Clearing Up The J/P Myth

[marm]

What does that link have to do with this discussion? Those are stories about bad experiences people have had and not about theory or research. Furthermore, those were stories about MBTI and I didn't notice anyone who mentioned either MBTI Step II or traits.

 

[marm]

MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isabel Briggs Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences as well as similarities, and at the time of her death was developing a more in depth method to offer clues about how each person expresses and experiences their type pattern, which is called MBTI Step II. In the 1980s, Kathy Myers and Peter Myers developed a team of type experts, and a factor analysis was conducted. This resulted in the identification of five subscales (with corresponding pairs of facets each) for each of the four MBTI scales.

It was mostly developed after Isabel Myers, but it was inspired by her own insights. It was because of people like Wandering that these factors were looked at in order to determine differences between people of the same type.

- Each of the original four preference pairs (dichotomies) is broken down into five facets. Whilst the facets reflect different aspects of the main dichotomy, they do not combine to the whole of the original preference. In other words, you can not say that, for example, a preference for Thinking over Feeling is simply a combination of the five Thinking facets (Logical, Reasonable, Questioning, Critical and Tough).

The traits are aspects of the functions, but the whole of the functions is greater than the parts. This could be related to the idea that the traits are the outward manifestation of the functions.

- Whilst in MBTI Step I, each of the preference pairs is considered to be a polar opposite, some of the Step II facets are more "trait like" - i.e. there may be degrees of strength or aptitude.

This is interesting. I hadn't heard about the facets not being polar. This further distinguishes the two. Any single person may not fit all of the traits and may fit them to varying degrees. In Wandering's case, she may not fit all of the facets of Judging and yet still be a Judging type.

- Any individual taking Step II is likely to find some of the facets to be aligned to the overall preference (in preference, e.g. preference for the Logical facet and an overall Thinking preference); others may be more flexible or variable (mid zone, e.g. no clear preference for either the Concrete or Abstract facet despite an overall Intuition preference); and there may be some facets that are opposite to the overall preference (out of preference, also called OOPS, e.g. a preference for the Intimate over the Gregarious facet despite an overall Extraversion preference)

This is simply to say that the correlation between facets and functions is only general. Also, the facets are further broken down into sub-facets.


I just did a search on MBTI Step III. It sounds like it tries to determine how an individual uses the facets looking for idiosyncracies within individual development. Apparently, MBTI Step II does comparisons between people, but Step III looks more closely at the details where comparisons aren't helpful.

 

[Gabe]

MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It was mostly developed after Isabel Myers, but it was inspired by her own insights. It was because of people like Wandering that these factors were looked at in order to determine differences between people of the same type.



The traits are aspects of the functions, but the whole of the functions is greater than the parts. This could be related to the idea that the traits are the outward manifestation of the functions.



This is interesting. I hadn't heard about the facets not being polar. This further distinguishes the two. Any single person may not fit all of the traits and may fit them to varying degrees. In Wandering's case, she may not fit all of the facets of Judging and yet still be a Judging type.



This is simply to say that the correlation between facets and functions is only general. Also, the facets are further broken down into sub-facets.


I just did a search on MBTI Step III. It sounds like it tries to determine how an individual uses the facets looking for idiosyncracies within individual development. Apparently, MBTI Step II does comparisons between people, but Step III looks more closely at the details where comparisons aren't helpful.

What I take issue with is that they even call it 'out of preference'. if the results don't fit the theory, the theory should be changed. Instead, some 'clarity of preference' is contrived ( I say contrived, because in reality, 'less J' is a meaningless statement), and type is 'approximated' through a very messy (and frequently innacurate) process.
Of course, I don't even agree with most of those facets.

Back to J/P. I bet if they actually did research on the 'facet' answers, they'd find that some exceptions were the rule (I bet they could make that even more clear by restricting study to, say, people who have a validated result of a certian type). So, the 'rule' can easily be scrapped, and, fortunately, nothing else has to even fall down the drain with it.

 

[marm]

What I take issue with is that they even call it 'out of preference'. if the results don't fit the theory, the theory should be changed.

