Thoughts on Myers-Briggs

[ygolo]

And unlike our DNA, MBTI is not digital - MBTI is analog.

Beneath all the digital phenomenon we see there is an analog reality. Our signals aren't really just 0 or 1, you see, they are voltages or currents or notches or whatever. (Though beneath the analog world may be a quantized reality...but there is still the problem of scattering states...that is a whole other discussion).

I'd agree with this. We are born with innate tendencies/preferences, and we are also shaped by our environment and experiences - and react/adjust to our environment uniquely, based on our personality.

That is my basic point.

I think it's important to keep in mind though that while some of our preferences might be innate, it doesn't mean we were born a certain type.

I also believe that our whole "Myers-Briggs Type" is not something we are born with. There is a lot of development involved.

What I am saying is that there is SOMETHING we are born with. That something is innate, and it colors everything going forward. You can call that something type if you want.

To clarify: We are not a personality type; we are a personality whose traits best fit into one of 16 human-created/defined categories. Our personality is a given, we are who we are.

That is the fundamental problem of understanding personality. We are who we are...but what is that?

I think "traits" do a horrible job of describing who we are. But what alternative do we have?

But the 16 types (or any other personality theory) are simply a system concocted by us. I think it's easy to get caught up in: which type have I been from the beginning? Which type was I born as? That seems backwards to me - we aren't genetically notched as 'INFJ' or 'ESTJ'. Yes, we each have an innate personality - but it may or may not fit the mbti theory to a T. The theory was created to explain differences, and the differences themselves - the dichotomies, the functions, whatever - are in a sense arbitrary. One could create a different theory - People who like animals vs. People who could care less about animals -- granted, that's silly on many levels, but it's a similar concept. WE created the categories.

Certainly the theory is useful, as I think it is natural for people to classify, and personality trends are obvious. We all do it. If there wasn't mbti, we'd still be classifying people according to our own systems. But the theory at its root is simply that each person operates differently, and perceives/prioritizes things differently. That's basically it.

I think the specifics are also useful, whether you use Myers-Briggs, or any other theory that states the differences between people... just saying we are different and leaving it at that is inadequate in my opinion.

I like the examples edcoaching gave in how dramatic the results were when the participants actually understood enough of what makes up the differences.

I too have seen breakthroughs (though not at that level), when people are willing to look at what their differences actually are and acting accordingly. In the end Myers-Briggs may just be a short hand. But notational conveniences are quite useful in facilitating communication.

Sure, as a system, I would agree. It's a good way to categorize different types of people/different tendencies.

That is the first step for me. But if the core needs and drives of someone can be understood, I think we are in a much better position to help people...the basic questions for me are "Why don't you want what I want? Why do you want what I don't?"

Again, just knowing we want different things is not enough. We can fumble around trying to figure it out what each person needs. But even in our basic attempts to do that we may continue to step on each others needs. So having a good starting point is important.

Given the mbti framework/ how it is defined, sure, the top two functions determine type. It's very black and white as far as theory goes; my problem is simply that I don't think many people in real life follow it to a T, in terms of top most-used functions. And I think it's easy for people to want mbti to explain everything about human personality and behavior - simply not true. There's a lot more to psychology than that.

Certainly there is a lot more to psychology than personality type. Again, I simply find it a much better starting point than the "we are all basically the same" starting point...or even the "we are all different, but we have no idea how" starting point.

Re. growth: Going back to what I was originally trying to express, It's perfectly reasonable if one wants to utilize the theory as a means to grow. But this could also be viewed as trying to grow according to how you're supposed to grow according to theory - i.e. forcing your personality to conform to what the system says you're supposed to be doing. Forcing your personality to fit a system, when in fact what if the system itself is wrong in some fundamental ways and trying to over-simplify what isn't terribly straightforward?

That's why it is important for people to "seek to do no harm" when applying personality type. It is certainly a murky business.

Nevertheless, I have found the dictum that the top two functions ought to be have opposite attitudes (one introverted and one extraverted) to be eminently useful.

Again, I used it not to force myself to be extraverted, be to help me find ways to do so when I need to...and to remind me that I am more balanced when I spend time being extraverted too.

Yeah, this is where I start disregarding mbti theory.

Understandable. The sources on functions are often quite poor. If you ever do get interested in this aspect. I think looking to more primary sources will help cut through the confusion. Instead of websites, look at the literature of those that actually came up with these ideas.

Like SW mentioned in another thread. This part of typology resembles philosophy a lot more that anything empirical.

However, keep in mind that geometry was primarily a philosophical form of inquiry, but has proven to be quite a bit more accurate than any slavishly empirical results in psychology.

Good heavens Luna, no Psychology Department in any accredited University will touch MBTI because they know it is a confidence trick like astrology.

I almost find it amusing that psychology, of all the sciences, is making charges about something being unscientific.

There are many different forms of inquiry, just because something is not purely empirical, doesn't mean it is deception.

Yes, the mind can trick itself often, but measurement can trick us too.

Also, UCLA does support a famous name in typology.
Prof. Dario Nardi

As does UCSF and the American Psychiatric Association:
John Beebe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[matmos]

Also, UCLA does support a famous name in typology.
Prof. Dario Nardi

"His focus is on human behavior and the development of socially competent machines."

Sauce: hcs.ucla.edu/agent5.htm

Nice.

 

[Seymour]

Good heavens Luna, no Psychology Department in any accredited University will touch MBTI because they know it is a confidence trick like astrology.

