Thoughts on Myers-Briggs

[matmos]

And just as shame is precursory to guilt, so pride is precursory to a fall.

Pass me the axe.

 

[Kalach]

We are pattern recognising animals.

But even more, we need pattern to function.

So we prefer any pattern to no pattern.

But since the Enlightenment we have learnt that there are patterns which correspond to nature and those that don't.

And we use empirical testing to determine which patterns correspond and which don't.

For instance, astrology, alchemy, eugenics, Lysenkoism, phrenology, the Exodus and MBTI don't correspond to nature. In other words, empirical testing shows they are untrue.

But we are still carried away with our own facility for pattern recognition and our own wish that they were true.

In our vanity we mistake our wishes for reality.

But even the Ancient Greeks knew that hubris is followed by nemesis.

This is such horseshit, and I'm unsure why. Perhaps because it bears so little resemblance to what and how MBTI should be treated.

It's a model. It's not supposed to be true or false. It's supposed only to correspond. Technically the model cannot be understood to truly correspond at all because there is no established connection between the model details and the functioning of the actual persons. That would be taken care of by establishing what preference is and where it comes from. And in the meanwhile, the correspondence is taken care of by magical observation, people seeing on an individual basis if the correspondence applies. Which is wholly unsatisfactory as Science and not truly a great basis for making the sweeping type claims that come out of MBTI talk, but, as usual, so what? This principled criticism of MBTI is, in a nutshell, no pun intended, "A Scalextric isn't a train, dammit!" To which we need only reply, "So what? It's a model of a train. If you want to play with real trains, it is and always will remain pointless to criticise Scalextrics for not being real."

It's a model. A simplification of what exists out there. One must hate and fear Te to avoid world views such as these. One is actually required to shift into fucking useless ineffability, claiming literally that people cannot be known, cannot be modelled. When really, you twats, all you need to claim is that it is immoral to reduce people to their model. And you'd be right.

 

[ygolo]

I have not read Dario.
What about Sacks?

What about the temptation as the tertiary is on the other side?
A good question.

Where is the shadow?
What does it do?
How does it come by?

Good questions. Worth reflecting on.

Parroted is the work of parrots. Consider your statement.

With all corporate business the transaction is an economic one: we have a buyer and a seller. We can have a lemon or a peach. Wrap it up how you like and make comparisons with research or academia.

But you must know deep down that making any comparison between MBTI and, say, "industrial research" by stating irrelevant commonalities, such as funding, is deeply fallacious.

My point was that it's a business and it works like a business. Is your retort: so what, there's alot of decent businessmen out there? Mine would be: there's alot of charlatans as well. How exactly do you make a distinction? You do not, Ygolo. You leave that to me, when, of course, that's your business as the supplier, not mine as the consumer. Effectively, you are saying, " Prove my Miracle Gro (TM) does not work". My reply to you would be that I have enough shit in the garden and your Miracle Gro is irrelevant.

Who's the parrot, you or me?

I don't find anything wrong with parroting ideas. It was certainly not meant as an insult.

Unless you have done your own studies, you would have to be drawing from someone else's to say anything about the validity and reliability of an indicator. Parroting someone in this circumstance is normal and acceptable.

Of those denouncing Myers-Briggs, only jaguar showed evidence. I showed some evidence to the contrary. The research was roughly from the mid 1980's. These days most of the research is done by CAPT. It looks like the empirical evidence is largely inconclusive.

All I am saying is that something being a business is different from it being "first and foremost" a business. That is a charge that requires more than something making money.

To make that point, I drew an extreme analogy to industrial research. The fact that they are businesses is the only salient property common to both Myers-Briggs consulting and industrial research as far as that point is concerned.

Now if you have more evidence that the Myers-Briggs consultants are in it "first and foremost" for the money, that is a different story.

It could be that the people teaching and spreading Myers-Briggs and related models (temperament, interaction styles, etc.) actually believe what they are teaching, and I doubt the money is that good when compared to what therapists and psychiatrists make.

I am no supplier, I am consumer myself. The Miracle Gro seems to work rather well for me.

I'm curious, if this stuff is irrelevant to you, why spend time debating or discussing it?

