[Jungian Cognitive Functions] What is your method for typing people?

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Can I ask, is there ever a type you don't find? For me, it's probably INFJ.

When I've had super hard evidence of people, some people type as INFJ to me.

But, before super hard evidence, they didn't seem as such. They seemed like some other types.

 

[Frosty]

I dunno. Its hard to describe. Like playing with an onion. But one that isnt homogenous- I dunno. Just need awareness.

Its hard to describe.

But mostly its play.

 

[Mole]

During the Western Enlightenment we learnt to apply evidence and reason to supposition.

We learnt our desires can give rise to suppositions, and even social pressure can give rise to suppositions. And we also learnt any supposition can be tested against reality using evidence and reason.

And yet mbti is based on supposition without any reality testing with evidence and reason.

Mbti plays to our desires and our vanity. Mbti is not in our best interests. The cost of mbti is our integrity.

So what is interesting is the psychology of mbti: how does it manage to create a whole false psychological world, and why do so many damaged psyches revel in a false world devoid of integrity?

 

[reckful]

During the Western Enlightenment we learnt to apply evidence and reason to supposition.

We learnt our desires can give rise to suppositions, and even social pressure can give rise to suppositions. And we also learnt any supposition can be tested against reality using evidence and reason.

And yet mbti is based on supposition without any reality testing with evidence and reason.

Mbti plays to our desires and our vanity. Mbti is not in our best interests. The cost of mbti is our integrity.

So what is interesting is the psychology of mbti: how does it manage to create a whole false psychological world, and why do so many damaged psyches revel in a false world devoid of integrity?

Your statement that "mbti is based on supposition without any reality testing with evidence" constitutes a factual assertion that can be reality tested and proven false by contrary evidence.

Anyone who's interested can find quite a lot of such contrary evidence described or cited in the long two-part post that starts here.

As one example, here's a large-sample 2003 study that summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.

...and the authors went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.

The MBTI has "a very firm empirical foundation," and is psychometrically "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests. So concludeth Robert Harvey, a hearty subscriber to the Enlightenment. Would you like an introduction?

RJ Harvey (Ph.D. Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Ohio State, 1982) has taught at Virginia Tech since 1987. As author of the Common-Metric Questionnaire (CMQ), the preeminent standardized job analysis survey, he has been active in research on job/occupational analysis and assessment topics related to employee selection and competency modeling. In recent years, he has been a vocal critic of the Department of Labor's plans to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with the O*NET on philosophical, legal-defensibility, and psychometric grounds. His current research programs focus on developing a defensible, job-related occupational analysis system suitable for replacing the failed O*NET, using job-component validation (JCV) to link the domains of job work-dimensions and worker personal-traits, and developing faking-resistant assessments of non-cognitive (personality) traits.​

But alas, Mole, it sounds like you've been seduced by a vainglorious fantasy in which you play the role of enlightened savior, crusading to rescue the "damaged psyches" of a host of forumites who've been deluded into "reveling in a false world devoid of integrity."

And that fantasy "plays to your desires and your vanity" (to borrow your words), and prevents you from seeing that it represents "a whole false psychological world."

And "the cost," as you aptly put it, "is your integrity."

 

[Mole]

Your statement that "mbti is based on supposition without any reality testing with evidence" constitutes a factual assertion that can be reality tested and proven false by contrary evidence.

Anyone who's interested can find quite a lot of such contrary evidence described or cited in the long two-part post that starts here.

As one example, here's a large-sample 2003 study that summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

...and the authors went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

The MBTI has "a very firm empirical foundation," and is psychometrically "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests. So concludeth Robert Harvey, a hearty subscriber to the Enlightenment. Would you like an introduction?

