User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 46

  1. #31
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    So a factor analysis can't be done until the person releases this information?
    That would make sense. Wonder if anyone will try to redo the analysis with Keirsey's additional factors, now.
    It's more that Kiersey's instrument was really nothing more than a parlor game as long as there was no reliability/validity data.
    edcoaching

  2. #32
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    If you're intention is to create a sorting mechanism, questions that don't evoke a bi-modal response are actually noise.
    That is a very good point. I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, so it made me pause.

    I'm not a FFM person, really, so I won't defend it. It does have less assumptions than MBTI theory, I will say that, but the methodology used from the outset makes it prone to certain biases. I do use it every bit as much as I use it as MBTI. To me, both are a form of language. Something used to describe things, where 'things' are just mutally agreed upon concepts.

    I do like FFM for this purpose, simply because it is much easier to use in putting people into a framework. I don't do coaching and never will - I'm not a people person I also don't care about helping them with the tool, or avoiding offending them.

    I do believe in using the best tool possible to understand something. I think the main difference between us is that I'm excessively pragmatic - I actually don't care about the validity of the tests themselves. I'll use MBTI theory to explain conceptual theories - and yet, I strongly disagree with MBTI theory. I'll use the MBTI test results to explain something else, even though I don't believe it should be used as a sorter. I'll use FFM when I can relate it to other research. I've been asked why I sometimes use them and sometimes attack them. It just depends on if I think there is a better tool available. Otherwise, I use what I can.

    However, your statement here brings up a very good point about the validity of testing, and I would say strongly supports Ed's viewpoint on applying them. I'll have to think on it for a while... it doesn't change much for my use, but it does change my perception on reported scores.

  3. #33
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Actually, questions like this are why I brought up the topic. I have the same sort of questions. I am really rather open to answers in general.

    I have the same doubts about Myers-Briggs Theory as I do about FFM.

    What the assumptions are in Myers-Briggs Theory are easier to find, but there is also a lot of misinformation. Many FFM supporters say they make no assumptions. That is nonsensical to me. It is simply not possible...

    If you're intention is to create a sorting mechanism, questions that don't evoke a bi-modal response are actually noise.

    This is the way science always works, you set-up your equipment to find the phenomenon you are looking for. The equipment is meant to amplify the signal you are looking for, and filter the other stuff because the other stuff is noise.

    The flip side of-course is if you believe Myers-Briggs Theory is nonsense, and that MBTI researchers are like ESP researchers in that they keep looking for something that doesn't exist. That is a different issue.

    I find it hard to find research on establishing the "truth" of any personality model.
    Okay, I've got an MBA in finance and only took basic stats so...I'll admit I can't answer all the questions you're posing!!!

    But...It's simply a fact that Myers believed that Jung's theory accurately described how normal people take in information and make decisions. She did not design the instrument to see whether reality bore out the theory. Rather, she wanted to make the theory accessible to people so they could improve their lives, careers, relationships, etc.

    Coincientally I'm reviewing Gordon Lawrence's (People Types and Tiger Stripes, retired UF Gainesville professor, worked with Myers....) newest manuscript, prepublication. In it he cites two key studies comparing five-factor and MBTI, both reported in Measures of the five factor model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory, James Newman, ed., 1996, CAPT. Remember the NEO-PI was developed based on trait theory, where I is considered lack of E. MBTI is type theory and is either/or. You have a preference and develop skills as opposed to behaviors being driven by traits...

    At any rate, to compare the two instruments MBTI scores were made continuous and the high correlations were found. (Extraversion/EI: .70, Openness/SN, .70, Agreeableness/TF, .45, Conscientiousness/JP, .47--all at the p<.005 level of significance...) Mitchell investigated whether type then, really described traits. To do this he looked at 1,568 randomly chosen Step II results where the sbscores are on a continuum to see if they were explainable as traites, i.e., no type influence was exerted on teh scores. The resource above gives the full results but in summary, Mitchell wrote "The analyses presented here yield clear evidence of Jung's theory, his typology...There were clear differences between the trait and typological predictions, sufficiently clear, in fact, that there is no middle ground between them. There are few times in teh behavioral sciences, and especially personality research, when one encounters such dramatic, clear-cut differences bwtween two opposing viewpoints in as many different empirical tests aw were presented here. The results, in every case, support the MBTI version of the Jungian typology and refute a trait interpretation of its dimensions..." And so on.

    If you search the bibliography at CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type. you can find the study under Newman--apparently they presented at one of the type conferences, so you could dismiss it as biased or try to find a copy. They make copies at cost...
    edcoaching

  4. #34
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That is a very good point. I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, so it made me pause.

    I'm not a FFM person, really, so I won't defend it. It does have less assumptions than MBTI theory, I will say that, but the methodology used from the outset makes it prone to certain biases. I do use it every bit as much as I use it as MBTI. To me, both are a form of language. Something used to describe things, where 'things' are just mutally agreed upon concepts.

    I do like FFM for this purpose, simply because it is much easier to use in putting people into a framework. I don't do coaching and never will - I'm not a people person I also don't care about helping them with the tool, or avoiding offending them.

    I do believe in using the best tool possible to understand something. I think the main difference between us is that I'm excessively pragmatic - I actually don't care about the validity of the tests themselves. I'll use MBTI theory to explain conceptual theories - and yet, I strongly disagree with MBTI theory. I'll use the MBTI test results to explain something else, even though I don't believe it should be used as a sorter. I'll use FFM when I can relate it to other research. I've been asked why I sometimes use them and sometimes attack them. It just depends on if I think there is a better tool available. Otherwise, I use what I can.

