On the thinking behind MBTIc

[Virtual ghost]

I think everybody has some personal combination. But there is good chances that some combination is more typical for some type and that some functions are far more likely to appear as stronger in that type.

All of my four letters are very strong but the combination of functions doesn't fit.

But I have strong Ni and Te.

 

[Xander]

Psychometrics is a branch of Psychology. It measures the psyche and in this case, personality types.

Psychometrics is empirical - it can be tested - and any particular test can be falsified.

MBTI has been tested and found to be false.

And the creators of MBTI, Mrs Briggs and her daughter, did not know how to make a valid and reliable personality test. In fact they copied their test from the book, "Personality Types", by the New Age Guru, Carl Jung.

If you wish to talk to a qualified psychometrician, you can ring the Psychology Department of your nearest University and ask to speak to a psychometrician.

Why not?

You know I was being facetious right?

The proven theory was at one time that the moon was made of cheese.
There was a proven theory of relativity, then proven to be unproven.
A scientists team declared they had proved that cold nuclear fusion could be done, then another team proved them wrong.

Against what background of proof am I to accept that those who choose who is acceptibly proven and who is not are actually qualified to make such decisions and who qualified them.

You are perfectly entitled to accept this second hand authority as valid but that does not disqualify anyone else as valid unless you are to propose that the theories persued by your supported faction are in fact the only approach which works.

 

[Xander]

The bottom line is that the reason why you have an idea of an external occurence is because of an internal cognitive perception.

So you are saying that if I think that all bald people are mutants and go killing them that I shouldn't rectify this?

No idea what you are talking about.

That is most obvious old fellow.

Generally, it should be noted that no system can be positivistic. As this cancels out all thinking altogether. Internal framework is the system in itself, yet the external observations are the additional data we need to collect. Our internal framework is sound if it is logically consistent and founded upon sound premises which hinge on factual information. It is important to continue to observe the external world to make sure that we have the correct factual information to found our premises on.

That bit bothers you doesn't it.

So basically you believe that the universe would stop working if we could no longer understand it?

So how come we could see light before we knew how fast it went?

Does this not mean that entire systems and models (ie the universe) exist with or without our thought or understanding? Ergo our thought and understanding has no effect on how things are, only on our perception of them. Theory <> Reality. Reality > Theory.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So you are saying that if I think that all bald people are mutants and go killing them that I shouldn't rectify this?

That is most obvious old fellow.

That bit bothers you doesn't it.

So basically you believe that the universe would stop working if we could no longer understand it?

So how come we could see light before we knew how fast it went?

Does this not mean that entire systems and models (ie the universe) exist with or without our thought or understanding? Ergo our thought and understanding has no effect on how things are, only on our perception of them. Theory <> Reality. Reality > Theory.

You're confused. Universe will work just fine if you close your eyes, but your observations of it require a process of cognition. A retard or an animal can look at the chalk board and not retain a thing about what it looks like.

 

[Xander]

You're confused. Universe will work just fine if you close your eyes, but your observations of it require a process of cognition. A retard or an animal can look at the chalk board and not retain a thing about what it looks like.

Correct so in what way does it matter if the order of things makes sense to you other than it mattering to you personally?

Ergo a system may appear to be incorrect according to your thinking and yet function regardless. In these cases you may find the answer with a better understanding of the system or you may just have to accept that system and try applying it in the real world.

So far I have found in the last twelve years that the MBTI is not a flawlessly concurrent system of understanding but it's a damn good guide to the trends in people's thinking.

If you accept that the world works without your thought then you must also recognise that whatever pattern we notice in it has also existed without our input and therefore is not subject to our own validations. If, however, we put a system in place, a mask, to better understand those patterns then any errors found are within our own conversion process.

Hence how I did my nut when some scientists found a gap in their colourful map of the universe and declared that as proof of another dimension. How do such people manage to grasp high end science and yet miss the obvious. A gap in their pattern made by their system only proves that in that case their system produces a gap.

Hence our theories orbit reality and never the other way around.

 

[edcoaching]

Psychometrics is a branch of Psychology. It measures the psyche and in this case, personality types.

Psychometrics is empirical - it can be tested - and any particular test can be falsified.

MBTI has been tested and found to be false.

And the creators of MBTI, Mrs Briggs and her daughter, did not know how to make a valid and reliable personality test. In fact they copied their test from the book, "Personality Types", by the New Age Guru, Carl Jung.

If you wish to talk to a qualified psychometrician, you can ring the Psychology Department of your nearest University and ask to speak to a psychometrician.

Why not?

MBTI has been tested and found to be a reliable, valid self-reporting instrument. It will not hold up to diagnostic psychometrics because it wasn't designed to--Isabel didn't think people liked to be told who they were and that an interactive process would be better. It's reliability/validity is actually excellent by psychometric standards but is discounted by people who think it should fit the Bell curve because they haven't read the manual.

Isabel and Katherine knew exactly what they were doing. No, they weren't psychiatrists--but they were college-educated which was extremely rare for women born in 1870 and 1900. They were taught to think and used their smarts (and Mr. Briggs' knowledge as head of teh Bureau of Standards) to actually invent two statistical techniques that no one else used until supercomputers were invented; Isabel ran the correlations involved by hand.