RJ Harvey (Ph.D. Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Ohio State, 1982) has taught at Virginia Tech since 1987. As author of the Common-Metric Questionnaire (CMQ), the preeminent standardized job analysis survey, he has been active in research on job/occupational analysis and assessment topics related to employee selection and competency modeling. In recent years, he has been a vocal critic of the Department of Labor's plans to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with the O*NET on philosophical, legal-defensibility, and psychometric grounds. His current research programs focus on developing a defensible, job-related occupational analysis system suitable for replacing the failed O*NET, using job-component validation (JCV) to link the domains of job work-dimensions and worker personal-traits, and developing faking-resistant assessments of non-cognitive (personality) traits.​

But alas, Mole, it sounds like you've been seduced by a vainglorious fantasy in which you play the role of enlightened savior, crusading to rescue the "damaged psyches" of a host of forumites who've been deluded into "reveling in a false world devoid of integrity."

And that fantasy "plays to your desires and your vanity" (to borrow your words), and prevents you from seeing that it represents "a whole false psychological world."

And "the cost," as you aptly put it, "is your integrity."

How interesting you should parrot mbti propaganda laced with poisonous insults, when in seventy five years there has been not one random, double blind experiment done with mbti.

 

[reckful]

How interesting you should parrot mbti propaganda laced with poisonous insults, when in seventy five years there has been not one random, double blind experiment done with mbti.

What do you even mean by that?

Just like most of the realm of the so-called "soft sciences," personality typologies, by virtue of the inherent nature of the subject being studied — subject to existing limitations — don't purport to be able to predict what any given individual will do in any particular situation.

Here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

That's the kind of evidence that psychologists have been using to establish the "validity" of personality dimensions for many years now. And that's just one example pulled from 50 years of MBTI data pools that have respectably established the validity of all four of the MBTI dichotomies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like 30 times more likely than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population.

But the fact that introversion and extraversion (for example) are a dimension of personality that's been validated in that way doesn't mean that you can perform a "double blind" experiment in which every introvert can reliably be expected to respond in X way to Y circumstance — in part because the influence that someone's type has on their personality and behavior is just one of many influences that can come into play.

So personality type deals in tendencies and probabilities. But the fact that someone's hardwired "type" can make them 30 times more likely — or even five times more likely — to choose a particular career certainly indicates that the the influence of type on someone's personality can be quite strong.

You've scoffed at the fact that the MBTI hasn't been validated by a "random, double blind experiment." Are you under the impression that the Big Five or any other personality typologies have been validated by way of "random, double blind experiments"?

Can you describe what kind of "random, double blind experiment" you think a personality typology should be able to pass? Or in this case is "random, double blind experiment" just a word salad à la Mole?

 

[Mole]

What do you even mean by that?

Just like most of the realm of the so-called "soft sciences," personality typologies, by virtue of the inherent nature of the subject being studied — subject to existing limitations — don't purport to be able to predict what any given individual will do in any particular situation.

Here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

That's the kind of evidence that psychologists have been using to establish the "validity" of personality dimensions for many years now. And that's just one example pulled from 50 years of MBTI data pools that have respectably established the validity of all four of the MBTI dichotomies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like 30 times more likely than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population.

But the fact that introversion and extraversion (for example) are a dimension of personality that's been validated in that way doesn't mean that you can perform a "double blind" experiment in which every introvert can reliably be expected to respond in X way to Y circumstance — in part because the influence that someone's type has on their personality and behavior is just one of many influences that can come into play.

So personality type deals in tendencies and probabilities. But the fact that someone's hardwired "type" can make them 30 times more likely — or even five times more likely — to choose a particular career certainly indicates that the the influence of type on someone's personality can be quite strong.

You've scoffed at the fact that the MBTI hasn't been validated by a "random, double blind experiment." Are you under the impression that the Big Five or any other personality typologies have been validated by way of "random, double blind experiments"?

Can you describe what kind of "random, double blind experiment" you think a personality typology should be able to pass? Or in this case is "random, double blind experiment" just a word salad à la Mole?

