[MBTI General] Ambiversion

[rav3n]

The MBTI dichotomies correspond to four of the Big Five dimensions, and its 16 "types" are just the 16 possible combinations of preferences with respect to those four.

That "robust study" you're talking about framed its "clumpings" in terms of the Big Five dimensions, and if you think its results should be taken as undermining the validity of those dimensions (or the MBTI), I'd say you've misunderstood the study.

As for the "MBTI is pseudoscience" charge... I've put some recycled reckful in the spoiler, just for you.

After a large meta-review of the existing data, supplemented by a large supplemental study, in 2003, Robert Harvey and his co-authors 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 they 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.​

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and authors of the NEO-PI-R, and after reviewing the MBTI's history and status (including performing their own psychometric analysis) back in 1990 — using an earlier version of the MBTI (Form G) than the one being used today — they concluded that the MBTI and the Big Five might each have things to teach the other, approvingly pointed to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into those dimensions of personality, as well as "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this TC Wiki article.

There's correlation to the Big Five but they're not a one to one. And not only that but some of the correlations are very weak. You and I have gone over this on multiple sites.

 

[Hot Dog]

Nope. The MBTI statistics per type, don't align with the four predominant personality type clumpings.

These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science | Time

These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science

MBTI/Jungian cognitive functions isn't pseudo science. It's just that there are more factors involved than MBTI. It tells you what hierarchy of Jungian cognitive functions you have but it doesn't tell you where you lay exactly on the introvert/extrovert scale. For example, there are introverted INTJs and ambiverted INTJs. There are introverted ESFPs, ambiverted ESFPs and extroverted ESFPs. You're telling me that there is absolutely no difference between an ambiverted INTJ and an ambiverted ESFP? The four big personality types are a piece of the puzzle, but it's missing a lot. You might like Dario Nardi's "Neuroscience of Personality."

 

[Pionart]

MBTI dichotomies aren't much better since they're pseudo-science. Most recently, there was a robust study that found the vast majority of the population falls within four personality clumpings, not 16.

Even if the clusters are valid, that doesn't mean that other systems aren't also valid. Does it?

 

[rav3n]

MBTI/Jungian cognitive functions isn't pseudo science. It's just that there are more factors involved than MBTI. It tells you what hierarchy of Jungian cognitive functions you have but it doesn't tell you where you lay exactly on the introvert/extrovert scale. For example, there are introverted INTJs and ambiverted INTJs. There are introverted ESFPs, ambiverted ESFPs and extroverted ESFPs. You're telling me that there is absolutely no difference between an ambiverted INTJ and an ambiverted ESFP? The four big personality types are a piece of the puzzle, but it's missing a lot. You might like Dario Nardi's "Neuroscience of Personality."

I've read the Neuroscience of Personality, Gifts Differing, Was that Really Me and Jung.

Even if the clusters are valid, that doesn't mean that other systems aren't also valid. Does it?

If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.

 

[reckful]

For anyone unfamiliar with that study bechimo's talking about, it lumps everyone who's above-average in Big Five Openness (i.e., all MBTI N's) into a single category, which it calls the Role Model type.

Extraverted Ns and introverted Ns, NJs and NPs, NTs and NFs... hey, when it comes right down to it, those kinds of distinctions are so trivial that they're effectively overwhelmed by all the Role-Modely samenesses that N's tend to share, amirite?

Well, actually, if I was forced to bet, I'd bet that five years from now, this "robust" set of personality "types" will have (understandably) failed to gain any significant traction, and be long forgotten. But maybe bechimo can tell us more about why she sees those four clumps as some kind of revolutionary step forward in the field of personality psychology.

 

[Pionart]

If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.

