User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default Gifts Differing and Group Planning/Decision Making (not Myers book)

    So some people have been talking about how part of Myers basis for the system was adapting Jungs archetypes to the idea of decision making (apparently she added feeling onto someone elses theory?).

    Groups that can take into account Facts (S), logical consequences (T), abstract ideas (N) and peoples feelings (F) will arive at 'better' decisions than if the group only considered one of these facets. In a single person, just making sure you honor your dom and aux might be a boon to decision making (ie balancing out judgment and perception: do I have enough facts/discovery? do I need to just stfu and decide?)

    So I wanted to apply this idea to an actual project that I've been working on. Lets just say its a sort of "action plan" (but I think it relates to anything from business to government etc).

    So without further adieu, here is the criteria I came up with that would hopefully allow this project to gather everyone's strengths and reach better decisions/project accomplishments:

    ------------------------




    If the ___ (Se, Si, Ni etc) people complain, you can point them to the part of the discussion/proposal/plan etc that:

    Se: Describes immediately actionable tasks that obviously work and merely require someone being made aware to "just do it".

    "There's stuff that needs to be more planned/debated etc, but here's what is obvious and simply needs doing".

    "We've taught/debated this all on theory/logic and finally worked it out. Now lets just put it in terms of what actually needs to be done, and not needlessly complicate our life/the life of the person who will actually be taking action on this."

    Si: Latches onto a paradigm of background assumptions and a paradigm of procedure that has worked before.

    "We need a platform to launch from, and a block to sculpt, so lets start with this sort of setup to start with, because we know it worked fine for us last year, worked fine at XYZ organization, or worked fine for doing related ABC research".

    Lets assume that the DHARH perspective/theory/calculations are good enough to build from. At the very least it gives us a starting point.


    --> work/projects tend to be action/task heavy because stuff needs to get done. Therefore its easy (and necessary) to accommodate these.

    Ne: Explores lots of variations, troubleshooting, and leaves room for creativity.

    "Lets make sure that we engage in enough discovery before reaching a decision too quickly. Lets properly consider all the other less obvious ways of doing this."


    "We will need/The people who will actually be doing this, will need a lot of flexibility. There's no way we could explicitly list or dictate how they should do this. Instead, they should be aware of the goal, aware of the resource limits, and let them operate within that range wherever they please."

    Ni: Analyzes first assumptions and any potential "elephants in the room".

    "All these debates about whether the legislation should support XYZ economic policies, WBZ entitlement policies and YTF rights all ignore the elephant in the room: are we working under Keynesian, classical, naturalist, judeo-christian etc? We're arguing at the wrong level of the thought tree, and we first need to address the elephants in the room..."

    "Maybe we're looking at it the wrong the way. Will our customers really be like the XYZ customers that we're basing this thought process on? If not, then everything XYZ might dictate we do, is of no concern to us."

    --> These are often on a "need to know" basis. therefore, extra possibilities and further analysis of paradigms is better for appendix sections, troubleshooting and basic introductory spiels. these are also the things that the people in charge, teaching or making big decisions always need to be aware of, but others in the group probably only need to know on a "need to know basis".

    Te: Organizes sequential steps, go-to procedures and cause/effect relationships.

    "That will need to be done in a very particular way, by people who won't have the training to instinctively do it the particular way. Let's explicitly list it out so that they don't get lost."

    "We simply cannot afford the time/money/energy to do UYSD. If we try to do that, we will only be bankrupting our time/money/energy. Perhaps there is a more cost effective way of meeting that need?"

    Ti: Deduces that everything naturally follows from first principles in an internally coherent fashion.

    "We don't have any data on how this will work in practice, so it needs to be airtight on paper."

    "Rather than list out every possible fix for every possible problem, if people are made aware of how all the pieces holistically work together, they will be able to deduce the solutions themselves".

    --> Tasks that require more time, thought and process than the immediate actionables, benefit from being clearly spelled out. whether something is spelled out by describing the deductive logic involved, or the lists of cause/effect tasks, depends on the level of flexibility required.

    Fe: Considers the roles, morale and niches that people already occupy or will need to occupy.

    "Bob is technically in charge and can do most things better than Tim, but Tim is going to lead that area for the foreseeable future after Bob retires next year. Bob needs to be encouraged to mentor rather than merely delegate to Tim."

    "John doesn't want XYZ job because he knows it will be more work. However, we need him, and we need to boost his morale about taking it".

