User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: MBTI Paper

  1. #11
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default

    well of course the instrument isnt jungian seeing as jung had no instrument himself and would probably reject the way which MBTI is used.

    also, P/J is added to indicate which function is dominant, isn't it?

    to my mind, the one (maybe only) original theoretical contribution from myers was the fact that introverts introvert their dominant function which, it could be argued, is also something jung indicates in his book
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  2. #12
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economica View Post
    Not just to you, I agree. But personally I can use repetition of said points. :blushing:
    Don't get me wrong, even though I take a giant issue with the paper... I don't disagree entirely. To me it is akin to the conspiracy problem... When you throw bad evidence at truth, the truth becomes less defined, less true. If there is an issue and you read this, you'd think the backing for the "issue" is a joke and never actually address the problem.

    There is a debate around if typecasting creates problems or makes problems worse... or that typecasting is net negative... It seems like it conditional on the people involved. Just like any tool... so there is a debate to be had... and a long lengthy one over the ethics and practises of these instruments. MBTI is different because it is commercial and sells under a different guise than the academic ones.

  3. #13
    Dhampyr Economica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    When you throw bad evidence at truth, the truth becomes less defined, less true. If there is an issue and you read this, you'd think the backing for the "issue" is a joke and never actually address the problem.
    Excellent point! One often wishes some of the people fighting one's own cause would just STFU.

  4. #14
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca View Post
    Now I'm confused. Does MBTI use Jung's ideas as it's foundation or not?
    In a word, yes.

    However, Katherine Briggs had created her own model 6 years before finding Jung's work, but put it aside after reading his.

    Isabel Briggs attempted to, with Katherine Briggs, valiate the construct of E/I (the core of Jungian views), which didn't happen. It was rejected and a new definition of E/I came from academia.

    Isabel taught herself what she needed to know to create the test and validate it. She sent it to Jung, but Jung had no background in instruments or statistics and didn't comment. This is more or less where they parted ways (conceptually, I mean).

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    well of course the instrument isnt jungian seeing as jung had no instrument himself and would probably reject the way which MBTI is used.
    Right... There is Jungian theory in MBTI, no doubt about that... but it is still a long ways removed. One person took the theory and built new theories on it. It's a long way removed in methodology, practise, assumption and so forth.

    Maybe I wasn't clear in my OP - what I'm saying is that attacking Jungian theory is 70+ years out of date. Even if it was flawed then, the dichtomies have been validated and tested for reliability and what they describe has been changed.

    To put it another way, the reason MBTI isn't based on Jung is because they used vastly different methodologies - to attack Jung as "unsupported" is unfair to an instrument that came from "supported" methodologies.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default

    ok, i think we essentially agree then. about the author of the paper i linked to, i have all but forgotten him. like you and eco agree, he has some points though and im sure there are some faustian newcomers here who would be done some good by reading it, even if most of it could ultimately be stripped.

    so, leaving the issue of practical methodology and this specific paper, from a general point of view:

    - there is substantial jungian theory in mbti

    - there are word-for-word describtions of given types in jungs 1921 book that are still present in modern mbti litterature

    - there are kantian metaphysics in all of jungs theory that has probably permeaded into the mbti as well

    - mbti dichtonomies stem from the jungian theory of opposites but has been almost entirely stripped from modern mbti (which is good) but still we have akward dichonomies like when people are one 1 point to a given side and yet end up being typed as a 'E' none the less.
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  6. #16
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    - mbti dichtonomies stem from the jungian theory of opposites but has been almost entirely stripped from modern mbti (which is good) but still we have akward dichonomies like when people are one 1 point to a given side and yet end up being typed as a 'E' none the less.
    This is the big one, in terms of validation, and the big influence from Jung. The lack of gradients is very important... but as I mentioned, Step III was meant to deal with this, so who knows what will happen now. Though I'm sure you can guess my opinion on using J/P to further measure strengths in N/S and F/T.