Hmm my approach is in searching for the truth of type. I call it Jungian type because it was basically started with Jung, and MBTI and other approaches have uncovered piece after piece about it (but they're only pointing to what's there, not the decider on what it supposedly is). I don't know whether my approach is scientific, but I don't think something has to be science to be a valid determination of how things are, and I think my investigations are valid. So I think that it's not just the self-evaluation, but rather that there is an underlying truth to it, and if there can be valid type assessments done on a subset of the population, I am of the strong suspicion that there will be very strong results uncovered in terms of revealing explanatory power of the 16 types (e.g. correlations with careers, relationship pairings, and all sorts of behaviours).

I think the data/interpretation of the data that [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] is referencing must be flawed in terms of supposedly practically disproving the "Grant function stack". Questionnaire's aren't a valid way to determine type with accuracy, so it's not entirely unexpected that they wouldn't be revealing the theory that I can see as being real. Questionnaire data can be useful in its own right, but it's certainly not all there is. But of course it's ok to be skeptical until something can be demonstrated to you in a way that you understand.

 

[Hot Dog]

I've read the Neuroscience of Personality, Gifts Differing, Was that Really Me and Jung.

If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.

MBTI, when you've researched the Jungian cognitive functions and are typed properly is extremely useful. It tells you who/what you tend to gravitate towards and react under stress. It's not "pseudo science at best" but we can agree to disagree on that. It's hard to believe you read all those books and still think it's pseudo science. From my deeply researched observations everyone falls into one of the 16 categories. Within each of those 16 categories there are an infinite number of subtypes because we're all quantum derived special snowflakes. Personality typing isn't the end-all be-all but it's very useful.

 

[rav3n]

MBTI, when you've researched the Jungian cognitive functions and are typed properly is extremely useful. It tells you who/what you tend to gravitate towards and react under stress. It's not "pseudo science at best" but we can agree to disagree on that. It's hard to believe you read all those books and still think it's pseudo science. From my deeply researched observations everyone falls into one of the 16 categories. Within each of those 16 categories there are an infinite number of subtypes because we're all quantum derived special snowflakes. Personality typing isn't the end-all be-all but it's very useful.

Repetition won't make it more scientific.

 

[Hot Dog]

Repetition won't make it more scientific.

Back atchya? Appealing to authority won't make you more correct and I'll leave it at that.

Back to the OP I completely agree that there are extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts. I have found through personal experience that ENTJs and ISFPs tend to be the most ambiverted (they both have the same Jungian cognitive functions but in a different order!) ENTJs though lean extrovert, and ISFP introvert. But enough to make a huge difference in extroversion/introversion? Not really. I think ambiversion is a thing but we all fall on one side of the spectrum or the other even if it's very close to the middle.

 

[rav3n]

Back atchya? Appealing to authority won't make you more correct and I'll leave it at that.

Back to the OP I completely agree that there are extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts. I have found through personal experience that ENTJs and ISFPs tend to be the most ambiverted (they both have the same Jungian cognitive functions but in a different order!) ENTJs though lean extrovert, and ISFP introvert. But enough to make a huge difference in extroversion/introversion? Not really. I think ambiversion is a thing but we all fall on one side of the spectrum or the other even if it's very close to the middle.

This is called shifting the goal posts, since your first stance was one of attempted 'scientific' proof.

 

[Hot Dog]

This is called shifting the goal posts, since your first stance was one of attempted 'scientific' proof.

My only goal is the truth. The truth doesn't always include peer reviewed scientific studies, but observation. How do scientists arrive at their conclusions? Through careful observation and an open mind. Do you have to have a Phd to know the truth? I'm not looking for a fight bro.

 

[rav3n]

My only goal is the truth. The truth doesn't always include peer reviewed scientific studies, but observation. How do scientists arrive at their conclusions? Through careful observation and an open mind. Do you have to have a Phd to know the truth? I'm not looking for a fight bro.

Anecdotal observations =/= scientific since humans are prone to bias, seeing through subjective filters. There's a rigour that needs to be applied, in order to be considered scientific.

