Step II

[the state i am in]

Interesting point on a "snapshot in time". What I do know is that my results seem to be reasonably accurate and point out some nuances that I know to be true.

How do you know if it's conceptually empty?

i really can't say i've done the work to create critiques. i haven't really employed much focused Ti to know what is wrong. but i don't see any advanced relationships, it is like saying that bc you were 5'4 once, you're 5'4 even tho now you're 5'10. you can be more or less introverted, more social, more balanced. your whole life is a developmental track. definitions do produce understanding in that they produce concepts, which are interlocutors for ideas, blending, comparing, etc.

One would need a measure of Russian bravado, though. Characterising imaginary objects like functions. An in-depth detailing of what the modelled objects are in the model... it's like making up stories.

stories show development. they are the best way to encompass temporal changes. in this way, it makes much sense. makes me think of the russian social psychologist vygotsky. the ongoing relationship between mind and world, and the way they blend with each other to construct a sense of reality, habits, understanding, etc.

 

[highlander]

worthwhile, sure.
but they don't really measure the same things.

that both systems use the same words means nothing.
MBTI and 'step II' are derivatives of jungian typology, and should be thought of that way.

personally, i've found that jungian analysis is less of a headache. even if they have the same level of effectiveness, that factor alone gives jung's setup the advantage. hence my bias.

I could be mistaken but it feels to me like two overlapping circles with far more similarities than differences. To say the systems use the same words and that it means nothing, feels somewhat like a purist point of view.

Why do you find jungian analysis less of a headache?

By the way, I'm not advocating one way or the other.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes I did pay the $90. Was it worth it? For me probably yes because I was interested enough in seeing the results. I've always felt that there somehow needed to be more granularity in MBTI. Still, the $80 - $90 that it costs does seem pretty expensive.

I'm thinking it's mostly because private practitioners don't get a lot of business in this area, so they charge more to cover costs... and I also have no idea what MBTI charges them to be a "certified instructor" or whatever the term is.

What I did in lieu of the cost a year or two ago was go around to as many sites as I could, to find different "sample" tests and thus get a little collection of various type samples. I only found about half the type included in free samples.

 

[highlander]

I'm thinking it's mostly because private practitioners don't get a lot of business in this area, so they charge more to cover costs... and I also have no idea what MBTI charges them to be a "certified instructor" or whatever the term is.

What I did in lieu of the cost a year or two ago was go around to as many sites as I could, to find different "sample" tests and thus get a little collection of various type samples. I only found about half the type included in free samples.

Probably right. I don't understand the economics behind this well but it would seem like someone could possibly make more money if they lowered the cost. It seems like few would shell out $90, whereas a lot more might, and the momentum could build if it were $20 or $30. Classic cost/volume/profit question. The fact that there aren't a lot on this forum that know much about Step II is telling.

 

[edcoaching]

Step I has 93 items. Step II has 144. Myers had been researching items beyond what was necessary to sort people on the dichotomies. Using second-order factor analysis, it was shown that there were these distinguishing characteristics within the preferences. That's a fancy way of saying that within each preference, there are different ways of expressing it.

I teach the certification program, which includes Step II now, and the only reason to take it is if you're going to be applying type theory with others (note I didn't say applying MBTI--it isn't the instrument that matters but what you do once people understand how they perceive and judge.) Step II is useful for a) teams that had a type intro, never went deeper, think they know everything and in fact know nothing. Using the longer form gets them involved again b) executive coaching--it's helpful especially if they already think they're perfect c) teams that are already committed to in-depth use of type as a common framework for communication and other applications.

But it isn't worth it unless the team has time. I've spent entire days just helping teams get through the results--that's of course with interactive activities. But the nuances of each facet are incredible and if you aren't clear on the meaning and just go with how you interpret the facet names, you'll gain nothing...

 

[highlander]

Step I has 93 items. Step II has 144. Myers had been researching items beyond what was necessary to sort people on the dichotomies. Using second-order factor analysis, it was shown that there were these distinguishing characteristics within the preferences. That's a fancy way of saying that within each preference, there are different ways of expressing it.

