|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Myers Briggs for congregations?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Bishop of Manchester is quoted in today's Times on a survey that was done using MBT on a Christmas carol service congregation last year. Apparently the survey shoed that roughly 70% of the congregation were 'guardian' types - that is resistant to change - and that the religious quest scoring was surprisingly low, so of course he went on to say this could explain innate conservatism (as he sees it) in congregations.
Your thoughts?
More to the point, is there much value using for such a survey a service which by its very nature was bound to include a much higher proportion of non-regular churchgoers?
FWIW, I think the bishop is using this to have a subtle dig at congregations - not, as he says, because of issues such as SSM but more to do with liturgical choices.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Presumably by guardian type you meant guardian temperament?
The late, lamented, ken would be licking his lips at this point!
[ 25. October 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Seeing that Myers-Briggs only confirms to people what they think they are like and has nothing to do with what they are really like I find this rather irrelevant.
Plus it was done at a Christmas Carol service, which is traditional, so that this particular service would attract those who see themselves as traditional, or lovers of the traditional, all I have to say is, "Move along, nothing to see here."
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, I'll give it a bit of a spin. If you want to take Myers Briggs seriously (and not everyone does) then it's important to take its recommended methodological approach seriously. That includes a long questionnaire, an initial disclosure of type and a one-one review with a qualified trainer to look at any matters of clarification over meaning and analysis. It also includes an emphasis that typing indicates preferences rather than matters of personal identity (e.g. the statement "I prefer extraversion" is a more accurate summary than "I am an extravert"). Any use of it for pigeon-holing people is a misuse.
There is a lot of misapplication of MB. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
[ 25. October 2014, 09:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Exactly my sentiments, Barnabas62.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Quite so.
I would have thought that all of this could have been stated without any recourse to Myers-Briggs. Isn't this why we get such a good turnout to Christmas carol services?
Yes, mentioning M-B when Ken was around would be like waving a red rag at a bull! To be honest, it does little for me either.
I used to have a boss who was deeply into psychometric testing of every kind, so I (and all my colleagues) were regularly typed. Some of those tests were actually very useful. Belbin's for example (relating to team-working) was helpful to me. I don't really know why M-B never seemed convincing. Maybe it's because of its roots in Jungian psychology, which few people believe in these days, though I am aware it does have some correlation with more scientifically-based cognitive psychology.
Oh well. Just put me in whatever category says MBTI is bollocks.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I don't buy completely into M-B, but it did give me some insights.
One was in the area of private prayer. I had heard that you should set aside a time every day for prayer and Bible reading. Whenever I tried that, I was completely unable to concentrate. Then I came across a book that discussed appropriate worship styles for the different types. My type (INFP) does best praying at odd moments during the day. I had actually noticed this about myself, but I still tried to follow the set-aside-time approach. It was a relief to abandon it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I think it possible to discern an MBTI profile that relates to a particular congregation because different types have different worship styles so choose what sort of church to worship in (at least in cities where there is choice).
As INTJ, I am drawn to quiet low masses or a well-ordered solemn mass. I loathe happy clappy to such an extend that I'd prefer not to go to church at all if there was no other option available.
The church I 'belong to' is Guardian reading but of the 'P' type - always exploring options, never coming to a decision. It irritates me considerably but is 'god for me.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
How do you do MB and have people focus on it seriously when they have gathered for an entirely different reason?
I get rather different answers when I try MB, depending on such things as whether I am thinking about my role on the job or my behaviors & interests off the job, and also on my mood at the time. It's a snapshot of a moment, not an analysis of permanent personality. Personalities evolve.
As someone said, people come to carol services because they are looking for some traditional Christmas. Do lots of new Christmas songs and people will leave disappointed. They want hark the herald angels and silent night. I have atheist friends who want a carol service on Christmas eve.
(Question - will the Christmas eve phenomenon continue another generation? Or is it a relic of the 50s mostly intact families who mostly went to church? Do 30-somethings look for a carol service, or just 60-somethings?)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There are a few studies, not focused exclusively on the results of Myers Briggs tests, that show how churchgoers and the clergy of various denominations differ psychologically from the wider population.
I think it's useful that this kind of research goes on. It's just one of the tools that churches can use to reflect on the challenges that they face.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
I am interested in MB, and use it a little with leaders mostly so I can understand and relate to them. I also understand that a congregation develop a group personality as do other cultures, but how would one type a congregation as a whole?
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are a few studies, not focused exclusively on the results of Myers Briggs tests, that show how churchgoers and the clergy of various denominations differ psychologically from the wider population.
