• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Variations within Types

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
not such a good idea eh...
oh well guess that means...back to yours. :smile:
But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.

Damn!

:devil:

Edit :-

Oooooh. Hang on. ENTJs and ENFJs can get on well... just so long as they help each other and ignore the whole processing part. My father is an ENTJ and my sister is an ENFJ, they work well together. It's funny to watch though!
 

Littlelostnf

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
645
MBTI Type
ENFJ
But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.

Damn!

:devil:

Edit :-

Oooooh. Hang on. ENTJs and ENFJs can get on well... just so long as they help each other and ignore the whole processing part. My father is an ENTJ and my sister is an ENFJ, they work well together. It's funny to watch though!

Dude if you were in my space right now you prob could move everything around and I'd thank you. Why is there this generalization that ENFJ's are neat freaks...:shock: I mean don't get me wrong I like things to be in order but generally that's not the rule. People on the other hand..in my head..they are in order...if that makes sense.

but you can still come to our island and visit your dad and sister. :)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Dude if you were in my space right now you prob could move everything around and I'd thank you. Why is there this generalization that ENFJ's are neat freaks...:shock: I mean don't get me wrong I like things to be in order but generally that's not the rule. People on the other hand..in my head..they are in order...if that makes sense.

but you can still come to our island and visit your dad and sister. :)
Neat freaks? Can be. It's not a rule though.

I think my sister is "special". She has like squared paper and colours in the squares to make patterns. Most odd.
 

marm

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
134
MBTI Type
INFP
For myself, I have taken to heart the changes that MBTI are undergoing and researched quite a few other models. Of the ones I've looked at, I believe that the FFM model is the most complete model. As a result, I now use it as my baseline...

MBTI has recently adopted a similar view, going as far as adding the 5th trait for research (neuroticism/reactiveness/whateverispoliticallycorrect). It also has subdivided it's main traits, although I don't agree with the need to keep it so symmetrical, with 6 traits each.

I've come to realize that unlike the functional approach, people have four (five) independent dominant traits, made up of many sub-traits (4-6 in FFM, 6 in MBTI). This offers huge variation since the sub traits, while they tend to bunch together, are susceptible to environmental differences. A good example is how MBTI believes empathy and critical thought are mutually exclusive traits, whereas FFM has a blend of what would make up those two (it blends into 'need to express' and 'seeks engagement').

I don't know if that answers the question, but I don't see variants in type anymore, since that assumes type is accurate. I see variations in people, which requires a more robust model to measure and understand them.

ptgatsby---I've come across some of what you said there, but I haven't studied any of it closely. I've seen MBTI sub-traits before and that would be helpful for this thread. Do you remember what they are? The empathy and critical thought example is very good because I definitely don't see they need to be mutually exclusive.

I don't know how accurate types are. My wondering about variations is partly my wondering about type itself. I haven't come across a theory yet that gives a fully satisfying explanation of variations. Some people believe that any variants would disprove type, but I believe it just shows it to be an incomplete theory(as any theory ultimately is). It leaves out certain things and simplifies others. I'd love to see a model that superseded present type theory.

Some random thoughts about "subtypes"... this kind of fits in to ptgatsby's idea of a spectrum model of temperaments...
Idea on type modelling... what does subtypes mean in typology? Instead of trying to divide people up into subgroups per type... would it be more accurate to say depending on what point they're at in function development... they lean towards one ideal "type" more than another?

Think of the 16 types as being special points on a sphere... equidistance apart from one another. At different points in time, people can fall anywhere on that sphere based on their current function use. So overtime, you get an averaged "reading"... mean location of the sphere. Based on where that mean lies, you get your temperament "type". However, at any instance in time, a person can lean towards other types close to their focal temperament. E.g. INFJ... Ni Fe Ne Fi Ti Te Se Si... When they are young... developing Fe & Fi... they might have a tendency to lean towards ENFJ or INFP... when they are developing Ti, they can lean towards INTP or ENTP... and use of Ni Te would seem like INTJ.

Therefore MBTI would be merely a theory... we don't fit people to a temperament... we fit the average tendency of people to a temperament.

nightning---This is one useful way of looking at it. What would it mean for type theory? An assumption of many type theorists is that there is something inborn about being a specific type. Do you think there aren't aspects of type that are genetic and biological? What is a type? Just an idealized pattern somewhat like an archetype(or like Sheldrake's morphogenetic field)? Does type get at something fundamental? Or is it only about general tendencies? In what way do these tendencies change in a person over time? And in what ways do they stay mostly the same? And what can exlain all of this if type theory can't?

