User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 59

  1. #41
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    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.
    My guess is that the main reason you've come to think of a "functions based approach" as providing a "much richer understanding of personality" is that what you think of as a "dichotomy based" approach is a straw-man version of the dichotomy-centric MBTI perspective that Myers (really) subscribed to. As Reynierse (rightly) points out in the article I've previously linked to, it's actually the dichotomy-centric framework that's richer and more flexible.

    The properly-framed, dichotomy-centric MBTI (what I call the Real MBTI Model) — which is the one that has "validity" (as they say in the psychometric biz) — says this:

    INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + NFP + INFP.

    Myers really understood (because it's what her years of data-collection told her) that there was nothing fundamental or special about the combinations that purportedly correspond to the "cognitive functions" — and in fact, as previously noted (and as further discussed in this post), Myers thought NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant dichotomy combinations (and she may have been right).

    By contrast, a typical "functions based approach" treats a very limited subset of the preference combinations — e.g., NJ (Ni) and TJ (Ti) for an INTJ — as if they were the fundamental building blocks of personality, while tending to ignore or shortchange the others.

    What's more, a function aficionado will tell you that, comparing an INTJ and an INTP, the INTJs' N will generally play a greater role in their personality than their T and the INTPs' T will generally play a greater role than their N — because dom/aux! — and that's yet another function-based expectation with virtually no respectable data support behind it (and some significant data that contradicts it). By contrast, the Real MBTI Model says that INTJs and INTPs both have N and T preferences, with all that those entail, and whether the N or the T plays a greater role in any NT's personality will basically depend on whether one of those two preferences is substantially stronger than the other — and the data suggests that the N preference is no more likely to be the stronger one for an INTJ than for an INTP. So there's another aspect of the system where it's the Real MBTI Model that allows for more flexibility and richness.

    In any case, though, any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. So the Real MBTI Model doesn't really have "missing slots" for characteristics that you might otherwise associate with the eight "functions"; it just frames them differently.

    If you're looking for a limiting framework, just give a listen to any of the large number of forumites whose posts indicate that the MBTI "letters" really don't say much about anyone, and that INTJs and INTPs (for example) have almost nothing in common — because I and N and T (and the IN and NT and IT combinations) don't correspond to any significant aspects of personality. There's the limiting and impoverished perspective if you ask me. And it certainly isn't a Jungian perspective. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.
    Likes asynartetic liked this post

  2. #42
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,418

    Default

    Introduction to Type® Dynamics & Development
    Exploring the Next Level of Type

    Katharine D. Myers and Linda K. Kirby

    https://www.cpp.com/en/mbtiitems.aspx?ic=6862

    It's not exactly a new book considering the second edition was published 15 years ago. I've had the book for years.
    I suppose someone can pretend CPP and Katharine D. Myers have nothing to do with the MBTI, but I don't think anyone would buy that.

    The book was written to enrich the understanding of type, rather than just a grade school approach of I+N+T+J.
    Likes KarmaButterfly liked this post

  3. #43
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Introduction to Type® Dynamics & Development
    Exploring the Next Level of Type

    Katharine D. Myers and Linda K. Kirby

    https://www.cpp.com/en/mbtiitems.aspx?ic=6862

    It's not exactly a new book considering the second edition was published 15 years ago. I've had the book for years.
    I suppose someone can pretend CPP and Katharine D. Myers have nothing to do with the MBTI, but I don't think anyone would buy that.

    The book was written to enrich the understanding of type, rather than just a grade school approach of I+N+T+J.
    In case anyone might be confused by the name, Katharine Myers is Isabel Myers's son's ex-wife. I haven't had the pleasure of reading her book, but I've looked at her website, and I'd say she's nothing like an impressive source when it comes to MBTI theory and the history of the MBTI — i.e., the changes her mother-in-law made to Jung.

