User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 148

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    Dario, what do you think about skeptics who claim MBTI is a fad that is unfounded in science? I saw an Adam Ruins Everything segment on MBTI and found it frustrating that he made the same basic claim, yet your work seems to be bringing MBTI closer to a place where it might be better backed up by empirical data. Is MBTI more than a pseudo scientific parlor game, and if so, how would you respond to the skeptics and critics?
    I'm feeling snarky.

    Jung's work "Psychological Type" is almost 100 years old, and Myers and Briggs started their work in the 1920s, though the MBTI didn't come out for another two decades. That puts it on par with post-Victorian women's wear, radio, commercial flight, the end of the British Empire, the welfare state, anti-fascism, television, gay rights, contraceptives, and many other "fads". LOL

    Adam Ruins Everything is a manufactured media construct in service of Leviathan.

    Jung himself said that "typing" people, in and of itself, was a kind of parlor game. The purpose of type is not to box or label people. It is to provide a lens, language, and lever (3L). Jung's work was psychotherapy and a broad range of cultural commentary. Today, there are folks who use type as "3L" for careers counseling, marriage counseling, leadership development, and many other areas that Jung likely didn't envision but Myers did. When used as the tool is was meant to be, it's a fine one that resonates with tens of millions of people because it empowers individuals in a way that academic models apparently cannot.

    More "empirical" data is great. I use quotes because the word doesn't mean what some people think it means. Unfortunately, all the pro-type brain data or stats data in the world is useless if people cling to outdated paradigms.

    To deal with skeptics and critics, Consulting Psychologists Press published a point-by-point clarifier/rebuttal. I'm unsure where it is and will find out for you. Please remind me in a few days (I'm guessing no one at CPP will respond over the weekend.)

    Here are some pointers I use:
    -- The criticism of the MBTI instrument and Myers-Briggs, published in the early 1990s, is based on a version of the MBTI tool that is no longer in use. The current version, around for over 20 years now, uses Item Response Theory, a widely accepted approach in psychometrics.
    -- The MBTI helps a person identify preference, not behavior. Preference is like handedness; we use both hands, but one plays a dominant role. That's what preference means.
    -- The MBTI is not designed to predict or assess performance, nor is it designed for hiring. It is, mainly, a coaching tool.
    -- The MBTI provides a data point to preferred ways of gathering information and making decisions. These are mental processes. As we understand the brain, we see these same mental processes (point to my own work).
    -- The Five Factor Model does not meet some basic criteria for being scientific (ex. it lacks explanatory power) and is actually criticized quite a bit in psychology too.
    -- If I can, I show the graphic posted above of Trait vs Systems approach, though I usually use that when rolling out the Jungian functions, not the MBTI tool.

    I also have some snarky responses. But I won't mention those, except to say, I recall a conversation with a Five Factor Model curmudgeon who didn't understand the difference between a person and a math model.

    Ultimately, I go back to my "wrong paradigm" answer. The skeptic or critic is usually enamored with statistical analysis. Until that person can think in terms of systems, understand the difference between analyzing to label and giving feedback to coach, and so forth, it's rough going.

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    Typology can be a bit of a cult, with self-proclaimed experts roaming freely, typing others as if their perspective and understanding are supreme. I think anyone, and actually probably everyone, can fall prey to this arrogant position at times.
    - What do you say to those who feel confident in openly typing others based solely on online exposure void of any video (as in typing others based only on text)? Particularly those without any professional typological training.
    - What do you say to those on the other side of the exchange who often get irritated with those who proceed to tell them who they are?
    I ignore these folks. Engaging them gives them recognition.

    There's value in seeing why they're doing it. When I learned about Type, I was very excited and did my best over several years to learn it for myself. There was no World Wide Web, so my options were articles, books, conferences, and a couple Internet list-serv's. I worked at creating my own function definitions and so forth. I argued a bit. Why? In retrospect, I was trying to *internalize* the model. So the folks who are making their own "tests" (cringe), definitions, blogs, and so forth, they are trying to internalize the model. At least, that's how I see it. Of course, that's a charitable view. They may also be looking to capitalize on something popular, to make a name for themselves and a few bucks, and so forth.

