User Tag List

First 789

Results 81 to 85 of 85

  1. #81
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You can train an Introvert to be gregarious and sociable, just like you can train an Fi person to handle tasks that Te types excel at. However, the bottom line remains that Te offers people a natural advantage at leadership and extroversion offers people a natural advantage at socializing.
    I disagree with both of those statements. Many Introverted types who prefer Feeling are both gregarious and sociable--it is just more draining for them than for Extraverted types because the preference pair is about source of energy. They choose to work within smaller social circles, perhaps, but this is where so many F's confuse desire for relationships with Extraversion and end up confused.

    As for leadership, Te does NOT offer a natural advantage, other than it is the current fashion in leadership, leading to such disasters as No Child Left Behind, "downsizing" that in fact hurts the bottom line (google the recent studies on this), corporate politics that destroy collaboration, etc, when it is left unchecked by the equally rational gifts of the Feeling function. There is more evidence that Feeling types have opted out of those environments, rather than being "unsuited" for leaderships, leaving the Te's to their own demise...
    The mistake folk typologists frequently make consists in assuming that a good leader can only be a Te type or a sociable person can only be Extroverted. They fail to understand the fact that there are many reasons why a person is sociable or a good leader, the fact that they may be a Te or an Extroverted type is just one very small contributing factor. In fact, it is insignificant enough for us to assume that individuals of radically different types could have the same virtues.
    Let's make three categories.
    • Theorists--those who have read the theory of type and fit itinto their own mental models, or adjusted it via their own analysis. They probably haven't applied the theory in ways that allows them to test its effectiveness in makign constructive use of differences beyond perhaps personal relationships
    • Folk typologists: people who have read a lot of the internet sites or been through shallow workshops ( the kind where a month later they say, "I think I'm ESPN but I don't remember much beyond that"). They've internalized stereotypes or misconceptions such as "F's are wishy-washy" or "I'm a Perceiving type so I'm always late" or "S's aren't creative." I admit that unfortunately this includes many trained type practitioners who never went beyond the introductory course or challenged their own stereotypes.
    • Theory-based practitioners. These people are well-trained in the theory but more importantly, are out there using the theory with real people as licensed counselors or therapists, spiritual directors, management consultants, educational consultants, etc. More important, they're constantly comparing what happens in the real world with the theory, seeing if they can "build a better mousetrap." They have other tools in their kit besides type, because...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...So they might use reversal theory, appreciative inquiry, guided imagery, critical incident analysis, strategic planning, experiential learning....all kinds of things depending on the needs of the individuals or the group

    Neither theorists or research-based practitioners will make these mistakes. For example, executive coaches who use type are often masters at helping people of any type make the most of their strengths in leadership AND at positioning their actions to most influence those who need evidence that a different style of leadership is effective.
    In this respect the study of typology from the perspective of temperament becomes important. It defines type as a mere natural tendency rather than a solid personality trait. If you define MBTI as a combination of character profiles, people will be inclined to assume that their type is something immutable and fundamental to the very essence of their being. I admit that this is not evidence of a fault of MBTI itself but rather of the interpretive error that people make, however, it is desirable to rely on a system that is less prone to misunderstandings that cause multitudes of people to be maligned and marginalized on a basis of a certain personality trait that appears to establish the limitations of their abilities but actually does not.
    I don't use the term MBTI at all--the MBTI is merely a self-reporting sorting tool to help people recognize their natural preferences for gaining energy, perceiving the world, and coming to judgments. The theory recognizes the preferences as innate, but also recognizes that culture, environment, family, career, education, etc., modify the expression of the preferences and the ability to develop one's preferences. Having a preference does not mean one has conscious control over it or uses it effectively. The theory does not purport to explain everything but merely to describe normal differences among normal people (which is perhaps one of the biggest arenas in which Myers and Briggs, whose typology before they read Jung was based on reading of biographies of well-developed people and the individuals with whom they interacted, differed from Jung whose early typology was based on his clinical practice) and was formulated to help people make better decisions, communicate more effectively, and be more open to the possibility of the painful process of individuation.
    Last edited by edcoaching; 03-16-2010 at 07:45 AM. Reason: Messed up the bullets
    edcoaching