For instance, astrology, alchemy, eugenics, Lysenkoism, phrenology, the Exodus and MBTI don't correspond to nature. In other words, empirical testing shows they are untrue.

Empirical testing is inconclusive for Myers-Briggs. That is not the same as proving it to be untrue.

Also, the indicator itself is not where most of the value in the model is.

Victor, please provide evidence when you repeat the charge that NO department of psychology supports practitioners or proponents of Myers-Briggs.

There was support from the academic community during its development, namely from professors from the University of California, and the University of Florida.

What type of skeptic are you? Do you believe that only Myers-Briggs theory is like astrology, or do you believe that all personality theories are like that?

Do you favor the Five Factor Model that is currently in academic vogue? What about the MMPI? What about the Holland Codes? the Belbin Roles? learning styles? NLP?

All these things attach labels and descriptions to people, are all of them a result of cold and warm reading?

 

[matmos]

Good questions. Worth reflecting on.

I don't find anything wrong with parroting ideas. It was certainly not meant as an insult.

Unless you have done your own studies, you would have to be drawing from someone else's to say anything about the validity and reliability of an indicator. Parroting someone in this circumstance is normal and acceptable.

Fallicious thinking, but rest assured Ygolo, it was not taken as an insult. But you are incorrect. Parroting is never normal & acceptable in a rational debate because it indicates thoughtless regurgitation of others' ideas. However, as soon as you endorse an idea and apply it to your life it becomes yours. The decisions you make are yours; diverting moral responsibility for your decisions to someone else (eg Ms Myers & Ms Briggs) does not mean the onus is on these (now deceased) ladies but fall twofold on you: firstly for making a decision based on someone else's advice; secondly, for choosing a poor advisor.

I use MBTI as an example, but extend this how you please.

Of those denouncing Myers-Briggs, only jaguar showed evidence. I showed some evidence to the contrary. The research was roughly from the mid 1980's. These days most of the research is done by CAPT. It looks like the empirical evidence is largely inconclusive.

Correct. Doesn't the inconclusive bit bother you?

Now if you have more evidence that the Myers-Briggs consultants are in it "first and foremost" for the money, that is a different story.

Even if they were not in it for the money, this in no way deminished my point but merely includes the possibility, among others, that they are deluded or wishful thinkers. Churches and mosques are full of such individuals.

I am no supplier, I am consumer myself. The Miracle Gro seems to work rather well for me.

The question was meant generally and - forgive me - was not meant literally. I suppose if my Miracle Gro works then I can keep up the supply.

I'm curious, if this stuff is irrelevant to you, why spend time debating or discussing it?

It's fun. I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate... and I expect you do, too! But I might be wrong.

Empirical testing is inconclusive for Myers-Briggs. That is not the same as proving it to be untrue.

Victor, please provide evidence when you repeat the charge that NO department of psychology supports practitioners or proponents of Myers-Briggs.

More of the same Ygolo. I really am a bit disappointed in you. What's Victor to do - go around every Psychology Department in the world a request written submissions? Quite clearly Victor is being figurative and he illustrates a perfectly reasonable objection to MBTI: which is if it is so valid, why aren't psychologists coming out in droves to endorse it. You bandied a couple of names, but even if we were to discover a significant number of these fellows, it would be the quality of the forthcoming debate and any research that would be decisive - not the fact that a couple of guys in white suits endorse it. The onus is on the propounder to validate assertions; deflecting the onus is a cheap trick.

This is called card-stacking.

 

[yenom]

• Get-Things-going Style(ESFs and ENPs) People who like to get things going tend to be energetic, animated, gregarious, expressive, enthusiastic, engaging, persuasive and casual. They have talents for making preparations, discovering new ways of seeing things, sharing insights, exploring options, facilitating, catalyzing, energizing, brainstorming, and persuading. They have an urgent need to involve people, and aim to get an embraced result. Their core belief is that it's worth the energy to involve everyone and get them to want to do what needs to be done. They have faith that whatever emerges form the interaction will move people forward.

• 
  You were grouping the ENPs and ESFs together, I find that grossly inaccurate.