    Unfortunately, there is a mindset today, maybe more among Millennials, that if something isn't on the Internet, it doesn't exist, and if it isn't free, then it's bogus. Uh huh. Let's see how they feel about that in twenty years.

    What bothers me is the widespread lack of awareness of MILO, an enormous Type database that includes hundreds of peer reviewed papers on type and thousands of other articles, conference proceedings, books, and so forth. Please spread the word about MILO:

    Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Library
    Likes Peter Deadpan, Chaotic Symphony liked this post

  3. #43
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AncientSpirits View Post
    I ignore these folks. Engaging them gives them recognition.

    There's value in seeing why they're doing it. When I learned about Type, I was very excited and did my best over several years to learn it for myself. There was no World Wide Web, so my options were articles, books, conferences, and a couple Internet list-serv's. I worked at creating my own function definitions and so forth. I argued a bit. Why? In retrospect, I was trying to *internalize* the model. So the folks who are making their own "tests" (cringe), definitions, blogs, and so forth, they are trying to internalize the model. At least, that's how I see it. Of course, that's a charitable view. They may also be looking to capitalize on something popular, to make a name for themselves and a few bucks, and so forth.

    Unfortunately, there is a mindset today, maybe more among Millennials, that if something isn't on the Internet, it doesn't exist, and if it isn't free, then it's bogus. Uh huh. Let's see how they feel about that in twenty years.

    What bothers me is the widespread lack of awareness of MILO, a enormous Type database that includes hundreds of peer reviewed papers on type and thousands of other articles, conference proceedings, books, and so forth. Please spread the word about MILO:

    Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Library
    Thanks for the resources.
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself



  4. #44
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,000

    Default

    Oh shit, I didn't realize Dario was such a stud.
    *bats eyelashes*
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself


    Likes Lady Lazarus, asynartetic liked this post

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    I'm not entirely confident in my self-typing of ENFP. I've never tested as ENFP on any function/dichotomy test, but I have tested as IEE-Ne in Socionics. Over time, I have realized that tests aren't as valuable as I had originally thought for a few reason:
    1. They are limited by the user's knowledge of the functions themselves.
    2. They are limited by the user's self-awareness.
    3. They are limited by the user's comprehension of the questions being asked, as in understanding them in the proper context.
    4. The tests could be flawed.
    5. Probably some other things I am forgetting.

    With that said, I find that some unusual type combinations (as in taking various systems into account) are unlikely to result in accurate test results. For example, a 4w5 ENFP, particularly Sp-first, may never test as an extrovert.
    - Do you have any advice for people struggling to settle on a Meyers-Briggs type for the above reason?

    Also, just for my own personal knowledge, since I am having difficulty getting a straight answers from anyone else:
    - How do I determine if I am using Ni-Se or Ne-Si when observing others and forming theories or conclusions about the unseen?
    - Could you give some examples of Ne in ENFPs that doesn't look like the stereotypical whimsical/zany examples of Ne that seem to dominate function descriptions?

    Sorry this turned into "let's type Peter!" I just want to solidify my understanding of the functions so I know what I am talking about, and self-referencing is the easiest way for me to do that it seems.
    First, maybe this sounds pedantic, but please say "sorter", "profiler", "assessment" or "tool". It's not a test. A test has right/wrong answers and results in success or failure.

    Linda Berens developed a "self-discovery" process to help people discover their best-fit type.

    First, get input on your likely type from multiple data points, ideally using different (but congruent) models. The models include:
    -- 4 temperaments
    -- 4 interaction styles
    -- 4 preference dimensions
    -- themes of 16 whole type
    -- 8 cognitive processes
    -- 4 growth/intentional styles (quadra)
    -- brain scan

    Aim for at least 3 data points.

    Assuming you're working from profilers and descriptions that are aligned to work with each other, you'll likely narrow down to 3 of fewer types (of the 16). This is the "triangulation" process that I described earlier. Typically, these are vary close. You can do some tie breaking by looking at:
    -- temperament or interaction style *dynamics* (e.g. motive vs structure)
    -- whole type descriptions (based on interviews of people of those types)
    -- getting feedback from others (aka 360-feedback or "ask yo momma")
    -- trying activities used for function development
    -- from work, family, etc, consider who you get along with, their types, and where specifically you connect or not
    -- read some brief type descriptions *aloud* -- doesn't that sound like you, or does it make your cringe?
    -- etc.

