MBTI and population

[edcoaching]

The National Sample used with the 1998 Form M version of the MBTI was developed through surveys of 3,200 respondents in the United States, selected from an original sample of 16,000 households to gather data in percentages similar to the US population for age, gender, ethnic background, etc. (MBTI Manual, 1998, p. 143)

Similar samples have been collected by MBTI publishers in the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, and Korea, with other studies scheduled. (Type and Culture, Kirby, Kendall, & Barger).

Type does in fact go around the world; Jung explored the concepts early on with a tribe in Nigeria and the Southwest United States to see if the preferences described normal ways of being in those cultures too.

However, cultures differ in which preferences are honored, or held up as archetypes. In the network of type professionals in over 40 countries, Association for Psychological Type International, we wouldn't determine the archetype of another culture but instead ask them to inform us of how the preferences are viewed from within their cultures. Our colleagues in India for example talk of their archetype for Intuition thus, "We have over a billion people, a million gods in our pantheon, over 300,000 spoken dialects, and a religion, Hinduism, where the goal is to move beyond reality. This is Intuition permeating our very thought structure." Our colleagues within the First Nations describe their archetype for Introversion as "Great leaders are those who listen to everyone else and then synthesize the wisdom."

Type becomes a great tool for talking about cultural differences without stereotyping if one a)actually believes all 8 preferences are equally great ways of being and b) listens to what the cultures say about themselves rather than judging what they are from afar.

edcoaching (INFJ)

[alcea rosea]

Originally Posted by "?"

I am not sure that I agree with this. There are basic principles of type that I would think has to remain constant regardless of external influences. Clearly again and as I have always claimed that to determine anything by dichotomy is limiting and results in a force choice. So to give an example by your example about extraversion, which extravert are we alluding to Te, Fe, Se, Ne? They're all going to be different and based on the degree of healthiness and development of auxiliary or other functions, even these aforementioned may look different regardless of culture.

Difficult one. I don't know. Maybe all extroverted functions look different in different cultures? Maybe people being outgoing is more acceptable in some countries even if outgoing is not the same as extroversion.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Alcea Rosea

Difficult one. I don't know. Maybe all extroverted functions look different in different cultures? Maybe people being outgoing is more acceptable in some countries even if outgoing is not the same as extroversion.

Okay, your thoughts are on whether extraversion is culturally accepted as it is in the western. I don't know. And I question whether it's as culturally accepted as reported in the U.S.

[edcoaching]

Do all facets of the US culture consider Extraversion the best way to be? No, but evidence that it's the ruling force include:

• People worry about their shy children, not their outgoing children
• In corporate settings, quick brainstorming is rewarded, not carefully reasoned answers 2 days later
• In a recent Harvard Business Review study, the researchers professed surprise that Introverted types could be effective and excellent leaders
• Class participation, defined as speaking up rather than as listening attentively, is still graded heavily in many, many schools
• Teachers usually give people less than 2 seconds to answer, whereas research shows correct answers will triple if 5 seconds are allowed. 5 seconds of silence is an eternity to most people in this country

There is much, much more. People from within cultures that they've determined are Introverted (Japan, First Nations, Finland, UK, etc.) report different norms. It has nothing to do with % in the population but with "approved" behaviors.

edcoaching

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Victor

It seems silly to keep on saying this but MBTI has no more truth value than astrology.

MBTI and astrology are essentially religious beliefs.

MBTI and astrology are not connected to reality. They are essentially imaginary.

Personally I am very attracted to the imaginary, for instance in poetry.

So I would say that MBTI and astrology are essentially poetic.

After all poetry does nothing and neither does MBTI or astrology.

Poetry is completely useless like MBTI or astrology, and yet some think that poetry is the purpose of our civilization.

So MBTI and astrology are poetry for beginners.

But to stop at the beginning and go no further is to grow up absurd.

if you run with that line of reasoning, where do you stop?

why not label thought processes as cognitive functions? it's the same idea as calling something a table. is there some objective thing called a table? no. we subjectively apply terms to concepts. if you're against that, well...you miss out on language, metaphor, and basically any other key component of human thought.

and regarding truth value, MBTI and astrology are quite different. astrology arbitrarily connects behavior with star patterns, which obviously have a completely negligible effect. MBTI (i should say jungian functions) is a labeling device. it's a set of terms used to describe observed data. completely different...

if you use MBTI as a predictive device, you start running into more problems. most of the misapplication of MBTI lies in the false belief that Ns somehow don't use sensing all the time -- that thinkers somehow don't feel. once you recognize that everyone always uses S, N, T, and F all the time, and that being an S in MBTI only means that you're slightly more consciously attuned to sensing than intuiting, for example, there really aren't any problems with the system.

p.s. EVERY belief can be reduced to faith.