    In any case, there's certainly no question that she's a big "cognitive functions" aficionado — although, to her credit, and like Quenk, she doesn't subscribe to the Harold Grant function stack and its associated tandems, so you can't point to her as a supporter of the notion that INFJs and ENTPs (for example) are cousins in the sense of being "Fe/Ti types." But more importantly, and like all of her fellow functionistas, she can't point to any respectable body of studies in support of her beloved "type dynamics."
    Likes Studmuffin23 liked this post

  4. #44
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,418

    Default

    Katharine D. Myers is co-owner with Peter Myers of the MBTI® assessment copyrights and Director Emeritus of the Myers-Briggs Foundation. (Unless there's been a recent change.) Her marital status doesn't interest me.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INfP
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    The book was written to enrich the understanding of type, rather than just a grade school approach of I+N+T+J.
    Hm, I don't understand why some say the preference combinations are elementary. I prefer them above most other approaches - at once general enough to account for the differences among even people of the same type, specific enough so that there are appreciable differences even with 'similar' types, and flexible enough to account for those who may not be clearly one type or another. That allows for plenty of of variation. It's neither needlessly complex nor too simplistic (IMO), a good balance.
    Likes Studmuffin23 liked this post

  6. #46
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion
    But cognitive functions are supposed to be cognitive. Behaviour stems from cognition (doesn't it?), and surely there is good correlation, but I don't think then identifying a CF with a behaviour makes much sense.
    Cognition is behavior. When you think, you're doing something.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #47
    Senior Member Studmuffin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by big sexy View Post
    Hm, I don't understand why some say the preference combinations are elementary. I prefer them above most other approaches - at once general enough to account for the differences among even people of the same type, specific enough so that there are appreciable differences even with 'similar' types, and flexible enough to account for those who may not be clearly one type or another. That allows for plenty of of variation. It's neither needlessly complex nor too simplistic (IMO), a good balance.
    Well said.

    Unlike Jung's functions or Keirsey's temperaments, it's able to explain peoples' personalities without pigeonholing them.

  8. #48
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    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.
    Actually Myers studied Jung really closely and did not try to make a new or adjusted version of Jungs typology, instead she tried to make a test that would measure Jungian type(which is cognitive functions theory, but Jung only measured type by dom function and then said that there is also often another or two aux functions, but thats a whole different thing on Jungs definition of aux and his view on tert, which myers adopted in her test by doing this whole I/E and J/P thing around N/S F/T in a way that she thought Jung meant) and then in addition to making a test for measuring Jungian type she created descriptions of types, which are not definitions of types, but general descriptions about them, so that type would be more easily understood by people not familiar with complex psychological stuff and terminology(while Jung made deliberately his typology using, because its needed and can explain things better for professions to help diagnose patients and to create understanding between different types of people).

    MBTI is a measurement of cognitive functions, at least thats what myers and briggs made it for(but ofc the community has expanded the theory based on MBTI quite a lot, some more far out theories than others). But if you think about some regular joe manager who wants to use MBTI for recruiting new employees, its much easier for him to think about types in terms of I/E S/N T/F J/P than TiNeSiFe TeSiNeFi etc. so it was better way for myers to express type, sort of abstraction from Jungs work, which still staid loyal to Jungs typology. All that myers and briggs really did was a questionnaire, descriptions of types and figured out the type code so that type is easier to explain to general audience with no psychology training.

