MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test

[Jennifer]

Ptgatsby recently mentioned about how work had progressed in the early 90's on an MBTI Step II test and analysis, which sought to add more complexity to the 16 MBTI types by creating subtraits of each of the eight basic functions.

Since a trait (such as Thinking or Sensing) could now be broken down into five different categories, we could delineate what aspects of the person's personality might deviate from the "typical" expression of the function. Why does that Feeler express the ability to make hard decisions with ease, based more on fact than necessarily the personal values? How can that person be Introverted, yet seem to be so open with their thoughts compared to other typical introverts? These are the sorts of questions this test wants to answer.

The test is out there and is in use, although only on a professional (not free) basis.

If you'd like to see a representative report for the MBTI Step II, see this PDF file (the results for this test were "Imaginative ISTJ").

Meanwhile, included here is a list of the Extrovert/Introvert Functions along with their five subtraits. I'll post the other six functions w/ subtraits if people are interested to see them, or if I can make some time.


EXTROVERSION.........................INTROVERSION

Initiating...........................Receiving
- Sociable...........................- Unexcitable
- Active.............................- Reserved
- Usually introduces people..........- Usually is introduced to people

Expressive...........................Contained
- Emotive............................- Controlled
- Easy to know.......................- Hard to know
- Open about feelings................- Keeps feelings inside

Gregarious...........................Intimate
- Friendly...........................- One on one
- Popular............................- Seeks deep friendships with only a few
- Likes to join groups & activies

Participative........................Reflective
- Enjoys contact with others.........- Wants space from others
- Commun. pref: Speak and/or listen..- Commun. pref: Read and/or write

Enthusiastic.........................Quiet
- Lively.............................- Calm
- Energetic..........................- Enjoys solitude
- Seeks spotlight....................- Seeks background

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

[Littlelostnf]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Ptgatsby recently mentioned about how work had progressed in the early 90's on an MBTI Step II test and analysis, which sought to add more complexity to the 16 MBTI types by creating subtraits of each of the eight basic functions.

Since a trait (such as Thinking or Sensing) could now be broken down into five different categories, we could delineate what aspects of the person's personality might deviate from the "typical" expression of the function. Why does that Feeler express the ability to make hard decisions with ease, based more on fact than necessarily the personal values? How can that person be Introverted, yet seem to be so open with their thoughts compared to other typical introverts? These are the sorts of questions this test wants to answer.

The test is out there and is in use, although only on a professional (not free) basis.

If you'd like to see a representative report for the MBTI Step II, see this PDF file (the results for this test were "Imaginative ISTJ").

Meanwhile, included here is a list of the Extrovert/Introvert Functions along with their five subtraits. I'll post the other six functions w/ subtraits if people are interested to see them, or if I can make some time.


EXTROVERSION.........................INTROVERSION

Initiating...........................Receiving
- Sociable...........................- Unexcitable
- Active.............................- Reserved
- Usually introduces people..........- Usually is introduced to people

Expressive...........................Contained
- Emotive............................- Controlled
- Easy to know.......................- Hard to know
- Open about feelings................- Keeps feelings inside

Gregarious...........................Intimate
- Friendly...........................- One on one
- Popular............................- Seeks deep friendships with only a few
- Likes to join groups & activies

Participative........................Reflective
- Enjoys contact with others.........- Wants space from others
- Commun. pref: Speak and/or listen..- Commun. pref: Read and/or write

Enthusiastic.........................Quiet
- Lively.............................- Calm
- Energetic..........................- Enjoys solitude
- Seeks spotlight....................- Seeks background

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

Thanks Fortunato I would absolutely like to see the other traits (especially S and N) when you get the chance. Ahhh something new.

[toonia]

Very interesting, Fortunato. The concept seems very useful to get a higher resolution concept of individual personality. I read over the ISTJ-Judy sample. Following is the short version of the poles for each function. I have questions about certain concepts placed as polar opposites that do not appear directly related to me. Also, there are some poles that appear to me to be restatements with such a slight gradation of difference as to not measure a noticeably different function.

Originally Posted by MBTI@STEP II

Extraversion - - Introversion
initiating - - - - receiving
expressive - - - contained
gregarious - - - -intimate
*active - - - - - - reflective
*enthusiastic - - - quiet

Sensing - - - - Intuition
concrete - - - - abstract
realistic - - - - -imaginative
practice - - - - conceptual
experiential - - - theoretical
traditional - - - - original

Thinking - - - - - - Feeling
logical - - - - - - - -empathetic
reasonable - - - - - compassionate(These two concepts simply do not exist at opposing poles.)
*questioning - - - - accommodating
*critical - - - - - - - accepting
tough - - - - - - - -tender

Judging - - - - - - Perceiving
*systematic - - - - casual
planful - - - - - - - open-ended
early starting - - - pressure-prompted
*scheduled - - - - - spontaneous
methodical - - - - - emergent

*similar shades of meaning

Here are some questions and thoughts I have regarding this system. (my additions are in blue.) It is incomplete and in process, as is my understanding of the system. Tear it to shreds, add to it, whatever. Have at it...