 

[Hot Dog]

Anecdotal observations =/= scientific since humans are prone to bias, seeing through subjective filters. There's a rigour that needs to be applied, in order to be considered scientific.

Are you a scientist?

 

[rav3n]

Are you a scientist?

Are you a scientist?

 

[Hot Dog]

Are you a scientist?

I never claimed to be or put that much emphasis on it. Thanks for derailing the thread with your attacks on me.

 

[rav3n]

I never claimed to be or put that much emphasis on it. Thanks for derailing the thread with your attacks on me.

:facepalm:

 

[Vendrah]

[MENTION=39720]Hot Dog[/MENTION] I understand your point about truth but I would like to phrase [MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] in some other words. No means to offense any of you two.

The scientifical observation based on statistical studys are based on random samples. That means that there are methods that implies that the people consulted are truly random, so the small portion of people studied does represent the whole population. Our own observations are not truly random and are subjects to have "addictions". Just for example, the people which came for discussion on MBTI forums tends to be INs and less ESs, so in the whole MBTI subject discussed here has a lot of INs point of views and underrepresentation of ESs point of views. Thats changes the way you see the world, and thats what [MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] meant by your subjective point of view.

 

[Vendrah]

IMPORTANT: I quoted some people not in the intention to involve them on the discussion but rather to just mention them for some reason.

The notion that the dichotomies only involve superficial stuff and the "functions" are about deeper stuff is just functionista nonsense.

There isn't a single valid thing that can be said about "Fe types" that can't just as well be said with a dichotomy-centric framing. Instead of saying "Fe types" are like this and "Fi types" are like that, the dichotomy-centric MBTI says FJs are like this, and FPs are like that.

And FJ-vs-FP differences don't involve two kinds of feeling to any greater extent than EF-vs-IF differences, or NF-vs-SF differences.

I dont know if you got what I said on my post ending. I meant someone tackling the 8 cognitive functions without any specific order stacking and dismissing concepts of "leading", "secondary" and "tertiary function"/ "4th function". Ill give a much longer explanation by using an example in order to be less abstract.

After your post I took a look at people results in the two tests that I consider the best ones that uses both cognitive functions and 4-letter code, but it looks like they do the typing using Gran Function Stack (GFS). Actually, I dont think there is a single test in the internet that uses ditchonomies (personality dimensions) and the cognitive functions in paralel or combined. Here it is the TypoC one, managed and created (I believe) by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]:
New Version of Forum Personality Test

And the Dario Nardi test:
Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)

When I looked the results of several people tests, I saw GFS failing sometimes. More failing than succeding actually. I saw things like INTP with higher Ni´s than Ne (unusual but possible). I saw a lot of people which didnt seem to have any preference between Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fi or Fe, Se or Si, actually, thats seems to be common. And in that matter comes an interesting family of cases. Some INFPs displayed a huge preference for Fi over Fe, and, well that it is what it should happen since Fi goes for FP and Fe goes for FJ. But there was some INFPs which didnt seem to have a particular preference between Fi over Fe. And yet, they were still scoring as INFP in a stable manner. This pattern happens in several other types. I even found one INFP that scored preference for Fe over Fi [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION]). Link:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...on-forum-personality-test-22.html#post3112859
She should be INFJ by Fe-Fi FP-FJ conversion, but then you look a preference for Ne instead of Ni. Ne goes for NP while Ni goes for NJ. So far, you could say that Im actually stating that the cognitive functions are broke, but thats not the case. My point here in this example is this: The Fe-Fi FP-FJ, Ne-Ni-NP-NJ and other alikes conversions would only be valid if GFS was valid either. When you do these conversions (Fi=FP), you are assuming GFS as valid. And my second point here, is that there should be a big difference between the regular INFP which preferes Fi over Fe between the INFP with equal preference for Fi and Fe or the INFP that has a preference for Fe over Fi which is the present case. And yet, they still get the same codes: INFP. Thats what I meant by the potential to expand and make MBTI deeper, since cognitive functions could not only distinct different INFPs but to do the same in every personality type. Note that I am not saying that personality dimensions are wrong because of this, I am actually expanding them. I am giving one example where I am expanding and giving depth and variety for INFPs (I could do it with any type) using cognitive functions, so they arent useless nor direct conversions from the personality dimensions MBTI. But I am claiming that the Fi-->FP and all these kind of conversions are wrong if GFS is wrong, which is the case. Actually, I am already dismissing GFS entirely, because in GFS INFPs should have Fi preference over Fe. I am talking something new here, but this could not be new (am I the first to think and rephrase cognitive functions this way? I am asking because I usually never the one who came with ideas first).