And good heavens once again Luna, no Astronomy Department in any accredited University will touch astrology 'cause they know it is a confidence trick like MBTI.

Victor, your belief in the power of the Forer effect to explain everything seems a little, well, mystical. Do you have studies that show how effective the Forer effect is when people have the choice of multiple descriptions? What about people who never took a test, per se? What about all the people who say, "Well, I tested X, but after reading, I see that Y is a better fit?"

Do you really think that all people are equally sociable? That all people like the same level of sensory stimulation? That all people apply logic equally dispassionately? That all people learn equally well with a bottom-up or top-down approach?

If you mean that you don't buy that some of the individual dimensions of the MBTI are particularly accurate or useful, I can understand that. If you mean that the 4 dichotomies aren't really dichotomies, I could even agree with you. If it bothers you that the 8 functions were arrived at by introspection, and hence have a philosophical feel to them, that's fine.

Depth psychology is not experimental psychology. That doesn't mean it has no use or that all descriptions of subjective processes are incorrect. Freudian defense mechanisms weren't arrived at experimentally, for example, but I assure you they are a useful way to think about people's behavior in some settings. The MBTI is, at best, a lens for viewing the world. On hopes, like a good lens, it makes some things clearer. One hopes that using the MBTI's model judiciously can give one a bit more patience when dealing with others, and allow one to feel a bit better about some of one's own peculiarities.

And, after all, "All models are flawed. Some models are useful." Maybe this one isn't useful for you.

 

[entropie]

I still think mbti was invented to give men a tool to score on woman. The Forer effect is a mighty weapon for any con man

 

[Mole]

I still think mbti was invented to give men a tool to score on woman. The Forer effect is a mighty weapon for any con man

Sure, and when I am asked my star sign in a bar, I know I am being picked up.

 

[Jaguar]

I still think mbti was invented to give men a tool to score on woman.

hahaha. Excellent.

 

[Mole]

"His focus is on human behavior and the development of socially competent machines."

Did you say, "socially competent machines"?

 

[Jaguar]

"His focus is on human behavior and the development of socially competent machines."

Sauce: hcs.ucla.edu/agent5.htm

Nice.

I developed a socially competent coffee pot.

 

[Seymour]

I still think mbti was invented to give men a tool to score on woman. The Forer effect is a mighty weapon for any con man

Ha! Entropie, if only you'd use your powers for good.

 

[matmos]

Did you say, "socially competent machines"?

You noticed the irony.

 

[Mole]

You noticed the irony.

Subtlety doesn't escape me.

 

[Kalach]

So, amirite, you guys are saying MBTI is no good because people take it too seriously?

Or because it hasn't (and can't) be validated?


Well, um, yeah, okay... so what?

Are you saying something different to "Boo sucks, it meets neither my intellectual nor my emotional needs!"? Or are you going that colorful step further and saying it can't meet *my* needs either?


Get over it. Te needs are shallow.

 

[matmos]

So, amirite, you guys are saying MBTI is no good because people take it too seriously?

Or because it hasn't (and can't) be validated?


Well, um, yeah, okay... so what?

Are you saying something different to "Boo sucks, it meets neither my intellectual nor my emotional needs!"? Or are you going that colorful step further and saying it can't meet *my* needs either?


Get over it. Te needs are shallow.

Are you religious?

 

[Jaguar]

Are you religious?

Kalach always genuflects in the presence of the almighty MBTI.

 

[Kalach]

It's a model. Models go well inside intuition that reflects upon itself.

It's a model that allows a convenient understanding of people in terms of things and processes. This goes well with thinking that focuses outside on making decisions about what is and isn't happening.

ENTJs don't care much for models, for they have the impulse to immediate physical solution to problems. Feelers don't care over much for models, for they care much more for the actual individuals. TPs aren't greatly fond of models that yeild only intermediate results; they'd prefer to know what's really true in proper detail. And some INTJs just don't care.

I assume that that MBTI can account for the disavowal by some types of MBTI itself is naught but the MBTI confidence trick busy tricking the confidence. Alternatively, it really is to some depth an explanatory model for the realities of cognition.

And in general, dogmatic insistence that an intellectual product has no utility at all is just that tiny bit dumber than the dogmatic insistence that the intellectual product explains everything.

So what is it y'all are really asking for that MBTI is continuing to fail to provide for you?

And how hard is it to understand that while the majority of persons are slaves to other people's ideas, someone with a goodly amount of intution--a system of symbols and signs constantly under redevelopment--should be able to grant meaning to a cool looking bunch of symbols that happen to accord quite well with a lot of what goes on around him? (And be a tad pissed off that other persons of lesser--or shall we say differing--gifts are requiring that I should think in the way they do.)

The a priori doesn't afraid of nothing. Suck it!

 

[matmos]

Kalach always genuflects in the presence of the almighty MBTI.

Hehe. That's why his hat's at a jaunty angle. He's found a new role in life: a kneeling apologist.

 

[Jaguar]

It's a model. Models go well inside intuition that reflects upon itself.

It's a model that allows a convenient understanding of people in terms of things and processes. This goes well with thinking that focuses outside on making decisions about what is and isn't happening.

Face it-- your Ti has kidnapped your Te and is holding it for ransom.

 

[Kalach]

Get a room.

 

[Jaguar]

Get a brain.

 

[Kalach]

We're sorry, our services are currently tied up preparing a witty retort, please hold.