ideas or intelligence. If they feel that others are not viewing them as highly as they view themselves, there is also a chance that they will not necessarily provide the level of feedback that that individual may need. However, by concentrating on developing their Sensing and Feeling, the INTJ type may fashion more intimate connections with their peers, spending less time in their heads and more time engaging with the world around them.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator INTJ personality type uses their big-picture thinking along with their logical problem-solving skills to succeed in a variety of occupations, usually those requiring scientific reasoning/understanding and those that involve building or creating something scientifically tangible. For these reasons, Myers-Briggs Test assessed INTJ types often find themselves choosing careers such as plant scientist, engineer, medical scientist, internist, or architect. MBTI test INTJ types also find themselves leaning towards those professions that require them to hold an authoritative position or a leadership role, such as a management consultant or a top executive.

To be successful in these problem-solving careers, Myers-Briggs test INTJ types must learn to consider short-term goals and opportunities as well as their already over-arching, long-term goals. This can include immediate priorities, career choices that the INTJ values but may not consider rational, and present values that INTJ type may be neglecting in favor of their long-term vision. Creating immediate and long-reaching goals for yourself can help you level your thinking and focus more on the moment.

Furthermore, this MBTI personality type may have a hard time dealing with sudden life changes or events. By allowing yourself time to think about immediate goals and surprising situations without focusing solely on the long-term outcome, you can be ready for unforeseen circumstances that may come their way.

One of the most important strategies that the Myers Briggs Type Indicator test INTJ type can implement to be successful in the workplace is to open themselves up to new people, new experiences, and new ideas. If you find yourself closed off or antisocial in the work environment, slowly opening yourself to other networks and creating personal relationships with those around you can help you become a more well-rounded employee.

How accurate is this?

Actually, it makes me look like a bit of an asshole. Far from perfect. A bit of a get-er-dun prima-donna when, in fact, my biggest criticism over the years is that I’m too nice of a guy for my own good. Anyway, it was a good mental exercise which made me think for awhile, and I got a kick outa being matched with notable characters with the same personality. Factual ones were Rudy Giuliani (Good Gawd), John F. Kennedy, and Hannibal— leader of the Carthaginians. Fictional characters were the protagonist and antagonist in Silence Of The Lambs, Clarise Starling and…. yeah — Hannibal Lector.

So, I challenge you. You can have a FREE psychological analysis just like mine. Go ahead and take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Test at:

At very least, it’s a buncha fun. C’mon DyingWords group. Take the test ‘n tell us who you are!