A random, double blind experiment is necessary to avoid confirmation bias.

On the other hand, a seventy year old cult like mbti has a tried and tested propaganda ideology, and devotees who resent their ideology being questioned and reply with poisonous insults.

And the cult of mbti, like many cults, recruits the vulnerable, the unhappy, the neurotic, the unsuccessful, the mentally ill, and even thirteen year old girls.

Mbti cannot be falsified because it is not a scientific theory, rather it is designed to entrance and reify the vulnerable in order to fit them into the industrial machine.

 

[reckful]

A random, double blind experiment is necessary to avoid confirmation bias.

Yeah, baby. Just keep serving up those word salads and ducking my questions.

To repeat:

1. You've scoffed at the fact that the MBTI hasn't been validated by a "random, double blind experiment." Are you under the impression that the Big Five or any other personality typologies have been validated by way of "random, double blind experiments"?

2. Can you describe what kind of "random, double blind experiment" you think a personality typology should be able to pass?

A new question:

3. Can you explain how "confirmation bias" could have come into play when the official MBTI was administered to those 705 Cal Tech science majors in the study I described in my last post?

 

[Mole]

Yeah, baby. Just keep serving up those word salads and ducking my questions.

To repeat:

1. You've scoffed at the fact that the MBTI hasn't been validated by a "random, double blind experiment." Are you under the impression that the Big Five or any other personality typologies have been validated by way of "random, double blind experiments"?

2. Can you describe what kind of "random, double blind experiment" you think a personality typology should be able to pass?

A new question:

3. Can you explain how "confirmation bias" could have come into play when the official MBTI was administered to those 705 Cal Tech science majors in the study I described in my last post?

Mbti has the same truth value as astrology and uses the same techniques. Go to any woman's magazine and you will find astrology at the back.

And mbti is astrology for the college educated.

 

[Personality Analyst]

Can I ask, is there ever a type you don't find? For me, it's probably INFJ.

When I've had super hard evidence of people, some people type as INFJ to me.

But, before super hard evidence, they didn't seem as such. They seemed like some other types.

INFJ for me also. It's said that the Ni-Fe combo can create chameleon-like tendencies so that might have something to do with it.

 

[misfortuneteller]

I go by the functions rather than the stereotypes but generally an ISFP and the INFP are the hardest for me to tell apart.

 

[527468]

Typing by cognitive functions is the most important approach imo, and can't be achieved through preferences alone. My method of typing is logical, categorical, and experiential. Every function in others has a clear domain, ie. it's impossible for Ni and Ne to cover the same territory because of their opposite nature their domains of confidence are so different. Ne is dealing with the big picture of the external situation as it comes up, the opportunities for ingenuity and wit and grasping the essence of material, and for an Ni dom the big picture and sense of oneness with essential truth only ever occurs in the depth and meditation of conceptual thought. The realms never really seem to meet. In its foreign fascination I can force myself to think like TiNe do, and easily try out every function based on their domain and get an experienced idea of how each type thinks, but it feels unnatural and twists around the inner core, like after you go cross-eyed or spin around dizzy. So it's a very neat exercise to put yourself in the shoes of people you know, not from their specific experiential point of view, but from a universally psychological one.

Take a look at this explanation, as well as this merely experimental Feeling VI system I've been trying out.

 

[harrysingh]

yup thats correct

 

[Lord Lavender]

When I type people i go by which function axis they use. If i see obvious Ne/Si usage for instance i will have them pegged down as a NP or SJ type. Ditto for Fe/Ti narrowing down to a FJ or TP type. I will then assess how strong they seem to be in that function. Say i encounter someone with balanced Ne/Si usage I will then assume they are ether a INxP or ESxJ type and then they use Fe a lot. This person is then an ESFJ. Inferior functions are also useful for typing as well. Say i cannot decide if someone is an ISTP or INFJ for instance i will try and determine if they struggle with Se or Fe more and use that information.