 

[Eric B]

That's the Interaction Style, and it is a very noticeable and significant grouping; just about as much as Keirsey's groups.
It's basically the classic "Sanguine" temperament, being extraverted (expressive) and people-focused ("informative"). It looks like a split between two unrelated groups, because for S's, people/task focus is attached to T/F preference, and for N's, it's the introverted or extraverted attitude of iNtuition. This because of two different frameworks beign mapped to each other.

 

[PoprocksAndCoke]

We are not "tabula rasa" but are born with some innate tendencies.

I'm assuming that means "blank slate" or something of the sort? I've always wondered what that meant.

 

[Mole]

That's the Interaction Style, and it is a very noticeable and significant grouping; just about as much as Keirsey's groups.
It's basically the classic "Sanguine" temperament, being extraverted (expressive) and people-focused ("informative"). It looks like a split between two unrelated groups, because for S's, people/task focus is attached to T/F preference, and for N's, it's the introverted or extraverted attitude of iNtuition. This because of two different frameworks beign mapped to each other.

This is jargon. It is not plain English.

But all cults use jargon to conceal their intent.

And MBTI is no exception.

 

[Take Five]

I'm assuming that means "blank slate" or something of the sort? I've always wondered what that meant.

That's right.

 

[PoprocksAndCoke]

That's right.

Thanks.

 

[ygolo]

Fallicious thinking, but rest assured Ygolo, it was not taken as an insult. But you are incorrect. Parroting is never normal & acceptable in a rational debate because it indicates thoughtless regurgitation of others' ideas. However, as soon as you endorse an idea and apply it to your life it becomes yours. The decisions you make are yours; diverting moral responsibility for your decisions to someone else (eg Ms Myers & Ms Briggs) does not mean the onus is on these (now deceased) ladies but fall twofold on you: firstly for making a decision based on someone else's advice; secondly, for choosing a poor advisor.

I use MBTI as an example, but extend this how you please.

I find this point of view very out of touch. Of course, one needs to rely on other people's information in a debate. Use of this sort of information does not indicate toughtlessness--only an appropriate amount of humility.

I have already told you about how I find the use of Myers-Briggs and related theory. In application, I first, aim to do no harm. I have also told you that I have used it myself to good effect, and know of others wh have done the same.

We are talking about psychology here, not a hard science. Without this or Freud, or something similar, we'd have NO theory of mind to make use of.

If you go by what is proven or not, then the notion of "presonality" itself (even with no theory attached) is something that you cannot find aqqequate support no aqqeduate evidence against.

The FFM has very similar types of issues. It's validity measures are higher, but they corellate nonetheless with the Myers-Briggs scales.

Correct. Doesn't the inconclusive bit bother you?

No. Because this is psychology. What isn't inconlcusive?

Even if they were not in it for the money, this in no way deminished my point but merely includes the possibility, among others, that they are deluded or wishful thinkers. Churches and mosques are full of such individuals.

This is the point where you cross the line. Certainly, disagreeing with the validity of something is something I am fine with. The comparison to a "cult" is quite a different thing.

The question was meant generally and - forgive me - was not meant literally. I suppose if my Miracle Gro works then I can keep up the supply.

I am saying I have applied the theories to good effect.

It's fun. I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate... and I expect you do, too! But I might be wrong.

It is not fun for me, and I hardly consider this a debate. Other than for Jaguar, all I have seen is hypoerbole. There are no points being made that are supported with evidence.

No, this is not a debate, but simply cat-calls and word-sniping from the sidelines.

There is one group trying to play a game they enjoy...the discussion of Myers-Briggs related topics, and another group simply taking snipes and make snide or hyperbolic interjections from the sidelines.

That's the way I see it.

If it is relatively irrelevant to you, then please let us have our own fun discussing Myers-Briggs.

More of the same Ygolo. I really am a bit disappointed in you. What's Victor to do - go around every Psychology Department in the world a request written submissions? Quite clearly Victor is being figurative and he illustrates a perfectly reasonable objection to MBTI: which is if it is so valid, why aren't psychologists coming out in droves to endorse it. You bandied a couple of names, but even if we were to discover a significant number of these fellows, it would be the quality of the forthcoming debate and any research that would be decisive - not the fact that a couple of guys in white suits endorse it. The onus is on the propounder to validate assertions; deflecting the onus is a cheap trick.