I teach the certification program, which includes Step II now, and the only reason to take it is if you're going to be applying type theory with others (note I didn't say applying MBTI--it isn't the instrument that matters but what you do once people understand how they perceive and judge.) Step II is useful for a) teams that had a type intro, never went deeper, think they know everything and in fact know nothing. Using the longer form gets them involved again b) executive coaching--it's helpful especially if they already think they're perfect c) teams that are already committed to in-depth use of type as a common framework for communication and other applications.

But it isn't worth it unless the team has time. I've spent entire days just helping teams get through the results--that's of course with interactive activities. But the nuances of each facet are incredible and if you aren't clear on the meaning and just go with how you interpret the facet names, you'll gain nothing...

Very interesting. What is the best way to learn about the nuances with each facet and what to do with the results? I ask because the report was fascinating but the recommendations not as actionable as would be ideal.

 

[edcoaching]

Unfortunately, there's only that expensive manual that someone mentioned. But you're in Chicago? A university library might have it--or check out the CHAPT Home Page. It's a pretty huge group and someone might let you look at theirs.

 

[BlueScreen]

There's a Step II now.

Step I is the 16 types--or your preferences among the dichotomies.

Step II is the 16 types plus facets. There are five facets to each dichotomy preference. This is part of showing how individuals within the same type can differ.


So... five? There's five? Holy crap. It never ends.

You mean people can be more than 16 things?...

This is revolutionary.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

There's a Step II now.

Step I is the 16 types--or your preferences among the dichotomies.

Step II is the 16 types plus facets. There are five facets to each dichotomy preference. This is part of showing how individuals within the same type can differ.


So... five? There's five? Holy crap. It never ends.

The act of describing individuals through the lens of MBTI is senseless. The main virtue of Jungian typology is that it described fundamental tendencies of thought that all people have. Since these fundamental tendencies are limited, people could be placed into several small groups in accordance to their natural cognitive abilities; however, the same can't be said for their personality profiles.

There are many more personality qualities than fundamental cognitive tendencies. Many of these tendencies are a result of a person's interaction with his culture or his individuals quirks as well as idiosyncrasies. We'd need hundreds, if not thousands to describe those behaviors and to outline how people may differ.

If type is to be defined as simply a description of how people are, its bound to be a failure. Thus, instead it should be defined as the natural cognitive tendencies of people, nothing more.

Furthermore, MBTI step two is guilty of a number of false dichotomies. There is no contradiction between being logical and empathetic. A mathematics professor can be logical in class and in discussion with his colleagues, yet affectionate and empathetic with friends and family. Similarly, somebody could be quiet in an activity that bores them, yet enthusiastic in one that excites them.

In short, the endeavor of describing the human character on the basis of how they behave or what qualities they seem to display in most of their interactions with the environment borders on an absurdity.

 

[Eric B]

Furthermore, MBTI step two is guilty of a number of false dichotomies. There is no contradiction between being logical and empathetic. A mathematics professor can be logical in class and in discussion with his colleagues, yet affectionate and empathetic with friends and family. Similarly, somebody could be quiet in an activity that bores them, yet enthusiastic in one that excites them.

I believe those are supposed to be like the parent dichotomies, where it is based on natural preference; not that a person must do one and never do the other.

 

[edcoaching]

Furthermore, MBTI step two is guilty of a number of false dichotomies. There is no contradiction between being logical and empathetic. A mathematics professor can be logical in class and in discussion with his colleagues, yet affectionate and empathetic with friends and family. Similarly, somebody could be quiet in an activity that bores them, yet enthusiastic in one that excites them.

Logical-empathetic only describes the criteria we use to come to a judgment--and is only the starting place of the decision-making process. The facets for T-F walk through 5 aspects of decisions. Different from Step I, the midpoint on facets often indicates situational use.

Enthusiastic-quiet refers only to the level and kind of energy one brings to exchanges with others, not the content of what is exchanged.

The definitions of the facets are very precise in the manual. I won't use it with individuals or teams unless they have lots and lots of time. And, for most applications, it's unnecessary. But pragmatically, it isn't useless. I've seen individuals and teams reach deep understanding of needs and plans for growth through it. Some of the facets are more valid than others just based on the number of items that underlie them. But It has its place.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I believe those are supposed to be like the parent dichotomies, where it is based on natural preference; not that a person must do one and never do the other.