Further Form M was developed via Item Response Theory and subjected to all kinds of research. But the publishers aren't interested in diagnostic tools; they make people suspicious and that isn't what's needed when you're trying to use the tool to improve interactions.

It's like saying Bill Gates couldn't have built Microsoft because he didn't finish college...

 

[edcoaching]

I think everybody has some personal combination. But there is good chances that some combination is more typical for some type and that some functions are far more likely to appear as stronger in that type.

All of my four letters are very strong but the combination of functions doesn't fit.

But I have strong Ni and Te.

A bunch of type theorists are actually figuring out how to hold a forum right now on this issue. Some advocate for a set order of development. And they don't agree on the order. Others hold that beyond the first two functions, experience, education, environment might influence the order (my camp). I think you're right that there's a more typical combination--that'd match with my position

 

[Eric B]

I am curious:

Is there another personality typing system you think is more valid or do you disagree with personality typing in general? If so what system(s) do you like?

In other words is it just MBTI you disagree with or the whole idea of classifying people into types?

The broader psychological community does not seem to respect any "type" theories, though you can find mention of "temperament", especially for children. However, this is not what we normally think of it as (basically, the old humour theory renamed and mapped onto a type system as basically, a larger "type" taxonomy. And because the medical "humor" concept was the original basis of it, and has long been disproven, people still think this is what our use of "the temperaments" is about!)
Taylor-Johnson (T-JTA) seems to be an example of a "temperament" analysis that has more respect and use in psychology. It just scores the nine factors, and does not make "types" or name "temperament" categories out of them. Hence, it looks like amore professional, clinical instrument.

 

[Delphyne]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalise the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake? Surely the pattern is resulting from the study of people. The pattern itself is a result and not the primary source, ergo arguing over where it follows a trend and where it does not can only be done out of interest voiding any revelations stumbled upon during the investigation.

I only highlight this as I've had many discussions where I get the feeling that people are basing their assumptions and advice more on an investigation and understanding of a pattern of results than on actual observation of the primary material, ie people.

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, just challenging the approach.

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.

 

[edcoaching]

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.

Ni is often described as butterfly thought because it's so nonlinear. Actually we're more likely to take a bit of a theory, see how it would help people, and spin off into new permutations that seem most likely to change the world. Was your friend trained in critical thinking? Most of my INFJ colleagues and I are really good at glossing over flaws if we see value. If we don't see value we move on to something else...

 

[Delphyne]

Ni is often described as butterfly thought because it's so nonlinear. Actually we're more likely to take a bit of a theory, see how it would help people, and spin off into new permutations that seem most likely to change the world.

Ni doesn´t follow one continuous line, it changes different perspectives. It´s linear in the way of following a lot of different lines. Maybe it can feel like having a holistic approach, but Ni doesn´t grasp a pattern as a whole like Ne does. Can you identify with that?

Was your friend trained in critical thinking? Most of my INFJ colleagues and I are really good at glossing over flaws if we see value. If we don't see value we move on to something else...

Yes, he was and he´s also good at glossing over flaws. Sometimes I hate that, because I like to follow patterns and try to look how they manifest themselves and he says, no, stop, first we have to look at the exact definition of the words, which are used. I like to use the theory first and check if it´s as good as it promises to be.

 

[Athenian200]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalize the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake? Surely the pattern is resulting from the study of people. The pattern itself is a result and not the primary source, ergo arguing over where it follows a trend and where it does not can only be done out of interest voiding any revelations stumbled upon during the investigation.

I only highlight this as I've had many discussions where I get the feeling that people are basing their assumptions and advice more on an investigation and understanding of a pattern of results than on actual observation of the primary material, ie people.

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, just challenging the approach.

This sounds complicated.... I'm not sure I know what you mean.

If you mean what I think you mean, then I think you have a point. It seems like people are often starting with the pattern, filling it in with their own experiences, and using their own experiences a way of interpreting things back to the pattern. Which is the wrong way, most likely. You shouldn't necessarily filter your experiences or your perceptions to fit them into a pattern. I think, rather, you should keep your perceptions and experiences intact, and only use the pattern where it matches them to express them, and admit the places where the pattern and the experiences don't completely match.

It can be annoying when people start throwing out all the rationalizations for why a person could be a particular type, and getting mad at you if you question it or say it's unlikely, everyone else wanting to just jump on board and agree with the idea. It happens a lot actually... people throw out an idea, and everyone else just builds it up and says how great it is, adds some of their own interpretation and extension to it. Then if someone else comes along and pokes holes in it, everyone gets angry and defensive, at least dismissive, and often rationalize that you don't have a mature understanding, overanalyze, or are closed-minded.

Does that make sense?

 

[Mole]

MBTI has been tested and found to be a reliable, valid self-reporting instrument. It will not hold up to diagnostic psychometrics because it wasn't designed to--Isabel didn't think people liked to be told who they were and that an interactive process would be better. It's reliability/validity is actually excellent by psychometric standards but is discounted by people who think it should fit the Bell curve because they haven't read the manual.