And often, how clergy differ from their congregations. Explaining any number of conflicts.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Presumably by guardian type you meant guardian temperament?
The late, lamented, ken would be licking his lips at this point!
I never met him, but in so many ways, how I miss Ken.
Of course to anyone in the UK 'Guardian Type' means the sort of person who reads the Guardian. I suspect that of all Keirsey's types, his Guardians are least likely to read the Guardian. Kearsey's Guardians read the Times or the Telegraph. It's Keirsey's Idealists who read the Guardian.
I too don't take Myers-Briggs totally seriously. It's a useful tool only so far as one doesn't regard it as an authoritative explanation for anything. However, I think the story about the Bishop of Manchester does suggest something else, different from the point it's supposed to be making. This is that:-
a. clergy tend not to be like a lot of the people in their congregations, and
b. some sorts of people who are quite numerous in congregations and among the population at large, are much less likely than other sorts of people to be found among the clergy.
Looking at the Keirsey temperaments, how many clergy do you know who are 'Guardians' in that sense rather than 'Guardian readers'?
If churches are predisposed to see spirituality in terms of how strongly people exhibit 'religious quest', whatever that means, and providing for it, perhaps they are not providing the sort of church life that feeds, energises or engages quite large swathes of people.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am an INFJ which is rare in the general population but not in the church. I'm currently between churches, but I'm not sure I've ever been to an actual church that's very INFJ-heavy. SCM on the other hand, is FULL of us, or ENFJs/ISFJs.
I don't take MBTI very seriously - I take it about as seriously as what Hogwarts House I'm in. It gives some insights into character but I wouldn't base business (or indeed church) decisions on it. I do find it interesting comparing enneagram type with MBTI type - my enneagram is the Loyalist (forget which number that is, I think it's 9?) which seems to not be very common for an INFJ. I must say that as someone who just felt very odd/on the fringes her whole life, being an INFJ makes a lot of sense, and not just for flattering reasons.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Myers Briggs for congregations?
No, never.
Myers Briggs is pernicious bollocks.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I am having the same reaction as many others on this thread ... just seeing the title made me miss ken and the reaction he would undoubtedly have had.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I find MB helpful for giving me names for aspects of myself. Fine, it just gives names to things I already think about myself, but before they were named I didn't have any way to think about them. I don't think of myself as having to be restricted by an MB type, or that I'm wholly one way and not another on any of the four axes. But it gives me a framework to think about some things.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I find MB helpful for giving me names for aspects of myself. Fine, it just gives names to things I already think about myself, but before they were named I didn't have any way to think about them. I don't think of myself as having to be restricted by an MB type, or that I'm wholly one way and not another on any of the four axes. But it gives me a framework to think about some things.
Exactly this. The point is to create awareness about yourself, and about others. As much as anything it's supposed to make you conscious that there are a heck of a lot of other people in the world who don't operate in the same way that you do.
Which is why it's good in leadership and management contexts. A good leader has to be aware that they can't just expect everyone to be clones of themselves (nor would it be beneficial if they were).
It seems to me that church leadership would sometimes benefit from a bit of insight along those lines.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I find MB helpful for giving me names for aspects of myself. Fine, it just gives names to things I already think about myself, but before they were named I didn't have any way to think about them. I don't think of myself as having to be restricted by an MB type, or that I'm wholly one way and not another on any of the four axes. But it gives me a framework to think about some things.
Exactly this x2. Is it fair to say that being able to describe something (our own nature / character in this case) is pretty much a necessary step on the path to understanding that thing?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Myers Briggs for congregations?
No, never.
Myers Briggs is pernicious bollocks.
Agreed. Seeing as God doesn't categorise me - why should anyone else? I've always refused to do it - and others of its ilk.
It's basis in Jungian psychology (based on an atheistic worldview) doesn't help either.
Bilge
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Jung an atheist? I've seen him called many things, but never that. In fact, he used to say that he knew that God exists.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Jung an atheist? I've seen him called many things, but never that. In fact, he used to say that he knew that God exists.
he used to say that but denied it later.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Jung an atheist? I've seen him called many things, but never that. In fact, he used to say that he knew that God exists.
he used to say that but denied it later.
Citation please.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Jung an atheist? I've seen him called many things, but never that. In fact, he used to say that he knew that God exists.
he used to say that but denied it later.
Jung said he didn't believe that in God because he knew that God existed and said that a knowledge through a relationship meant that he no longer needed to believe because he knew.
