User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I wouldn't say 'SLOAN' is more accepted anywhere, as far as I know. The Big Five (IPIP/NEO) is.

    No, it doesn't help understand people at all. The research done with it is getting there (notably the extraversion and neuroticism parts), but regardless, it's more about finding what people influence, or how our behaviours influence outcomes.

    It is better at answering "What personality traits tend to lead to less happy relationships" and "what personality traits tend to make more money", but that's just because it's used for that. I would say that as far as instruments go, both are pretty valid (granted, IMO, the nature of development of the five factor models makes it a better choice for this function). It's the dichtomies and lack of normalization in MBTI that makes it less suitable. It's still used but not nearly as much in academic circles(you can order research from CAPT.)

    Eric: I didn't think Step II included the neuroticism scale. I know they did research into it (and I think it was dropped for including in Step III, which is suppose to resolve the J/P issues) but I thought they never released a test that measured it, formally. When did this come out, and is it integrated into any of the major forms being used?
    It's not step II (which is the same four dichotomies, broken down into five subscales, as you can see in my signature image). It's another instrument, the Type Differentiation Indicator (Form J) that adds Comfort-Discomfort. It also uses subscales, however.
    Someone who knows more about this, and likes both Step II (EAR) and TDI was telling me the history of it. If I got it correctly, it seems Myers, et al. at one point worked with subscales, including those that tied in with C/D, but it was all dropped, among other things, because C/D was seen as too negative. Now, with competition from FFM, they have renewed interest in it.

    Information on steps II, III and TDI are here:
    Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You can also see a factor analysis, here:
    http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...tzSIOP2003.pdf

    And CPP and CAPT offers the Form J. Otherwise, it is not commonly used outside clinics, I believe: The Forms of the MBTI Instrument - CAPT.org CPP Product Detail - MBTI Type Differentiation Indicator - Form J (C)

    Step II wasn't "dropped" for Step III as far as I know. All the variations seem to be offered side by side (you can see them all on the CPP site) depending on what the users want.

    Funny you mention "normalization", because I've seen someone criticize Step II for using "normed" data. I would assume that is what you were referring to. I don't know anything about the data collection methods, but from what I understand, that involved some sort of comparison of different people's scores or something? I myself don't know why that would be either a strike for or against an instrument.

    BTW, SLOAN appears to be basically the same as the Big Five, with some renaming of a few of the factors. It technically, if not completely would fit into the category of the "Five Factor Model".

    Here, BTW, In the course of searching, I found a good sample of the objections raised against typology:

    OBJECTIONS TO TYPOLOGIES

    The MBTI is not alone in using a typology to represent continuous data. As discussed above, most dichotomies from which typologies are created involve imposing an artificial division on continuous, normally distributed scores. The resulting dichotomy does not accurately reflect the true nature of the underlying trait.

    HR staff familiar with the MBTI or other typologies observe that organization members usually respond favorably to the test results because their type "seems right" ("Now I know me!") and they start seeing others in terms of the handy type scheme ("Now I know you!"). This experiential validation often obscures issues related to the typology's departure from usual psychometric practices. Typologies also tend to foreclose on further exploration of personality dimensions because the instrument seems so comprehensive in its explanations.

    One additional problem is encountered with typologies. When moving from a simple dichotomy to a two-way typology there is some blurring of the relative contribution of each of the dimensions in shaping the individual's orientation. This loss of information on the magnitude of scale scores becomes even more pronounced when using a four-variable dichotomy as in the case of the MBTI. To illustrate, since the magnitude of scores is not maintained, an ESTP with a very high S tendency is described in exactly the same way as an ESTP with an S score that barely tipped in the S direction because both have the same type, ESTP.

