Cultural archetypes, stereotypes and modal types

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

edcoaching, what makes you think MBTI statistics are accurate? They never made sense to me until I concluded that people who take MBTI have other motives than proper self-assessment and ISTJ is the "most common type" because people want to appear responsible.

There are two main sources for normed reference samples:

• the database at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. They've collected thousands and thousands of Form G results submitted by practitioners all over the place, from people working in multiple fields. In a ton of those fields, ISTJ isn't considered particularly responsible. Further, in high schools, where a lot of the early sampling was done, ISTJ is definitely NOT considered the way to be...In the CAPT database, I think ESTJ is the modal type--I can't find my old manual that shows it...
• The National Representative Sample developed by the publisher of the official MBTI, CPP, Inc. When they created Form M in 1998, they performed a rigorous study using all the statistical gizmos to get as good of a sample as they could across education/income/gender/culture/career to correct for as much bias as they could. In this sample there are really 2 modal types since score ranges are shown: ISFJ and ESTJ.

I can also see evidence that a majority of people answer as they prefer, not as they think they should, when I look at results from people within specific careers--the data on how types cluster in careers is actually validity for the theory. And a lot of that data is on best-fit type: the types people select after going through training, not merely their reported scores.

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

In anticipation of a possible response (One of my major strenghts as ISTJ, er INTP):

I'd bet serious cash that I could come to your office tomorrow and test as ISTJ, as many people could and surely already have done without even knowing what ISTJ means, they simply put on the front of being a quiet, responsible fellow who follows orders.

I'm not so sure I could fool a socionics practitioner. Not that I would want to, I'd take the test, then we'd get some beers and talk socionics.

Official MBTI is antiquated and defunct.

Of course you could. It's a self-reporting instrument. I can come out any type too. Isabel Myers didn't think people would respond well to being told what they were, so she designed an interactive process. People are supposed to hear the theory, self-select preferences, then see their results and full type descriptions and then decide for themselves what they are. They are to take their "shoulds" off and answer as they prefer. The stats tests show that 75% of people agree with results and 90% with 3 of 4 letters.

The point of the instrument is to help figure out types faster so you can get on to interpretation. If I don't use the instrument with a group, I need about another 30 minutes to do some concrete exercises so people can "See" the preferences and decide which ones suit them best. If training is effective, by the end of the second day everyone appreciates the gifts of each preference, how all types contribute to a team, and why you'd only want to be yourself.

[Jack Flak]

I could see INTPs being comfortable testing as INTP if they are computer programmers. As ESFPs would be comfortable testing as ESFP in lingerie sales. But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI, and in interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJs: another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills).

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Of course you could. It's a self-reporting instrument. I can come out any type too. Isabel Myers didn't think people would respond well to being told what they were, so she designed an interactive process. People are supposed to hear the theory, self-select preferences, then see their results and full type descriptions and then decide for themselves what they are. They are to take their "shoulds" off and answer as they prefer. The stats tests show that 75% of people agree with results and 90% with 3 of 4 letters.

That probably has something to do with her being more NF and friendly than a good strategic thinker. If you're engaging in job placement based on type, it is generally inadvisable to let people self-assess.

I doubt she even had official capacities in mind when developing it, so the use of it there is further made to seem absurd.

[Haight]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI and interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJ is another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills)

That presupposes that other types have the desire and capability to manipulate the test results in the manner you're presenting. I think most people that run into the MBTI test don't have the background experience and the foresight as to what the results mean so they don't come to it with a "plan" in the same way you do or might.

If the statement is that the test can be manipulated, then the answer is of course. But manipulating tests comes with experience with those tests.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Haight

That presupposes that other types have the desire and capability to manipulate the test results in the manner you're presenting. I think most people that run into the MBTI test don't have the background experience and the foresight as to what the results mean so they don't come to it with a "plan" in the same way you do or might.

As I stated up there, Haight, people know what makes an ISTJ more than they know what MBTI ISTJ is. They act like an ISTJ would, without having ever heard the four letters.