Its difficult to argue that there is a natural preference for enthusiasm as whether or not a person is enthusiastic has a lot to do with his personal experiences. From a typological standpoint, we could say that there is a natural preference or a tendency to be more stimulated through interaction with the world than through private contemplation. That's how Extroversion can be consistently defined. This often contributes to person becoming enthusiastic, but it does not guarantee such a result this result or lack thereof depends on the person's individual experiences. For example, an Extrovert could develop a terribly dour and a gloomy personality had he been raised in an environment where he was constantly scolded or was forced to form an incredibly pessimistic view of the world.

In other words, if you want to frame the above mentioned MBTI descriptions as indicators of natural preferences, they hopelessly fail in that respect too. However, the study of natural preferences died with Jung himself. Today, folk typologists focus on merely describing behaviors of people and placing them into certain categories in accordance to those behaviors.

 

[onemoretime]

^^ Stop talking about me.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Logical-empathetic only describes the criteria we use to come to a judgment--and is only the starting place of the decision-making process..

One question, is this supposed to describe how people do tend to be by their temperament, that is by the solidified constitution of their cognitive habits or simply how they behave? It seems to me that the latter is the case or is it?


If it is then my question is the following: what social context are we talking about? Are we talking about work, a social gathering, school? People are not going to display the same characteristics in all of these settings.

If we are talking about the former part of the problem, or how people do tend to behave by their nature, we have a whole different discussion on our hands that by far exceeds the scope of MBTI. This would require the folk typology aficionados to start reading Jung and begin putting some genuine analytical thought into the subject-matter.

Enthusiastic-quiet refers only to the level and kind of energy one brings to exchanges with others, not the content of what is exchanged..

In what contexts? A mathematics professor can bring a great deal of enthusiasm to a discussion with his colleagues or to his lectures, yet he could easily appear listless at a thanksgiving table or a discussion about popular culture.

But pragmatically, it isn't useless. I've seen individuals and teams reach deep understanding of needs and plans for growth through it. Some of the facets are more valid than others just based on the number of items that underlie them. But It has its place.

It could be useful, but it also has its dangers. People have long been known to misconstrue a basic, context-based behavior of people (conventional MBTI) for temperament or a study of how people do tend to be in all contexts by their nature. As a result, when they read somebody saying an ENFP is supposed to be imaginative and an ESFJ stupid, they build standards of behavior for themselves and expectations for others. Of course such standards and expectations are often baseless and as a result often entail pernicious consequences. But the bottom line is, its a mistake to confuse mere pop-psychology with a serious study of temperament. An argument that explicates the nature of a person's temperament is by far more logically rigorous and complex than anything we will find in a popular psychology book on MBTI.

Ordinary 'MBTI folks' shouldn't tamper with the notion of temperament unless they are prepared to do serious inquiry into the subject-matter. This notion holds central importance to human nature and worth; it can't be taken lightly and on that note, the conceptually unrefined typological expositions of modern writers amounts to mere negligence if not fraud.

If MBTI is to stay clear of the notion of temperament, its important that the inquiry it produces is context specific. If Thinking/Feeling represents how people make judgments, it needs to asked where they make these judgments and under what circumstances. Similarly to the question of how much energy a person brings to the conversation, it must be supplemental by the questions of where the conversations takes place and the topics it covers.

 

[edcoaching]

One question, is this supposed to describe how people do tend to be by their temperament, that is by the solidified constitution of their cognitive habits or simply how they behave? It seems to me that the latter is the case or is it?

Neither...as usual in type theory, it's how they prefer. Mature people do what a situation calls for.

If it is then my question is the following: what social context are we talking about? Are we talking about work, a social gathering, school? People are not going to display the same characteristics in all of these settings.

They have these preferences no matter what the context, but mature people again know whether to act on those preferences. One huge difference from Step I is that the midpoint has meaning. People who score near the midpoint often articulate, "I sometimes do one, I sometimes do the other. It depends." Often they still know which one is learned and why. The descriptors on the report are even different if you're a midpoint T or midpoint F--the rationale people have is different.

If we are talking about the former part of the problem, or how people do tend to behave by their nature, we have a whole different discussion on our hands that by far exceeds the scope of MBTI. This would require the folk typology aficionados to start reading Jung and begin putting some genuine analytical thought into the subject-matter.