    "The TJFs and the IKDs don't agree on anything except ETQ, lets start by focusing on ETQ as much as possible, and build from there".

    "This might be the best plan from our point of view, but how does the entirety of the team feel about it (the implementers, the financial backers, the customers, the field experts, the theorists, the experienced etc)?"

    Fi: Double checks for anything that is simply unconscionable, regardless of cause/effect, results or bottom line "success".

    "Is anyone's future success, integrity, health or self-esteem is being jeopardized by these methods?"

    "Is it conscionable to be managing the staff like they are all idiot peons?" ( )

    --> These F parts must often be implicit and unwritten. by trying to write these down or make them explicit, you end up ignoring and changing the very roles you have attempted to spell out. by drawing attention to the unconscionable, you often just make them a target for people to trot out results based opposition.

    ---------------------------

    In retrospect, keeping all of these in mind, did help me with my project. Everyone's strengths are more represented. People have a better idea of where they fit in and how they can help. Finally, it helped me focus on things besides rambling on in only one thought perspective...

    What do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Looks good. The way Myers describes the model in Introduction to Type...she has prompts for each of the four functions (believe me, in most groups it's better to use just S, N, T, F). The project/issue/conflict/problem determines the prompts you choose. One of the most useful S prompts is "define the problem or issue." Most teams never do that; they get to brainstorming and realize they haven't attacked the heart of the issue and have to backtrack.

    The goal is for groups or individuals to spend "enough" time in each preference for a good decision. Research somewhere showed that otherwise we spend something like 3/4 of our time using our first two functions, ignore the others, and the decision or process suffers accordingly.

    You've done that by identifying important parts of the project that require each of the preferences. A ton of type books out there have 8-9 prompts for each function that can be adapted to just about any situation. In our book for school leaders, we adapted it for setting vision, dealing with parents, guiding students in disciplinary actions, etc.

    Myers added the F function to John Dewey's model outlined in How We Think. I think Dewey was INTP so it's no surprise he would miss it as important to sound thinking.
    edcoaching

  3. #3
    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
    Myers added the F function to John Dewey's model outlined in How We Think. I think Dewey was INTP so it's no surprise he would miss it as important to sound thinking.
    I'd be curious about what F function means in this context. If it means a cognitive tendency to process emotions, then unmistakably, any theory of cognition that does not include the Feeling faculty is in error. If Feeling means merely thinking about feeling's or interpersonal needs of other people, then it can well be construed as a form of Thinking or a combination of Thinking and Intuition. In essence, Feeling would be reduced to seeing the 'logical consequences' as BC puts it, of interpersonal phenomena or brainstorming (N) ideas relevant to human relationships and emotions.

    One thing is clear to me, we need to be exact regarding how types and cognitive functions are defined, otherwise systemic incoherence and confused expositions invariably ensue. Furthermore, it is important to take note of the distinction between the study of type from the general personality perspective and a study of type from the perspective of temperament. The former defines a person's nature and the latter merely defines his natural cognitive proclivities.
    "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/

  4. #4
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I'd be curious about what F function means in this context. If it means a cognitive tendency to process emotions, then unmistakably, any theory of cognition that does not include the Feeling faculty is in error. If Feeling means merely thinking about feeling's or interpersonal needs of other people, then it can well be construed as a form of Thinking or a combination of Thinking and Intuition. In essence, Feeling would be reduced to seeing the 'logical consequences' as BC puts it, of interpersonal phenomena or brainstorming (N) ideas relevant to human relationships and emotions.
    In Jungian typology as interpreted by Myers, Thinking and Feeling make up two rational processes for making decisions, and neither is adequate on its own. In Intro to Type she describes Feeling: "People who prefer to use Feeling in decision making like to consider what is improtant to them and to others involved. They mentally place themselves into the situation to identify with everyone so they can make decisions based on their values about honoring people. They are energized by appreciating and supportin gothers and look for qualities to praise. Their goal is to create harmony and treat each person as a unique individual". She does not describe behaviors but rather characteristics that people who prefer Feeling might be associated with. I don't think she'd describe it as logical, since people aren't if-then reliable but Feeling is a rational process, just like Thinking. It is not about wallowing in one's own feelings.
    One thing is clear to me, we need to be exact regarding how types and cognitive functions are defined, otherwise systemic incoherence and confused expositions invariably ensue. Furthermore, it is important to take note of the distinction between the study of type from the general personality perspective and a study of type from the perspective of temperament. The former defines a person's nature and the latter merely defines his natural cognitive proclivities.
    Anyone who thinks type explains everything doesn't understand the first thing about it. There are ties and patterns between personality and cognitive processes, but there is way more "noise" from other factors. The 50-50 nature/nurture bit for behavior sure seems likely as I delve into personality research.
    edcoaching

