quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Like all psychological tests, the Myers-Briggss are as good as you care to make them. As far as I am aware they are designed for personal help, not to be bandied around anybody else, especially those in the same community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For example, there was a continual insinuation (unashamedly promoted by the rector) that 'extrovert' types were more 'spiritual' than 'introverts'

---

Apart from the apparent equation of 'spiritual' with 'charismatic', this seems to betray a total misunderstanding of what MBTI is. It's a descriptive, not prescriptive tool. It seems as if this church is taking an approach not unlike the 'gays can be cured' one, suggesting that there is one personality type to which all should conform for their spiritual health. Instead of, as is the case, to their spiritual death.

Angloid (proud to be INFP)
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Sounds more like a highly dysfunctional church and church leader than a failure of the test.

I did an MBTI course in a church hall. An external course leader marked the pre-course questionnaire, you came to your own conclusion at the end. A few group exercises to make it real, but no pressure to reveal your final type then or subsequently, and the clergy weren't there. I found it useful. And I find it useful in certain circumstances to discuss with other people where my relationship is important.

I've also done a Willow Creek style Network Gifts course, which I would also recommend, in a different church. That was used a little bit more by the church leaders to assign volunteers and develop pastoral care, but was advertised as such.

I also like things like Belbin team skills, and others I respect use Honey-Mumford learning skills.

All can be useful, but don't worship them!

And I am a hard-nosed mathematician who doesn't go in for wishy-washy psycho-babble or manipulation.
 

---

Posted by Benny Diction 2 (# 14159) on :
 
Have done Myers Briggs 3 times (twice during pre ordination training and once as part of a counselling course) and each time the result was slightly different and I was a slightly different personality type. Don't know what this syas but I didn't lose any sleep.

At best I found Myers Briggs helpful in making me more self aware of one of two blind spots. But I remember with horror how some fellow students jumped on it. They seemed to love being put in to a box and fell on the result like some long lost relative.

Have also done Eneagram

Thought it was seriously weird. Got nothing from it. (Again as part of pre ordination training.)
 

---

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
I'm a curate at a charismatic Anglican church.

Both me and my training incumbent are clearly I on Myers-Briggs.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I use MBTI frequently as a spiritual director. It helps people 'forgive' themselves for being different e.g. as an introvert I am not very good at the hand-shaking bit at the back of church when I have finished conducting a service but people know I am a good listener when it comes to serious stuff as opposed to small-talk.

It helps people who work in a team to understand why some colleagues irritate them and how to get the best from everybody.

It helps people who are frustrated with prayer and worship to consider different styles and approaches that will be more helpful.

[ 31. January 2010, 15:02: Message edited by: leo ]
 

---

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :
 
As a Reader in Training I spent a study day last Saturday where we looked at out MBTI preferences. We had filled out a questionaire before the day. The leader pointed out that the results were only indicative and the purpose of the day was to have fun. Which we did. For the morning exercises we were divided into our extravert and introvert groups which clearly showed the differences in our approaches to the task.

In the afternoon we looked at prayer in relation to out MBTI groups. We were given a task to do according to our opposite preference. The extraverts had to go and do the task individually and the introverts had to do the task as a group. It wasn't easy!
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2
At best I found Myers Briggs helpful in making me more self aware of one of two blind spots. But I remember with horror how some fellow students jumped on it. They seemed to love being put in to a box and fell on the result like some long lost relative.

---

One of my concerns about personality tests is that there is a danger of limiting a person's perception of him- or herself - as you say 'being put in to a box'.

I, myself, am quite introverted in certain situations and quite a bit more 'extrovert' in others. It depends on the context. And I certainly believe that God's work in a person's life is not limited to how a certain perceived personality type would act.

The following argument won't mean anything to someone who doesn't believe in the reality of God, but I have been in situations where the presence of God has turned people's perceived personalities on their heads. The 'extroverts' become very quiet and the 'introverts' become far more outgoing and confident. That's not a general rule, of course, but spirituality can sometimes defy the more 'natural' personality profile.

The church I mentioned in the OP seemed to be organised on the basis of personality - like a kind of personality cult, undergirded by the profiling of the personality test, which was a kind of Christianised application of the MBTI. The test (or course) was designed to help people find their 'spiritual gifts' based on their natural personalities and talents. I found this psychological approach to theology quite unhealthy and self-absorbed, especially since my understanding of 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 tells me that the gifts of the Spirit are given by God's grace and are not descriptions of natural talents.

As I say, I am not dismissing these tests, but I just think they need to be handled very carefully and perhaps lightly in church life.

A personality test could also lead to false conclusions and complacency about a person's behaviour. I have a booklet called Personality Indicators and the Spiritual Life by Robert Innes (one of the 'Grove Spirituality Series'), which is generally positive about the Church's use of personality tests. But Innes cautions the reader about false interpretations of behaviour:

A friend of mine turns up half an hour late for a social engagement. What kind of explanation might I give? I could put it down to my friend being a strong Myers-Briggs 'P' type - spontaneous rather than organized. Alternatively, I might put it down to the trait he occasionally shows of being a touch inconsiderate. Then again, I might inquire as to whether he has learnt to be late - he knows I do not get upset if he doesn't keep to appointments. Or, there may be cultural factors involved: he might use his lateness as a social cue to indicate his superiority in status to me. Finally, it might be that there was something in this particular situation which made him late - the baby sitter was delayed. All of these, or none of them, might help me with an explanation. But, by itself, knowing my friend's Myers-Briggs type may be no help at all. It could even be worse than useless if it encourages me to put his behaviour down to his 'type' when there is some other more urgent reason at stake.

Isn't there a danger that a personality profile can provide an excuse for bad behaviour - like the person I knew at work who once justified missing a deadline, by saying to the person chasing the work: "The reason you're upset is because you are 'left brain' and I am 'right brain'. So you should just accept me for what I am."
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
As others have said, they can be useful, but they need to be properly used, and ideally done by/with people who know what they're talking about. You can also get the results you want if you've done them often enough

One thing that almost always crops up is the introvert/extrovert thing: Joe Average tends to take it to mean "shy" and "exhibitionist" rather than the slightly more subtle "inwardly reflective" and "outwardly expressive" tone that is often mean (IME) in psychological wossnames these days. I'm very introvert in terms of self-analysis, brooding on stuff, being self-aware etc. but am equally happy in a social situation doing the old handshake and flim-flam thing, despite never coming out as "extrovert" in psychological terms. When dealing with these kind of things, it can be very important to have people on hand to actually explain the words in the results so people realise it's just one set of tags, not a value judgement ...
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Many MB experiences fail to explore the Jungian concept of 'the shadow'. I am quite an E, but my MBTI days never really got into why I need so much 'I' time.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
$100 says INFP / INTP are the most common MB types on the ship.

And yes although they can be a tiny bit useful sometimes by and large personality tests are reductionistic attempts to pigeon-hole human personality which is extremely complex. Put people in boxes and then we feel we have some control over life.

Just give up. God has made people so amazing and wonderfully different that we will never fully understand each other!

[ 31. January 2010, 22:43: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Putting people in a box is the exact opposite of what MBTI and the Enneagram are for. First, as Nicodemia first pointed out, my type is my information, not anybody else's. Secondly, it's not meant to stick a label on me, but rather to give me some helpful pointers for growth.

It's a pity so many people do the MBTI and leave it at that. What I found more useful was studying the "Shadow" (the opposite of your type) which I found helps me deal with things when my "natural" personality type can't.