I would accept this as wise, but maybe its not so simple. The results of testing aren't the same thing as the theory. The theory is about cognitive functions, and the results are not. MBTI is forced to test for traits whatever you wish to call them because there is no way to test for cognitive functions. Maybe in the future when brain scanning is more advanced we'll be able to detect the patterns directly without the clumsiness of question and answer testing.

Instead, some 'clarity of preference' is contrived ( I say contrived, because in reality, 'less J' is a meaningless statement), and type is 'approximated' through a very messy (and frequently innacurate) process.

J/P are utterly meaningnless as far as the theory of cognitive functions go. However, it is meaningful as far as outward behavior goes(ie traits). J/P are, nonetheless, helpful because outward behavior gives us some clues to the inner workings of the mind.

Of course, I don't even agree with most of those facets.

Its not a matter of agreement. Those facets were determined by factor analysis. Someone didn't just make them up off the top of their head. Not only are there facets, but there are sub-facets which go into even greater detail. Your disagreement is based on limited info as we haven't discussed these sub-facets. I actually don't even know what they are, but I imagine that they might clear up some of the confusion.

I wish there was a book that explained MBTI Step II in more detail. There actually is a book that goes into the facets(Hartzler and Hartzler), but I'm still uncertain about what the sub-facets are that I've heard about. The facets make a lot of sense to me reading them. I'm still processing what they mean and how they compare to the some other viewpoints. I don't know if they make sense or not because I'm still learning about them at this point. All I know is that they've piqued my curiosity.

Back to J/P. I bet if they actually did research on the 'facet' answers, they'd find that some exceptions were the rule (I bet they could make that even more clear by restricting study to, say, people who have a validated result of a certian type). So, the 'rule' can easily be scrapped, and, fortunately, nothing else has to even fall down the drain with it.

In one of my earlier posts, I referenced to an inside joke meant for Wandering. There is something I said that she liked: "There are many exceptions to the rule, and sometimes exceptions point to new rules." The idea I get from MBTI Step II is that the facets are the exceptions that became new rules. However, there may be further exceptions that point to further rules or even that discount what previously seemed like a rule.

I don't know how they did their factor analysis to determine the facets, but I assume they were using the test results of people with verified types. From the sound of it, they worked on it for years starting with what Isabel had observed over years. We'd have to know how they went about this whole process in order to be able to judge the resulting facets valid or not.

 

[Gabe]

I would accept this as wise, but maybe its not so simple. The results of testing aren't the same thing as the theory. The theory is about cognitive functions, and the results are not. MBTI is forced to test for traits whatever you wish to call them because there is no way to test for cognitive functions. Maybe in the future when brain scanning is more advanced we'll be able to detect the patterns directly without the clumsiness of question and answer testing.



J/P are utterly meaningnless as far as the theory of cognitive functions go. However, it is meaningful as far as outward behavior goes(ie traits). J/P are, nonetheless, helpful because outward behavior gives us some clues to the inner workings of the mind.



Its not a matter of agreement. Those facets were determined by factor analysis. Someone didn't just make them up off the top of their head. Not only are there facets, but there are sub-facets which go into even greater detail. Your disagreement is based on limited info as we haven't discussed these sub-facets. I actually don't even know what they are, but I imagine that they might clear up some of the confusion.

I wish there was a book that explained MBTI Step II in more detail. There actually is a book that goes into the facets(Hartzler and Hartzler), but I'm still uncertain about what the sub-facets are that I've heard about. The facets make a lot of sense to me reading them. I'm still processing what they mean and how they compare to the some other viewpoints. I don't know if they make sense or not because I'm still learning about them at this point. All I know is that they've piqued my curiosity.



In one of my earlier posts, I referenced to an inside joke meant for Wandering. There is something I said that she liked: "There are many exceptions to the rule, and sometimes exceptions point to new rules." The idea I get from MBTI Step II is that the facets are the exceptions that became new rules. However, there may be further exceptions that point to further rules or even that discount what previously seemed like a rule.

I don't know how they did their factor analysis to determine the facets, but I assume they were using the test results of people with verified types. From the sound of it, they worked on it for years starting with what Isabel had observed over years. We'd have to know how they went about this whole process in order to be able to judge the resulting facets valid or not.

I don't agree with the facets in the first place. I think the resulting mess comes from 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Forget brain scanning. Why not just walk away from the whole mess. I mean, they already have better ideas about real aspects of type.