This is called card-stacking.

So Victor WAS using hypoerbole, then. I was simply pointing out that the statement was hyperbolic.

Generally speaking, there are very few things that psychologists come out in droves to endorse. They do seem to go through fads, and MBTI was one of them.

Also, Victor is quite wrong, if he thinks that Myers-Briggs is not being used in reasearch.

Now, as I've stated before, I believe there has been more than enough of this back-and-forth on something we clearly need to simply "agree to disagree" on.

I think this is bad precedent since any thread tring to discuss Myers-Briggs will go down this same tired track of some people charging it's a cult, and others taking the other point of view.

I ask the mods if they can move all such posts to an "Is Myers-Briggs a cult?" thread. I see no point in rehashing this over an over again.

 

[Eric B]

This is jargon. It is not plain English.

But all cults use jargon to conceal their intent.

And MBTI is no exception.

It's terminology, and all systems of thought have terminology (with operational definitions) that people not versed in it will think is not "plain English". Then, they're either interested, and then learn the terms, or just move on to something else.

(I don't think you ever answered people's questions of what this concealed cultic "intent" is).

 

[matmos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bananatrombones
Correct. Doesn't the inconclusive bit bother you?

Originally Posted by Ygolo
No. Because this is psychology. What isn't inconlcusive?

Apologies. I quoted you incorrectly - you said "largely inconclusive". Doesn't the "largely inconclusive" bit bother you, then? By "largely" I take you to mean the subtle difference between a tiny bit, a big bit, a bigger bit and a large bit, ie the top of your fictional quality scale. Let's just say it's not a "bit inconclusive"; let's say it's largely inconclusive.

Originally Posted by bananatrombones
Even if they were not in it for the money, this in no way deminished my point but merely includes the possibility, among others, that they are deluded or wishful thinkers. Churches and mosques are full of such individuals.

Originally Posted by Ygolo
This is the point where you cross the line. Certainly, disagreeing with the validity of something is something I am fine with. The comparison to a "cult" is quite a different thing.

Well now the Rubicon has been crossed, I might as well continue to Rome!

FWIW I have never stated MBTI was a cult; although it has unarguably cult-like elements. But you could say that about the Girl Guides. Touchy, are we?

So. Ygolo. Why are you so scared that you might be drawn to cult-like institutions? Your obvious anger is evident in your defensive, badly-spelled response. Just saying.

Maybe, like a boy scout or a girl guide, there's a void somewhere waiting to be filled.

Do you get out much?

I am saying I have applied the theories to good effect.

Yes. Good. So have I. But the evidence I have observed can never be anything other than anecdotal. Years ago in Blackpool, Madame Petulengro correctly predicted my fortune. Well done, but I still have my doubts about the art of the crystal ball...

Originally Posted by bananatrombones
It's fun. I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate... and I expect you do, too! But I might be wrong.

Originally Posted by Ygolo
It is not fun for me, and I hardly consider this a debate. Other than for Jaguar, all I have seen is hypoerbole. There are no points being made that are supported with evidence.

No, this is not a debate, but simply cat-calls and word-sniping from the sidelines.

Not fun? How can this be? Come, come Ygolo, you love it. I know I do!

What would you like, buddy, nods of agreement all round? Debates just don't work like that. It's not a "debate" in your sense (on whatever planet that might be) but it is on my planet. Your assumptions are challenged and you scream:

I ask the mods if they can move all such posts to an "Is Myers-Briggs a cult?" thread. I see no point in rehashing this over an over again.

Which translates as:

Originally Posted by Ygolo

Daddy, mummy - big, bad bananatrombones pulled my pigtails! It hurts!

Here's the thing... When I see pigtails, I just gotta give 'em a tug. And my dad's bigger than yours. In fact, he makes that 8 foot boxer fellow look like Mini-Me outa Austin Powers.

There is one group trying to play a game they enjoy...the discussion of Myers-Briggs related topics, and another group simply taking snipes and make snide or hyperbolic interjections from the sidelines.

That's the way I see it.

Well the way you see it could be wrong. Any fair-minded person in a "debate" would be surely be open to this possibility.

If it is relatively irrelevant to you, then please let us have our own fun discussing Myers-Briggs.