I think the motif of change is more explicit in the Enneagram, but I've never had my Enneagram type investigated thoroughly enough to really benefit from it.

Adeodatus. INTP ... oh look, something shiny ...
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Putting people in a box is the exact opposite of what MBTI and the Enneagram are for. First, as Nicodemia first pointed out, my type is my information, not anybody else's. Secondly, it's not meant to stick a label on me, but rather to give me some helpful pointers for growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I also know of someone (very close to me from the same church) whose personality underwent a very significant change (for the worse) after taking this test - a test which consisted of not just a few questions, but pages of highly intrusive and, of course, personal 'interrogation'. After answering the many questions he was then subjected to the personal assessments of other people in the church - people who hardly knew him. These assessments were given at a point when he was highly vulnerable psychologically as a result of the many (often leading) questions he had had to answer about himself.

---

I've had a similar thing happen to me - not in a church context - using different psychological "tools". Fortunately, I had the good sense, even at the age of 19, to run far, far away and never look back.

IMO, the problem here - as well as in the "extroverts are more spiritual than introverts situation" - appears to be the attempt to either control others or grasp at a sense of healthy self-hood that one does not in fact possess. Such games can be played with many tools and concepts including Spiritual ones. How about "Those who meditate are more spiritual than those who don't"? Or "Those who have attended our Renewal retreat are the only ones in our church who are genuinely baptized in the Spirit"?

I've personally found MBTI mildly helpful but, like all tools, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's not say that steak knives should be banned because they can be used to kill people. And let's not say that it's only those who own a steak knife who are truly prepared for life.

The Triune God is at the centre of our faith, not personality type or worship style or any other idols we care to fashion for ourselves.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I think many individuals and organizations are concerned to find out 'What type of person am I/is X?', sometimes for perfectly legitimate reasons, sometimes for reasons which may be questionable.

The theories about personality vary considerably between psychologists and no one theory is necessarily infallible.

Having worked with a number of psychologists in my career I can assure you that quality in the profession varies considerably.

It is not the profession a person follows but their essential sanity, normalcy and inherent decency which counts.

Jung's theories of personality are quite complex. I've always found the division of people into 'introverts' and 'extroverts' useful. Other parts of his psychology I'm not so sure about.

Whether Jung would recognize the MBTI as being a legitimate development of his theories is a moot point.

It is also interesting that, if the Wikipedia article is correct, neither of the originators of the MBTI was qualified in the field of psychology. It appears that Isobel Myers Briggs developed her methodology working in the personnel field.

I was once subjected to the MBTI test as part of a training day organized by my workplace, an office of a nondenominational Christian charity working with unemployed people.

The lady running the training may have been qualified as a MBTI operative but I am unsure. She was one of these 'take command' people with a history of management and as a trainer in the public service. She had, as far as I am aware, no psychological qualifications.

We did the test and then discussed amongst ourselves our personality types whilst the trainer pontificated about how best to work together.

Simplistic? Definitely. Dangerous? Probably not but definitely intrusive and facile in the extreme.

As far as I am aware the trainer had no affiliation with Christianity.

I suspect many associated with the Church have had the same experience. Not good and not recommended.

The people I was working with were perfectly ethical but I can see, in the wrong hands, the supposed 'sharing' of this information in a group situation, particularly if the records were passed on to management, open to misuse.

There is quite a well developed Christian theory of personality developed by the Church Fathers and Mothers going back to the Early Church and well based in both the Bible and Church Tradition. I wish the Anglican Church, to which I belong, gave a little more credence to this sort of Christian personality analysis, which is not simplistic nor simplistically applicable.

Fads come and go. MBTI is one of these. Like the Eneagram. Hopefully they and their kin will soon be discarded in the dustbin where all dubious theories go.




 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Correction 'Isabel Briggs Myers'.

Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
There is quite a well developed Christian theory of personality developed by the Church Fathers and Mothers going back to the Early Church and well based in both the Bible and Church Tradition. I wish the Anglican Church, to which I belong, gave a little more credence to this sort of Christian personality analysis, which is not simplistic nor simplistically applicable.

---

quote:

---

'introverts' become far more outgoing and confident

---

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the word Introvert at least from the Myers Briggs understanding. Introverts and not those who are unconfident, rather they are people who have a strong inner life , they listen well, and find their renewal energy comes from being alone. In other words my friend who is an extravert when tired wants to relax by going to a party, while I an introvert want to spend the evening alone with a good book.

I have used the tool both before and after ordination and in groups. I found it helpful in group settings to help people decide what skills they have to offer the group process.

I think it helps to see it as only one of many tools and never to be used by anyone but the individual.

And yes I believe that God often uses our non dominate personality to speak to us. That is because we are most often open to hear God there because we are more open to listening.

INFJ and yet always changing. I like to call it growth.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
In MB terms (yes, like many shippies) I am an off the scale I (off the scale N and P, too, cuspish n the T/F). This I-aspect is not I suspect what a casual observer would think when they see me in full flight on a Sunday, preaching, presiding, mixing with the people.

What they don't see is my emotional exhaustion after the event. Usually it takes me an hour and a half to two hours to recover even to the point where I can chill out with my own family. In that time I withdraw from everyone, reaching deep into my aloneness to find my "is-ness" again. For it is in the "I-state" that an Introvert finds renewal. That does not mean they have to function there at all times, and clearly I don't. It means I have to go there ... or die.

It's a tool. It helps me understand me. It may - may - help me understand others enmeshed in the rich fabric of being human. But it is never a basis on which to judge or pigeon hole. We are, as my mate Paul said, all members of the one body.

[ 01. February 2010, 03:40: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
In that time I withdraw from everyone, reaching deep into my aloneness to find my "is-ness" again.

---

Out of interest, do you withdraw to find your "p-ness" after church on Sunday too?

Just asking.

(It's fantastic being 13 again.)
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Myers-Briggs was one of the types of psychology I studied when doing post-grad teacher training in St Andrews/Dundee uni; we all had to do the test as well as learn about it and the way different people acted and felt etc. It had developed over years and is now still the same system of testing.

Years later, we did it for a w/e at our church and the man who led it explained and encouraged us about the positive personalities we all had. He also explained that the way of development is to gradually shift from extreme levels of the four types we have to get into the centre, the balance, of the way we are - but also he explained how at work it was better not all of us to be all the same, as all jobs needed people who cold act, think, show their opinions in varying ways.

I'm INTJ but over the years I'm much more balanced with all four.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
There is quite a well developed Christian theory of personality developed by the Church Fathers and Mothers going back to the Early Church and well based in both the Bible and Church Tradition. I wish the Anglican Church, to which I belong, gave a little more credence to this sort of Christian personality analysis, which is not simplistic nor simplistically applicable.

---

News to me - tell us more!

---

Ever read 'The Adam Complex' by Dee Margaret Pennock? I suggest it for a start.


 

---

Posted by Benny Diction 2 (# 14159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
$100 says INFP / INTP are the most common MB types on the ship.

And yes although they can be a tiny bit useful sometimes by and large personality tests are reductionistic attempts to pigeon-hole human personality which is extremely complex. Put people in boxes and then we feel we have some control over life.

Just give up. God has made people so amazing and wonderfully different that we will never fully understand each other!

---

Well said.