A good model of personality (in terms of MBTI for the moment) is that the person, or subject, is a glass sphere. On the perimeter is the 8 functions and around them associated "bits" commonly incorperated beneath their banner.

Right now imagine one of those 3 dimensional graphs. It looks like there's a whole bunch of red within the sphere. It stretches closer to those things on the perimeter which it has competance and confidence in. That would be a complete model of the subject/ person according to MBTI.

Also it nicely underlines that the more developed the person, the more "complex" their likely to be.

Where's Mac with that Walt Whitman quote? It fits so well but I can't recall it :(

Edit :-
Realising I could be answering a derailment instead of the origional question (sorry).

The variations between types which I've witnessed I see more as people either developing from their type or lacking it. I've seen more than a few people have their own preferential crutches within their type and stubbornly refuse to walk by themselves. I knew an ENFJ who refused to admit the reality infront of her because it meant she had to compromise her values daily. Eventually something happened where she was stripped of power and could do nothing but accept the reality intruding. She did at one point swear she was going to give up and throw herself from a building or some such. Of course once I'd wound her up the same fiery resistance came through and I told her "don't be stupid, I've never seen you give up once. Not ever". Now it's like a new person almost. She's still just a fesity as before but now only when it's needed. She's context sensitive and much more introspective. Where as previously were you to question her she'd immediately get defensive and try to blow you through all obstacles into next week, she now will admit her failings and reflect.

Anyhow basically she's gone from what was described as "dictatorial" (which is a facet of any ExxJ I'd guess) to a more peaceful person. She's balanced her F & T better and is far less EJ than before. I now don't even go deaf whilst on the phone to her which is a major turn around!!

Is that what you were thinking of Marmalade?

Xander---Well, I don't know specifically what I'm looking for now. I just wanted to brainstorm and see what others would think of that wouldn't occur to me. The 3-d graph was quite interesting as an image, and I liked your comment about the more developed the person the more likely the complexity. Maybe most variations between people of similar personalities are developmental.

There is also the influence of environment: culture and family, and life experiences especially early ones. How much does the types of others(such as parents, authority figures, and role models) effect the development of someone's type?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
ptgatsby---I've come across some of what you said there, but I haven't studied any of it closely. I've seen MBTI sub-traits before and that would be helpful for this thread. Do you remember what they are? The empathy and critical thought example is very good because I definitely don't see they need to be mutually exclusive.

Let's see if I can get this to work...

Code:
Extraverting	Introverting	Sensing		Intuiting	Thinking	Feeling		Judging		Perceiving

Initiating	Receiving	Concrete	Abstract	Logical		Empathetic	Systematic	Casual
Expressive	Contained	Realistic	Imaginative	Reasonable	Compassionate	Planful		Open-ended
Gregarious	Intimate	Practical	Conceptual	Questioning	Accommodating	Early Starting	Prompted
Active		Reflective	Experiential	Theoretical	Critical	Accepting	Scheduled	Spontaneous
Enthusiastic	Quiet		Traditional	Original	Tough		Tender		Methodical	Emergent


Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II

I don't know how accurate types are. My wondering about variations is partly my wondering about type itself. I haven't come across a theory yet that gives a fully satisfying explanation of variations. Some people believe that any variants would disprove type, but I believe it just shows it to be an incomplete theory(as any theory ultimately is). It leaves out certain things and simplifies others. I'd love to see a model that superseded present type theory.

This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Let's see if I can get this to work...

Code:
Extraverting	Introverting	Sensing		Intuiting	Thinking	Feeling		Judging		Perceiving

Initiating	Receiving	Concrete	Abstract	Logical		Empathetic	Systematic	Casual
Expressive	Contained	Realistic	Imaginative	Reasonable	Compassionate	Planful		Open-ended
Gregarious	Intimate	Practical	Conceptual	Questioning	Accommodating	Early Starting	Prompted
Active		Reflective	Experiential	Theoretical	Critical	Accepting	Scheduled	Spontaneous
Enthusiastic	Quiet		Traditional	Original	Tough		Tender		Methodical	Emergent


Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II



This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.


I doubt this shows that there are any variations within the innate type. There are just many idiosyncratic ways that type shows itself through personality.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I doubt this shows that there are any variations within the innate type. There are just many idiosyncratic ways that type shows itself through personality.

