Littlelostnf
New member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 645
- MBTI Type
- ENFJ
I'm making a telescope ASAP. That'd be hillarious!!
not such a good idea eh...
oh well guess that means...back to yours.
I'm making a telescope ASAP. That'd be hillarious!!
But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.not such a good idea eh...
oh well guess that means...back to yours.
But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.
Damn!
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!
Neat freaks? Can be. It's not a rule 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... 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
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.
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?
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.
Although the paper's written in 1989... copyright laws should have long expired. Should I just attach it here?