The scope of the MBTI IS meaningless. It's only a tool to get people to a theory of perception and judgment that proves useful in dealing with many human interactions.

The point of Step II isn't to hand it to someone but to go through it in depth. It's really a counseling tool and yes, it's misused. One of the training revisions is that it's part of the certification now so we have 8 hours at least to warn people how NOT to use it, even if we can't get them to be experts with it in that time frame.

It could be useful, but it also has its dangers. People have long been known to misconstrue a basic, context-based behavior of people (conventional MBTI) for temperament or a study of how people do tend to be in all contexts by their nature. As a result, when they read somebody saying an ENFP is supposed to be imaginative and an ESFJ stupid, they build standards of behavior for themselves and expectations for others. Of course such standards and expectations are often baseless and as a result often entail pernicious consequences. But the bottom line is, its a mistake to confuse mere pop-psychology with a serious study of temperament. An argument that explicates the nature of a person's temperament is by far more logically rigorous and complex than anything we will find in a popular psychology book on MBTI.

That is called stereotyping, not sound use of psychological type. The grounded type research points to variances in creativity styles, not which types are creative--and the same for leadership, learning, etc.

Ordinary 'MBTI folks' shouldn't tamper with the notion of temperament unless they are prepared to do serious inquiry into the subject-matter. This notion holds central importance to human nature and worth; it can't be taken lightly and on that note, the conceptually unrefined typological expositions of modern writers amounts to mere negligence if not fraud.

If MBTI is to stay clear of the notion of temperament, its important that the inquiry it produces is context specific. If Thinking/Feeling represents how people make judgments, it needs to asked where they make these judgments and under what circumstances. Similarly to the question of how much energy a person brings to the conversation, it must be supplemental by the questions of where the conversations takes place and the topics it covers.

T/F doesn't represent how people make judgments but how they prefer to do it. And you're spot on that many people use type theory without ever grasping this basic tenant--it doesn't predict or even describe behavior but preferences. If one is looking at a toddler, one might see the innate preferences. They aren't under conscious control. Maturity is about sound development of a perceiving function and a judging function, and then moving to developing the less preferred ones so as to have access to them when a situation calls for it. For example on my research on how students learn math, the type differences become less clear in the students who are confident math students. Those who arent? S-N are very easy to spot--people who don't know type see the same differences in how the students approach the tasks.

Yeah, there's drivel out there, especially on the web, but there are also books based soundly on the theory. And there are idiots who hand out results (often from unresearched checklists or quizzes) and say, "This is who you are" rather than go through the interpretation process.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Neither...as usual in type theory, it's how they prefer. Mature people do what a situation calls for. .

How they prefer needs to be explained with greater clarity. It seems to me that you're describing people's natural preferences or internal dispositions rather than behaviors. The type theory that you have in mind is much more similar to the second notion rather than the first. It is a study of cognitive dispositions rather than behavior.

They have these preferences no matter what the context, but mature people again know whether to act on those preferences..

I think it is important to further separate the innate preferences from behaviors that are significantly influenced by nurture. For example, introversion is the innate tendency to be energized by peaceful, low-energy activity, however the preference for being quiet in most conversations is not. The former is generally a result of the innate dispositions, yet the latter often isn't. A person can have a preference for being quiet in a conversation for reasons other than natural introversion. Such reasons could simply be a low self-confidence for example. The natural preference for extroversion would still be exhibited by this person, but in a different manner rather.

In short, prefering to be loud is not a natural preference and isn't typological entity. Its important that we don't confuse preferences people have acquired mostly through experience with preferences of temperament.

T/F doesn't represent how people make judgments but how they prefer to do it...

In the strictest sense, T/F does not even do that. Being empathetical, just like being loud, is not an innate preference, to a great degree, it is learned. What is innate is the tendency to look for structure in the world T or the tendency to be emotive (F). Often in the western culture people with the former learn to become more logical than empathetic, and the vice versa for the latter, however, such preferences are not necessary entailments of temperament. These entailments do happen frequently, however, they must not occur in all cases.

Therefore, your claim should be revised to this: T/F represents how people tend to prefer to make their judgments, or the manner of judging that they naturally gravitate towards in the Western culture.

Clearly, a person who has not been influenced by his culture at all would have neither the ability to make judgments in either fashion described.