I doubt that there is any evidence at all that there are 16 fixed types with a fixed functional breakdown. There is actually evidence against it, and there is strong evidence for a gradient approach to every trait that makes up "type" theories.

MBTI changed as a result of studying behaviour and integrating new theories to explain their weaknesses. Those subtypes are the first major step towards it, with another step underway. They include breaking the 4 letter type mold ("type") by adding another major factor (the next step being a look at how it impacts on functions) and further refining the descriptive terms used to define the previous four traits.

You'd have to start with the premise that there are types to justify believing in type... There is no evidence to support it, only theory (that cannot be proven or unproven.) MBTI itself is increasingly stating that types are generalisations of traits (previously 4, now 5) that work into a functional breakdown (which itself is now under revision).
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I doubt that there is any evidence at all that there are 16 fixed types with a fixed functional breakdown. There is actually evidence against it, and there is strong evidence for a gradient approach to every trait that makes up "type" theories.

MBTI changed as a result of studying behaviour and integrating new theories to explain their weaknesses. Those subtypes are the first major step towards it, with another step underway. They include breaking the 4 letter type mold ("type") by adding another major factor (the next step being a look at how it impacts on functions) and further refining the descriptive terms used to define the previous four traits.

You'd have to start with the premise that there are types to justify believing in type... There is no evidence to support it, only theory (that cannot be proven or unproven.) MBTI itself is increasingly stating that types are generalisations of traits (previously 4, now 5) that work into a functional breakdown (which itself is now under revision).


The theory seems reliable enough. We see how its variable are represented in empirical evidence. Dont know what all of this talk about sub-types is. There are a lot of illusions in MBTI. You can so easily mistype people and there are so many idiosyncratic ways that types show themselves in. This is probably the case though...

No evidence at all to support that types exist..? Jung described how those unconscious functions showed themselves in the minds of philosophers... we can see more of this in many ever day people as well... sure there is evidence... plenty of it..
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
The theory seems reliable enough. We see how its variable are represented in empirical evidence. Dont know what all of this talk about sub-types is. There are a lot of illusions in MBTI. You can so easily mistype people and there are so many idiosyncratic ways that types show themselves in. This is probably the case though...

No evidence at all to support that types exist..? Jung described how those unconscious functions showed themselves in the minds of philosophers... we can see more of this in many ever day people as well... sure there is evidence... plenty of it..

Jung assumed three traits (by watching people). Myers found a fourth (by watching people). Factor Analysis found five. Analysis shows no particular type correlations between traits (traits act independent from one another). MBTI has now also found this. This means that the J/P functional approach is under a lot of pressure. MBTI realises this, which is why they have worked on Step III of their program.

If you boil this down, you get the following - type assumes strength where there is none. Type assumes dominant traits based on traits that don't affect one another. Those are the fundamental flaws in type.

This is only an argument if you go back nearly 20 years and embrace the theory before it was refined with new evidence. You can see an example of the report they produce here - http://www.cpp.com/images/reports/smp267149.pdf

For all intents and purposes, it acts like DISC or FFM, it's just a different model.

So as I say, you can believe in type - but you have to assume that type exists in order to conclude that the evidence fits it neatly. Generalised traits (main traits) do carry subtraits that can be widely diverse, even if they are normally correlated (which is what type assumes). See page 6 in the sample report for an idea of 'widely' can be like (S breakdown). Then consider the impact this has on saying (as they do farther down the page) that they prefer S dominant.

In type, you'd be hard pressed to believe that someone can be both Concrete and Imaginative - but they are seperate traits that make up S, and while correlated, are not absolute.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
I was reading a question and answer session with Thomas Condon, also author of the enneagram type descriptions on LIFEXPLORE. He seems to confirm what many posters at the enneagram institute convey, is that since the two systems are separate entities, it’s hard to make a perfect fit. Here are some of interview excerpts:
Enneagram Monthly: What's your opinion on possible correlations between the Enneagram and the Myers-Briggs system?

Tom Condon: The Enneagram describes nine species of ego-nine ways the human unconscious creates and organizes subjective experience, Your ego generates your map of reality, and your sense of identity along with your core motivations, values and defenses. It offers guiding assumptions, giving you a general sense of direction and immediate ways to proceed. To me, the MBTI and the Enneagram don't describe the same things at all. If the article described an Enneagram style as merely a defense I think that would be a little off. There are clearly healthy expressions of Enneagram styles; each offers abilities and gifts as well as defensive limitations. To me the Enneagram and Myers-Briggs typing system don't describe the same things at all.

EM: We think Pat Wyman (see "The Enneagram and MBTI in Affective Therapy" in the April 1999 issue) is right on target in regarding the two systems as different entities, tather than trying to find correlations.

TC: The Enneagram is describing a central orientation, a core strategy. Within that core strategy, the MBTI describes what amounts to subtypes. The sensory, mental orientations and emotional orientations that are possible within your core Enneagram style. If you try to evenly correlate the two systems, or to identify the one MBTI combination that always goes with each Enneagram style you would be attempting the impossible. There's a book by Renee Baron and Elizabeth Wagele [Are You My Type, Am I Yours?] with a section in the back on MBTI-I think that book has the combination just right.

Nevertheless, the EI forum sees the correlation as:

E1 - ISxJ
E2 - ExFx
E3 - ExxJ
E4 - INxP
E5 - INTx
E6 - xSxx
E7 - ENxP
E8 - ENTJ
E9 - IsxP

I would only agree with those in bold. The others, I have reservations about.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
In type, you'd be hard pressed to believe that someone can be both Concrete and Imaginative - but they are seperate traits that make up S, and while correlated, are not absolute.

Why? What about if someone developed both N and S?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Why? What about if someone developed both N and S?

MBTI uses preferences (both exist) but strength exists in dichotomies. What you say doesn't apply to MBTI.

ie: Someone who is introverted and extroverted is considered either an ambivert (someone who shows no strong preference - "x" in MBTI, or weak preferences hence the gradient) or someone who tests widely different on the sub-traits (someone who is active but quiet, expressive but intimate, etc). In the second case, the E definition would be inaccurate since it uses a generalised approach to the major trait (which is what MBTI found when doing their factor analysis).

The advice given in MBTI is how to cope (ie: work on the opposite preference) with your preference. How to call up that which is not natural. (On the sample report, you can see examples from page 13+). That is what is mean by developping preferences (being able to identify when it's needed). It is forced, against the preference. It does not change the preference.
 

rivercrow

shoshaku jushaku
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,555
MBTI Type
type
Sorry for the terseness, I haven't much time.

MBTI is based on a midline.

You prefer one thing or the other.

Slight preference says more about the sorter than about you, as the tool is devised. At this point, a qualified individual should work with you to help self-select.

A lack of differentiation--preferring BOTH S and N suggests:
  • lack of type development
  • lack of support for natural preferences
  • different stages of type development
  • some other influence

Type is not Trait.
  • Type=pregnant or male/female. You are one or the other, but not a "little bit of one"
  • Trait=height, weight. You can be more outgoing or more shy.

Feel free to flame me. I'll be making bean soup.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
1-Long term thinkers/Visionaries--Ni
2-Helpers/Caretakers/Fe
3-Image Seekers/Se
4-Fi--Melancholy artists...
5-Thinkers--Ti
6-Security Seekers--Si
7-Adventurers-Ne
8-Control Seekers--Te
9-Mediators/Peacemakers Ne(See big picture/both sides) Fi(please others on a personal level)
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Let's see if I can get this to work...
...
Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II

This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.

Thank you for posting all that... looks like I'll have to hunt out that McCrae & Costa paper. I know they did a lot of work on personality theories, but I haven't realized they also did a comparison of FFM with MBTI.

Rivercrow: Ah... I hate terminology I tell you. I'll refrain from using the word "type" when I want to describe continuity in the future.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Thank you for posting all that... looks like I'll have to hunt out that McCrae & Costa paper. I know they did a lot of work on personality theories, but I haven't realized they also did a comparison of FFM with MBTI.

I've attached one that is similar to this (but it deals with key words, hence traits). The main difference is that this one isn't copyrighted (as far as I know, anyway. Let me know if I missed it.)
 
Last edited:

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I'm a university student (well at least I still have access to journal databases)... so I have that McCrae paper sitting in front of me at the moment. It's quite an informative read in my opinion.

If anybody is interested in it... "Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality" They can PM me I suppose.

Although the paper's written in 1989... copyright laws should have long expired. Should I just attach it here?
 

rivercrow

shoshaku jushaku
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,555
MBTI Type
type
Darn.... And that is one paper I dearly want to read.

Guess I need to see if my student ID card still works....

Or I can contact CAPT and see if I can get a reprint thru them.
 
Top