Isabel and Katherine knew exactly what they were doing. No, they weren't psychiatrists--but they were college-educated which was extremely rare for women born in 1870 and 1900. They were taught to think and used their smarts (and Mr. Briggs' knowledge as head of teh Bureau of Standards) to actually invent two statistical techniques that no one else used until supercomputers were invented; Isabel ran the correlations involved by hand.

Further Form M was developed via Item Response Theory and subjected to all kinds of research. But the publishers aren't interested in diagnostic tools; they make people suspicious and that isn't what's needed when you're trying to use the tool to improve interactions.

It's like saying Bill Gates couldn't have built Microsoft because he didn't finish college...

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.

 

[edcoaching]

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.

The MBTI isn't what matters--it's just a tool created to help people gain access to a tool that helps people make constructive use of differences. I use the theory to help people resolve conflicts, heal wounds, and help all children succeed.

But what I wrote about Myers and Briggs is true.

Whether psychometricians believe in the instrument has nothing to do with whether, in the hands of a capable facilitator, one can help people get along.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Correct so in what way does it matter if the order of things makes sense to you other than it mattering to you personally? ..

??????????????????????

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system. If the current system does not accurately depict external occurences, it must be re-worked,(but first you must truly make sure that the system contains inaccurate information about the world, that it is not one of those cases where we see a 60 year old Se man who seems to be using Ni a lot and there we conclude that Se is really an abstract function, rather than concrete external perception as our system led us to believe hitherto) yet there is no reason at all to abandon systematic thought in favor of positivistic observations.

 

[Jack Flak]

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system.

 

[Xander]

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system. If the current system does not accurately depict external occurences, it must be re-worked,(but first you must truly make sure that the system contains inaccurate information about the world, that it is not one of those cases where we see a 60 year old Se man who seems to be using Ni a lot and there we conclude that Se is really an abstract function, rather than concrete external perception as our system led us to believe hitherto) yet there is no reason at all to abandon systematic thought in favor of positivistic observations.

So don't check the system to itself, check it to reality?

It sounds like you agree with me but I'm not quite sure.

 

[Xander]

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.

Few engineers believe in computers...

...so what?

Belief has nothing to do with it, being "qualified" is only a guideline, being "recognised" is only a public qualification and being "official" only means people are comfortable with it. These things are not related to truth.

That being said it also means that MBTI cannot be said to be any more valid than any other system. All I know is it works fairly reliably and is of use. I need no other reason to continue with it.

 

[Xander]

This sounds complicated.... I'm not sure I know what you mean.

If you mean what I think you mean, then I think you have a point. It seems like people are often starting with the pattern, filling it in with their own experiences, and using their own experiences a way of interpreting things back to the pattern. Which is the wrong way, most likely. You shouldn't necessarily filter your experiences or your perceptions to fit them into a pattern. I think, rather, you should keep your perceptions and experiences intact, and only use the pattern where it matches them to express them, and admit the places where the pattern and the experiences don't completely match.

It can be annoying when people start throwing out all the rationalizations for why a person could be a particular type, and getting mad at you if you question it or say it's unlikely, everyone else wanting to just jump on board and agree with the idea. It happens a lot actually... people throw out an idea, and everyone else just builds it up and says how great it is, adds some of their own interpretation and extension to it. Then if someone else comes along and pokes holes in it, everyone gets angry and defensive, at least dismissive, and often rationalize that you don't have a mature understanding, overanalyze, or are closed-minded.

Does that make sense?

I was going to start out with "WHAT?" but I then realised that although your point is different to mine it's also very true.

I was thinking more in terms of arguing about how the system's pattern is valid or not measuring it's success or faliure by whether it meets up with what people expect or not without recourse to finding out whether it works in real terms, ie by seeing if it does help people communicate and see how other kinds of thinking works.

Your point, if I read it right, is more that people start with a few pointers and then assume that the rest of the pattern fits or persuade people by altering how they read things so that whatever they observe fits. You're quite correct that this is logically wrong.. well unless you include inductive logic.

Personally I'd say that a certain amount of such pattern prediction is necessary as no person ever really matches up to any description perfectly and some margin of contradiction is only to be expected. However the amount of contradiction is a factor and if a person consistantly contradicts their type then there is reasonable grounds to doubt that they are that type.

In combination with this I'd also personally say that it is necessary to try to predict the rest of the pattern as a hypothesis to allow us to compare what we expect with what occurs, there by highlighting any areas of divergance.

So, yeah, that does make sense.

 

[Xander]

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.

I'm not certain of the types engaged in such conversations where the system comes under fire for it's lack of sticking to expected parameters but your definitions seem sound to me.

I recall a conversation between myself and an INTJ where he was arguing that a system was floored by measuring it's success or failure by internal structure alone where as I noted to him that it did work in practice and therefore had use even if it's internal structure was not ideal. I think it was the 3rd/3.5 ed of D&D level structure which started that argument.