 

[INTJMom]

...
To me, psychology's purpose is not to classify people or cluster surface traits, it is to treat each other better because we understand them and have a working knowledge to improve interactions....

I agree.

 

[Nocapszy]

I agree.

Psychology has much more to offer.

 

[marm]

Seeing people in terms of individuality and in terms of general patterns aren't conflicting. They're just two aspects of psychology. That said, they inform eachother. General patterns do predict individual behaviors to a statistically significant degree. If you doubt me, then study traits research for yourself. Psychology is large enough to contain many perspectives.

If you limit your definition of psychology, you're only limiting the tools available for your own psychological understanding. The limitations you place on psychology aren't accepted by psychologists, and so I don't see the advantage of it.

 

[ygolo]

I frankly, don't know the context of this particular J/P discussion going on, but that was an excellent quote there, Gabe.

Dario Nardi expressed the veiwpoint I've been trying to express for a very long time in may different contexts.

Statistics, or Systems?
by Dario Nardi

I linked it, if people want to see background information, context, etc. of the quote.

Statistics or Systems?

 

[Gabe]

Seeing people in terms of individuality and in terms of general patterns aren't conflicting. They're just two aspects of psychology. That said, they inform eachother. General patterns do predict individual behaviors to a statistically significant degree. If you doubt me, then study traits research for yourself. Psychology is large enough to contain many perspectives.

If you limit your definition of psychology, you're only limiting the tools available for your own psychological understanding. The limitations you place on psychology aren't accepted by psychologists, and so I don't see the advantage of it.

yes..
but J/P sure doesn't predict much of anything.
J/P was created to keep track of whether a percieving process or a judging process was being extraverted. Then some people theorized about what preffering extraverted judging vs. extraverted percieving would look like. Most of the ideas drawn from that were way too general, or completely untrue.
(by the way, the way to figure this out is NOT to use MBTI test results as evidence. Look at type guesses made by experts)

 

[marm]

yes..
but J/P sure doesn't predict much of anything.

Typology as a whole is more descriptive than predictive... on the individual level that is. All of science can only ever predict patterns which means generalizations. In terms of psychology, this means that people are only predictable as probabilities. You can predict how a particular behavioral leads to certain results for most people, but of course any given individual may be an exception to the rule.

Statistics are predictive for individuals. If they weren't then, insurance companies wouldn't use them and they wouldn't make large profits off of people by using them.

Judging correlates to the behavioral trait Conscientiousness, and I thought this interesting:

The big five and organizational virtue
"Genetic influence was estimated as 41 percent for neuroticism, 53 percent for extroversion, 61 percent for openness, 41 percent for agreeableness, and 44 percent for conscientiousness."

So, you can even predict the probability of someone being born with a behavioral traits.

J/P was created to keep track of whether a percieving process or a judging process was being extraverted. Then some people theorized about what preffering extraverted judging vs. extraverted percieving would look like. Most of the ideas drawn from that were way too general, or completely untrue.

What it originally was created for is still important, but its developed way beyond that. Just because people have given bad descriptions of it, doesn't say anything about it as a predictive behavioral trait.

(by the way, the way to figure this out is NOT to use MBTI test results as evidence. Look at type guesses made by experts)

I'd think that the test results would be more reliable than experts most of the time(why does it matter at all what experts guess about?). The theories are only useful to the extent that they correlate with what is measureable. And, in this case, that means behavioral traits.


To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we're debating. I have no fixed opinions about the matter and that is what I'm trying to discuss. We don't yet know many things about typology. Its a young science and hasn't proven its validity in many areas besides J/P. Its pretty much been developing and changing ever since Jung came up with it, and personally I see that as a good thing. We don't as yet know everything about J/P, but why is that a problem? The MBTI Step II is still new. It will be years before we have enough data and research to draw any useful conclusions about how valid is the J/P dichotomy. However, we have enough evidence to show its valid in a general sense even if it needs to be clarified.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is or what my opinion is... or even what Nardi's opinion is. By the way, there really wasn't much that Nardi said that disagreed with anything I've said so far. I guess I disagree with his dismissal of statistics, but he really didn't give much of an argument for his opinion and so I didn't fully understand what he was getting at.

