Type Theory Hasn't Conquered All Because...

[SolitaryWalker]

But what I really started this thread over is the actual theory--that all types are created equal. Is that too radical for human beings to accept? That an overarching framework might not be a hierarchy?

This notion is incompatible with the fundamental assumption of MBTI and the Keirsey Theorem. The system defines an Extrovert for example, as an outgoing person and an Intuitive as an imaginative individual. You may approach the issue from the perspective of temperament or define typological entities as mere cognitive tendencies and then claim that all types are created equal. This assertion would be perfectly plausible as a type merely defines how an individual's mind tends to work rather than how he necessarily acts or thinks.

However, as an MBTI supporter, this isn't an option as doing so repudiates the majority of the literature on the subject that is concerned with personality profiles. A personality profile by definition describes an individual's fundamental qualities. Some of the qualities in MBTI are opposed to one another, hence, an individual cannot have all of them. That is why we often see an NT type description which says for example xNTx is exceptionally creative and analytical! Yet, we never see ESFJ profiles that bestow such lavish praise on the people of this type solely on the basis of their personality code. MBTI creates dichotomies where a certain four characteristics are by definition opposed to the other four.

If all types were indeed created equal, no personality profile would be possible as all 16 of them would be saying the same thing. In summary, in a study of temperament all types could be equal, but not in MBTI.

 

[edcoaching]

This notion is incompatible with the fundamental assumption of MBTI and the Keirsey Theorem. The system defines an Extrovert for example, as an outgoing person and an Intuitive as an imaginative individual. You may approach the issue from the perspective of temperament or define typological entities as mere cognitive tendencies and then claim that all types are created equal. This assertion would be perfectly plausible as a type merely defines how an individual's mind tends to work rather than how he necessarily acts or thinks.

However, as an MBTI supporter, this isn't an option as doing so repudiates the majority of the literature on the subject that is concerned with personality profiles. A personality profile by definition describes an individual's fundamental qualities. Some of the qualities in MBTI are opposed to one another, hence, an individual cannot have all of them. That is why we often see an NT type description which says for example xNTx is exceptionally creative and analytical! Yet, we never see ESFJ profiles that bestow such lavish praise on the people of this type solely on the basis of their personality code. MBTI creates dichotomies where a certain four characteristics are by definition opposed to the other four.

If all types were indeed created equal, no personality profile would be possible as all 16 of them would be saying the same thing. In summary, in a study of temperament all types could be equal, but not in MBTI.

No, I mean that the strengths of one type are just as valuable as the strengths of another type.

 

[BlackCat]

I think that it would be interesting seeing this widely used in our daily lives. However, it could be widely misused as well.

Instead of arguing semantics... how about we think about what would happen if everyone did use this? Like, on your ID it would display your personality type or something like that, etc. Or everyone was very keen on the theory and understood how it was applied. How would everything change? I think that everyone would understand each other a lot more, and there would be a lot less conflicts. Like, what if Typology/enneagram was a course that you could take in high school or something like that? It was something that everyone knew about.

 

[edcoaching]

I think that it would be interesting seeing this widely used in our daily lives. However, it could be widely misused as well.

Instead of arguing semantics... how about we think about what would happen if everyone did use this? Like, on your ID it would display your personality type or something like that, etc. Or everyone was very keen on the theory and understood how it was applied. How would everything change? I think that everyone would understand each other a lot more, and there would be a lot less conflicts. Like, what if Typology/enneagram was a course that you could take in high school or something like that? It was something that everyone knew about.

And i assume you mean that everyone was taught to make constructive use of normal differences, vs. using type to label others and flaunt their own particular strengths...

When we've taught it that way in schools--reinforcing concepts over an entire year through literature analysis, help with planning projects, etc., we found that students were kinder to each other, more understanding of teachers, and...we took the failure rate on major projects from 25% to zero (it was a high-poverty school). so I'm thinking if people actually invested the time it takes to understand ethical use, things could be good...

 

[heart]

Like, what if Typology/enneagram was a course that you could take in high school or something like that? It was something that everyone knew about.

Mainstream psychology and sociology would be a better subjects to mandate.

 

[edcoaching]

Mainstream psychology and sociology would be a better subjects to mandate.

"Mainstream" psychology is filled with contradictions, competing theories, and bad advice as well. And again quickly moves to defining normal. BTW the APA's draft of the next DSM has Introversion as a disorder...

 

[heart]

Actually it was 16 people in Minneapolis; that's where the first applications materials were developed

Jung himself was in Minneapolis?

 

[edcoaching]

Jung himself was in Minneapolis?

No...I'm talking about applications, like how to use the theory in team building, career counseling, coaching, health care...so many of the early authors lived in Minneapolis that they used to joke that someday someone was going to figure out that all the books were written abou tthe same 16 people in Minneapolis (which was never true, just clowning...)

 

[Mole]

...all types are created equal.

I take it that you mean that all MBTI types are created equal.

If that is the case, then there is not a shred of evidence for the equality of MBTI types. It must be taken on blind faith, and also because it sounds good and makes us feel good.

