User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 59

  1. #31
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Wow. You have that entirely backwards. The MBTI can actually lay claim to quite a lot of scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments, but that really only applies to the dichotomy-centric MBTI — and not the "cognitive functions."

    Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

    Anyone interested in reading about the validity of the dichotomy-centric side of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — will find a lengthy two-post discussion starting here, and further discussion of the scientific respectability of the MBTI in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).
    Your entitled to your opinion of course and I respect that but my views are not open for debate with you. I'm just letting you know because I don't want you to waste your time again replying to me when I'm not even going to read what you've written since I can directly observe what I wrote as true as the law of gravity.

    Time is too valuable for me to debate....time is money.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes KarmaButterfly, FiyaXiii liked this post

  2. #32
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Wow. You have that entirely backwards. The MBTI can actually lay claim to quite a lot of scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments, but that really only applies to the dichotomy-centric MBTI — and not the "cognitive functions."

    Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

    Anyone interested in reading about the validity of the dichotomy-centric side of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — will find a lengthy two-post discussion starting here, and further discussion of the scientific respectability of the MBTI in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).
    So you are advocating a dichotomy based approach vs. cognitive functions?

    I agree that Myers added a lot to the system. Anyone can see that. Jung had no such concept as a four letter type.

    This is one of the most confusing things about the MBTI. The test focuses on dichotomies. However when you read the manual, it includes the ordering of the functions. One can read Gifts Differing through the lens of dichotomies but reading between the lines, it is obvious that the functions and their ordering is the underpinning of the whole system.

    The test doesn't work that way though. It seems like a flawed approach to assessing a person's type. It works better than it seems it should. Why not improve it though by adding an additional layer that tests for the functions? Why focus on facets instead? I kind of think that the thing should be overhauled.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639
    Likes FiyaXiii liked this post

  3. #33
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    This is one of the most confusing things about the MBTI. The test focuses on dichotomies. However when you read the manual, it includes the ordering of the functions. One can read Gifts Differing through the lens of dichotomies but reading between the lines, it is obvious that the functions and their ordering is the underpinning of the whole system.
    You have that backwards. As discussed at length in this long INTJforum post (which I've already linked to), if you read Gifts Differing with any care, and you read the MBTI Manuals and other official MBTI materials, and you look at the decades of MBTI studies that have centered around the dichotomies and ignored the cognitive functions, and you look at the more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI — which divides the dichotomies into facets and continues to all but ignore the functions — you'll realize that, after putting Jung's original type concepts to the test, Myers came to the conclusion (correctly) that the dichotomies were the true building blocks of type. Myers essentially did nothing with the purported "tertiary" and "inferior" functions, and mostly just gave lip service to the dominant and auxiliary functions. Not only the test, but the MBTI itself, is really built around the dichotomies.

    And the dichotomy-centric version of the MBTI doesn't exclude the many aspects of personality associated with preference combinations — e.g., things that NFs or NPs or FPs tend to have in common. And there's no question that descriptions of, say, "Fe" can actually have validity as well as long as they don't go beyond what you might call the piggybacked validity that they get from lining up with the additive effects of the two (or three, as applicable) corresponding dichotomies — e.g., FJ (or EFJ, depending) for "Fe" descriptions.

    But it's also worth noting that Myers believed that NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant preference combinations — more than any of the combinations associated with the functions. And the second edition of the MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) had a brief description of characteristics associated with every one of the 24 possible two-letter preference combinations.

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

    Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in the post linked above:

    McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
    Reynierse article
    Likes /DG/ liked this post

  4. #34
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrotTheThief View Post
    Your entitled to your opinion of course and I respect that but my views are not open for debate with you. I'm just letting you know because I don't want you to waste your time again replying to me when I'm not even going to read what you've written since I can directly observe what I wrote as true as the law of gravity.

    Time is too valuable for me to debate....time is money.
    Your misunderstandings don't stem from the fact that your "direct observations" are hallucinations. They stem from the fact that, as your posts make clear, you know fuck-all about the dichotomy-centric version of the MBTI — and the ways it does and doesn't relate to Jung's original type categories, and the Harold Grant function stack, and etc. — and accordingly think that your "direct observations" somehow validate the "cognitive functions."

    But by all means, ignore my posts. You're free to stay as ignorant about the underlying theories as you wanna be.