 

[Gabe]

J/P doesn't describe or predict well. I think I see what you're saying now though. Yes, they could go though all the proper procedure of proving the facets wrong, or we could step out of the illogic of the facets, and move on to something more effective.

 

["?"]

Some MBTI tests actually ask if one is punctual or leisurely directly. (PDF Warning)... Advice is commonly given in terms of structured time here. Even attempts to match FFM and MBTI use punctual as a benchmark (PDF Warning) (on the table, Item P97)

I believe that Myers-Briggs was incredibly astute in understanding Jung's principles or merely created a slight of hand when they developed the MBTI. Consider when taking the MBTI it's not necessary to determine all four dichotomies. If the test get's THE ONE right, then based on Jung and Myers-Briggs’ principles two of the succeeding dichotomies fall into place. When I say THE ONE I am meaning by all accounts of Jung’s work, your dominant type.

I will give you an example from my observation and experience. I had the MBTI Step II administered to me in November 2000, which resulted in INTP. It was clear that I preferred introversion and thinking over any other dichotomies. That part is easy to interpret since if I prefer IT, then in Jung’s system I would prefer Ti. Based on Jung’s principle there is an easy process of elimination from there since the succeeding function cannot be a feeling or introverted function, so that eliminates all but too functions Ne or Se. Notice that this also takes care of the final dichotomy since based on Myers-Briggs’ principle all extraverts show their J/P through their dominant function and introverts through their auxiliary, it’s a given what my final letter will be.

The only question remains is which do I prefer S or N. But if the test can get the most important function correct (the dominant function) there is an instant 75% success rate. This in itself determines the lack of need for the J/P code and again shows it’s redundancy. Yet the problem remains in how to determine the illusive S/N. Jung says that when he would discuss activities enjoyed by Ne types, what they were describing was Se. There are also articles that attempt to clear up why the average Se type confuses themselves as intuitives. The S/N is the hardest function to determine. I have spoken to many on the entp.org forum who profess to being ENTP when clearly from the descriptions of their activity shows Se.

Back to my experience in determining my type, Jung theorizes that the auxiliary is so subordinate to the dominant function to make me believe the auxiliary function is not inborn but developed at a later time. I think enthusiasts like the Tiegers actually place an age on when that develops. The question then comes would I have preferred Ne if I had grown up in a different setting having access to things that would have developed by Ne? Or did my actual upbringing a rural and small town setting determine my type in having to develop my Se? In the end yes technically there was a 75% success in my taking the MBTI Step II, however in reality all was necessary to determine was my dominant type and no the J/P is not necessary.

 

["?"]

whoa! Did you say stubborn? i know percieving types who are way more stubborn than "J"'s (I do consider myself extremely stubborn). In fact, introverted judgement (a preferred process for all percieving types) is a form of stubbornness if there ever was any.

That is because you are not witnessing anything remotely P, but the introverted judging function (Ti/Fi) which Jung says is just as noticeable as extraverted functions. Myers-Briggs' whole assertion that Jung did a poor job of demonstrating how the introverted functions are not noticeable is false. I think it was her ploy to demonstrate her reverse theory.

 

[mlittrell]

I've heard the "clean desk / cluttered desk" thing brought up so often... but it doesn't really mean much at all.

If a cluttered desk implies a cluttered mind, then what does an empty desk imply...

thank you mr. einstein

as far as this article goes...ehh...it doesn't really say anything significant...at all.

yes..
but J/P sure doesn't predict much of anything.
J/P was created to keep track of whether a percieving process or a judging process was being extraverted. Then some people theorized about what preffering extraverted judging vs. extraverted percieving would look like. Most of the ideas drawn from that were way too general, or completely untrue.
(by the way, the way to figure this out is NOT to use MBTI test results as evidence. Look at type guesses made by experts)

exactly, very very well said

 

["?"]

I think the whole content of the article and what Berens is trying to convey is that when she hears people bantering back and forth about J/P then are they really discussing type at that point since the J/P is so insignificant to warrant any discussion. If it was that important to distinguish whether someone was clean and punctual or not per judging and perceiving, I think Jung would have made at least made some reference to it.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think the whole content of the article and what Berens is trying to convey is that when she hears people bantering back and forth about J/P then are they really discussing type at that point since the J/P is so insignificant to warrant any discussion. If it was that important to distinguish whether someone was clean and punctual or not per judging and perceiving, I think Jung would have made at least made some reference to it.