This is where you have really blown it. Do you think this little "debate" is really about MBTI?

Honestly buddy, your contentions don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. But the bigger crime is that your ability to get a point across clearly and make meaningful arguments that are presented in a reasonable manner.

A school debating society would rip you to shreds.

You don't know the meaning of the word "debate".

So Victor WAS using hypoerbole, then. I was simply pointing out that the statement was hyperbolic.

No, Ygolo. Speaking figuratively and using hyperbole are not the same. Although I concede I might be guilty of such tactics now and again myself.

This is allowed in "debate". Check the rules.

Also, Victor is quite wrong, if he thinks that Myers-Briggs is not being used in reasearch.

You better speak to Victor about that. In the meantime using one of my quotes and going on about Victor is bad etiquette.

Now, as I've stated before, I believe there has been more than enough of this back-and-forth on something we clearly need to simply "agree to disagree" on.

I'll leave you to it, then.

All the best.

PS. Usually debates - proper ones - are like British pubs. Nothing is meant personally or taken as such, even when this appears to be. Guys that get upset and spill their pints are considered poor Pub Warriors.

Cheers.

 

[Mole]

It's terminology, and all systems of thought have terminology (with operational definitions) that people not versed in it will think is not "plain English". Then, they're either interested, and then learn the terms, or just move on to something else.

(I don't think you ever answered people's questions of what this concealed cultic "intent" is).

This is an electronic conversation across the world. Plain English is necessary for understanding.

Some disciples such as music or mathematics have notation for convenience.

But MBTI is not an intellectual discipline. In fact it is simply ridiculous as here we even type pets.

And the fact that MBTI can't be expressed in plain English suggests that it is jargon meant to give it a false air of authority. But MBTI is no authority on the personality.

And to answer your question - the intent of MBTI is to manipulate others, just like astrology.

And the manipulation of others is an attack on their integrity.

Why do you think we would not repel the attack?

 

[matmos]

But MBTI is not an intellectual discipline. In fact it is simply ridiculous as here we even type pets.

Come, come, Victor. Everyone knows dogs are E and cats are I. Or vice-versa. Or something.

Except MBTI (TM), who continue to insist their product should be for such mediocrities as finding the right job and/or role within a team. Whatever that might be. Nonsense, of course.

Meanwhile. There's a duck in Slough that can tap-dance.

Question is: INFP or INTJ?

Pass the orange sauce.

 

[4375]

I will say Dogs are ENFP's and Cats are INTJ's........mmmmmmmm plants can be ISFP's...... Yesh.......I must be bored.

 

[yenom]

That's the Interaction Style, and it is a very noticeable and significant grouping; just about as much as Keirsey's groups.
It's basically the classic "Sanguine" temperament, being extraverted (expressive) and people-focused ("informative"). It looks like a split between two unrelated groups, because for S's, people/task focus is attached to T/F preference, and for N's, it's the introverted or extraverted attitude of iNtuition. This because of two different frameworks beign mapped to each other.

No offence, but I don't get how ENTPs can get lumped together with ESFJs and ESFPs?

 

[Eric B]

On the surface social skills, they're all extraverted and "'informative" or people-focused (rather than task-focused), which yields a "bright and friendly" style of interaction. In contrast to ENTJ, ENFJ and ESTP, who may be "bright", but will bedirective.
Like I've met Jenocyde (ENTP). She clearly fits that style, like my wife (ESFJ). They are very different when looking at J/P, S/N, and to a lesser extent, T/F, but both are clearly "Sanguine" on the surface, so there is a similarity in personality.

 

[Mole]

The Human Genome, Astronomy and MBTI.

Just as biology is sequencing the human genome, half the country believes in creationism.

And just as astronomy is reaching out into the universe, half of us believe in astrology.

And here most of us believe in and practise a bogus personality test called MBTI.

What's going on?

 

[Kalach]

I'm sorry, you lost me at "genome". I was hoping for some plain English on that. Oh wait, it's a defined term? Oh, okay.


So it is becoming too evident, your fear that theory may rise up like some monster from the deepest darkest recesses under the bed and negate perception. Embrace the fear. Become whole. Dial 1800-MBTILUVZU now.