Weakness of the InQ Revealed. :D

[Mal12345]

While browsing around for information on the InQ styles of thinking, I happened across this interesting article (pdf):

http://www.integrativeleadership.ca/newsletter/2005_05_06_art_thinking.pdf

The article starts by pointing out that 50% of senior management did not fill out the MBTI questionnaire. So the author of this article was looking around for a backup test that they could take in place of the MBTI. They considered Six Thinking Hats and the InQ. In the article they toss out some known population stats about the InQ.

"The five thinking styles are: Synthesist who put the pieces of a puzzle together (10% of the population), Idealist who used value systems to colour their thinking (30% of the population), Analyst who interpreted the facts through a mental model (35% of the population), Realist who only concerned themselves with their own experience (10% of the population) and Pragmatist who did whatever worked, whether theory or fact in solving problems (15% of the population)." These percentages add up to 100%. But they also say "50% of the population had one thinking style, 35% had two thinking styles (usually Realist-Analyst or Synthesist-Idealist), and 3% had three thinking styles."

That adds up to only 88% of the population. What about the other 12%?

The author goes on to state,

"We related the five thinking styles to the core of the MBTI model as
1. Synthesist to Intuiting (N),
2. Analyst to Thinking (T),
3. Idealist to Feeling (F), and
4. Realist to Sensing (S).
The Pragmatic thinking style we related to Carl Jung’s concept of individuality versus personality."

(Perhaps [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] can explain Jung's concept of individuality versus personality.)

The author goes on to say: "However, the three levels of awareness within our integrative model of life and leadership suggested that
Harrison and Bramson had not considered two other thinking styles:"

YES! I've known for at least 15 years that the InQ was incomplete. That's one reason I brought the InQ test to this forum (I was unaware of the other thread started previously on this topic), and found (not to my surprise) that some people did not score high enough on any category to be categorized as any thinking style. The reason for this is that the InQ is an incomplete survey of thinking styles, which was based on the idea that there are as many schools of philosophy as there are thinking styles.

1. Synthesis corresponds with Hegel.
2. Idealism corresponds with Kant.
3. Pragmatism corresponds with James.
4. Analysis corresponds with Russell.
5. Realism corresponds with Plato (i.e., Platonic Realism).

But why does Harrison and Bramson assume that there is one school of philosophy for each InQ thinking style? It is just a basis for forming a system, that is all; it is an axiom, an assumption.

Knocking down basic axioms and assumptions is a life-long hobby of mine.

The question then becomes, What are the missing thinking styles (and how many are there)?

Hatala, the author of this article, proposed an answer that I have been searching for over all these years: "Wholist thinking which incorporated
spiritual intelligence (spirituality) and Survivalist thinking which was associated with physical intelligence (materiality)."

I suspect that some of those who scored zilch on the InQ test, being ENFPs, probably use Wholist thinking. They don't fit into any of the 5 InQ categories because they don't primarily use those categories, they don't fit within the InQ "mold." So some of the missing 12% of the population are either Wholist or Survivalist thinkers.

 

[INTP]

Individuality is basically those things in us that makes us different from each other:

Individuality
The qualities or characteristics that distinguish one person from another. (See also personality.)


By individuality I mean the peculiarity and singularity of the individual in every psychological respect. Everything that is not collective is individual, everything in fact that pertains only to one individual and not to a larger group of individuals.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 756.]

The psychological individual, or his individuality, has an a priori unconscious existence, but exists consciously only so far as a consciousness of his peculiar nature is present . . . . A conscious process of differentiation, or individuation, is needed to bring the individuality to consciousness, i.e., to raise it out of the state of identity with the object.[Ibid., par. 755.]

In the undifferentiated psyche, individuality is subjectively identified with the persona but is actually possessed by an inner, unrecognized aspect of oneself. In such cases, one’s individuality is commonly experienced in another person, through projection. If and when this situation becomes intolerable to the psyche, appropriate images appear in an attempt at compensation.

This . . . frequently gives rise in dreams to the symbol of psychic pregnancy, a symbol that goes back to the primordial image of the hero’s birth. The child that is to be born signifies the individuality, which, though present, is not yet conscious.[Ibid., par. 806.]

Personality is our complexes, ego, type etc that make us react to external world the way we do:

Personality
Aspects of the soul as it functions in the world. (See also individuality.)


For the development of personality, differentiation from collective values, particularly those embodied in and adhered to by the persona, is essential.

A change from one milieu to another brings about a striking alteration of personality, and on each occasion a clearly defined character emerges that is noticeably different from the previous one. . . . The social character is oriented on the one hand by the expectations and demands of society, and on the other by the social aims and aspirations of the individual. The domestic character is, as a rule, moulded by emotional demands and an easy-going acquiescence for the sake of comfort and convenience; when it frequently happens that men who in public life are extremely energetic, spirited, obstinate, wilful and ruthless appear good-natured, mild, compliant, even weak, when at home and in the bosom of the family. Which is the true character, the real personality? . . .
. . . . In my view the answer to the above question should be that such a man has no real character at all: he is not individual but collective, the plaything of circumstance and general expectations. Were he individual, he would have the same character despite the variation of attitude. He would not be identical with the attitude of the moment, and he neither would nor could prevent his individuality from expressing itself just as clearly in one state as in another.["Definitions," CW 6, pars. 798f.]

 

[Mal12345]

So Pragmatists are Individualists?