User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 81

  1. #61
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    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.

  2. #62
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    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.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    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.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    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.
    Last edited by proteanmix; 08-19-2008 at 01:02 PM. Reason: copyright issues

  6. #66
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    ...
    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.

  7. #67
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I agree.
    Psychology has much more to offer.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #68
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    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.

  9. #69

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    Statistics, or Systems?
    by Dario Nardi
    I linked it, if people want to see background information, context, etc. of the quote.

    Statistics or Systems?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #70
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    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)

Similar Threads

  1. Clearing Up The Confusion of Type and Functions
    By Krim13 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 04:52 AM
  2. The ESFP "stupid" myth.
    By Mort Belfry in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 846
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. St. Louis, keep up the good work!
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-09-2008, 12:40 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