ENFP by the way!
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
MBTI doesn't work for me. Many of the questions are ones that can't be answered in any useful way by me as someone on the autism spectrum, because there's a conflict between "would love to whirl around at social things being very extrovert and silly" and "can't whirl around at social things because I end up exhausted beyond measure within a few minutes unless I can manage it a certain way, so I end up having to prefer to sit quietly".

If I answer literally, according to what I can normally manage, I come out as ISTJ, but if I answer for what I'd love to be able to do (and can sometimes do if people are kind enough to allow me to do it 'my way'), it comes out as almost the opposite!

I don't see such tests as harmful unless misused for nasty purposes, though. I think they can be invaluable for helping people understand themselves more?
 

---

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
They can be harmful, very... 'free personality tests' are how Scientology branches canvas for malleable, slightly depressed types with low assertiveness and self-esteem in order to sell to them.

'Can I just check if you are likely to be a suitable subject for pyramid-selling and will be so submissive to peer-pressure that a sci-fi writer could gradually convince you that you were an oyster, whilst persuading you that the most evil thing in the world is professional psychological help? Excellent.'

On a more general note,
I know some people find these tests very helpful, but I also think that people could come out as 2 different types on two different occasions, and it doesn't do to assume that personality is somehow set in stone, coz it ain't... we develop and change over time

[ 01. February 2010, 07:36: Message edited by: Birdseye ]
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:

ENFP by the way!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Putting people in a box is the exact opposite of what MBTI and the Enneagram are for. First, as Nicodemia first pointed out, my type is my information, not anybody else's. Secondly, it's not meant to stick a label on me, but rather to give me some helpful pointers for growth.

It's a pity so many people do the MBTI and leave it at that. What I found more useful was studying the "Shadow" (the opposite of your type) which I found helps me deal with things when my "natural" personality type can't.

I think the motif of change is more explicit in the Enneagram, but I've never had my Enneagram type investigated thoroughly enough to really benefit from it.

Adeodatus. INTP ... oh look, something shiny ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You find there are three different types of views re MBTI

1. A good way of understanding human diversity

2. Useful in the right hands, dangerous in the wrong hands.

3. About as useful as astrology as a guide to human personality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Her settled view is that there is a lot of misuse of MBTI in church settings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:
MBTI doesn't work for me. Many of the questions are ones that can't be answered in any useful way by me as someone on the autism spectrum, because there's a conflict between "would love to whirl around at social things being very extrovert and silly" and "can't whirl around at social things because I end up exhausted beyond measure within a few minutes unless I can manage it a certain way, so I end up having to prefer to sit quietly".

If I answer literally, according to what I can normally manage, I come out as ISTJ, but if I answer for what I'd love to be able to do (and can sometimes do if people are kind enough to allow me to do it 'my way'), it comes out as almost the opposite!

I don't see such tests as harmful unless misused for nasty purposes, though. I think they can be invaluable for helping people understand themselves more?

---

Maybe you can come out as the opposite because, in my notes: It is possible for ISTJs to acquire the social graces, ease with words and the necessary interpersonal skills to be so thoroughly outgoing that they are mistaken as Extraverts. All this will be in order to fulfil their sense of responsibility and duty. They can put on Extraverted clothing when the occasion demands without changing their essentially Introverted inner nature.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Hmm, contemplating the mad things I've got up to over the years, my tendency never to shut up even when it might be a Jolly Good Idea, and my yearning to tell everyone within hearing distance huge amounts about me and sort out all my problems by talking/actioning them, I'd say that 'introvert' isn't the real me, and it's not got a lot to do with duty and responsibility.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Many MB experiences fail to explore the Jungian concept of 'the shadow'. I am quite an E, but my MBTI days never really got into why I need so much 'I' time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Putting people in a box is the exact opposite of what MBTI and the Enneagram are for. First, as Nicodemia first pointed out, my type is my information, not anybody else's. Secondly, it's not meant to stick a label on me, but rather to give me some helpful pointers for growth.

It's a pity so many people do the MBTI and leave it at that. What I found more useful was studying the "Shadow" (the opposite of your type) which I found helps me deal with things when my "natural" personality type can't.

I think the motif of change is more explicit in the Enneagram, but I've never had my Enneagram type investigated thoroughly enough to really benefit from it.

Adeodatus. INTP ... oh look, something shiny ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE]

Seems to me God often wants to use people in ways that we think inconsistent with their strengths - Moses the stutterer as God's mouthpiece. When we let God use us in ways beyond our natural abilities or styles, we see that it is God working and admire God more, become more God-aware.

Seems to me seeking more of God is about growth, not assuming one stays in a cozy box that some "authority" put a label on for you. The things we can do, the ways we can do them, the effects we can have on other people, can be outside that box if we let God grow us in directions God chooses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
... this seems to betray a total misunderstanding of what MBTI is. It's a descriptive, not prescriptive tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:

ENFP by the way!

---

All the best people are!

---

quote:

---

Ultimately MBTI is a parlour trick. Ask people 'What are you like?', and then tell them 'This is what you are like!'. Everyone says 'Wow that is what I am like!'.

---

quote:

---

It can actually be used as a tool to control people, or as an excuse to not engage with people who are different.

---

quote:

---

It fails to engage with how we behave in different situations or contexts either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

I think the motif of change is more explicit in the Enneagram, but I've never had my Enneagram type investigated thoroughly enough to really benefit from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

If you have encountered MBTI use which doesn't involve the shadow, then whoever was using it wasn't doing it right. That might be understandable because it is the hardest part to learn - I have to use a crib sheet despite spending two days being trained solely in the shadow side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, its a spectrum between uncritical approval and downright dismissal.

---

Really sorry B62 - I was just teasing - I meant that your reply looked liked another MB test!

Apologies that you took my comment as serious engagement.
 

---

Posted by Po (# 2456) on :
 
I always come out as a serial killer.

That’s because I write across the paper, “Oh, Officer Starling... do you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?”
 

---

Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on :
 
I always thought one of the benefits of MBTI was that, instead of putting people into one box (everyone should be like me) or two boxes (everyone who is like me, and everyone who's weird and wrong), it says that there're a whole load of different boxes (well, 16 anyway). Given few of us can remember all the permutations without writing them down, in practice it suggests people can be different in many different ways. And that's not necessarily bad.

We did it in theological college. There was an even spread across all 16 types.

I found it vaguely useful in ministry. It reminded me that some people need to go away and think about things carefully by themselves rather than just talking and deciding there and then. So any important decisions got made over two PCCs rather than at one.

Ultimately all it's saying is that people are different. Here are four particular ways (though not the only ways) in which they might be different to a greater or less extent.

As for the horrible misuse recounted in the OP, you have my complete sympathies.

ENTP
 

---

Posted by WellYesAndNo (# 14780) on :
 

quote:

---

Ultimately all it's saying is that people are different. Here are four particular ways (though not the only ways) in which they might be different to a greater or less extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
cliffdweller

I think there may be a misunderstanding in there. MBTI is about preferences, not abilities. There is no suggestion that any of the types is more able than any other. So of course it is silent about gifts, talents and their development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrrt01:
It reminded me that some people need to go away and think about things carefully by themselves rather than just talking and deciding there and then. So any important decisions got made over two PCCs rather than at one.

---

Wow! Yes!

I've given up being on committees. Most of my creative thinking is non-verbal, so a quick verbal "raise the topic discuss for ten minutes vote" leaves me having not yet absorbed what the issue is, much less being able to offer problem-solving suggestions or point out specific flaws in the suggestion being voted on beyond a vague "does that really solve the problem?"