[Haight]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

As I stated up there, Haight, people know what makes an ISTJ more than they know what MBTI ISTJ is. They act like an ISTJ would, without having ever heard the four letters.

Right. I just don't believe that. Since if that were the case, then utilizing the test for business hiring practices would be useless, and known to be useless, therefore we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Carry on . . .

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I could see INTPs being comfortable testing as INTP if they are computer programmers. As ESFPs would be comfortable testing as ESFP in lingerie sales. But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI, and in interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJs: another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills).


That probably has something to do with her being more NF and friendly than a good strategic thinker. If you're engaging in job placement based on type, it is generally inadvisable to let people self-assess.

I doubt she even had official capacities in mind when developing it, so the use of it there is further made to seem absurd.

Well, if it's being used for job placement, that's like using a lawn mower to snowblow your driveway. All the MBTI does is help people decide how clear they are about preferences. It doesn't measure skills or maturity or education. It's actually unethical to use it as a criteria for hiring--but beyond the ethics, it's stupid!!!

With motivation, people can succeed at jobs that at first glance seem unlikely for their type. In fact, since they may have a different perspective they may be the most valuable member of a team (unless the team shuts them down...but that's the subject o fother studies...)

It's a great tool, though for career exploration and management development. You can show people the careers that others of their type have found satisfaction in, help them understand what draws them to a specific career and whether they're willing to put up with being different from peers because of their motivations. Or, if they've got a clear idea of what the career involves (there are more people in dental school that don't get, for example, that it's all fine motor skills...).

And in management development...instead of accusing executives of faults, you can disarm them with typical developmental needs of people with their preferences and gain buy-in to skills development. But ANY type can be a great leader if they lead from their strengths. Research shows, though, that most F's opt out of corporate leadership because they can't get over the politics--why isn't everyone acting like they're on the same team? Why can't we just work together? How could anyone backstab?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Haight

Right. I just don't believe that. Since if that were the case, then utilizing the test for business hiring practices would be useless, and known to be useless, therefore we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Carry on . . .

I don't think it's use-less. I think it's flawed, and there are better methods of typing than the Official MBTI. And as stated, I fully believe the type distribution statistics of Official MBTI to be bogus. These are my cases.

[Jack Flak]

Re: edcoaching: I think some 16-type system, probably socionics since they've done the most interpersonal and group-dynamic research, is an excellent tool precisely for job placement. I would love to be singled out and placed in an appropriate job with appropriate co-workers. The typing should be done by an expert, not the subject.

Again, for the several'th time, I just don't think Official MBTI tests are the way to go here.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I don't think it's use-less. I think it's flawed, and there are better methods of typing than the Official MBTI. And as stated, I fully believe the type distribution statistics of Official MBTI to be bogus. These are my cases.

You're absolutely right. The best way of typing is guiding people through experiential exercises. It's more fun, too--I get to watch people fall out of their chairs as they see the real differences.

But so many people want quick answers. Paper and pencil. "How do I type my students?" I tell teachers they don't have to. They've got kids of every type in their classrooms and they need to start differentiating how they teach so some aren't always being force to do things that are a mismatch--especially if the kid is only 6 years old!

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Re: edcoaching: I think some 16-type system, probably socionics since they've done the most interpersonal and group-dynamic research, is an excellent tool precisely for job placement. I would love to be singled out and placed in an appropriate job with appropriate co-workers. The typing should be done by an expert, not the subject.

Again, for the several'th time, I just don't think Official MBTI tests are the way to go here.

Just don't confuse the instrument with the research and applications on what makes for good job placement or team dynamics. They're two separate things...

For example, Thursday I'll be taking a hundred school district personnel through a daylong workshop on collaboration. We're not using the instrument. We're instead going right to the heart of student learning with films showing S and N students doing math tasks where the differences are striking (How do I know the student types? They had 6 hours of interactive type instruction, chose for themselves, and verified it as they worked with the different learning style activities). By the end of the day, if the group is like all the other groups I've worked with, they'll "see" where their biases are and understand the preferences in a way that leads to new thinking about what students need.