    The way I see MBTI presented in companies is more along the concept of interative themes... mixtures of traits. The Jung descriptions may be part of the culture with MBTI, but they don't define MBTI very well anymore. Having done PI as well... I don't see many differences anymore. Even the report from MBTI, despite what the trainer says, reads like a strength measurement.

    (Once more railing against web descriptions, I suppose.)

  7. #17

    Default

    Though I have known that these personality theories existed for a while, I have only done in-depth investigation for a few months.

    Perhaps, I will add suggestions to the Feedback section.

    But not all of Blackwater's points were know to me, and I found some particular points pt made interesting.

    My questions are now:

    1. What are the current MBTI traits, and where do we find sources?
    2. What would be the value of studying Jung's ideas with respect to understanding people? Have his notions all been debunked?
    3. Percentages indicating confidence levels implies some form of metric space. How do we find out what that space is? Or it could mean the existence of some form of null-hypothesis (in which case we would want to know what their null-hypothesis was) Are researchers BSing levels of significance again?
    4. Jung and Kantian metaphysics, interesting. Where can I find out more?


    (note:I don't expect only pt and Blackwater to answer, or for either of them to answer at all. Any help is appreciated)

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    There are papers out there that are scientific in nature and provide far more compelling arguments and evidence in disfavor of the MBTI.

  9. #19
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    [LIST=1][*]What are the current MBTI traits, and where do we find sources?
    This is a bit difficult to answer... I don't even have a test I could violate the copyright of to hand to you

    Wikipedia has the information, however, but it breaks down to;

    I/E, F/T, S/N and J/P (pretty obvious, I know). The subtraits have 5 in each side of each trait (wiki).

    For further breakdown, I can offer this paper(PDF Warning) that compares the language used in FFM vs MBTI. It kind of helps.

    [*]What would be the value of studying Jung's ideas with respect to understanding people? Have his notions all been debunked?
    I wouldn't say debunked - they have been validated as far as his observations go... there seems to be a true F/E/S nature to people... He is still a big part of psychology, but then so is Freud. I can, however, say that I don't think it's the right approach and have no interest in it.

    It might sit better with you - it sits with bluewing, for example. I couldn't stand psychology of that nature and want to treat it like a hard (if still special) science... not like philosophy, which is what it felt like.

    [*]Percentages indicating confidence levels implies some form of metric space. How do we find out what that space is? Or it could mean the existence of some form of null-hypothesis (in which case we would want to know what their null-hypothesis was) Are researchers BSing levels of significance again?
    I don't know, actually. However, I believe that MBTI simply uses strength as a measurement of confidence. ie: if you answer 90% I, then you are 90% certain to be an I!

    You'd have to get the scoring guide to be sure. I'm pretty sure it works that way, however, because I'm nearly positive that the trainers are not working with any tables that could generate confidence levels. (By nearly positive, I mean positive but without proof.)

    I obviously disagree with this methodology

  10. #20
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    A small clarification:

    Jung did address the J/P divide in so much as he presented the idea of the "dominant function". J/P is not a trait in and of itself - it simply indicates which function is extraverted. For a J, the judging function will be extraverted. For a P, the perceiving function. If the person in question is an extravert, the extraverted function will be the dominant, if introverted the reverse case is true.

    Jung also mentioned that everyone has a "supporting function" to go along with their dominant. If a person's dominant function is one of what he referred to as the "irrational functions", i.e. iNtuition or Sensing, their supporting function would be one of the "rational functions", i.e. T or F.

    MBTI simply uses 4 letters to indicate what a person's dominant function and supporting function is. So, up until here, no divergence from Jung's thinking. To be entirely honest, I'm not exactly sure where and how MBTI diverges from Jung's thinking.

    From some of the posts I've seen on this board, it seems that Jung also touched upon tertiary and inferior functions as well, but I haven't seen this in any of his works I've read. I've read pretty much everything readily available by Jung, so I'd be curious to know where these posters came across these mentions. (No, that's not sarcasm.)
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] mbti book recommendation for my nephew
    By rocco in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 08:27 PM
  2. MBTI appeal of Death Note anime?
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 03:42 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 09:14 PM
  4. MBTI & FFM correlations?
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO