User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 81

  1. #71
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    yes..
    but J/P sure doesn't predict much of anything.
    Typology as a whole is more descriptive than predictive... on the individual level that is. All of science can only ever predict patterns which means generalizations. In terms of psychology, this means that people are only predictable as probabilities. You can predict how a particular behavioral leads to certain results for most people, but of course any given individual may be an exception to the rule.

    Statistics are predictive for individuals. If they weren't then, insurance companies wouldn't use them and they wouldn't make large profits off of people by using them.

    Judging correlates to the behavioral trait Conscientiousness, and I thought this interesting:

    The big five and organizational virtue
    "Genetic influence was estimated as 41 percent for neuroticism, 53 percent for extroversion, 61 percent for openness, 41 percent for agreeableness, and 44 percent for conscientiousness."

    So, you can even predict the probability of someone being born with a behavioral traits.

    J/P was created to keep track of whether a percieving process or a judging process was being extraverted. Then some people theorized about what preffering extraverted judging vs. extraverted percieving would look like. Most of the ideas drawn from that were way too general, or completely untrue.
    What it originally was created for is still important, but its developed way beyond that. Just because people have given bad descriptions of it, doesn't say anything about it as a predictive behavioral trait.

    (by the way, the way to figure this out is NOT to use MBTI test results as evidence. Look at type guesses made by experts)
    I'd think that the test results would be more reliable than experts most of the time(why does it matter at all what experts guess about?). The theories are only useful to the extent that they correlate with what is measureable. And, in this case, that means behavioral traits.


    To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we're debating. I have no fixed opinions about the matter and that is what I'm trying to discuss. We don't yet know many things about typology. Its a young science and hasn't proven its validity in many areas besides J/P. Its pretty much been developing and changing ever since Jung came up with it, and personally I see that as a good thing. We don't as yet know everything about J/P, but why is that a problem? The MBTI Step II is still new. It will be years before we have enough data and research to draw any useful conclusions about how valid is the J/P dichotomy. However, we have enough evidence to show its valid in a general sense even if it needs to be clarified.

    It doesn't matter what your opinion is or what my opinion is... or even what Nardi's opinion is. By the way, there really wasn't much that Nardi said that disagreed with anything I've said so far. I guess I disagree with his dismissal of statistics, but he really didn't give much of an argument for his opinion and so I didn't fully understand what he was getting at.

  2. #72
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    J/P doesn't describe or predict well. I think I see what you're saying now though. Yes, they could go though all the proper procedure of proving the facets wrong, or we could step out of the illogic of the facets, and move on to something more effective.

  3. #73
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Some MBTI tests actually ask if one is punctual or leisurely directly. (PDF Warning)... Advice is commonly given in terms of structured time here. Even attempts to match FFM and MBTI use punctual as a benchmark (PDF Warning) (on the table, Item P97)
    I believe that Myers-Briggs was incredibly astute in understanding Jung's principles or merely created a slight of hand when they developed the MBTI. Consider when taking the MBTI it's not necessary to determine all four dichotomies. If the test get's THE ONE right, then based on Jung and Myers-Briggsí principles two of the succeeding dichotomies fall into place. When I say THE ONE I am meaning by all accounts of Jungís work, your dominant type.

    I will give you an example from my observation and experience. I had the MBTI Step II administered to me in November 2000, which resulted in INTP. It was clear that I preferred introversion and thinking over any other dichotomies. That part is easy to interpret since if I prefer IT, then in Jungís system I would prefer Ti. Based on Jungís principle there is an easy process of elimination from there since the succeeding function cannot be a feeling or introverted function, so that eliminates all but too functions Ne or Se. Notice that this also takes care of the final dichotomy since based on Myers-Briggsí principle all extraverts show their J/P through their dominant function and introverts through their auxiliary, itís a given what my final letter will be.

    The only question remains is which do I prefer S or N. But if the test can get the most important function correct (the dominant function) there is an instant 75% success rate. This in itself determines the lack of need for the J/P code and again shows itís redundancy. Yet the problem remains in how to determine the illusive S/N. Jung says that when he would discuss activities enjoyed by Ne types, what they were describing was Se. There are also articles that attempt to clear up why the average Se type confuses themselves as intuitives. The S/N is the hardest function to determine. I have spoken to many on the entp.org forum who profess to being ENTP when clearly from the descriptions of their activity shows Se.

    Back to my experience in determining my type, Jung theorizes that the auxiliary is so subordinate to the dominant function to make me believe the auxiliary function is not inborn but developed at a later time. I think enthusiasts like the Tiegers actually place an age on when that develops. The question then comes would I have preferred Ne if I had grown up in a different setting having access to things that would have developed by Ne? Or did my actual upbringing a rural and small town setting determine my type in having to develop my Se? In the end yes technically there was a 75% success in my taking the MBTI Step II, however in reality all was necessary to determine was my dominant type and no the J/P is not necessary.

  4. #74
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    whoa! Did you say stubborn? i know percieving types who are way more stubborn than "J"'s (I do consider myself extremely stubborn). In fact, introverted judgement (a preferred process for all percieving types) is a form of stubbornness if there ever was any.
    That is because you are not witnessing anything remotely P, but the introverted judging function (Ti/Fi) which Jung says is just as noticeable as extraverted functions. Myers-Briggs' whole assertion that Jung did a poor job of demonstrating how the introverted functions are not noticeable is false. I think it was her ploy to demonstrate her reverse theory.

