User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Step II

  1. #31
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    edcoaching

  2. #32
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    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.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #33
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    ^^ Stop talking about me.

  4. #34
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.







    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post

    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.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #35
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    edcoaching

  6. #36
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.












    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    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.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #37
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    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.

  8. #38
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #39
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    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.

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    EXFP
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    +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.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI Step II expanded report
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 12:13 PM
  2. MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 09:25 PM
  3. Help needed in identifying types II
    By alcea rosea in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 10:48 AM
  4. Hitler does a nice two step :0
    By proteanmix in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 11:23 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