[MBTI General] Lenore Thomson

[Mal12345]

This is for those of you who are Lenor Thomson fanatics because you don't like the MBTI dichotomies -

The test in her book Personality Type is a *dichotomies test.*

I've known this for a long time, but decided it was time to throw a post about it.

 

[Zeego]

What I find funny are when people act like the tandem functions are superior to dichotomies, when for example Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe is still a dichotomy.

 

[Mal12345]

Those are the same people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi.

Here's a bit of poor prose quoted from Thomson's "Personality Types":
"What Sharlene actually needed was to sink her conscious fork into the second layer of her type lasagna and engage her secondary function, Introverted Intuition. She needed to wrestle with the group decision in terms of her own experience, observations, and impressions (Introversion). And she needed to recognize the potential of the group to envision new possibilities, given the opportunity (Intuition)."

So where are the functions? Introversion and Intuition are not functions.

 

[Seymour]

What I find funny are when people act like the tandem functions are superior to dichotomies, when for example Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe is still a dichotomy.

I use the term "preferences", since they exist on a continuum and aren't actually dichotomous... with stronger preferences leading to larger correlations, and weaker preferences leading to weaker correlations (just as one would expect).

And, has been pointed out before, there's no empirical evidence putting people who prefer T+P and people who prefer F + J into the same category. If you know of evidence to that effect, that'd be news to me! Generally where are correlation with preferences they occur as one would expect (where if people who prefer T+P are mostly likely to correlate with something, then people who prefer F+J are the least likely to fall into the same category... because logic).

If the who tandem thing were true in any measurable sense, we'd expect to see large TP correlation, then a smaller FJ correlation "echo", with other T/F and J/P combinations having still smaller correlations. I've never seen evidence to that effect beyond anecdotal self reporting.

 

[highlander]

This is for those of you who are Lenor Thomson fanatics because you don't like the MBTI dichotomies -

The test in her book Personality Type is a *dichotomies test.*

I've known this for a long time, but decided it was time to throw a post about it.

I have come to the conclusion that dichotomies tests work better. I'm planning on changing the logic of the test I created here to that when I have time.

 

[Mal12345]

I have come to the conclusion that dichotomies tests work better. I'm planning on changing the logic of the test I created here to that when I have time.

I like the idea of testing for a type rather than testing for letters or functions. The MBTI/function tests build a type from a group of four categories or a pair of functions. All other tests test for a type.

 

[Eric B]

Lenore has always used both dichotomies and functions, so I don't know who has ever favored her for not liking dichotomies.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Did you actually read her book? Lenore Thomson has mostly abandoned the MBTI dichotomies some time after her (c)2001 book was written and replaced them with the updated dichotomies from her book, for example, J - left-brained/linear, P - right-brained/holistic, that no longer derive from Myers-Briggs redefinition of Jung that P/J relates only to extroverted functions. I think these fans know that since they follow her. Lenore Thomson recognized that, for example, Ne/Se isn't the defining quality of Ps, but that many Ti/Fi dominants don't relate to this P description. Thus the definitions of P and J have been thoroughly reexamined by Thomson and redefined, to incorporate every like-minded IP and IJ.

In Thomson's book she emphasizes the importance of types not fully correlated to the MBTI provided in her book. She now admits that the MBTI provided in her book will easily give you the incorrect type, and thus to continue reading into the rest of her book, which is largely different and theoretical, branched more from Carl Jung and not the Myers-Briggs assumption that P/J is for extroverted functions only. Now the nature of the functions redefine the dichotomies, the functions are the predominant methodology for typing.

In her book, Thomson explains that there are more essential definitions to the dichotomies we must know, which she paints the majority of her book's type profiles with. For instance, she distinguishes INTP/INTJ as opposites, where Js are defined as left-brain linear types (NiTe) and Ps are right-brain holistic types (TiNe,) with then switched tertiary functions. In her (c)2001 book she fully paints her profiles in these terms, not MBTI terms, and doesn't emphasize MBTI dichotomies in the theoretical portion of her book. Her type profiles are markedly different and more branched-out than your typical MBTI ones. We can clearly see that upon reading, the vast majority of a type's nature is her understanding of each types' functions.

Thomson emphasizes that the dichotomies should be yielded from understanding the functions, not the other way around, meaning that, one assuming MBTI dichotomies could lead you to the deeper cognitive nature of an individual, is an error in logic. You must first understand the nature of the functions, the very definition of a type, and then only then can you grasp the dichotomies correctly. Years later she admits to abandoning the MBTI dichotomies and that their influence on real type profiles is only correlative, that there is a deeper way to learn dichotomies by reading all the original material from her book.

 

[Zeego]

Did you actually read her book? Lenore Thomson has mostly abandoned the MBTI dichotomies some time after her (c)2001 book was written and replaced them with the updated dichotomies from her book

Yes, but the updated dichotomies are still dichotomies, which (I believe) was Mal's point. "Are you N or S?" vs. "Are you Fi/Te or Ti/Fe?" are both in the format of "Are you A or B?" and therefore dichotomies.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Yes you are correct in that functions are dichotomies. They just aren't the traditional MBTI dichotomies. That is what my topic is about: Thomson abandoned the MBTI dichotomies, and her new updated dichotomies are shaped primarily by her understanding of the functions, as in, upon understanding what an xxxP function is (Fi, Ne, Ti), you will understand what a P is.

Thomson defines a P as someone involved in momentary perception/interaction, "a perceiver,"
and a J as someone detached from perceiving the moment, instead conceptually "judging" things out.

Thus, according to Thomson, an INxP wields their subjective judgement (Ji) always by engaging in the moment (Pe.) Pe is always married with Ji. Ps according to her are right-brain instinctual gaugers.
Where as an INxJ subjectively muses (Pi) about objective concepts (Je), not outwardly perceiving, but inwardly in their minds. Js according to her are left-brain conceptualizers.

Now, this isn't my theory, this is Thomson's. The MBTI test at the beginning of Thomson's book doesn't have a lot to do with her theory, especially nowadays. Thomson thought it would be helpful in her (c)2001 book as a starting reference to type oneself, but now takes that notion back.

 

[rav3n]

I find the battle between these two theories to be silly. There's utility in both.

IMO, dichotomies are good for narrowing down type, and functions are not only far more interesting and fun, but help to ascertain type. That said, they both fail when people are oblivious to themselves and their preferred patterns of thought. Most people can't see a pattern if it hits them in the face, never mind understanding themselves and their own patterns.