  2. #82
    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
    I disagree with both of those statements. Many Introverted types who prefer Feeling are both gregarious and sociable--it is just more draining for them than for Extraverted types because the preference pair is about source of energy. They choose to work within smaller social circles, perhaps, but this is where so many F's confuse desire for relationships with Extraversion and end up confused..
    I don't see how this contradicts either of my statements. I did maintain that a cerain type can be made to acquire the virtues associated with another type. However, you have not responded to the most important of the two messages which has been the theme of my repeated criticisms of your posts in this thread. One type has a natural advantage over other types with respect to performing certain activities, such as for example, the extrovert has an advantage over an introvert when it comes to socializing. It is the implication of this conclusion that all types are not equal in strength.

    To answer your other remark, Feeling could lead a person to be gregarious and sociable, but that is besides the point. At best it refutes the claim that only extroversion urges one to be sociable, a claim that I did not make.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    As for leadership, Te does NOT offer a natural advantage, other than it is the current fashion in leadership, leading to such disasters as No Child Left Behind, "downsizing" that in fact hurts the bottom line (google the recent studies on this), corporate politics that destroy collaboration, etc, when it is left unchecked by the equally rational gifts of the Feeling function. ..
    In most contexts it does. It helps a person makes decisions on the basis of observable phenomena and remain impersonal. In most leadership scenarios, these skills are arguably the most important. Anyone who has a natural tendency that aids them in developing such virtues has a natural advantage over others. That does not mean that such skills constitute the exhaustive list of virtues that a good leader must have, but they enable a person to lead effectively more.

    Leading effectively has nothing to do with being benign, it is simply about convincing others to follow your lead. That is the definition of leading itself. Feeling may offer one aid in developing benevolent motives which help one to become a benign leader, however, that has nothing to do with being an effective leader in the general sense of the word. A person can be an effective leader without doing good to others and he can lead benevolent with striking inefficiency.

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    There is more evidence that Feeling types have opted out of those environments, rather than being "unsuited" for leaderships, leaving the Te's to their own demise.....
    I am not arguing that they are unsuited, only that Te types have a natural advantage due to their temperament. A person's temperament does not in any case render him altogether unfit for a specific duty as a temperament is only a natural cognitive tendency rather than a person's character.


    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    The theory does not purport to explain everything but merely to describe normal differences among normal people (which is perhaps one of the biggest arenas in which Myers and Briggs, whose typology before they read Jung was based on reading of biographies of well-developed people and the individuals with whom they interacted, differed from Jung whose early typology was based on his clinical practice).
    The theory does not adequately account for differences in people as the discussed personality features are used by people interchangeably. For instance, people use what MBTI calls Extroversion and Introversion interchangeably; they are at times outgoing yet on other occassion very reserved. Similarly, they are compassionate and forthcoming (F), yet ruthless and dispassionate on other occassions. Furthermore, the theory's behavioral traits are often vaguely defined, as you noted, gregariousness can be attributed not only to Extroversion, but also to Feeling. In other cases, even being reserved can be attributed to feeling as a person of high sensitivity can be inclined to withdraw due to an inability to connect with others. Similarly, gregariousness could be attributed to Thinking as a person of dispassionate judgment is often urged to act dominantly and assertively which as a result leads him to display outgoing personality traits. In other words, MBTI incurrs irresolvable contradictions. If people are to be described in terms of their behaviors, a coherent personality profile will be impossible to attain as inevitably the behaviors observed will be vague and inconsistent with one another.