  5. #75
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    I've heard the "clean desk / cluttered desk" thing brought up so often... but it doesn't really mean much at all.
    If a cluttered desk implies a cluttered mind, then what does an empty desk imply...

    thank you mr. einstein

    as far as this article goes...ehh...it doesn't really say anything significant...at all.

    yes..
    but J/P sure doesn't predict much of anything.
    J/P was created to keep track of whether a percieving process or a judging process was being extraverted. Then some people theorized about what preffering extraverted judging vs. extraverted percieving would look like. Most of the ideas drawn from that were way too general, or completely untrue.
    (by the way, the way to figure this out is NOT to use MBTI test results as evidence. Look at type guesses made by experts)
    exactly, very very well said
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  6. #76
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I think the whole content of the article and what Berens is trying to convey is that when she hears people bantering back and forth about J/P then are they really discussing type at that point since the J/P is so insignificant to warrant any discussion. If it was that important to distinguish whether someone was clean and punctual or not per judging and perceiving, I think Jung would have made at least made some reference to it.

  7. #77
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    I think the whole content of the article and what Berens is trying to convey is that when she hears people bantering back and forth about J/P then are they really discussing type at that point since the J/P is so insignificant to warrant any discussion. If it was that important to distinguish whether someone was clean and punctual or not per judging and perceiving, I think Jung would have made at least made some reference to it.
    This is an old argument and I'm not really in the mindset to argue it, but...

    I fail to see how J/P is not considered relevent in MBTI. I mean, I can understand the argument that it isn't relevent/incorrect to Jugian/functional views... but within MBTI, it should be very important.

    (The above assumes your quote, plus your response to me, are related.)

    Now, if you don't care to judge via MBTI, only through the Jungian functions, then it really doesn't matter, no. It would be like saying that peoples should care about Neuroticism in MBTI. The argument could be that to get a complete image of a person (or a more complete image), J/P or Neuroticism should be included... but it doesn't matter within the system, really.

  8. #78
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I fail to see how J/P is not considered relevent in MBTI. I mean, I can understand the argument that it isn't relevent/incorrect to Jugian/functional views... but within MBTI, it should be very important.

    (The above assumes your quote, plus your response to me, are related.)

    Now, if you don't care to judge via MBTI, only through the Jungian functions, then it really doesn't matter, no. It would be like saying that peoples should care about Neuroticism in MBTI. The argument could be that to get a complete image of a person (or a more complete image), J/P or Neuroticism should be included... but it doesn't matter within the system, really.
    But how can you argue MBTI without considering Jung, since that is where her theory is derived from. I agree that in her theory she had to use dichotomies to make the instrument itself functional. Otherwise she would be basing her assessment on cognitive functions. Nevertheless the J/P as I continue to argue is redundant and as the article goes when you are discussing it and it alone, then you are no longer discussing type, but traits. Consider the fact that if you want to discuss judging/perceiving then dominant Ti/Fi types will use it more than dominant Ni/Si types.

    I have no beef about Myers-Briggs work, because itís not her itís the readers that are unwilling to delve deeper into the theory to realize that Jung put very little value in the auxiliary function compared to the dominant. Ergo, MBTI is good for what Myers-Briggs intended but contrarily has no bearing on Jungís work when you focus on the dichotomies. In fact as I have questioned (and will need to go back to read) I am unsure if Jung ever alluded to traits of the judging/perceiving functions only to say that judging types are rational and perceiving types are irrational. Where the whole messy timeliness issue comes up is beyond me and since from my own experience I abhor being late, and canít stand messiness this is a fallacy. And Berens is correct in saying that on most accounts itís hard to distinguish NJ and SP with the naked eye.

  9. #79
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    But how can you argue MBTI without considering Jung, since that is where her theory is derived from.
    I don't argue MBTI. MBTI is what it is. Plus, I base my views on the current body of literature, not past theories...

    What I'm hearing is that you reject MBTI as a Jungian tool. So did Jung, so there you go. That's what happens when different schools of analysis come into conflict...

    In my view, MBTI is validated, has a lot of research behind it, etc. Jung does not. MBTI has its own framework, so does Jung. They are seperate now, and should remain so.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Bella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I didn't really want to say it... because the value lies in people assuming too much with type... but yah, it was a large rant for "Not all Js are the same".

    Once again, for the record, the key traits within MBTI for...

    Judging
    Systematic
    Planful
    Early Starting
    Scheduled
    Methodical

    Perceiving
    Casual
    Open-ended
    Prompted
    Spontaneous
    Emergent

    In general, people will have 3/5 as solidly on one side, one in the middle, and one to the opposite.

    End behaviour is not an absolute from type, this should be a given. There is tendency for Js to be methodical (including their schedules, which has it's own term, their desks or their tasks). If the behviour doesn't reach that far, don't be surprised.

    My desk is a mess, but I absolutely cannot stand having files, etc disorganised. My computer is a model for information systems, I love dealing with document management systems. The scope of type is limited to your brain; the traits that you act out differ on the individual (very) subjective view of the world.

    And another story from my personal life - my INTJ GF (the J is strongly expressed) leaves piles of clothes absolutely everywhere. I lost the use of the couch for over a week because of it, and it was only when the dining room table became unusable that I complained... But I swear that if the dog treats, her shoes, the dishes, the fridge or her bills aren't organised, the world will end. Subjective importance.
    I'm the same. Some things are allowed to be disorganized but others never.
    yesiknowimamiserablegrouchnowgoawayovmeleor

    It's Mizzz ST, thank you...

Similar Threads

  1. Clearing Up The Confusion of Type and Functions
    By Krim13 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 04:52 AM
  2. The ESFP "stupid" myth.
    By Mort Belfry in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 846
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. St. Louis, keep up the good work!
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-09-2008, 12:40 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