Not sayin' my ideas are better than fast thinker ideas, just sayin' if decisions are to be made within minutes of the issue being raised, no point in my being on the committee.

Fast thinkers often seem irritated by us slow thinkers, as if we're procrastinating or something. Nope, just that our brains are wired differently than yours.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Hmm, there are quite a few things I’d like to respond to, and I may well make the same point as already made in a previous post without remembering to acknowledge this.

Personality tests themselves aren’t harmful; the results (or the process of administering the tests) can be used to help or to harm. Just like a knife – it depends on how it’s used.

When I did the MBTI questionnaire and found out my Type, it was the most personally affirming experience of my life. It said to me that it was absolutely fine to be the person that I was. This was something that I had never experienced in any church that I had belonged to, and in fact explained why it was that I had felt a misfit in those churches. (BTW this was done in an environment that had no connection with a church.) Since then I have come to appreciate a great deal about myself and other people from understanding M-B types and their idiosyncrasies, strengths and weaknesses. So I would agree wholeheartedly with this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... they have some value (especially as a way of trying to understand how other people 'tick').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Her settled view is that there is a lot of misuse of MBTI in church settings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... I often wondered whether the ministries within the church were organised more on the basis of the results of the personality test than any kind of spiritual calling.

---

quote:

---

I also know of someone (very close to me from the same church) whose personality underwent a very significant change (for the worse) after taking this test - a test which consisted of not just a few questions, but pages of highly intrusive and, of course, personal 'interrogation'. After answering the many questions he was then subjected to the personal assessments of other people in the church - people who hardly knew him. These assessments were given at a point when he was highly vulnerable psychologically as a result of the many (often leading) questions he had had to answer about himself.

---

quote:

---

For example, there was a continual insinuation (unashamedly promoted by the rector) that 'extrovert' types were more 'spiritual' than 'introverts' and that this supposedly outgoing personality type was more consistent with the charismatic worship model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
If I were in a position to do so, I would challenge the method of use in this church, and if necessary report the relevant M-B practitioner(s) to the registering authority for investigation and if necessary, revocation of their registration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So far as Edward Green's view goes, I think Jungians are understandably suspicious of the 4th dimension of Myers Briggs (the JP preferences) which is an obvious addition to the original concepts. There are some interesting technical issues relating to dominant, auxiliary and tertiary preferences and I've no doubt there are purist objections to the way the original Jungian concepts have been incorporated. On these matters, I'm more of a pragmatist than a purist. I agree with Edward that shadow side considerations are both interesting and helpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So far as Edward Green's view goes, I think Jungians are understandably suspicious of the 4th dimension of Myers Briggs (the JP preferences) which is an obvious addition to the original concepts. There are some interesting technical issues relating to dominant, auxiliary and tertiary preferences and I've no doubt there are purist objections to the way the original Jungian concepts have been incorporated. On these matters, I'm more of a pragmatist than a purist. I agree with Edward that shadow side considerations are both interesting and helpful.

---

I'm curious. Can you enlarge on this? J-P preferences and Jung, I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I've never done one, but have spoken to people who have been asked to sit for one as part of job recruitment processes. People who do not end up being placed in what is thought to be the correct box are unsuccesful, regardless of their ability to perform well. And vice versa of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So far as Edward Green's view goes, I think Jungians are understandably suspicious of the 4th dimension of Myers Briggs (the JP preferences) which is an obvious addition to the original concepts. There are some interesting technical issues relating to dominant, auxiliary and tertiary preferences and I've no doubt there are purist objections to the way the original Jungian concepts have been incorporated. On these matters, I'm more of a pragmatist than a purist. I agree with Edward that shadow side considerations are both interesting and helpful.

---

I'm curious. Can you enlarge on this? J-P preferences and Jung, I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Since the Myers-Briggs is now available online for free, seems like plenty of people are using it w/o any training or certification whatsoever. I'd be very surprised if those giving the test in the OP had had any sort of training.

---

Doh! How naive of me to have forgotten this as a possibility. I guess it just goes to show the damage that can be done by powerful tools (and personality 'tests' can be described as that) in the hands of people who don't know how to use them.
 

---

Posted by five (# 14492) on :
 
I sat MB once. It was a bit helpful, though it did correlate a lot of what I already knew about myself.

The thing that we were VERY firmly informed of as we took it (and we were given it a couple days ahead of the individual and very private discussions with the "marker" (I don't know what they're actually called - interpreter maybe?) is that it was what you were at that particular moment. A snapshot, in fact. So, for example, if someone had just died, you might be a lot more introverted or introspective that day than on others, just as you might not look quite yourself in photographs if you've been punched in the face.

Certainly when we did it, it was designed to give you some insight and some things to think about, and not to be crowed about in terms of effectiveness, spirituality or (shudder) superiority.

We were shown a chart showing where we were in relation to the rest of the department (as in four are in this quadrant, seven are here and you and two others are here), but we never once knew who was placed where.

In this way, it seemed a helpful exercise. Particularly with the anonymous nature (in context - you did it one on one, and the rest of the results were anonymous just to place things in a range for you).

The priest or minister who is telling people the spiritual superiority of certain results over others sounds to me like someone who should be avoided. Even on a social level. He seems very into that horrific "I'm more Christian/spiritual than you, and you're never going to catch up whatever you do." cult of personality abuse.

The tests themsleves aren't harmful. But as with so many things, the interpreters and interpretations can run roughshod over people.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
It’s not unusual for people doing the Myers-Briggs questionnaire to find that they don’t necessarily ‘fit’ in one Type, but rather see aspects of themselves in more than one. There is a variation between people as to how easily they see themselves corresponding to one particular Type – some people go ‘Yes, that’s exactly me’ when presented with a suggested Type, others don’t. I think it might have been to help in this situation that the M-B stage 2 questionnaire was developed, which splits each preference (I-E, S-N, T-F, J-P) into five sub-preferences to investigate whether ones overall preference is based on a 5-0 split (a clear preference) or a 3-2 split (a slight preference which might be contradicted in some aspects). There’s a lot more that could be said here, but I will rein in my N-tendency to ramble on at a tangent.

The Type that ‘best fits’ a person should never be regarded as a pigeon-hole, but rather as a grow-bag. This may be a bit of a cliché but illustrates well the importance of the attitude taken towards the identification of someone’s M-B Type – is it for bureaucratic efficiency and control of people, or to help people understand themselves, and others, and to enable personal growth. By this I mean becoming more able to operate on either your preferred side or non-preferred side depending on the demands of the circumstances and become more balanced in your abilities (in agreement with daisymay’s post above).

Any personality profile can be used as an excuse for poor behaviour (as described in EE’s second post), but doing this is essentially a cop-out from taking responsibility for your actions and decisions. A healthy, responsible attitude would be to recognise that your Type may make you tend towards a particular behaviour (e.g. the ‘P’ tendency to under-estimate the time taken to do something and therefore be late for everything) and therefore make more of an effort to compensate when circumstances demand it. But it is reasonable to say that having to act in a way which is not your natural preference will be much more tiring, and will need time for recovery afterwards, as well described by Zappa:

quote:

---

... This I-aspect is not I suspect what a casual observer would think when they see me in full flight on a Sunday, preaching, presiding, mixing with the people. What they don't see is my emotional exhaustion after the event. Usually it takes me an hour and a half to two hours to recover even to the point where I can chill out with my own family. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
... this seems to betray a total misunderstanding of what MBTI is. It's a descriptive, not prescriptive tool.