This is an old argument and I'm not really in the mindset to argue it, but...

I fail to see how J/P is not considered relevent in MBTI. I mean, I can understand the argument that it isn't relevent/incorrect to Jugian/functional views... but within MBTI, it should be very important.

(The above assumes your quote, plus your response to me, are related.)

Now, if you don't care to judge via MBTI, only through the Jungian functions, then it really doesn't matter, no. It would be like saying that peoples should care about Neuroticism in MBTI. The argument could be that to get a complete image of a person (or a more complete image), J/P or Neuroticism should be included... but it doesn't matter within the system, really.

 

["?"]

I fail to see how J/P is not considered relevent in MBTI. I mean, I can understand the argument that it isn't relevent/incorrect to Jugian/functional views... but within MBTI, it should be very important.

(The above assumes your quote, plus your response to me, are related.)

Now, if you don't care to judge via MBTI, only through the Jungian functions, then it really doesn't matter, no. It would be like saying that peoples should care about Neuroticism in MBTI. The argument could be that to get a complete image of a person (or a more complete image), J/P or Neuroticism should be included... but it doesn't matter within the system, really.

But how can you argue MBTI without considering Jung, since that is where her theory is derived from. I agree that in her theory she had to use dichotomies to make the instrument itself functional. Otherwise she would be basing her assessment on cognitive functions. Nevertheless the J/P as I continue to argue is redundant and as the article goes when you are discussing it and it alone, then you are no longer discussing type, but traits. Consider the fact that if you want to discuss judging/perceiving then dominant Ti/Fi types will use it more than dominant Ni/Si types.

I have no beef about Myers-Briggs work, because it’s not her it’s the readers that are unwilling to delve deeper into the theory to realize that Jung put very little value in the auxiliary function compared to the dominant. Ergo, MBTI is good for what Myers-Briggs intended but contrarily has no bearing on Jung’s work when you focus on the dichotomies. In fact as I have questioned (and will need to go back to read) I am unsure if Jung ever alluded to traits of the judging/perceiving functions only to say that judging types are rational and perceiving types are irrational. Where the whole messy timeliness issue comes up is beyond me and since from my own experience I abhor being late, and can’t stand messiness this is a fallacy. And Berens is correct in saying that on most accounts it’s hard to distinguish NJ and SP with the naked eye.

 

[ptgatsby]

But how can you argue MBTI without considering Jung, since that is where her theory is derived from.

I don't argue MBTI. MBTI is what it is. Plus, I base my views on the current body of literature, not past theories...

What I'm hearing is that you reject MBTI as a Jungian tool. So did Jung, so there you go. That's what happens when different schools of analysis come into conflict...

In my view, MBTI is validated, has a lot of research behind it, etc. Jung does not. MBTI has its own framework, so does Jung. They are seperate now, and should remain so.

 

[Bella]

I didn't really want to say it... because the value lies in people assuming too much with type... but yah, it was a large rant for "Not all Js are the same".

Once again, for the record, the key traits within MBTI for...

Judging
Systematic
Planful
Early Starting
Scheduled
Methodical

Perceiving
Casual
Open-ended
Prompted
Spontaneous
Emergent

In general, people will have 3/5 as solidly on one side, one in the middle, and one to the opposite.

End behaviour is not an absolute from type, this should be a given. There is tendency for Js to be methodical (including their schedules, which has it's own term, their desks or their tasks). If the behviour doesn't reach that far, don't be surprised.

My desk is a mess, but I absolutely cannot stand having files, etc disorganised. My computer is a model for information systems, I love dealing with document management systems. The scope of type is limited to your brain; the traits that you act out differ on the individual (very) subjective view of the world.

And another story from my personal life - my INTJ GF (the J is strongly expressed) leaves piles of clothes absolutely everywhere. I lost the use of the couch for over a week because of it, and it was only when the dining room table became unusable that I complained... But I swear that if the dog treats, her shoes, the dishes, the fridge or her bills aren't organised, the world will end. Subjective importance.

I'm the same. Some things are allowed to be disorganized but others never.