In fact the equality of MBTI types is a an echo of the phrase, "It is self evident that all men are created equal".

Notice that it is self evident. There is no independent evidence whatsoever. It is sheer blind faith.

And blind faith is demeaning for the believer and demeaning for those who offer blind faith to the vulnerable.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No, I mean that the strengths of one type are just as valuable as the strengths of another type.

Valuable in what context? Suppose we go with the traditional MBTI reading of a type and conclude that the strength of Extroversion is having an outgoing personality and the strength of Introversion consists in having a reserved and a thoughtful character. Obviously in some contexts being reserved has greater advantages than being outgoing and vice versa. In nearly every avenue that we explore, some character qualities that MBTI associates with particular types are more valuable than others. Similarly, the MBTI reading presupposes that an Intuitive person is creative while a Sensing person is detail oriented. In some scenarios it is better to be detail oriented than imaginative and in others, vice-versa holds true.

 

[highlander]

But with type theory, there are 16 normal ways to be with their own strengths and gifts. The best decisions are made when all four functions are considered: S, N, T, F. We always need the input of others because our skills with their preferences will never be as great as theirs. In fact, as we move toward individuation we become more aware of our shortcomings, not, as some people hint, fully developed.

Type theory says, "We hold different views...and yours may be just as legitimate as mine. Let's compare our perceptions and share the rationale behind our judgments." It usually involves compromise or a complete revision of what we thought we knew. Human nature rails against both. It's easier to accept theories that say, "I'm right; you're a jerk."

I at least thought this has some merit. I'd put bets most of Congress has taken the MBTI at some point in business school or something and has managed to conveniently forget anything they learned about constructive use of differences...

Yes, yes, and yes. That is how I try to use it anyway.

Here are some good questions to think about.

1. A personality theory describes how people differ from one another, how specifically does MBTI maintain people differ from each other?
2. Is it truly the case that people differ from one another in the respect that the MBTI theorists have in mind?
3. Are the underlined personality differences significant? That is are the character features described by MBTI fundamental to a person's character? Why should we focus on the personality features emphasized by MBTI rather than another system, such as the BIG 5 for example?

Why is there a need to be so precise? I can read Gifts Differing. I can read Lenore Thompson's profiles. I can read the profiles you have written. I can read Kiersey's stuff. Based on all of this, I can get some ideas on how people may differ. This helps in understanding that they may have different perspectives and those perspectives are valid. The reason MBTI is useful, in particular, is that there is more written on it than anything else and MBTI practitioners seem keenly focused on application of the theory.

But what I really started this thread over is the actual theory--that all types are created equal. Is that too radical for human beings to accept? That an overarching framework might not be a hierarchy?

I think it is too radical for many people to accept. The reason may be that people use the differences to help them overcome their own insecurities. I'm reminded of the extravert that complains the introvert lacks charisma or is too quiet, the NT who says the SJ is not strategic, the J who says the P is not organized, etc. It helps them to feel better about themselves. It also seems this somehow ties to the identity of cliques, cultures, and other such things. So for example, if you have an ISTJ organizational culture for example, the values embedded in the culture of the organization work against the ENFP being perceived as equal - it is somehow disruptive to the DNA of that culture for people to think this way.

I'd love it if people actually listened to each other, but you don't need MBTI to learn how to do that. I understand that you're saying MBTI is another method of facilitation and I agree with that if it weren't so abused by people who use it for nothing other than to confirm their superiority to others. We've got enough of that going around based on other factors.

You can google active listening skills and a ton of stuff comes out without even mentioning MBTI. I'd prefer those be taught as a first line than MBTI.

Is the bolded part above really true? Is that how people tend to use MBTI?

 

[Mole]

I'd love it if people actually listened to each other, but you don't need MBTI to learn how to do that.

You can google active listening skills and a ton of stuff comes out without even mentioning MBTI. I'd prefer those be taught as a first line than MBTI.

Yes, listening skills are essential. Sometimes called Active Listening or Empathy Training.

However these skills don't come naturally to most of us and need to be taught and practised and practised.

Whereas MBTI is easy, cheap and nasty and appeals to neurotic narcissism in most of us.

So we might say, MBTI is in bad taste while listening skills are in good taste and are necessary to establish rapport.

 

[highlander]

Yes, listening skills are essential. Sometimes called Active Listening or Empathy Training.

However these skills don't come naturally to most of us and need to be taught and practised and practised.

Whereas MBTI is easy, cheap and nasty and appeals to neurotic narcissism in most of us.

So we might say, MBTI is in bad taste while listening skills are in good taste and are necessary to establish rapport.

Novel idea. Why not just try using both at the same time then using each of them alone separately. See what works better. What do you have to lose? You can respond back with how it worked (or didn't).

 

[Mole]

A Big Ask

Novel idea. Why not just try using both at the same time then using each of them alone separately. See what works better. What do you have to lose? You can respond back with how it worked (or didn't).