    On the other hand, if MBTI is defined as not a personality system, but a study of temperament, something that I've never seen done outside of my own work, no such contradictions will be incurred. Thinking will be a mere tendency to perceive structure in the world which leads to an unconscious supression of emotion. How this tendency manifests in a person's behavior will be determined by the context of his culture, current social environment and personal circumstances. For this reason, the various contradictory behaviors he will display will not threaten the conceptual integrity of our typological theory. In other words the trouble with the theory is that it erroneously identifies the natural preferences by mistaking people's learned qualities for the natural which results in irresolvable internal contradictions.
    "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. #83
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In most contexts it does. It helps a person makes decisions on the basis of observable phenomena and remain impersonal. In most leadership scenarios, these skills are arguably the most important. Anyone who has a natural tendency that aids them in developing such virtues has a natural advantage over others. That does not mean that such skills constitute the exhaustive list of virtues that a good leader must have, but they enable a person to lead effectively more.
    That is not what research shows. In many cultures, the most capable leaders are those who can listen to everyone else, understand their needs, and synthesize all the information into a decision--and these processes provide the tools to then use persuasion in an effective way in leadership. It is merely that the TJ style is so prevalent that many fail here to see the virtues of other styles.
    Leading effectively has nothing to do with being benign, it is simply about convincing others to follow your lead. That is the definition of leading itself. Feeling may offer one aid in developing benevolent motives which help one to become a benign leader, however, that has nothing to do with being an effective leader in the general sense of the word. A person can be an effective leader without doing good to others and he can lead benevolent with striking inefficiency. I am not arguing that they are unsuited, only that Te types have a natural advantage due to their temperament. A person's temperament does not in any case render him altogether unfit for a specific duty as a temperament is only a natural cognitive tendency rather than a person's character.
    Feeling types persuade others to follow their lead in other ways. They are however seldom motivated by money or power so they often lead in different arenas. However one doesn't have to look very far to find effective Feeling leaders in both business and Politics. What DOESN'T work is for people to adapt leadership styles that are unnatural for them because they cannot do it as well as those they are trying to imitate.
    The theory does not adequately account for differences in people as the discussed personality features are used by people interchangeably. For instance, people use what MBTI calls Extroversion and Introversion interchangeably; they are at times outgoing yet on other occassion very reserved. Similarly, they are compassionate and forthcoming (F), yet ruthless and dispassionate on other occassions. Furthermore, the theory's behavioral traits are often vaguely defined, as you noted, gregariousness can be attributed not only to Extroversion, but also to Feeling. In other cases, even being reserved can be attributed to feeling as a person of high sensitivity can be inclined to withdraw due to an inability to connect with others. Similarly, gregariousness could be attributed to Thinking as a person of dispassionate judgment is often urged to act dominantly and assertively which as a result leads him to display outgoing personality traits. In other words, MBTI incurrs irresolvable contradictions. If people are to be described in terms of their behaviors, a coherent personality profile will be impossible to attain as inevitably the behaviors observed will be vague and inconsistent with one another.
    The theory doesn't describe behavioral traits but instead mental preferences. Yes, lots is written in terms of behavior but one can't copyright a theory nor control what is written about it. Besides Introduction To Type by Myers, the other purest descriptions are in a small booklet "Descriptions of the 16 Types" by Lawrence, who gets at the values/principles of each type and had over 100 people of each type, who knew the theory well, edit the descriptions.
    On the other hand, if MBTI is defined as not a personality system, but a study of temperament, something that I've never seen done outside of my own work, no such contradictions will be incurred. Thinking will be a mere tendency to perceive structure in the world which leads to an unconscious supression of emotion. How this tendency manifests in a person's behavior will be determined by the context of his culture, current social environment and personal circumstances. For this reason, the various contradictory behaviors he will display will not threaten the conceptual integrity of our typological theory. In other words the trouble with the theory is that it erroneously identifies the natural preferences by mistaking people's learned qualities for the natural which results in irresolvable internal contradictions.
    Research practitioners do not erroneously identify preferences with learned behaviors. They are clear that type is innate but behaviors are influenced by other things.

    It's interesting (at least to me) to compare this against the research on the 5-factor model, where the correlations with at least the first two type dichotomies are so significant as to in statistical terms be measuring the same things. The longitudinal studies by Costa and McRae show no change in personality after the age of 30 on average. Sure, some individuals may change, but their studies actually refute that for the vast majority of us. They point out that life would be difficult indeed if that were not true. How could we marry, choose leaders, etc., if people changed greatly? Yet people do mature in their ability to deal with circumstances and decision-making, etc. That's how research practitioners view the theory as well...and we very much resist "typing" other people because behaviours definitely mask preferences--more so in some populations and circumstances than others...
    edcoaching

  4. #84
    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
    The theory doesn't describe behavioral traits but instead mental preferences....
    As I have argued in the other thread, the personality traits that MBTI often perceives as innate are not wholly so and are often in part resultant of learned attitudes. Such as for example, Feeling as a 'rational decision' making process.