Now, ideally it would be nice if we actually had an personality dimensions results either from her and from the other cases, but we dont. So, how the decision of INFP and not INFJ was made here? Well, only [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] could explain from his software side, but Im going to display you my hypothesis - which is that the cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences. Remember, its an hypothesis, I never had the opportunity to test it. It is neither proven entirely/partially right or wrong, unless you could point me out someone which did the same and tested, which is exactly what I was asking last post. Continuing, these restrictions come from the simple equations I stated above. Just remembering: If someone has preference in Intuition over Sensing, then Ne+Ni>Se+Si. = sign (relatively close) if there is no clear preference. Same for thinking and feeling. For extraversion or introversion, we compare how extraverted functions are compared to introverted functions. In Judging or perceveing functions is what I think there is a possibility that I am wrong, but Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are judging functions while Se, Si, Ne, Ni are perceveing functions. In [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] case, I will explain why P and not J by using this principle. In her case, Se+Ne+Ni+Si=7 while Fi+Fe+Ti+Te=-3. So, since the sum or judging functions are -3 and the sum of perceveing funtions are 7 we have a clear preference for perceveing, and, yet we have high Fe over Fi (which should translate by being FJ but it doesnt). Also note that there is no dominant function on this case.

I used example so I hope you catch the concept. It doenst matter if she hard these results only that day or if the [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] test made mistakes, it matters the concept which I am trying to explain here. There are literally at least hundreds of possible cases with the same issue in INFP case. So I ask again: Is there anyone on the "functionista nonsense" that have ever thought of this? Wouldnt the "functionista nonsense school" always been tied by dominant and specific order of functions or anyone of them thought a function stack that doesnt follow specific tight patterns? Well, GFS doesnt work but that doesnt mean that it is impossible to make the cognitive functions work. Even if I dont actually dominate the concept between these functions since my sources about it should be poor, I think the system I described could not only bring the cognitive function usefullness but could expand the MBTI system, into something that not only categorizes you but describes your personality (even if it is kind of akward).

The reason James Reynierse concluded — in that article I often link to (from the official MBTI journal) — that, stack considerations aside, the cognitive functions themselves are a "category mistake" isn't that "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions don't include aspects of personality that are validly associated with MBTI FJs and FPs, respectively. They often do!
(...)
As Reynierse rightly emphasizes, although there are multiple things that functionistas have asserted over the past 30 years that purport to go beyond what fits within the framework of what I call the Real MBTI Model, not a single, solitary one of those "type dynamics" assertions can point to any respectable empirical support. As part of that linked article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of eight studies involving type dynamics — which Reynierse aptly summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

I didnt noticed any parts where Reynierse stated that the cognitive functions themselves tested and failed. He states that type dynamics and the dynamical interpretation (Dominant and aux, as they appear in table 1) are a mistake, but I didnt see him stating that the functions themselves are a mistake (for example, that Si Sensing Introverted is a mistake in itself).

 

[Pionart]

Since she's been mentioned, [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] looks visually like an ExFJ to me, and a quick post analysis suggests ESFJ. Fe is likely subdued.