    Current Status of Typologies

    What is the current status of type approaches to personality? Bolz (1977) related the decline in serious interest among personality researchers in the once-popular personality typologies on the difficulty of finding psychological variables that conform to categorization. Mendelsohn, Weiss, and Feimer (1982), after an extensive review of typological literature, state that "there does not seem to be any typology in personality research that is demonstratably more than a simplifying way of talking about complex, continuous data" (p. 1157). They further caution that typologies are even more tenuous where more than one personality dimension is involved (as is the case with the MBTI). They go on, however, to acknowledge the communications convenience of typologies, but with the following cautions:

    This summarizing and simplifying function of typological language is useful and probably unavoidable, but there are attendant dangers: first, that these arbitrary categories are taken to represent genuine divergences in psychological organization, and second, that we tend to regard as step functions what are, in fact, continuous functions. The problem then, is to show that claims of a typology are justified by more than convenience. (p. 1168)
    If typologies, including the MBTI and a host of personal style/management style instruments and their related training programs used in HR work (O'Brien, 1983), fail to accurately reflect the underlying psychological attributes, why do they survive, especially in business and industry? They provide communications convenience. They simplify and make accessible to everyone through an easy-to-learn language the complexities of individual personality and some of the mysteries of interpersonal relationships.

    "THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR IN HRM PRACTICE: PROCEED WITH CAUTION" Michael Chase, Quincy University

    THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR IN HRM PRACTICE:
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #12
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Funny you mention "normalization", because I've seen someone criticize Step II for using "normed" data. I would assume that is what you were referring to. I don't know anything about the data collection methods, but from what I understand, that involved some sort of comparison of different people's scores or something? I myself don't know why that would be either a strike for or against an instrument.
    Ah, gotcha. I wasn't aware that they had released a form based on that research. Interesting.

    I'm not sure what they were referring to. Normalization for Step II should change the population distribution to a normalized curve - clearly this is not the case (ie: N/S divide is very much not).

    Fundamentally they can't really normalize because of the theory behind it. They would have give up the concept that people are "one or the other". That's possibly what was being referred to - that any normalisation would stand in the way of MBTI theory, as it would more or less say that the majority of the population cannot be clearly identified. Kind of breaks down the use of MBTI!

    (Sloan is a Big Five model that as far as I can tell, simply played around with. It would need to be validated for me to consider it useful - anyone can write questions for the FFM, it doesn't mean they comform to the original factor analysis - and I don't believe it has been.)

  3. #13
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    Well, because you can have five subscales for each dichotomy, and each subscale can potentially be "out of preference" (OOPS: Like "Expressive", "Compassionate", "Tender" and "Methodical" for me), then it IS kind of breaking out of the "one or the other" mold. So yes, from what I was told, this was based on some sort of curve or something like that, and that's what the criticism was about.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #14
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Step III, based on Form J, will be out next year from CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type.. They're still trying to figure out who will be able to purchase it as it shows type development and is meant for counseling.

    Myers developed the interpretation of results through intercorrelating up to 20 test items from Form J and seeing if predictions bore out. A few I heard about in a presentation were her 90% accurate predictions on who would drop out of college, die within 10 years of finishing med school, etc. Therapists are supposed to be able to use it to help clients target developmental needs that really cause problems...

    Sloan vx. Big 5 vs. MBTI...all the instruments do is tell you what you are. In the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing, they're all bad. If the trainer/counselor/whatever uses them well, then it doesn't matter which instrument is used...
    edcoaching

  5. #15
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    I like this book even though it's based on the work places and done by an I/O psychologist. There is a lot of useful information in there and there are sections that talk about the interaction of various personality traits and what they are useful for in the work place.

    E- O+ N- C- and A+ (accommodating INTPs would be the closest MBTI counterpart) people are good at or have the potential to be good at three things:

    Managing by systems

    Analytical ability

    Accepting diversity

    I just remember those cause they apply to me.

Similar Threads

  1. Which is more useful in the real world?
    By yenom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:31 PM
  2. Is any one type more prone to drinking/drug use?
    By natashka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 01:39 AM
  3. Any function more of less useful than others?
    By IZthe411 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-02-2010, 10:59 PM
  4. [NT] Do NTJ use evidence more?
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 09:00 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