---

Thats what people who use it always say, but in practice its not what they do.

---

quote:

---

Why do you need this kind of stuff anyway? can't you trust your own observations and God's guidance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why do you need this kind of stuff anyway? can't you trust your own observations and God's guidance?

Wasn't Jesus' focus on a message where the individual's relationship with God so diametrically opposed to Myers Briggs et al?

I know that this kind of thing is used in training ministers but it is at best pointless (you get the stuff you expect) and at worst dangerous: you reinforce prejudice and poor self esteem, not the kind of approach God would have us have.

It's actaully abuse and needs to be recognised and treated as such.

[Weighing anchor ready to depart]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
$100 says INFP / INTP are the most common MB types on the ship.

---

I thought about starting a thread to ask the MB types of shipmates, but decided to search old threads in Limbo and Oblivion first, and there is a 4-page thread in Oblivion from Jan 2008 about this: here

When I've got more time I'll read through it.
Maybe I should read it first and then decide whether or not to take up the wager.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrrt01:

We did it in theological college. There was an even spread across all 16 types.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as Edward Green's view goes, I think Jungians are understandably suspicious of the 4th dimension of Myers Briggs (the JP preferences) which is an obvious addition to the original concepts.

---

I'm curious. Can you enlarge on this? J-P preferences and Jung, I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
...
It's simply a more modern version of snake oil. The sooner these tests are consigned to the dustbin, the better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
...
It's been a while since I looked into any of this, but as far as I remember, there is a one-to-one correlation between the Jungian preferences and Myers-Briggs type. However, they treat different aspects of the result as important.
(ENTJ in Myers-Briggs is in the Jungian scheme an Extraverted Thinker with introverted intuition as secondary.
INTJ in Myers-Briggs is in the Jungian scheme an Introverted Intuitive with extraverted thinking as secondary.
ENTP in Myers-Briggs is in the Jungian scheme an Extraverted Intuitive with introverted thinking as secondary.)
As Ken points out, if the underlying Jungian theory is correct, an ENTP and an ENTJ should be quite different people. Looking at the MBTI, they seem to be not that different from each other. The problem for the MBTI is that it relies on the Jungian typology to give it meaning, but the test results on the MBTI undermine the claim that the Jungian typology describes objective psychological functions.

---

The Jungian theory is incorporated into M-B theory as what is referred to as 'Type Dynamics', and I have found this very helpful indeed when finding someone's 'best-fit' Type. In fact, even as a M-B practitioner, I find the Jungian Type dynamics far more useful when making a final suggestion of 'best-fit' Type than the questionnaire itself (which can be a useful first approximation, but is very far from the whole story).

Dafyd and ken are quite right that ENTP and ENTJ are very different types, since ENTP uses the Thinking function in the Introverted world, while ENTJ uses the Thinking function in the Extraverted world. Each function (S/N/T/F) is expressed very differently depending on whether it is Introverted or Extraverted, and this can be a far more useful diagnostic approach than trying to assess J-P preferences.

ENTJ and INTJ are, however, very similar, since both have Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Intuition, and the difference is in which is the dominant function and which the secondary - associated with the preference for Extraversion or Introversion.

All this explains why, if you really want to find out your Type with any degree of reliability, you need to use a trained consultant/practitioner rather than just do an on-line questionnaire.

(Oh, and BTW, I'll take on Johnny S's wager. See my previous post.)
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
...
It's simply a more modern version of snake oil. The sooner these tests are consigned to the dustbin, the better.

---

Snake oil indeed, Gee D, but snake oil with a purportedly but non-existent 'psychological' validation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
...
It's simply a more modern version of snake oil. The sooner these tests are consigned to the dustbin, the better.

---

Snake oil indeed, Gee D, but snake oil with a purportedly but non-existent 'psychological' validation.

---

Possibly so, but snake oil not sold with a promise to "cure" anything. Or even "fix" anything. So the term "snake oil" is more than a little misleading.

---

Is there such a thing as 'guaranteed snake oil (utterly useless)'?
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62 :

quote:

---

A classic illustration of misuse. There may be some correlation between MB preferences and the sort of work folks will gravitate towards, but that has nothing at all to to with job suitability in competition with others. Which should be determined, on merit, re ability and experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's truly alarming about the story in the OP is the notion that one type is 'better' in some way than another. When I did Myers-Briggs at work, the entire point was to recognise that one type is NOT better than another. It was all about recognising that just because someone approaches a task in a different way to you, doesn't mean that your way is 'right' and their way is 'wrong'. For a church to be actively criticising an introvert approach to the world is pretty appalling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

The Myers-Briggs test has been found to badly measure four out of the five Big-5 traits (Myers-Brigs correlations with Big 5). Myers-Briggs might be popular, but it is inaccurate and people would do better to use a Big 5 test... there are plenty available on the internet if you google it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Originally posted by Barnabas62 :

quote:

---

A classic illustration of misuse. There may be some correlation between MB preferences and the sort of work folks will gravitate towards, but that has nothing at all to to with job suitability in competition with others. Which should be determined, on merit, re ability and experience.

---

I don't consider that it is misuse by the person administering the test, or by the person commissioning it. Rather, i argue that that MBTI and similar tests are a misuse in general. Firstly, in whatever sphere they are being administered, they assume that a person in one of a limited number of boxes is more suited for the role or task than others. Next, they assume that by their tests, people cn be placed in one of those boxes. Finally, by allocating outlandish names and symbols to each box, the system is given a pretence of some scientific validity.

---

quote:

---

Ethical guidelines are also meant to prevent the abuse of type. Abuse includes using type to assess people’s abilities and using type to pressure people toward certain behaviors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
When we did the w/e tests, we were talked too about all the different personalities we had/shared, and definitely it was some of what sensible usefulness people with varying presonalities would contribute to whatever work they were at.

We also on another occasion had some info on various famous Christian saint people; St. Teresa of Avila was one who was the one who had all the personalities. I can't remember which others had specific bits... We were tole that some people would enjoy music worship, some would want to be silent, some would want specific timing, etc etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elderberry:
Of course MBTI is benignly about preferences and understanding that others don't absorb and process information in the same way as I might do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

One of the big problems with MB is that its based on theory that is little more than hot air. Certainly not supported by much in the way of evidence. And that drags it down to the level of sun-sign astrology or enneagrams or tarot reading.

OK, its not quite down there, it is probably more based in reality than superstition, but its not got a solid evidence base and one of the reasons is that the theory and the method have split apart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]
One of the big problems with MB is that its based on theory that is little more than hot air. Certainly not supported by much in the way of evidence. And that drags it down to the level of sun-sign astrology or enneagrams or tarot reading.

OK, its not quite down there, it is probably more based in reality than superstition, but its not got a solid evidence base and one of the reasons is that the theory and the method have split apart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

The MB's psychometrics (reliability, concurrent and predictive validity, etc.) are quite reasonable. The problem is that the theory of types says that the traits should have a bimodal distribution (people should fall in a U-shaped curve along the E-I axis, or the J-P, etc.). In fact, the distribution is approximately normal (bell-shaped), which suggests that instead of relatively discrete types you have a continuum with most people having both introvert and extrovert characteristics. This can be useful to measure, but the interpretation system is categorical rather than dimensional, which is misleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
[QUOTE}Actually, that was the one part of the MB course that did annoy me. The suggestion that essentially everyone was very definitely at one end of every axis, rather than very close to the middle. Many human characteristics are at least fairly close to Normal rather than bimodal and I would expect that on most of the MB axes. That is definitely where the theory of types is wrong, but you can use the course's own output to correct that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Actually, that was the one part of the MB course that did annoy me. The suggestion that essentially everyone was very definitely at one end of every axis, rather than very close to the middle.