    But meanwhile, if you're going to be posting stuff like "Cognitive functions are actually biologically rooted as opposed to mbti which is more psuedoscientific," you should be aware that the science of personality — although it's one of the soft sciences — is based on studies and data, and whether a typology has established a respectable level of validity and reliability depends on generally-agreed-on psychometric standards, and not whether some individual forum poster in lala land has read about the "cognitive functions" and "directly observed" that they sooooooo capture his, like, psychological reality, man.

    Look, reckful! I have five fingers! And I can "see" my five fingers! They're like fooking "gravity," those "cognitive functions."

    Carry on, Garrot.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    On another note, I'd say it's probably a better idea to use functions to type yourself, dichotomies to type other people, as you yourself don't always see the traits you quite plainly exhibit.


    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    But it's also worth noting that Myers believed that NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant preference combinations — more than any of the combinations associated with the functions. And the second edition of the MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) had a brief description of characteristics associated with every one of the 24 possible two-letter preference combinations.
    I'd completely agree with this as well.


    There's no logical way, reason, or excuse to split SP/SJ with the Sensors when you split the Intuitives by NF/NT, plain and simple, period. Functions or no functions. Nothing but deliberately attempting to assign desirable or undesirable traits to certain types that don't correspond with any one single preference. Making connections that don't exist, trying to see correlations where there are none. Like Gerrymandering.
    Likes /DG/ liked this post

  6. #36
    Almöhi Stephano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 so/sp
    Posts
    1,101

    Default

    It's true that Jung was biased towards certain types, though he himself pointed out biases in other personality systems (e.g. James' types). He had a bad impression of Fe Doms imho.
    However, the letters alone are too superficial. Whether someone is perceived extroverted or not for example is dependent on so many things - social anxiety, life problems, depression, etc. Jung's psychological types is still the best personality theory we have today.
    4w3 - 7w6 - 1w9 : The Idealist
    Likes GarrotTheThief liked this post

  7. #37
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    You have that backwards. As discussed at length in this long INTJforum post (which I've already linked to), if you read Gifts Differing with any care, and you read the MBTI Manuals and other official MBTI materials, and you look at the decades of MBTI studies that have centered around the dichotomies and ignored the cognitive functions, and you look at the more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI — which divides the dichotomies into facets and continues to all but ignore the functions — you'll realize that, after putting Jung's original type concepts to the test, Myers came to the conclusion (correctly) that the dichotomies were the true building blocks of type. Myers essentially did nothing with the purported "tertiary" and "inferior" functions, and mostly just gave lip service to the dominant and auxiliary functions. Not only the test, but the MBTI itself, is really built around the dichotomies.
    For some strange reason, I can't find my copy of Gifts Differing at the moment but I have actually read it four times. If I recall correctly, the type profiles are organized by dominant function. Introverted Intuitives (INTJ and INFJ) are described together. Dominant Thinkers (INTP and ISTP) are described together. Dominant Extraverted Thinkers (ESTJ and ENTJ) are described together. I recall a particular quote in the INTJ/INFJ profile description that speaks to the importance of developing an auxiliary judging function (Te or Fe) because of the introverted intuitive's confidence in the validity of their intuition and the need to counterbalance that. That hardly illustrates a mindset that ignores the cognitive functions.

    I have the Step 2 Manual. On page 9, Table 1.5 Dynamic Characteristics of The Sixteen Types, it lists the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions of each of type. The manual is obviously focused on the facets thing but the cognitive functions are there. Finally as one can readily observe by reading Was That Really Me?, it seems quite obvious that Naomi Quenk believes in the inferior function's relevance. I mean she wrote a whole book about it. She was one of the three authors of the MBTI Step 2 Manual.

    So I'm confused by your comments.

    Yes, the MBTI instrument is built around the dichotomies. What I'm saying is that it seems like that's the wrong way to approach it because the cognitive processes are the underlying foundation of the system. I can think of one example of an INFJ on this forum who recently took the MBTI Step 2 test. It incorrectly gave her an INTP result. It was widely discussed that this was an incorrect result by people that know her here. I came to the conclusion that it was in fact wrong by thinking through the cognitive processes that she appears to demonstrate. That is an example of where a test based on dichotomies resulted in an incorrect conclusion. I know an INTJ at work who took the Step 2 it and got ISTJ. He knows it's wrong just by reading the description. I know it's wrong because I work with him and can see what he's like.