  5. #5
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    Looks good. The way Myers describes the model in Introduction to Type...she has prompts for each of the four functions (believe me, in most groups it's better to use just S, N, T, F). The project/issue/conflict/problem determines the prompts you choose. One of the most useful S prompts is "define the problem or issue." Most teams never do that; they get to brainstorming and realize they haven't attacked the heart of the issue and have to backtrack.

    The goal is for groups or individuals to spend "enough" time in each preference for a good decision. Research somewhere showed that otherwise we spend something like 3/4 of our time using our first two functions, ignore the others, and the decision or process suffers accordingly.

    You've done that by identifying important parts of the project that require each of the preferences. A ton of type books out there have 8-9 prompts for each function that can be adapted to just about any situation. In our book for school leaders, we adapted it for setting vision, dealing with parents, guiding students in disciplinary actions, etc.

    Myers added the F function to John Dewey's model outlined in How We Think. I think Dewey was INTP so it's no surprise he would miss it as important to sound thinking.
    thanks for the feedback! I definitely wanted to almost pair functions with parts that I thought they were best adapted for. Whether by design, luck or true natural world perfection they all have a pretty even representation. I'd say my original time spent on the project was:

    (in order of inclusion)
    1. 30% Ni "What paradigms do I want to challenge, turn on their heads, and thus allow us to succeed?"

    2. 30% Ti (I like when things practically "create themselves" from just flowing from first principles)

    3. 40% Fe (the whole thing gets crammed through Fe lenses ) "Of what I just wrote, who is going to read that and feel like they can understand this, fit the role and want to do this? Is this going to excite anyone but me about what we're doing?"

    Next I had to go back and rewrite it with plenty of Se ("dammit! people are going to wonder what we're actually doing" ). Then I had to reference plenty of Si ("I better link these different paradigms to some working examples! no one has to know that im trying to turn the whole thing on its head!" ). Te came next ("some of these procedures need to be listed and spelled out"). Ne came next ("I better loosen up some of the directive language so that no one thinks im a tyrant! ). In dead last came Fi...It took me till the very end to realize, "wait...Im not treating these people like idiot peons...am I?...no...no...im just helping everyone how they need to be helped" ).

    Actually, that would point to:

    2nd Ni parenting the whole operation
    4th Ti aspirations of perfection being projected
    1st Fe hero saving the whole damn day
    ...
    3rd Se puer to lighten it up a bit
    7th Si trickster for good measure
    6th Ne senex to appease the paranoid
    5th Fi oppositional as an after thought

  6. #6
    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
    In Jungian typology as interpreted by Myers, Thinking and Feeling make up two rational processes for making decisions, and neither is adequate on its own. In Intro to Type she describes Feeling: "People who prefer to use Feeling in decision making like to consider what is improtant to them and to others involved. They mentally place themselves into the situation to identify with everyone so they can make decisions based on their values about honoring people. They are energized by appreciating and supportin gothers and look for qualities to praise. Their goal is to create harmony and treat each person as a unique individual". She does not describe behaviors but rather characteristics that people who prefer Feeling might be associated with. I don't think she'd describe it as logical, since people aren't if-then reliable but Feeling is a rational process, just like Thinking. It is not about wallowing in one's own feelings..

    Thank you for clarifying the position of Meyers, however, my question was regarding Dewey's conceptual framework. When you mentioned that he left out feeling out of his conceptual system, what exactly did he mean? Was his interpretation of feeling similar to that of Meyers?