Some took the I don't believe in God thing out of context and took it to mean Jung to have turned Atheist.
As for a citation, the site I have found which says this has a quote from Jung dated 1965, pretty good for someone who died in '61.
Anyone got a decent source on this?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the most famous is the TV interview, where I think he says, I don't believe, I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU
But Jung has been criticized fiercely in psychology and psychotherapy precisely because he brought spiritual and religious concepts and images in. It also led in part to his split with Freud, who hated all this 'occult' stuff, as he called it.
Of course, Jung was open to many different kinds of religious belief and imagery as being significant, and probably, archetypal.
To call him an atheist is laughable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Related to this is his famous idea that the loss of religion has made humans sick:
“The gods have become diseases; Zeus no longer rules Olympus but rather the solar plexus, and produces curious specimens for the doctor’s consulting room, or disorders the brains of politicians and journalists who unwittingly let loose psychic epidemics on the world”
Commentary on the Secret of the Golden Flower.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Myers Briggs for congregations?
No, never.
Myers Briggs is pernicious bollocks.
Agreed. Seeing as God doesn't categorise me - why should anyone else? I've always refused to do it - and others of its ilk.
It's basis in Jungian psychology (based on an atheistic worldview) doesn't help either.
Bilge
God also doesn't brush His teeth, so why should you?
And it seems pretty arrogant to say that something is nonsense just because it was invented by an atheist. Lots of things you find useful will be based on an atheistic worldview.
Like I've already said, I don't take it hugely seriously or base decisions on it, but MBTI is very useful for insight into your own personality.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The research base for it is pretty crap, there is a fair bit in common with a skilled cold reading.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Yes. Like cold reading M-B tells you what you think about yourself. Both have their uses, M-B is often misused, but it is far from the bollocks or bilge it has been called upthread.
But the statistics are both bollocks and bilge. Taking a sample from a traditional service and then complaining that the people their like traditional stuff is not so much a misuse of Myers-Briggs, but the statistics are so flawed as to be completely useless.
But then 9 out of every 8 people misunderstand statistics, don't they.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I know this is not an entirely serious question, but does anyone know whether people who think Myers Briggs is nonsense, of whom I am one, tend to be concentrated in any particular personality type or whether we are spread equally across then all ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... my enneagram is the Loyalist ...
I sometimes wonder what Shipmates look like but I had never quite envisaged you as looking like
this - or even this....
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... my enneagram is the Loyalist ...
I sometimes wonder what Shipmates look like but I had never quite envisaged you as looking like
this - or even this....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
MB isn't nonsense, but it is pretty limited in what it can tell us. Leo's hero, Ken Leech, used to call it "horoscopes for the middle class".
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
PS. From my point of view ( INFJ since you ask) carol services aren't traditional at all. They are often a sentimental church service for those who want to know nothing of the commitment and challenge of faith. A cop out all too often.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Myers Briggs for congregations?
No, never.
Myers Briggs is pernicious bollocks.
Agreed. Seeing as God doesn't categorise me - why should anyone else? I've always refused to do it - and others of its ilk.
It's basis in Jungian psychology (based on an atheistic worldview) doesn't help either.
Bilge
God also doesn't brush His teeth, so why should you?
And it seems pretty arrogant to say that something is nonsense just because it was invented by an atheist. Lots of things you find useful will be based on an atheistic worldview.
Like I've already said, I don't take it hugely seriously or base decisions on it, but MBTI is very useful for insight into your own personality.
God doesn't brush his teeth but it's not a key element in my salvation whether I do or not.
It's rather different with categorising people (aka judging). Jesus had a few things to say about that.
I didn't say it was nonsense because it had atheistic roots - I said (it) "..doesn't help:" its roots don't determine its validity, its expression and application does.
As for basing decisions on it, well I'm glad you and I agree there. But, there are quite a few organisations (including theological colleges) who do use for such purposes.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's rather different with categorising people (aka judging). Jesus had a few things to say about that.
No, these are not synonyms. It's entirely true that people frequently treat them as synyonms, but they are absolute not.
I categorise people as male and female. This does not mean that I judge people on the grounds that one of these categories is 'better' than the other.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So what personality type responds with "it depends" to most of the questions on the test?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Bloody awkward.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So what personality type responds with "it depends" to most of the questions on the test?
P definitely P. The fourth letters is either a p for perceiver or j for judge. This is in strict Myers Briggs which dimension of the previous two you extrovert (with Kiersey it is a separate dimension which is why he is confused over the MB nomenclature). Someone who makes clear choices will tend to extrovert making decisions and someone who is more tentative will tend to extrovert collecting information. So if you end up always with "depends" then you are showing clear indication of being a "p".