And you're spot on that many people use type theory without ever grasping this basic tenant--it doesn't predict or even describe behavior but preferences....

Yes, though again, we have to be very careful by what we mean by preferences. If the preferences in question are such as being loud over quiet or being logical over being emotiononal, MBTI type does not describe that either. It only describes the natural preference towards forming such preferences.

If one is looking at a toddler, one might see the innate preferences. ....

Thank you for using the term 'innate preference', it clarifies your position significantly.

They aren't under conscious control.....

Yes, that is the definition of type as I conceived of it in Principles of Typology, or solidified cognitive habits that are upheld in a person's psyche without his conscious maintenance; such habits are also likely innate to a high degree.

Maturity is about sound development of a perceiving function and a judging function, and then moving to developing the less preferred ones so as to have access to them when a situation calls for it......

A person who is mature, or cognitively developed in the Jungian sense, unlike the person who is immature; comfortably shifts from a naturally preferred function to a less preferred. In fact developing a function could be defined as simply becoming more comfortable using it or overcoming a natural discomfort one previously had for that cognitive faculty.

 

[highlander]

Fascinating dialogue.

With regards to the "mere negligence if not fraud" point, are there particular authors that you would agree with or do you think they are all bad?

I must say that for all of its imperfections, MBTI has provided me with a logical framework for attempting to understand myself better as well as others. It has without question had practical utility IRL. I take it with a heavy grain of salt however.

 

[Eric B]

Its difficult to argue that there is a natural preference for enthusiasm as whether or not a person is enthusiastic has a lot to do with his personal experiences. From a typological standpoint, we could say that there is a natural preference or a tendency to be more stimulated through interaction with the world than through private contemplation. That's how Extroversion can be consistently defined. This often contributes to person becoming enthusiastic, but it does not guarantee such a result this result or lack thereof depends on the person's individual experiences. For example, an Extrovert could develop a terribly dour and a gloomy personality had he been raised in an environment where he was constantly scolded or was forced to form an incredibly pessimistic view of the world.

In other words, if you want to frame the above mentioned MBTI descriptions as indicators of natural preferences, they hopelessly fail in that respect too. However, the study of natural preferences died with Jung himself. Today, folk typologists focus on merely describing behaviors of people and placing them into certain categories in accordance to those behaviors.

I shouldn't have said "natural". In fact, I had added it at the last minute as an afterthought.

The point is not whether it is natural. In fact, now that I think of it, I don't even see anywhere where it is said that the facets (subscales) were suposed to be natural. (I have Hartzler's book Facets of Type, which details all the subscales, and from which I figured that bar graph I used to have in my signature).
It's just at whatever particular time, you may prefer one or the other, so like the functions, you can do both.

 

[the state i am in]

i agree with sw to some extent.

what a cognitive process is does not really become clarified under the umbrella of preference. then what are we describing? that all processes work at the same time, but that some are louder, more persuasive, more victorious than others? and what makes them skilled if they all operate equally often?

i see them, instead, as cognitive processes that employ reasoning and data selection. i think four processes are used, but two are mostly unconscious and rejected/overpowered by the dominant and auxiliary. i see them as biological, in the sense that i think the cortex invests more heavily in developing certain processes and learning in specific ways at the expense of these other thought processes.

the type 2 immediately felt like behavior description bc i could find no way of representing those qualifications as cognitive processes that were distinct, unique, and conceptually coherent.

i would be interested in hearing more and expanding my understanding of the purpose and viewpoint of step 2.

 

[magil]

+1
Kinda of unravels existing theory...rather than building on it.

Sorry if some one has already said this, I didn't bother reading this whole thread, but I really don't think it does. It may appeare to be unraveling existing theory but only because it focuses on the differences of the different types as opposed to their similarities.
But just because your the same type as some one there is obviously still differences between you (which I think is sort of what ennegram theory is about which i don't know much about). But yeah, I don't think that these differnces undue the similarities. And I'm also doubt that these differences are innate as MBTI is supposed to be; instead they are probably more influenced by environmental factors (I suspect). Because of this, they might not have the same 'subsatance' behind them as MBTI does, but I still consider the specified differences to be subsational and observable in real life.
Therefore, I appreciate and see no problem with this Step II theory. I see it as merely a way to be more specific in identifying the qualities of ones personality.