---

quote:

---

Many human characteristics are at least fairly close to Normal rather than bimodal and I would expect that on most of the MB axes. ...

---

One important difference between MB Types and other psychometric measures is that the four dimensions of the MB Types are dichotomies, not axes. (Though see my last paragraph below.) They are measuring the preference for one thing or another, not measuring the level of one particular trait (such as openness, or conscientiousness, or neuroticism, to take examples from the ‘Big five’).

A human characteristic that is often used as an illustration of preference on the four dimensions of MB Types is that of handedness – do you have a preference for using your left or right hand? I would guess that a survey of this in the general population would show a bimodal distribution, as the number of people who are truly completely ambidextrous must be smaller than the number who show a preference, however slight that preference may be. (And of course the distribution would be skewed, showing a greater number of right-handers.)

I accept that I have not proved that handedness is a valid metaphor for the dimensions of MB Types, but I think that the definitions of the preferences on the dimensions (for example, Thinking / Feeling) show a valid dichotomy in the same way that the physical body shows a valid dichotomy between left and right hands. There is no ‘middle hand’ that you can decide to use, and there is no ‘middle function’ between Thinking and Feeling that you can decide to use.

The one dimension over which I think there may be valid dispute is that of Introversion/Extraversion, as the ‘Big Five’ measure takes this as an axis (called simply ‘Extraversion’). It’s beyond my area of knowledge to have an opinion on which is likely to be correct, so I’ll leave it at that.

Angus
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
(Cross-posted with cliffdweller - takes me ages to compose a post!) Interesting that we both bring up the Introversion/Extraversion dimension as debatable. A.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I think in this conversation we're often confusing the proper Myers Briggs with the pop-up box on the internet that gives you your type after 5 minutes. When I did a proper, sanctioned Myers-Briggs test through work, it was made abundantly clear to me that my preference strengths were different on different scales.

I wasn't too far from the middle on the Thinking/Feeling scale. Whereas I was a whopping great big 'N' on the Intuition/Sensing scale.

Which explained to me rather well why people who exhibit certain 'S' characteristics drive me stark raving mad.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
ken:

quote:

---

One of the big problems with MB is that it's based on theory that is little more than hot air. Certainly not supported by much in the way of evidence. And that drags it down to the level of sun-sign astrology or enneagrams or tarot readings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In the hands of certain people I have known astrology and the tarot to be astonishingly informative, and to give valuable insight; just as I have with MB. I agree that there is no reliable theory to support any of these, so I wonder if any of them can be a useful tool which someone who is particularly sensitive to others may use?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The problem is that the theory of types says that the traits should have a bimodal distribution (people should fall in a U-shaped curve along the E-I axis, or the J-P, etc.). In fact, the distribution is approximately normal (bell-shaped), which suggests that instead of relatively discrete types you have a continuum with most people having both introvert and extrovert characteristics. This can be useful to measure, but the interpretation system is categorical rather than dimensional, which is misleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think in this conversation we're often confusing the proper Myers Briggs with the pop-up box on the internet that gives you your type after 5 minutes.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't too far from the middle on the Thinking/Feeling scale. Whereas I was a whopping great big 'N' on the Intuition/Sensing scale.

---

quote:

---

Which explained to me rather well why people who exhibit certain 'S' characteristics drive me stark raving mad.

---

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DID NOT DO!

It is a description, not an explanation! It repeated your own self-description back to you - that is all those sixteen potted paragraphs are. And if you did it the proper way as part of a group it told you what proportion of that group gave that self-description, and what proportion of the general population did (where "general population" is heavily biased towards middle-aged middle-class white Americans who work on the "caring professions" for large organisations). Not that is great fun. And its genuinely interesting. And the statistical bit might even convey some useful information. But its not an explanation of why or how these things happen It is a taxonomy, not a model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Or it may just be that some folks are always fascinated when the conversation is about them. As my old pappy used to say, "I've talked about myself long enough. Now you talk about me..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

This can be useful to measure, but the interpretation system is categorical rather than dimensional, which is misleading.

---

Actually, that was the one part of the MB course that did annoy me. The suggestion that essentially everyone was very definitely at one end of every axis, rather than very close to the middle. Many human characteristics are at least fairly close to Normal rather than bimodal and I would expect that on most of the MB axes. That is definitely where the theory of types is wrong, but you can use the course's own output to correct that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Which explained to me rather well why people who exhibit certain 'S' characteristics drive me stark raving mad.

---

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DID NOT DO!

It is a description, not an explanation! It repeated your own self-description back to you - that is all those sixteen potted paragraphs are. And if you did it the proper way as part of a group it told you what proportion of that group gave that self-description, and what proportion of the general population did (where "general population" is heavily biased towards middle-aged middle-class white Americans who work on the "caring professions" for large organisations). Not that is great fun. And its genuinely interesting. And the statistical bit might even convey some useful information. But its not an explanation of why or how these things happen It is a taxonomy, not a model.

---

quote:

---

So someone who comes in the middle of the scale is NOT (according to Ms. Myers) someone whose normal behaviour is halfway between J and P. They are someone who is equally likely to choose to use either J or P.

One of my problems with the test (& also Timothy's) is that in practice this theory has been abandoned, or is usually ignored, in favour of interpreting the tests as if they measured amounts of some thing ...

---

quote:

---

According to the theory E vs I interacts with the J vs P system in various apparently odd ways (which Myers dreamed up and added to Jung). So someone who is ENFP prefers an Extraverted attitude. As P is outward-looking and J inward-looking, and E is supposed to preferentially expose their P function to the outside world. The P function is N - so Intuition and system-building will seem to others to be characteristic of this person. On the other hand an INFP person is supposedly more likely to expose their inward-looking judging function, which is F.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Which explained to me rather well why people who exhibit certain 'S' characteristics drive me stark raving mad.

---

by saying: “BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DID NOT DO!” cannot be valid. How on earth can you contradict Timothy’s experience of receiving an explanation that he found fitted rather well his interaction with other people? I too have found that M-B theory explains my interaction with other people very well indeed.

I can accept entirely that the explanation of M-B theory was not satisfactory for you, in which case the addition of the words “FOR ME” to the sentence quoted in capitals would, IMHO render your response a valid description of the situation under discussion. If you could do this, we could start to have a constructive debate instead of a series of mutual contradictions.

Angus
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Doh! Two minutes is just not long enough when you're on dial-up!
Correction - quote was from orfeo, not Timothy the Obscure (sorry!)
My excuse is that ken didn't include the poster's name in his quote, and I had to add it manually.
And obviously orfeo and I cross-posted with each other.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
To follow up that delightful reinforcing cross-posting, I'd just like to add that, according my dictionary's definitions of 'explain', a taxonomy is just as capable of 'explaining' something as a model is.

The word 'explain' is not confined to providing the cause or reason of something.

So there.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

And it is true that many of us vary in how close we are to the various capital letters. The main aim to transform and develop our character is to get closer to the balance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
One important difference between MB Types and other psychometric measures is that the four dimensions of the MB Types are dichotomies, not axes. (Though see my last paragraph below.) They are measuring the preference for one thing or another, not measuring the level of one particular trait (such as openness, or conscientiousness, or neuroticism, to take examples from the ‘Big five’).