    However, your statement here brings up a very good point about the validity of testing, and I would say strongly supports Ed's viewpoint on applying them. I'll have to think on it for a while... it doesn't change much for my use, but it does change my perception on reported scores.
    Just curious...is it the binary (or did we agree bimodal is appropriate here) distribution that you disagree with? Or that Jungs theory of preferences for Perception and Judgment accurately describe how minds are organized, albeit trait or type?
    edcoaching

  5. #35
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    Just curious...is it the binary (or did we agree bimodal is appropriate here) distribution that you disagree with? Or that Jungs theory of preferences for Perception and Judgment accurately describe how minds are organized, albeit trait or type?
    The issue I have is the relationship between MBTI and MB theory. I don't believe they support one another.

    However, if you are asking my viewpoint, I disagree that the bimodal (and most notable, the binary) distribution is the correct model to assume for people. I realise where ygolo is coming from, so it may be feasible that it is correct on some dimensions. Even if that was the case, absent of the ability to find clumping around the traits, I don't believe that people are best served by sorting. So I have a lot of levels of disagreement.

    But as far as it goes, in this thread, I'm arguing that MBTI data does not support the sorting theory (that is, MBTI <> MB's functional theories).

    I remember HR at work going through various instruments and methods, and MBTI was rejected for much the same purpose. Most of the company ended up using the predictive index instead, and only with our manager, to aid in understanding the work relationship we had with them. FWIW, I thought this was a much better approach (but obviously not suitable for group dynamics, whereas I do think MBTI is suitable, accurate or not, because it fosters overcompensation towards understanding others.)

  6. #36
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    The issue I have is the relationship between MBTI and MB theory. I don't believe they support one another.

    However, if you are asking my viewpoint, I disagree that the bimodal (and most notable, the binary) distribution is the correct model to assume for people. I realise where ygolo is coming from, so it may be feasible that it is correct on some dimensions. Even if that was the case, absent of the ability to find clumping around the traits, I don't believe that people are best served by sorting. So I have a lot of levels of disagreement.

    But as far as it goes, in this thread, I'm arguing that MBTI data does not support the sorting theory (that is, MBTI <> MB's functional theories).

    I remember HR at work going through various instruments and methods, and MBTI was rejected for much the same purpose. Most of the company ended up using the predictive index instead, and only with our manager, to aid in understanding the work relationship we had with them. FWIW, I thought this was a much better approach (but obviously not suitable for group dynamics, whereas I do think MBTI is suitable, accurate or not, because it fosters overcompensation towards understanding others.)
    And the MBTI is only accurate for about 75% of the people who take it, which is why the best-fit process is part of the ethics of using it...It is so superficially used in so many workplaces that I'd rather people used other tools...

    And if it's used as you are/aren't vs. you prefer __ and develop skills with the other preference it definitely doesn't serve anyone well.
    edcoaching

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    If you search the bibliography at CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type. you can find the study under Newman--apparently they presented at one of the type conferences, so you could dismiss it as biased or try to find a copy. They make copies at cost...
    Thanks edcoaching. I wound the paper in the list from searching. To request a copy do we call them?

    I think my interest in type and its application have been renewed.

    Its funny, I did get a sense that FFM was based on some form of trait theory, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the web descriptions I read so far. It would be interesting to learn the details of the trait theory.

    I doesn't surprise me that persistent personality traits and persistent archetypes are at odds with each other despite the correlations. One could make analogy to phenotypes and genotypes in biology.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #38
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Gee. It's too bad you guys have been talking way over my head for most of this thread.
    I'd really like to understand the conclusions you have come to.

  9. #39
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Thanks edcoaching. I wound the paper in the list from searching. To request a copy do we call them?

    I think my interest in type and its application have been renewed.

    Its funny, I did get a sense that FFM was based on some form of trait theory, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the web descriptions I read so far. It would be interesting to learn the details of the trait theory.

    I doesn't surprise me that persistent personality traits and persistent archetypes are at odds with each other despite the correlations. One could make analogy to phenotypes and genotypes in biology.
    Yup. 1-800-777-capt.
    edcoaching

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Gee. It's too bad you guys have been talking way over my head for most of this thread.
    I'd really like to understand the conclusions you have come to.
    We didn't come to any major conclsions as far as I could tell.

    The basic question comes down to:
    1) Are people all essentially the same with varying degrees of a number of traits, or
    2) Are people fundamentally different from each other in that they come from distinct psychological archetypes
    ?

    The last paper edcoaching mentioned purports to both:
    1) show that the archetype assumption and trait assumption are measurably different in emperical terms.
    2) show that the data supports the achetype assumption.

    We could dismiss it as biased or take in what the argument is (and then dismiss it as biassed, if we want).

    Now, we are all human, and we share humanity, that is not what the question is about.

    This sort of distinction is among the few times, I have felt the familiar feeling of "science" happening in personality theory.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Oh God, lets talk about God.
    By evilrubberduckie in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 07:08 PM
  2. Lets talk about healthcare
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-12-2016, 05:57 AM
  3. Lets talk about the shadow
    By Azure Flame in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 06-11-2015, 07:19 PM
  4. [NF] So my NF brethren...lets talk about you...and other general stuff
    By FalseHeartDothKnow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 03:58 AM
  5. Lets talk turkey (Thanksgiving Thread)
    By Giggly in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 11:50 AM

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