    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    Besides Introduction To Type by Myers, the other purest descriptions are in a small booklet "Descriptions of the 16 Types" by Lawrence, who gets at the values/principles of each type and had over 100 people of each type, who knew the theory well, edit the descriptions......
    The aqssertion that a type has values is incompatible with the claim that a type is innate. Values are moral principles or people's conscious attitudes regarding what they observe in the world and the decisions they make. No infant has anything resembling that, it therefore follows that no value is innate. Thus, we can adduce that any description of a type as having values is flatly erroneous, granted that a type truly is innate.






    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    It's interesting (at least to me) to compare this against the research on the 5-factor model, where the correlations with at least the first two type dichotomies are so significant as to in statistical terms be measuring the same things. The longitudinal studies by Costa and McRae show no change in personality after the age of 30 on average. Sure, some individuals may change, but their studies actually refute that for the vast majority of us. They point out that life would be difficult indeed if that were not true. How could we marry, choose leaders, etc., if people changed greatly? Yet people do mature in their ability to deal with circumstances and decision-making, etc. That's how research practitioners view the theory as well...and we very much resist "typing" other people because behaviours definitely mask preferences--more so in some populations and circumstances than others...
    Their tendencies may remain static, but behaviors do alter. It is important to clearly define what these tendencies are. The definitions must be as far remote from external circumstances and behavior-specific notions as possible and they ought to focus more on the cognitive tendencies that are clearly innate. If we define Feeling as an attitude of being compassionate towards others and taking their interests in consideration when making decisions, we have a problem. If we define it as a tendency to be focused on emoting and the human element which leads many people in the Western culture to develop that decision making process, then the theory is in much healthier form.
    "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. #85
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    As I have argued in the other thread, the personality traits that MBTI often perceives as innate are not wholly so and are often in part resultant of learned attitudes. Such as for example, Feeling as a 'rational decision' making process. The aqssertion that a type has values is incompatible with the claim that a type is innate. Values are moral principles or people's conscious attitudes regarding what they observe in the world and the decisions they make. No infant has anything resembling that, it therefore follows that no value is innate. Thus, we can adduce that any description of a type as having values is flatly erroneous, granted that a type truly is innate.
    No infant has principles, either,and they are hardly objective...but the truth is that studies of infants show some are interested in if/then patterns and some in the feelings of others. There's a difference from the start. And ALL theories right now are coming down on 50/50 nature/nurture.

    Their tendencies may remain static, but behaviors do alter. It is important to clearly define what these tendencies are. The definitions must be as far remote from external circumstances and behavior-specific notions as possible and they ought to focus more on the cognitive tendencies that are clearly innate. If we define Feeling as an attitude of being compassionate towards others and taking their interests in consideration when making decisions, we have a problem. If we define it as a tendency to be focused on emoting and the human element which leads many people in the Western culture to develop that decision making process, then the theory is in much healthier form.
    I think we're actually talking about the same thing and you're missing the distinction between folk typologists and research practitioners. I also think that part of our conversation is kinda proving my opening post. I will not concede that objectivity is more important than subjectivity in decision-making. You might peruse "How We Decide" by Lehrer to see the consequences/benefits of both styles. Mature leaders of any type balance the criteria of both or they make less than optimal decisions...
    edcoaching

Similar Threads

  1. Reynierse's revised type theory
    By Seymour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 08:30 PM
  2. Type me (once and for all)
    By King sns in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 01:36 PM
  3. Bones of type theory contention! My Te is hanging out...
    By maliafee in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 11:05 PM
  4. Deliberate use of type theory in fiction
    By Quinlan in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 09:35 AM
  5. Type Theory vs. Temperament Theory
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 10:38 PM

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