    What comes to big 5 vs MBTI, big 5 style of measuring personality with scales instead of being type theory is statistically better, because with MBTI you might get whole false type with people close on some scale, while in big 5 its just 5% here or there on a scale. Thats why big 5 sort of personality measurement has become the favourite of researchers and therefore academia in general. But big 5 has some limitations to MBTI when type is actually known, but thats a whole another topic which im not going to go now.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #49
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    Cognition is behavior. When you think, you're doing something.
    No. The difference between cognition and behavior is that behavior is an outward expression of you which is observed by someone, while cognition is something that is going inside of your head and may or may not lead to behavior, or can lead to behavior in very roundabout ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    In science, cognition is the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge: attention, memory and working memory, judgement and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.
    Ofc Jung didnt take all of those in his typology, but thought that there are 4 major cognitive functions that make most difference between people; T, F, S, N and that these functions can work in different attitudes towards external and inner worlds. Also if you look at the wiki definitions for the word "cognition" in general, you can see the influence of jungs typology even in that. Also Jungs idea of cognition of these functions being capable of being unconscious or conscious is something that also shows todays academia. Concrete cognitive attitude Jung saw as extraverted, abstract as introverted. If you look at one part saying that cognition can be "reasoning and computation and problem solving and decision making", you can clearly see that this is what T is about(except Jung thought that some persons are more influenced by their moods and "feeling" states in their decision making and attitude in that area is what F > T is about).
    Its funny how todays academia treats Jung, on the other hand they had a lot of influences from him(which you can see even from that wiki article of one of the central terms in todays psychology), but then they label and talk of him as some guy who believed in magic and went insane.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #50
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Actually Myers studied Jung really closely and did not try to make a new or adjusted version of Jungs typology, instead she tried to make a test that would measure Jungian type(which is cognitive functions theory, but Jung only measured type by dom function and then said that there is also often another or two aux functions, but thats a whole different thing on Jungs definition of aux and his view on tert, which myers adopted in her test by doing this whole I/E and J/P thing around N/S F/T in a way that she thought Jung meant) and then in addition to making a test for measuring Jungian type she created descriptions of types, which are not definitions of types, but general descriptions about them, so that type would be more easily understood by people not familiar with complex psychological stuff and terminology(while Jung made deliberately his typology using, because its needed and can explain things better for professions to help diagnose patients and to create understanding between different types of people).
    I've discussed this issue with you over at PerC, but I guess my posts haven't quite sunk in yet.

    Yeah, Myers didn't move concrete/abstract from E/I (where Jung had mistakenly located them) to S/N, did she? Well, I realize you may be a lost cause, but for anyone else who might be interested in the facts of the matter, I've put a long recycled-reckful post from PerC in the spoiler.


    And you know what, INTP? The majority of the posts linked to in that last linked post involve two back-and-forths that I had with — wait for it — you, my man! Two back-and-forths in which I supplied you with lengthy Jung quotes that made it clear that this was not really an issue on which reasonable forum posters could disagree.

    And the major concrete/abstract surgery was just one of many adjustments, large and small, that Myers made to Jung's original types based on her insights and (especially) her data-gathering.

    As another example, and as further explained in this long TC post, it turned out that there was no Jungian function in more need of heavy-duty adjustments than "Si." And this is not a controversial issue, INTP. And it's not a "dichotomies vs. functions" issue. As described in the linked post (with illustrative quotes), even the more function-centric modern MBTI theorists (Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk) don't make significant use of Jung's Si description. Their IS_J portraits are very much like Myers' IS_J portraits, and are to a substantial extent the opposite of Jung's Si-dom portrait.

    Jung said an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary," while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as noteworthy for their down-to-earth, practical and reliable focus on the facts. Jung said it was understandable why the Si-doms (together with their Ni-dom cousins) are considered the "most useless of men" from the standpoint of achieving practical, real-world results, while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as among the likeliest candidates for employee-of-the-month.

    And again, there's a much lengthier discussion, with many more quotes, in that linked post.

    Still hungry? You can read about the changes Myers made to Te in this PerC post.

    So... your assertion that Myers "did not try to make a new or adjusted version of Jungs typology" is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly. Briggs and Myers started from Jung — along with a much simpler typology that Briggs had been developing before she encountered Psychological Types — but where the MBTI ended up was substantially different from Jung's original concepts.

    As McCrae and Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) have explained:

    Quote Originally Posted by McCrae & Costa
    Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

    Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.

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