Certainty in type and satisfaction with MBTI

[Nonsensical]

quite pleased/very certain

i don't like too much of MBTI though. people apply it too much to EVERYTHING and a lot they shouldn't. I find myself over thinking a lot of it, too. I hate when this happens.

 

[kelric]

Quite satisfied, Somewhat certain.

Quite satisfied, because for what I find the model useful for (providing a simplified structure for describing ways in which people's motivations and approaches differ), I think it does a fair job. But I don't hold much at all to the theory "behind" it. Especially the binary introverted/extraverted "functions" and prescribed function order stuff.

Somewhat certain of my type, because I can narrow it down pretty well, but there are two or three that I identify with to varying degrees. I've pretty much decided that nailing myself down to an exact type doesn't really matter. Far more important is the realization that any given community is chock-full of multiple viewpoints and sets of motivations, and that understanding someone else may be (and likely is) working on a very different set of assumptions than I am -- and providing at least a few stereotypical "other" viewpoints that I can work from when trying to figure out what's going on.

 

[Donna Cecilia]

Well, it would be better for the theory yes - but then, normal distribution could best justify a 3-level preference, the middle being "no preference".

I think it would make a fine system.

I don´t think so.

It would be like in marketing survey forms which are wrongly made. You will have lots of dorks who will choose "no preference" for all answers. There has to be a preference, or you will be missing great amounts of information.

 

[garbage]

I don´t think so.

It would be like in marketing survey forms which are wrongly made. You will have lots of dorks who will choose "no preference" for all answers. There has to be a preference, or you will be missing great amounts of information.

Maybe forced-choice is best for individual item responses that depict individual situations, sure.

But the overall picture, the aggregation of those item responses, may suggest that a person's treatment of situations is.. well, situational. That they don't always prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" one, for example.

If that becomes the case, when it comes to the overreaching theory, we'll see a normal distribution with respect to function use or dichotomies overall. Some people will prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" approach nearly all the time the time--they'd be relative outliers. Many won't have such clear-cut preferences. If that's the case, a theory that allows for shades of gray is probably more accurate, even if item responses are forced-choice.

 

[Donna Cecilia]

Maybe forced-choice is best for individual item responses that depict individual situations, sure.

But the overall picture, the aggregation of those item responses, may suggest that a person's treatment of situations is.. well, situational. That they don't always prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" one, for example.

If that becomes the case, when it comes to the overreaching theory, we'll see a normal distribution with respect to function use or dichotomies overall. Some people will prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" approach nearly all the time the time--they'd be relative outliers. Many won't have such clear-cut preferences. If that's the case, a theory that allows for shades of gray is probably more accurate, even if item responses are forced-choice.

If shades of grey were allowed, then no typologycal instrument would be valid, since there won´t be any way to classify the data you gather, in order to analyze it and create a theory.

Types are not existing objects, but variables to define and classify a population, according to the data you get from it. If you are creating a typologycal instrument, you are forced to use functions or dichotomies.

 

[garbage]

If shades of grey were allowed, then no typologycal instrument would be valid, since there won´t be any way classify the data you gather, in order to analyze it and create a theory.

Types are not existing objects, but variables to define and classify a population, according to the data you get from it. If you are creating a typologycal instrument, you are forced to use functions or dichotomies.

Categorization is also fine. If you're categorizing something, and if you need hardline, "black and white" categorizations, then you've got to draw a line somewhere.

But I'd argue that it's these "black and white" categorizations that would be the source of lost data. If a line is drawn somewhere down the middle of a distribution, and if the majority of a population falls around that line, then that sense of central tendency isn't captured by the categorizations.

Which is fine, if you're not trying to develop a theory of personality that applies to all individuals, but, instead, your aim is for a categorization of personality.

If it turns out that individuals don't neatly fit into categories--that they do have a tendency toward a middling classification--then conclusions that are based upon people reliably falling into those categories aren't really valid. If there's no grandiose distinction between the average Thinker and the average Feeler, for example, it's difficult to extrapolate anything based upon how individuals are classified--where they're classified doesn't tell you anything.

Perhaps no typological theory based upon hardline categorizations is valid. In which case, I'd say.. so what? That points to a requirement for a different approach altogether, if categorization isn't the goal.

(This whole "categorization being the goal" thing is exactly why I'm 'quite satisfied' with MBTI, given that it's primarily intended as a categorization system.)


The Big Five does a fine job of providing a personality measure without needing to draw a function-based hardline categorization of individuals. Instead, it captures scaling tendencies based upon given data that shows correlations between certain attributes--collectively referred to as Extroversion, Openness, and so on. The Big Five measure allows for a sliding scale for each trait, it allows for individuals' tendencies to be based upon situational context, and it also allows for individuals to change.

Those 'allowances' also happen to match reality in a pretty direct way.

Perhaps an approach similar to that is necessary in order to capture the subtle nuances--the lost data--than other approaches.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm quite satisfied with the MBTI, and I am quite certain of my own type.

I prefer Jungian theory to MBTI, which can become an oversimplified version, but at the same time, it's the gateway drug to Jung, so I see value in it. I don't see the system flawed so much as some people's grasp & use of it. I also spend waaaay too much time thinking about this stuff to not insist there is some validity in it .

Oh yeah, and I am an INFP who is SURE of my type, and I don't see myself as a particularly unique INFP who defies INFP stereotypes (quite the contrary - I'm such a cliche).

 

[rav3n]

I prefer Jungian theory to MBTI, which can become an oversimplified version, but at the same time, it's the gateway drug to Jung, so I see value in it. I don't see the system flawed so much as some people's grasp & use of it. I also spend waaaay too much time thinking about this stuff to not insist there is some validity in it .

I also prefer Jungian theory but without MBTI, I wouldn't have known where to begin so quickly.

If you notice, MBTI and Jungian theory discusses preferences, not absolutes. If anyone's expecting absolutes, you'll not find when it comes to cognitive studies or theories.

Preferences are what we normally lead with, whether good or bad, whether right or wrong. They're our coping strategies for daily life. After all, the first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]