Extraversion - - Introversion
initiating - - - - - - - -receiving
expressive - - - - - - contained
gregarious - - - - - - -intimate
active/enthusiastic- - reflective/quiet
social dependence - - -autonomy

Sensing - - - - Intuition
concrete - - - - - abstract
realistic - - - - - - imaginative
practical - - - - - -conceptual
experiential - - - - theoretical
traditional - - - - - original

I have not understood how thinking and feeling occur at opposite poles. When one is not thinking, they are not necessarily feeling and vice versa. I understand these two functions as existing in parallel, not opposition. What do you think?

Thinking: objective vs. subjective
This is only a theory, but this seems to parallel the current T vs F poles with the addition of a few specifically F words (compassion/empathy) that don't fit rationally at the opposing poles of logic and reason imo, since they can co-exist and require a completely separate mental process.

questioning/critical - - - - accommodating/accepting
logical - - - - - - - - - - - alogical
reasonable - - - - - - - - - unrelenting
impersonal - - - - - - - - - personal
continuum - - - - - - - - - categorization * This is an important distinction in purely thought processes which may have to do with S and N, but there seems to be an aspect of it that is separate. What do you think? It doesn't relate to the objective subjective division which may not be the correct one to delineate two poles of processing thought.

Feeling: intrapersonal vs interpersonal * I realize this is Fi and Fe, so it may not be the correct two poles to define emotional processing, but I would be curious as to why Feeling in and of itself is not considered a function with two poles independent from Thinking.

tough - - - - - - - - tender
impulsiveness - - - - consistent
self aware - - - - - -empathetic


Judging - - - - - - Perceiving
systematic/scheduled - - - - casual/spontaneous
closure oriented - - - - - - - open-ended
self-motivated - - - - - - - - pressure-prompted
methodical - - - - - - - - - - emergent

[disregard]

thanks toonia

[Jennifer]

Well, before we get too ahead of ourselves, let me post some more of the explanations of the five subtraits for each function. Maybe those words will help clarify what was meant by a particular subfunction, where there seemed to be some confusion. (Plus, it's easier to critique something if we're clear on what was meant first.)

Here is Sensing/Intuitive.


SENSING............................INTUITIVE

Concrete...........................Abstract
- Literal..........................- Figurative
- Tangible.........................- Symbolic
- Likes exact facts................- Likes original ideas

Realistic..........................Imaginative
- Sensible.........................- Ingenious
- Matter of fact...................- Imaginative
- Focuses on effectiveness.........- Focuses on novelty

Practical..........................Inferential
- Pragmatic........................- Scholarly
- Results-oriented.................- Ideas-oriented
- Enjoys applied interests.........- Enjoys knowledge for its own sake

Experiential.......................Theoretical
- Realistic........................- Conceptual
- Empirical........................- Big picture
- Facts are valuable experiences...- Facts make patterns

Traditional.........................Original
- Conventional......................- Unconventional
- Accepting.........................- Idiosyncratic
- Values established institutions...- Values inventiveness

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

[Jennifer]

Thinking........................FEELING

[ideal decision-making style]
Logical............................Empathetic
- Impersonal ......................- Personal
- Thinking.........................- Feeling
- Relies on analysis...............- Relies on values

[actual decision-making style]
Reasonable..........................Imaginative
- Just .............................- Sympathetic
- Impartial.........................- Devoted
- Emphasizes foresight..............- Emphasizes sentiment

Questioning.........................Accommodating
- Precise ..........................- Approving
- Independent.......................- Uncritical
- Enjoys argument...................- Likes harmony

Critical.......................Accepting
- Skeptical ...................- Conceptual
- Offers blame.................- Tolerant
- Wants proof..................- Takes things on faith

Tough..........................Tender
- Firm ........................- Gentle
- Tough-minded.................- Tender-hearted
- "Masculine"..................- "Feminine"

[Note: gender words were surrounded by quotes, I assume to indicate the collective archetype/sterotype]

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

[toonia]

The polar terms are somewhat different in the more exhaustive quotes you present here than the poles presented on page four of the ISTJ Judy Sample. Do you know why that is? I can give examples as needed. I still have the same underlying questions about it.

edit: and apologies for jumping the gun on my critique and questions on this. It is something I think about alot, so while this particular system is new to me, the concept of subcategories is as old to me as my first encounter with MBTI. These subcategories by nature extend some of the MBTI concepts that have seemed the least justified from my perspective, but what do I know? I guess I am curious how these categories are determined - primarily from observation and anecdote? If that is the case, it would be interesting to make as comprehensive a list as possible of polar opposites under each category and determine what natural grouping occur, then summarize those groupings into the sub-functions. Perhaps they did this?

