Personality Type isn't about who you are

[Jeffster]

Why is it called personality type if it's about how people act rather than how they think?

I never understood that about Kiersey. All of his descriptions aren't really about how people think; it's not really "personality."

That's probably why he prefers to use the word temperament, rather than personality. His contention is that temperament is what we are born with, and character and personality are developed over time based on a number of factors. Two people of the same temperament can have very different personalities.

 

[stellar renegade]

Okay. Given that, you would agree that one's personality changes over the course of their lives?

How about over the course of a day, depending upon one's company or task?

I think that it's possible that someone's personality could change due to some kind of rare phenomenal internal transformation altering the hard wiring of their brain, or like an accident involving a railroad spike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

I don't think your personality changes due to whatever task you're performing, no. That's silly. A personality is much broader than a mere transitory thought or feeling.

Why is it called personality type if it's about how people act rather than how they think?

I never understood that about Kiersey. All of his descriptions aren't really about how people think; it's not really "personality."

Well actually when I was looking up the description of the Healer just earlier on Keirsey's site it did seem to describe how they think, but again, all of the thoughts were those that could be either easily observable by an aware person or distinctly expressed by the person. Here's what Dr. Keirsey would have to say about thoughts, according to his son:

Let me give you what my father would likely say about this.

He wouldn't give a specific answer, for he would question one of your basic assumptions. He does not like to use the word "thinking" -- for he considers it as useless, and even counterproductive. He has said many times "We do not think -- we have thoughts"

Thus chopping up "thinking" would be considered "reductionistic." So in regard to 2) People don't think "one way or another" -- they "think" all the time. Just as all of us "think" and "feel" whether we are a Myersian T or Myersian F. And 3) how does it help to ask this question, and what could one infer profitly with an answer. Again, we cannot observe "thinking" -- let alone, any "kind" of thinking.

So I would say, reading Howard Gardner, although might be interesting, but I think (i.e., I have an opinion) that Gardner's analysis and perspective has marginal utility in regard to understanding human personality.

Mathematically "thinking" -- since I cannot observe "thinking" in others, but I have "done it" -- I only can point to some entertaining books, like How Mathematicians Think, by William Byers. On the other hand, my greatest joy is reading about all different mathematicians, physicists, chemists, yada yada

 

[Little_Sticks]

I guess it comes down to what you want/wanted out of MBTI.

I wanted a way to figure out what is my base self in how I interact with other people, as well determining how other people act so I can better interact with others. I also want a social system that I can reference for strangers that holds up to my never-ending scrutiny and that I can append new systems and information about people to without having to worry whether the base system is weak. I'm happy to have found that base system , one based on how people act.

But this is why I also said at some point somewhere in this board that MBTI should only be used to assess people you don't know anything about. When you start to know someone well you merge psyches a little bit and are a little more open with thoughts (or are more intimate) and just how someone acts becomes nuanced and different and less important than the predominant sharing of thoughts between the two.

I guess you could say there is a more spiritual unconscious link about people (which can only be weakly described by theory and functions) and then the more categorical conscious one (which can be strongly described by theory and functions).

So I guess I'm a bit more practical than most people and believe personality type should be a study of how people act consciously on the surface or any more concrete personality science gets replaced with just socializing in all its forms (not that there is anything wrong, of course, with socializing since human beings have a desire to do so to some degree, but I value science more I guess).

 

[lunalum]

If personality type isn't about the internal me, then I'm an ESFP, if I could even have any type at all. I'm not sure because even Extroversion, Sensing, Feeling and Perceiving require some level of internal processing.

It is sad that even personality psychology has once again been captured by behaviorism...