It's like asking me to use Creationism and Natural Selection at the same time.

Creationism and MBTI are not based on evidence and reason. MBTI for instance, in seventy years, has not one double blind test. If MBTI were a personality test, it would by now have hundreds of double blind tests - but there is not one. The silence is eloquent.

On the other hand Natural Selection is a proven fact, particularly by the sequencing of the genome - proven by evidence and reason.

It's like asking me to use Alchemy and Chemistry at the same time. It's like asking me to use Astrology and Astronomy at the same time. It's like asking me to believe in Adam and Eve, Original Sin and Redemption, and, "The Origin of Species", all at the same time.

It's a big ask.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Type theory hasn't conquered all because it's just a classification scheme, like any type theory. It's doesn't give you real insight into the mechanics of personality, happiness, meaning, and all that good stuff. No type theory will ever do that because of it's nature.

 

[edcoaching]

Valuable in what context? Suppose we go with the traditional MBTI reading of a type and conclude that the strength of Extroversion is having an outgoing personality and the strength of Introversion consists in having a reserved and a thoughtful character. Obviously in some contexts being reserved has greater advantages than being outgoing and vice versa. In nearly every avenue that we explore, some character qualities that MBTI associates with particular types are more valuable than others. Similarly, the MBTI reading presupposes that an Intuitive person is creative while a Sensing person is detail oriented. In some scenarios it is better to be detail oriented than imaginative and in others, vice-versa holds true.

You've illustrated its misuse well. S and N have different styles of creativity. N is not more creative. Unfortunately many of the creativity tests were developed by Ns,a s were tests of giftedness, so there's a bias that puts one preference over the other. The question isn't which type is the best leader, or the most creative, or the best teacher, etc., but in which way does each type achieve excellence in those areas. Check Marci Segal's work on creativity.

Type theory hasn't conquered all because it's just a classification scheme, like any type theory. It's doesn't give you real insight into the mechanics of personality, happiness, meaning, and all that good stuff. No type theory will ever do that because of it's nature.

You might read Navigating Midlife and Creative Aging by Millner for examples of how the theory brings insights into these things.

 

[entropie]

I hope it never conquers a thing, otherwise I'ld be exposed to hobby psychologists on a daily basis, who wants to help me by typing me random personalities.

Oh god, I am gonna shoot myself if that ever happened

 

[edcoaching]

I hope it never conquers a thing, otherwise I'ld be exposed to hobby psychologists on a daily basis, who wants to help me by typing me random personalities.

Oh god, I am gonna shoot myself if that ever happened

But you're describing unethical use of type. People aren't supposed to type other people. Movie characters, yes, real people, no. One might hypothesize in private and use that hypothesis to better meet the informational needs and decision-making processes of the other person, but the theory only works well when people "own" their own preferences.

 

[entropie]

But you're describing unethical use of type. People aren't supposed to type other people. Movie characters, yes, real people, no. One might hypothesize in private and use that hypothesis to better meet the informational needs and decision-making processes of the other person, but the theory only works well when people "own" their own preferences.

Sure, people are supposed to not kill each other aswell..

 

[proteanmix]

Is the bolded part above really true? Is that how people tend to use MBTI?

Well, let's see.

The largest repository of people that I know who know about MBTI/type theory are here, on this forum.

Most threads when it comes to intertype relations are:

1. Romantic in nature, seeking to know compatibility with another type. Usually this is their "typologically ideal" partner, e.g. all the INxJ/ENxP threads and why other types don't fit as well. This is opposed to seeking how types with seemingly less in common can compliment each other and work together.

2. Needing advice in nature, which superficially seems as though it's looking for understanding but typically consists of I'm an XXXX type, they're YYYY we don't get along because YYYY type doesn't get me. The focus is still on I'm not understood because I'm this and they're that and that is incapable of understanding this. I see very little acknowledge of mutual misunderstanding, usually the other party is being offensive not the very commonplace problem of both people are going over each other's heads.

Basically what I'm saying is when people are given MBTI, look at how it naturally develops. I know edcoaching is saying an intervention will be used to cut down on miseducation and disinformation. But even in cases where people have chosen to educate themselves on typology look at how it turns out. The well gets poisoned pretty quickly. For example, I've gotten quite a few PMs from ESFJs who come to the forum, type "ESFJ" into search see the crap here about the type and leave. No opportunity for understanding. On top of it, you don't even know if these people are correctly typed or if people automatically place certain undesirable traits in a box and run wild from there. Why not stay in the real world where no one knows and reduce another reason for somebody to lay a judgment against you?

My perception of how MBTI is used based on this forum is that it's a means to disqualify people from one's life if they're the "wrong" type, attribute problems and communication breakdowns to type (as opposed to poor listening skills, relational skills, etc.) and give those who are the "right" type a free pass based on nothing other than arbitrary mental modes.

All that said, you'd think I'm anti-MBTI but I am not. I'm strongly against misuse and abuse which I tend to see more than proper usage. I'm glad most people take the tests go "oh" and then toss it in the category of astrology.