--

In Judging or perceveing functions is what I think there is a possibility that I am wrong, but Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are judging functions while Se, Si, Ne, Ni are perceveing functions. In [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] case, I will explain why P and not J by using this principle. In her case, Se+Ne+Ni+Si=7 while Fi+Fe+Ti+Te=-3

J and P in the type code doesn't mean the judgment and perception functions (which is problematic, but it's how it is). J refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne,

So you'd have to add up: Te+Fe+Si+Ni versus Ti+Fi+Se+Ne.

--

Regarding the general phenomenon of odd test scores: "function order" doesn't just mean order of strength, but rather a sequential ordering that the functions go in. The functions, in certain contexts, manifest one after another in a cycle. It also refers to the relative distance from the "seat of consciousness", or alternatively, how deep in the unconscious the functions are. The 5th function (Fe for INFP) is actually highly energising, whereas the 4th function (Te for INFP) is highly draining, so an INFP with good contact with their unconscious could score higher in Fe than Te as a result.

There is also the distinct possibility that people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, some secondary types, and other types that are more unconscious. For INFP, INFJ is the only type which is a secondary type almost as a rule, so that can be the cause of higher scores in Ni and Fe.

Your point about there being 8! different types according to function orders ignores the point about function sequences, but seems reasonable to due to the various other factors involved, such as mistaken self-perception, relation to the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, and modulation (over-using functions which are draining).

 

[reckful]

I didnt noticed any parts where Reynierse stated that the cognitive functions themselves tested and failed. He states that type dynamics and the dynamical interpretation (Dominant and aux, as they appear in table 1) are a mistake, but I didnt see him stating that the functions themselves are a mistake (for example, that Si Sensing Introverted is a mistake in itself).

He uses the term "category mistake" multiple times in that article, and with reference to several aspects of type dynamics. "Category mistakes are endemic within type dynamics," he says. And "type dynamics ... is fundamentally based on a series of category mistakes." And he discusses several of them.

But the most basic-level category mistake he points to is the fact that the cognitive functions themselves are a distorted mis-categorization of the underlying components of type. On page 3, he explains that it's a category mistake to frame someone's type in terms of dominant and auxiliary functions (never mind the tertiary and inferior) — not because "Fe" descriptions "tested and failed" (as you put it) to have (piggybacked) validity as applied to FJs, but rather because the reality of what's really going on is that people have hardwired preferences with respect to four dichotomies. And the article goes on to discuss (at length) the fact that 50 years of correlational data points to the conclusion that the personality effects that functionistas attribute to function dynamics have turned out to only be consistent with reality to the extent that they're limited to what you'd expect if type was the result — not just primarily, but exclusively — of what Reynierse calls the straightforward "additive" effect of the dichotomies. In other words, it has turned out that assertions about "Fe" (for example) have only ever found any empirical support to the extent of the simple piggybacked validity that you'd expect them to have if those assertions are (1) limited to things that FJs have in common (to a greater extent than the 12 other types), and (2) only applied to FJs.

As I said before, an INFJ (for example) is first and foremost an I and an N and an F and a J, and secondarily a product of the various dichotomies in combination — but there's no empirical support for the notion that there are some fundamental underlying things that correspond to the NJ and the FJ combinations and that make an INFJ an "NJ" type and an "FJ" type to a more meaningful/substantial extent than an INFJ is an IN type or an NF type — much less a "Ti" or "Se" type — or that involve an INFJ's N playing a more significant role than their F (and vice versa for INFPs).

So... if you agree that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, underlying (substantially hardwired) components of personality, and that there are many aspects of personality that are influenced by one dichotomy, or by two or more dichotomies in combination, and if there's absolutely nothing about personality that you can frame in function-centric terms that both (1) adds to, or is inconsistent with, the simple, additive effect of the dichotomies, and (2) has found any empirical support, then the $64,000 follow-up question is: why would you be inclined to give the functions any more serious attention than the zodiac?