    Furthermore, this is a question I've raised in several other of our exchanges that you did not address. You've described Feeling as one perspective that some people have in decision making. You also mentioned that type is innate, is Feeling as described above innate? If so, that strikes me as rather implausible. A person obviously needs social experiences in order to learn how to interact with people and how to treat them as individuals. On that note, it seems to me that Feeling decision-making process is learned at least in part. However, some people may be more emotive by nature and their attention is more easily drawn to people and as a result of this they develop the skills associated with the Feeling decision making. This is exactly what I meant in the other thread when I said that MBTI theorists confuse learned traits for the innate. It is a mistake to maintain that a person is a natural 'Feeler' just as it is a mistake to claim that a person is an Extrovert by nature or sociable. The fact that the theory regards qualities such as the Feeling decision-making process as an innate type shows that it is responsible for the fact that many of its practitioners do tend to make unwarranted assumptions that they have extraordinary talents because they are of a certain type. For example, people assume that they are compassionate because they are a Feeling type. Why shouldn't they do so if the official theory states that any person who is a Feeler does, as a matter of fact 'identify with everyone and honor people'?

    It seems to me that a refutation of this view is not hard to find. Not all people who can be legitimately typed as Feeling types exhibit these qualities, some are self-serving scoundrels. It therefore follows that Feeling can be defined as a tendency to be emotive and easily focused on people which in many cases leads to a development of the personality virtues you discussed, but it does not in all cases.
    "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. #7
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Thank you for clarifying the position of Meyers, however, my question was regarding Dewey's conceptual framework. When you mentioned that he left out feeling out of his conceptual system, what exactly did he mean? Was his interpretation of feeling similar to that of Meyers?

    Furthermore, this is a question I've raised in several other of our exchanges that you did not address. You've described Feeling as one perspective that some people have in decision making. You also mentioned that type is innate, is Feeling as described above innate? If so, that strikes me as rather implausible. A person obviously needs social experiences in order to learn how to interact with people and how to treat them as individuals. On that note, it seems to me that Feeling decision-making process is learned at least in part. However, some people may be more emotive by nature and their attention is more easily drawn to people and as a result of this they develop the skills associated with the Feeling decision making. This is exactly what I meant in the other thread when I said that MBTI theorists confuse learned traits for the innate. It is a mistake to maintain that a person is a natural 'Feeler' just as it is a mistake to claim that a person is an Extrovert by nature or sociable. The fact that the theory regards qualities such as the Feeling decision-making process as an innate type shows that it is responsible for the fact that many of its practitioners do tend to make unwarranted assumptions that they have extraordinary talents because they are of a certain type. For example, people assume that they are compassionate because they are a Feeling type. Why shouldn't they do so if the official theory states that any person who is a Feeler does, as a matter of fact 'identify with everyone and honor people'?

    It seems to me that a refutation of this view is not hard to find. Not all people who can be legitimately typed as Feeling types exhibit these qualities, some are self-serving scoundrels. It therefore follows that Feeling can be defined as a tendency to be emotive and easily focused on people which in many cases leads to a development of the personality virtues you discussed, but it does not in all cases.
    just to kind of relate to you solitary, I just took a quick peak at my work and its definitely apparent that you could: (Fe) "Consider the roles, morale and niches that people already occupy or will need to occupy" and yet be a total asshole who only cares about his ultimate success. You might just be using an emotive nature to direct peoples feelings for your benefit. You also could "Double check for anything that is simply unconscionable, regardless of cause/effect, results or bottom line "success" and still end up with stances/positions totally against people's well being, happiness or general sense of morality! You could not punish someone who has cheated (and therefore condone/encourage it) simply because you don't find it conscionable.

    However, as someone who has been rather immersed in the ideas of genetic determinism, evolution, evolutionary psychology, and ecological descriptors of animal behavior during my schooling, I would say that its not really worthwhile trying to differentiate what is learned vs what is innate beyond a casual sense. You cant develop or display any trait in absence of an environment (this is an a priori criticism). Secondly, if were to take a more empirical approach, heritability tests don't really prove what is innate or environmental, because they suffer from false quantification (these are quite common tests in psychology). Its impossible to really say something is 60% innate and 40% environment because without even 1% of the environment, there would be no innate!

    I apologize if this seems off topic. My main point is that I think beyond Kant's idea of "innate" like the ability to perceive time and space, I dont think its really fair to get technical about what is "innate or environmental" (because neither empiricism nor analytic unpacking really justify the distinction).

Similar Threads

  1. Decision Making: Links b/t Six Hats and 8 functions of type?
    By mmhmm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 01:53 PM
  2. type and decision-making
    By maerzhase in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 11:51 AM
  3. Decision-Making Functions and Sex ID
    By Janae in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 08:57 PM
  4. [MBTItm] NFs and Decision Making
    By PinkIceTD in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 06:06 PM
  5. [NT] INTJs (or NTs) and decision-making
    By sophiedoph in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:47 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