A human characteristic that is often used as an illustration of preference on the four dimensions of MB Types is that of handedness – do you have a preference for using your left or right hand? I would guess that a survey of this in the general population would show a bimodal distribution, as the number of people who are truly completely ambidextrous must be smaller than the number who show a preference, however slight that preference may be. (And of course the distribution would be skewed, showing a greater number of right-handers.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

And it is true that many of us vary in how close we are to the various capital letters. The main aim to transform and develop our character is to get closer to the balance.

---

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. As I understand it, the purpose of the MB is not to "change" anything. It's simply to help understand ourselves and others better. I don't think I'd agree that "balance" is always the ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
You know, ken, I could accept much more validity in your posts if you expressed your opinions as subjective, and based on your own non-universal experience, thereby recognising that other people’s experiences may be different from your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

And it is true that many of us vary in how close we are to the various capital letters. The main aim to transform and develop our character is to get closer to the balance.

---

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. As I understand it, the purpose of the MB is not to "change" anything. It's simply to help understand ourselves and others better. I don't think I'd agree that "balance" is always the ideal.

---

When we do MB, then we are discovering something of our ways of acting, thinking, living etc etc. But if we are "extreme" it's very often useful to still have the strength of that particular character but also not to always live in that extremism. P and J for an example can be useful but chaotic in what we do when we are acting extremely. T and E can also be both extreme and not useful in our relationships if we're in one of the faraway places.

Doing MB is not always done to change our ways but to discover what our character is, in that way of discovering. But I do remember that we were "advised" to get reasonably balanced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... And what the research shows is that on any given "dichotomy", most people don't have strong preference ...

---

quote:

---

...they answer questions in the S direction about as often as the N direction (or whichever pair you choose) ...

---

quote:

---

... most people, presented with descriptions of the 16 types, could make a pretty good guess about which one they fit.

---

you might be surprised to hear that in essence I agree with you. Mostly because the whole approach of determining someone’s MB Type is to get them to judge which one fits them best. And in recent years, the method has changed. It used to be a case of doing the questionnaire, giving the client the results, and checking that they agree with the results. Now the method is, before looking at the questionnaire results, to take the client through the theory and get them to self-assess according to the descriptions of the dichotomies.

I still think that the questionnaire is worth doing in order to cut down the number of possibilities. If it produces a clear strong preference for one Type, it is very unusual for someone to disagree with that. Someone like that may well be able to pick their Type from a list of their descriptions, but I suspect that many people wouldn’t and the questionnaire produces a ‘first approximation’.
Angus
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
A. Pilgrim:

Some of the research (the abstracts) can be found here and here. An exchange in which the implications of the psychometric structure of the MBTI are unpacked a bit is here. The major point being that the evidence strongly indicates that the MBTI, in fact, measures continuous dimensional traits rather than dichotomous types. It measures them fairly well, and I think it can generate useful insights and predictions, but it doesn't support the discrete, qualitatively distinct typology that is highly stable over time that the theory demands.

The Wikipedia article is pretty good, and quite balanced, by the way.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Timothy:
thanks very much for the reply. I’ll try to get hold of the original papers on the subject of preference scores that are referenced in the links you provided. The BMJ exchange is worthy of note, and I agree that the wikipedia article is pretty well-balanced. I’ll acknowledge that there have been studies that question the validity of the M-B Type dichotomies, but I don’t know how many studies have supported their validity. So for the time being I’ll carry on supporting the standard theory, as I find that it works rather well in my experience.

I have found some data reported in the MBTI® Manual (admittedly not a disinterested source, but not necessarily therefore worthless) for the distribution of scores on the questionnaire. The standard terminology is ‘Preference clarity scores’, so I suppose I’d better use the proper terms!

For a sample of 3036 respondents, the preference clarity scores were divided into four categories: Slight (1-5), Moderate (6-15), Clear (16-25), Very clear (26-30). (Yes, I know they aren’t equal bands. I would have much preferred the actual scores to be tabulated.) For each of the dimensions, the percentage in each category is:
E-I --- Slight 23%; Moderate 43%; Clear 25%, Very clear 9%
S-N --- Slight 21%; Moderate 42%; Clear 28%; Very clear 9%
T-F --- Slight 28%; Moderate 42%; Clear 21%; Very clear 9%
J-P --- Slight 22%; Moderate 37%; Clear 26%; Very clear 14%
(MBTI® Manual. 3rd ed. CPP,1998 p.122)

I guess those data can be interpreted variously. Maybe they don’t show a strongly bimodal distribution, (60-70% of respondents show a Slight or Moderate preference), but neither do they quite fit a normal distribution, as the percentage in the Moderate category is from one-and-a-half times to twice the number in the Slight category.

Maybe another piece of evidence comes from what happens when you get a group of people divided into subgroups according to their reported preferences on a dimension. The differences between the two groups in behaviour, attitude, and approach to performing a task, can be remarkable and very revealing. Anecdotal evidence, I’ll grant you, but I’ve seen it happen.

I agree entirely with orfeo’s description of M-B Typology as being a taxonomy. (Thanks orfeo! ). And one of the things that taxonomists argue about endlessly is what are the valid criteria for separating the objects studied into classes – do you use pragmatically useful criteria, or theoretically valid criteria. (I should know, I’ve worked in an institution that did taxonomy.)

But one thing is essential for expert taxonomy, and that is an extensive knowledge and experience of the objects being studied. For that reason, I value the experience which Jung had from studying people, and his observation of them. From my knowledge of his Type theory, I can also observe people, and come to a taxonomic guess as to what Type they are. For example, just going into someone’s home can give me a strong hint as to which mental function they use in the extraverted attitude.

Angus
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Correction to previous post:
It was ken that first came up with the idea of M-B Type theory as a taxonomy, not orfeo. Hello ken!
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Life -- the Lord -- the church -- your family -- your job -- something will always be dumping a problem or a need into your lap. It's always something you are not "meant" to handle, something which your personality type is not ideally suited for.

What the problem needs is a willing person, and a person who listens to God. Not necessarily the one with the perfectly aligned personality type.

I find such tests of very limited use in just about any situation -- maybe as a tool to gain insight into your own behavior patterns and preferences, but not good for much else.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
ken, my immediate response to your last post is just to go: Uhhhhhh????
You seem to have gone off on a non-sequitur ad extremis.

I don’t think that it is in the slightest bit weird to suggest that precision in expression would enable better communication. This is not a matter of control, or of stifling debate, but of elucidation; since one of the things that I have found to produce unnecessary dispute is the expression of subjective opinion as if it were objective fact – that is, a lack of precision. If you use words that express an opinion, then you communicate clearly that what is stated is an opinion, and this doesn’t have to be inferred from words that aren’t there. Inferring meaning from words that aren’t there is a great way of misunderstanding people. (As I think you have done with my post.) It’s nothing at all to do with being ‘nice and cuddly’. Being polite, perhaps.

And “being aggressive and bullying” is exactly how I would describe your response to orfeo's experience that I quoted – ‘shouting’ at him (or her) that what had been found to be a convincing explanation, wasn’t a convincing explanation. Expressing an opinion as an incontrovertible fact is a “powerful but subtle tactic” (to use your own phrase) for invalidating another person’s different opinion or experience. And it lays one open to simply being shown to be plain wrong, as I did with the instance of your assertion that M-B practitioners have abandoned or ignored the theory of a mid-way preference meaning that someone is equally likely to choose one or the other. (q.v.)