Thinking in terms of contrasting poles is the foundation of my thinking, so it is a knee-jerk reaction to criticize poles that appear incoherent in their relationship. Shouldn't two poles be determined as having the relationship of being mutually exclusive in their purest form, but related as being the result of the same process and/or of accomplishing the same task? (and that's why the T and F poles are unconvincing since they are completely separate cognitive/physiological processes which are not mutually exclusive)

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by toonia

The polar terms are somewhat different in the more exhaustive quotes you present here than the poles presented on page four of the ISTJ Judy Sample. Do you know why that is? I can give examples as needed. I still have the same underlying questions about it.

A quick response -- the stuff I am posting here was adapted for a book on Leadership Crafting (using MBTI as a basis). The sample report came from a different MBTI site I found online tonight, that offers the MBTI Step II, so I included a sample of THEIR report just to show how the material might be used in a type reading (i.e., gives some context).

It's much like MBTI now -- different psychs have different spins on it. And maybe the MBTI STep II concepts haven't become "cohesive" yet among the industry.

will answer other stuff later. Meanwhile, feel free to tear apart whatever you'd like, I'd love to have a good discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of this particular tool. I will be posting similar things about the FIRO-B and MBTI later, to open up even more discussion.

JUDGING.........................PERCEIVING

Systematic......................Casual
- Orderly ......................- Leisurely
- Stuctured.....................- Easygoing
- Dislikes diversions...........- Welcomes diversion

Planful..............................Open-Ended
- Concerned about the future.........- Spur of the moment
- Likes things settled in advance....- Dislikes being tied down to plans

Early Starting...........................Pressure-Prompted
- Begins right away......................- Stress-facilitated
- Acts to minimize stress................- Works well under pressure
- Seeks to avoid emergencies.............- Accompishes much in the last-minute rush

Scheduled...........................Spontaneous
- Prefers the comfort of routine....- Uncomfortable with routine
- Prefers tried-and-true method.....- Wants freedom to respond to the unexpected

Methodical............................Emergent
- Organized...........................- Trusts solutions will emerge from process
- Makes plans for current task........- Proceeds without plans
- Lists subtasks before proceeding

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

[toonia]

Originally Posted by toonia

Feeling: intrapersonal vs interpersonal * I realize this is Fi and Fe, so it may not be the correct two poles to define emotional processing, but I would be curious as to why Feeling in and of itself is not considered a function with two poles independent from Thinking.

tough - - - - - - - - tender
impulsiveness - - - - consistent
self aware - - - - - -empathetic

It since occurred to me that there is a difference between this and Fi/Fe. Here's my hypothesis: It would be quite possible to process intrapersonal as Fi or Fe.

Intrapersonal Fe would focus on self-awareness in self and external individuals. It would tend to internalize the self-awareness of others into self. Perhaps this would be a pure empathy that internalizes others in a deep, psychological manner. It would focus on harmony within the individual, both self and others. As long as the community consists of individuals with inner harmony, intrapersonal Fe is healthy.

Intrapersonal Fi would focus on self-awareness above all else. It may tend to project self awareness onto the external world, expecting others to share personal internal traits? Inner harmony of self would be the ideal, while outer conflicts between and within other individuals would not be the focus.

Interpersonal Fe would focus on harmony between individuals. As long as interactions between members of a community are in harmony, inner peace may be sacrificed for the good of all. This would focus on the well-being of the group defined by harmony of the whole, not the individual.

Interpersonal Fi would focus on harmony between the individual and the community. As long as the individual has a secure place in the community, conflicts that fall outside this are not notable.

These may need to be refined a bit, but there is clearly a distinction, two separate poles that can interrelate. Focus on individual vs. the community (intra vs. inter) forms two mutually exclusive poles that address the same process of relating the individual to the whole. The poles of E and I are mutually exclusive in that they define whether the processing of the ideals is focused inward or outward in relation to the individual. What do you think?

[toonia]

I'm just curious what others think. The polar opposites of E and I are mutually exclusive in concept. Also P and J in basic concept: unstructured vs. structured have that mutual exclusivity. The same with S and N, although the relationship is a little different for this one. Both refer to how one learns and organizes information. Theory and application are related processes from opposite ends. This breaking down of the functions into sub-poles seems to articulate the problems with using T and F as opposing poles.

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N? Or are they separate processes entirely. If you look at the mind and body from a physiological standpoint they are clearly separate processes. The brain has sections devoted primarily to emotional processing - in everyone. I haven't heard any info that these sections are smaller in Ts for example. Also the processing of emotion releases chemicals that affect physiology. Is T an absence of chemicals? From the F standpoint, T looks like the absence of F, while from the T standpoint, F looks like personalized reasoning. Do you see justification for this because I don't. A person can personalize their thinking, reject reason w/o any emotionally driven chemical processes occurring, correct? A person can be flooded with hormones and endorphines and still reason, correct? Yes, one process can, and often does, dominate the other, but the same can be said of the relationship between N and T, or N and F, or T and S, etc. I would be very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.