    You don't need to know all of these models or do all of the sorting activities. That's for a coach. A good coach picks what's needed to guide you to a satisfying best-fit.

    "Best fit" doesn't mean perfect fit. It means something like, "of these different pairs of shoes, this pair fits the best when I walk in them".

    I can go into more details about some of these if you like.

    A challenge for folks with ENFP preferences: one of their typical talents is imagining "what if?" or acting "as if". They can imagine using all 8 cognitive processes, being any of the 4 temperaments, etc. But when pushed out on the dance floor, so to speak, imagination must give way to reality.

    In "8 Keys to Self-Leadership", I give twenty or so exercises to explore each of the 8 cognitive processes. And the exercises are tiered. Most people can do the introductory tier exercises for all eight processes. They can do some of the basic ones, or all the basic ones for their own favorite processes. The advanced tier exercises sort the most. Of course, the point is to try the exercises, otherwise you're still in "what if/as if" land.

    In terms of type descriptions, Linda Berens and I developed long type descriptions based on 1-hour interviews with 64 people, 4 of each type. This was tons of work. The result was language that speaks to people in a way that Linda and I could not, by ourselves, conjure up. [I should give credit Stephanie Rogers for her help too.] These are in 16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery.

    These are just examples.

  6. #46
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,314

    Default

    I have a few typology related questions now.

    So I have noticed there is a significant struggle in defining feeling/ethics functions properly. How do you distinguish Fe vs. Fi?

    Speaking of MBTI with other forms of typology, do you feel Enneagram can fill in some of personality gaps of MBTI? Many MBTI types follow this particular idea but I noticed how there is variations among how this is based on enneagram. While they are that type, they may not meet the exact usual view of the said type.

    Do you feel there is any way typology assessments can improve how they assess a type?

    Do you think there is a real use of typology outside of being an introspective tool?

    Where do you think the future of personality psychology is going?

    and for a simpler question: Do you drink soda? if so what is your favorite kind?

  7. #47
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    SEI Fe
    Posts
    7,983

    Default

    My questions:

    1. What is your spirit animal (you can't say dik dik or shih tzu cuz those are mine and I don't share.)

    2. Why do so many people (especially FPs) think Fe is incapable of forming its own opinions and values (hivemind)

    3. Do you believe it's possible for some people to be cognitively introverted but socially extroverted and vice versa? (Such as a Te dom that describes themselves as socially introverted, but still leads with Te)

    4. Bob Ross. ISFP or ISFJ?

    ~sincerely yama, member of the year.
    Likes Peter Deadpan, Tiger Owl liked this post

  8. #48
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    KLLR
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    Oh shit, I didn't realize Dario was such a stud.
    *bats eyelashes*
    If I were not a masculine presenting transgender lesbian then I would totally agree
    Smile, you son of a [BOOM]….YEEEEAAAHHHHHH!

    -M. Brody

  9. #49
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    KLLR
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,944

    Default

    Dario, Beatles or Stones?

    Also,

    East Coast Hip Hop or West Coast Gangsta Rap?
    Smile, you son of a [BOOM]….YEEEEAAAHHHHHH!

    -M. Brody
    Likes Tiger Owl liked this post

  10. #50
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    KLLR
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,944

    Default

    Dario, you said INTPs don’t normally get embarrassed, but when they do, they really get embarrassed. Why do you think this is? Is it the curse of inferior Fe or something else?
    Smile, you son of a [BOOM]….YEEEEAAAHHHHHH!

    -M. Brody

Similar Threads

  1. Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 680
    Last Post: 07-03-2019, 12:36 PM
  2. Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality
    By Seymour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 11-26-2017, 07:39 PM
  3. Video: New Dario Nardi Interview
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2015, 10:55 PM
  4. IxTP + INFJ = INTJ (Dario Nardi Interviews "Remix")
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-09-2014, 05:17 PM
  5. Dario Nardi on Reddit
    By 011235813 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-28-2013, 12:10 PM

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