    Edit: Oh and counting the number of pages that are attributable to one topic or another doesn't seem like a sound way to determine the importance of a concept or topic.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639
    Likes Eric B, FiyaXiii liked this post

  8. #38
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    For some strange reason, I can't find my copy of Gifts Differing at the moment but I have actually read it four times. If I recall correctly, the type profiles are organized by dominant function. Introverted Intuitives (INTJ and INFJ) are described together. Dominant Thinkers (INTP and ISTP) are described together. Dominant Extraverted Thinkers (ESTJ and ENTJ) are described together. I recall a particular quote in the INTJ/INFJ profile description thaat speaks to the importance of developing an auxiliary judging function (Te or Fe) because of the introverted intuitive's confidence in the validity of their intuition and the need to counterbalance that. That hardly illustrates a mindset that ignores the cognitive functions.

    I have the Step 2 Manual. On page 9, Table 1.5 Dynamic Characteristics of The Sixteen Types, it lists the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions of each of type. The manual is obviously focused on the facets thing but the cognitive functions are there. Finally as one can readily observe by reading Was That Really Me?, it seems quite obvious that Naomi Quenk believes in the inferior function's relevance. I mean she wrote a whole book about it. She was one of the three authors of the MBTI Step 2 Manual.

    So I'm confused by your comments.

    Yes, the MBTI instrument is built around the dichotomies. What I'm saying is that it seems like that's the wrong way to approach it because the cognitive processes are the underlying foundation of the system. I can think of one example of an INFJ on this forum who recently took the MBTI Step 2 test. It incorrectly gave her an INTP result. It was widely discussed that this was an incorrect result by people that know her here. I came to the conclusion that it was in fact wrong by thinking through the cognitive processes that she appears to demonstrate.
    There's no question that Myers and the official MBTI folks have always given a certain amount of what I already characterized as "lip service" to the cognitive functions, but there's also no question that the dichotomies have always been, and remain, what the official MBTI is really all about. To quote from the linked INTJforum post that I'm guessing you didn't read:

    Meanwhile, for anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total 22 pages. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists solely of a half-page table for each function, for a total of four pages. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers ignored (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. [See this TC post.] And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

    But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses almost exclusively on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

    Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding any results in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations almost exclusively involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a wide margin) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So, on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was really about.

    The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

    And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI Step II test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

    The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.

    In light of all that, to say that "the cognitive processes are the underlying foundation of the system" is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly. That's the mythical version of the MBTI that the likes of Quenk, Berens and Nardi have been peddling for years now — where the "dichotomies" are mostly just "letter codes" that lead you to the more significant "cognitive functions." But Myers and the official MBTI materials have always been heavily dichotomy-dominated and, as Reynierse (among others) has rightly noted, there's now lots of respectable data in support of the dichotomy-centric MBTI, and virtually no respectable body of support for "type dynamics."
    Likes Turi liked this post

  9. #39
    Suave y Fuerte BadOctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,273

    Default

    The more I read this thread, the more I think, "Why does this even matter?"
    Likes GarrotTheThief liked this post

  10. #40
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    There's no question that Myers and the official MBTI folks have always given a certain amount of what I already characterized as "lip service" to the cognitive functions, but there's also no question that the dichotomies have always been, and remain, what the official MBTI is really all about. To quote from the linked INTJforum post that I'm guessing you didn't read:

    In light of all that, to say that "the cognitive processes are the underlying foundation of the system" is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly. That's the mythical version of the MBTI that the likes of Quenk, Berens and Nardi have been peddling for years now — where the "dichotomies" are mostly just "letter codes" that lead you to the more significant "cognitive functions." But Myers and the official MBTI materials have always been heavily dichotomy-dominated and, as Reynierse (among others) has rightly noted, there's now lots of respectable data in support of the dichotomy-centric MBTI, and virtually no respectable body of support for "type dynamics."
    Hm. Well as someone who was a dichotomy based thinker for a very long time (because I didn't know about cognitive functions), I have come to believe that a functions based approach provides a much richer understanding of personality.

    As to the the "lip service" by the "official MBTI folks", I think there is truth to that. I think the official MBTI folks are wrong though. That's my point.

    Gifts Differing is a very good book in my opinion. The third or fourth time I read it, I began to see the depth of understanding of the system that the authors had. I believe they wrote it the way they did because they wanted something that could be understood by the masses. They were simplifying a complex thing. The first couple of times I read it, I missed the functions part entirely but it is very much there at the heart of the system.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone else's personality change with the seasons?
    By badger055 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Explain the cognitive functions to me
    By Colors in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 10:40 PM
  3. does anyone else make up a lot of ideas for computer games?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 04:46 PM
  4. Images of the Cognitive Functions
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 07:15 AM
  5. Does anyone else visit this site?
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 10:23 PM

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