The entire substance of my aside in my post responding to yours is about the style of posting, and there is nothing whatsoever in my post to state or imply that I wish to produce this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If every expression of disagreement or difference is watered-down, flattened-out, debased into platitude, it can be made socially impossible to deviate from the consensus view and remain a member of the group in good standing.

---

quote:

---

I also slightly resent your implication (well, assertion really, but hedged around with weasel words so that you can deny having meant it) that people who don't accept your opinion about MBTI don't realise that different people have different personalities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It repeated your own self-description back to you - that is all those sixteen potted paragraphs are.

---

quote:

---

And the descriptions are true. I come out as a heavy ENFP and I do behave like that. (And you can even see me do it online) BUT I don't think that makes the theory true, or even plausible. Because I told the test I behave like that by the way I answered the questions.

---

quote:

---

Posted by A. Pilgrim:
[qb]For a sample of 3036 respondents, the preference clarity scores were divided into four categories: Slight (1-5), Moderate (6-15), Clear (16-25), Very clear (26-30). (Yes, I know they aren’t equal bands. I would have much preferred the actual scores to be tabulated.) For each of the dimensions, the percentage in each category is:
E-I --- Slight 23%; Moderate 43%; Clear 25%, Very clear 9%
S-N --- Slight 21%; Moderate 42%; Clear 28%; Very clear 9%
T-F --- Slight 28%; Moderate 42%; Clear 21%; Very clear 9%
J-P --- Slight 22%; Moderate 37%; Clear 26%; Very clear 14%
(MBTI® Manual. 3rd ed. CPP,1998 p.122)

I guess those data can be interpreted variously. Maybe they don’t show a strongly bimodal distribution, (60-70% of respondents show a Slight or Moderate preference), but neither do they quite fit a normal distribution, as the percentage in the Moderate category is from one-and-a-half times to twice the number in the Slight category.
[\qb]

---

• Very Clear E = 4.5%

• Clear E = 12.5%

• Moderate E = 21.5%

• Slight E/I = 23%

• Moderate I = 21.5%

• Clear I = 12.5%

• Very Clear I =4.5%

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
I don't believe that personality tests are helpful. It seems to me that when we describe a personality type we are saying that this person will act this way in this situation. The range of potential situations and relationships are so vast however that it seems to me very difficult (if not impossile) to predict how a person will behave in a given situation. How do we know that the 'traits' we identify do not simply represent the present situation? Could we not behave in a dramatically different way under different conditions? It may be possible to predict how a person will behave across a range of situations but I would be very surprised if it was possible to categorize every person into one of four types. It seems much more likely to me that each person has there own 'map' and that the best a personologist can do is to understand that individual's map and help them to teach them how to navigate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
On reflection I guess I am skeptical as to whather valuable insights can be gained by extracting an individual person from the specific relationships and situations which shape those thoughts and behaviour. Having said that I can see how some insight into how you tend to think could be useful but I would take it with a pinch of salt because it seems to me that until we can predict our circumstances it will be difficult to predict our thoughts/behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But you're overlooking the fact that it's a two-tailed distribution. Assuming symmetry, you get:

• Very Clear E = 4.5%

• Clear E = 12.5%

• Moderate E = 21.5%

• Slight E/I = 23%

• Moderate I = 21.5%

• Clear I = 12.5%

• Very Clear I =4.5%

With similar patterns for the other scales.
That actually looks fairly normal, though a bit flat in the middle, which may be an artifact of where they drew the cutoff line for categories.

---

Yes, I do see your point, and when you reformat the data as you have done, they aren’t convincing. I was already a little suspicious about the difference in the definitions (the number of scale points included in each) of the preference clarity categories, and I haven’t been able to find a justification for the definitions. I will refer this issue to OPP and see what they think.

I have found a lot more on the subject of research on and evidence for the validity of the M-B dichotomies in the MBTI Manual p.184-189. I don’t have the time to try to summarise the argument here, but it appears to be based on discontinuities or inflection points in the distribution of scores. And I regret that doing a critique of the statistical methodology of the research described in the Manual would take me well out of my depth.

Chapters 7,8 & 9 of the Manual (p.125-219) are about research findings, and cover the construction and properties of the MBTI (a.k.a. the questionnaire); reliability and measurement precision; and validity. As we’ve seen, the validity or otherwise of the theoretical basis for M-B types is a subject still debated in the community of psychologists, and I don’t think that I could participate in a debate at that level without a great deal of further study, which I don’t have time for.

One thought that occurs to me is that perhaps the argument about ‘trait’ versus ‘type’ is itself a false dichotomy, and in the area of human psychology both could be a worthwhile approach to understanding the way people function. A bit like the wave/particle duality of light –there is evidence for both concepts.

I’d like to go back to another previous post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3M Matt
People tend to report extremely high accuracy rates for the personality "readings" given by these tests, but the suprising thing is, if you got everyone in the group to swap personality test results with someone else, they would probably give nearly as high ratings for that test too.

---

quote:

---

(From the abstract)
Two bootstraps taxometric methods, Mean Above Minus Below A Cut and MAXimum COVariance-HITMAX (MAMBAC and MAXCOV-HITMAX), were used with three Jungian personality measures: the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory (SL-TDI), the Personal Preferences Self-Description Questionnaire (PPSDQ), and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Results suggested there is not a true, non-arbitrary taxon underlying Jungian preferences measured by any of these measures. In other words, the preferences appear to manifest as continuous dimensions.

---

quote:

---

Two cluster analytic procedures (hierarchical grouping vs nonhierarchical average linking) were applied to the 4 standardized scale scores of 2 samples of 100 men. Five clusters in the 1st sample were matched across the 2 procedures, and 4 clusters in the 2nd sample were matched. On the whole, agreement between the MBTI 16 categories and the empirically derived clusters was weak or negligible.

---

(Lorr, M. (1991). An empirical evaluation of the MBTI typology. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 12(11), 1991. pp. 1141-1145.)

Itend to agree with you on "trait" vs. "type"--they are different ways of construing, and the question is less about which is right than which generates more accurate predictions in a given situation, or helps develop effective interventions. Getting back to the OP, the main danger of personality tests is that they can lead to reification of personality, as if each of us had some fixed quantity of introversion or neuroticism inside us. That's too static a way of thinking about people. But it isn't the tests, it's how they get used.
 

---

Posted by Hector (# 15492) on :
 
I did the MBTI course in my early 20s and found it hugely helpful to understand that all my spiritual role models were NFs and STs were perfectly cabaple of being good Christians in their own right! It was helpful again 10 years later when I had a breakdown to understand how the less preferred functions come to the fore in such circumstances. When I stopped writing love poetry to mountains and a tree was "just a tree" again, I knew I was back into rather more familiar ST terrain! But like other posters I've heard far too many horror stories of people being coerced into "taking the test" and either pigeon holing themselves or other people instead of using as a springboard for growth.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Hello Hector, and welcome to the Ship

Timothy the Obscure and I have been having an interesting and detailed debate about evidence for the theoretical validity of M-B type theory as an off-shoot from the main theme of the OP. (And after all, the question of whether a personality ‘test’ is theoretically valid or not does contribute to a debate on whether it is useful/harmful or not.)

But getting back to less esoteric discussions, I’d like to endorse your observation:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hector:
I did the MBTI course in my early 20s and found it hugely helpful to understand that all my spiritual role models were NFs, and STs were perfectly capable of being good Christians in their own right! ...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0