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Personally, I have always been a fervernt believer in Myers-Briggs since someone drew my attention to the fact that I have the same personality type as Avon from Blake's 7. Never mind the data, a naked appeal to my vanity is all you need. Brains, but no heart. Talk or scream, Travis. The choice is yours. Ahem, where was I.
Of course church congregations are conservative. They like what they've been getting. That's why they turn up on a Sunday morning. If they wanted something else, they'd be going somewhere else. It's why vicars get the woe unto Illium bit when the move the notices, or some such. Double this and add some when it comes to singing "Once in Royal David's City" and the like with all the hallowed childhood experiences that go with it. If you want to get them thinking out of the box have their child get divorced or come out, or whatever, in which case they'll start making intuitive leaps like a frog on happy pills.
Otherwise, what ken said.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I should add that the fact that some people have difficulty giving clear answers as part of the model is also the reason why the test is only provisional. You need to talk with someone knowledgeable about the types, so you can question your personality type such as "I know it says I am an introvert, but really I am never happier than when I am in a crowd but it has to be a certain type of crowd. So I feel as if I am an extrovert?"
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"It depends" answers also help illustrate that preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle. In the end, you have to pick something, but if small differences in the way a question is worded tend to change which side of a particular scale you're on you ought to end up with a score that's near the middle.
Conversely, if you say "it depends" but keep on picking the same side of the line, you'll end up with a strong score in that direction. But that's accurate: when push comes to shove and you have to choose, that's what you prefer, and this is all about preference.
Not only do I consistently come out as INFJ, but I consistently come out as very strongly 'N' and fairly weakly 'F', so not far from being described as INTJ instead. The thought-feeling scale being near the middle is interesting because many people initially perceive me as very "thinking", very cerebral. But in fact I do ultimately tend to prefer that a decision feels right, rather than just knowing intellectually it is right, and all sorts of things point to how I value my emotions over my intellect even though people see me as intellectual.
And the same thing happens in the Enneagram personality system, incidentally. I sit near the border between type 4 and type 5, but in the end type 4 is a better description of my drivers, strengths and weaknesses.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: Heck, if you want to see that I'm quite feeling-driven, you only need see what happens on the Ship when I get going. In Purgatory or Dead Horses it can get me plaudits. In Hell you can just watch me explode. It's both an asset and a weakness.
And really, the main benefit of these kinds of personality descriptors is more self-awareness of those assets AND weaknesses. Not least so that I'm also conscious of why other people might clash with me in some way. People who are strongly 'S' can drive me up the wall, but it's not because they're tying to do so.
[ 27. October 2014, 11:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: "It depends" answers also help illustrate that preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle.
I disagree. 'It depends' doesn't mean that you don't have strong preferences. It means that they depend on the circumstances. That doesn't make them weaker.
For example, I think one of the Myers Briggs questions is "Do you use reason or feeling to take decisions?" For some decisions, I very strongly use reason. For other decisions, I very strongly use feeling. So, my answer would be 'it depends'. That doesn't make my preference weaker.
When someone takes circumstances into account in forming his/her preferences, this doesn't mean that his/her preferences are weak.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: "It depends" answers also help illustrate that preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle.
I disagree. 'It depends' doesn't mean that you don't have strong preferences. It means that they depend on the circumstances. That doesn't make them weaker.
For example, I think one of the Myers Briggs questions is "Do you use reason or feeling to take decisions?" For some decisions, I very strongly use reason. For other decisions, I very strongly use feeling. So, my answer would be 'it depends'. That doesn't make my preference weaker.
When someone takes circumstances into account in forming his/her preferences, this doesn't mean that his/her preferences are weak.
This.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: "It depends" answers also help illustrate that preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle.
I disagree. 'It depends' doesn't mean that you don't have strong preferences. It means that they depend on the circumstances. That doesn't make them weaker.
For example, I think one of the Myers Briggs questions is "Do you use reason or feeling to take decisions?" For some decisions, I very strongly use reason. For other decisions, I very strongly use feeling. So, my answer would be 'it depends'. That doesn't make my preference weaker.
When someone takes circumstances into account in forming his/her preferences, this doesn't mean that his/her preferences are weak.
And I disagree. The whole point is that you won't consistently behave in the same way. Saying that you'll consistently behave the same way in the same circumstances is answering a more specific question that isn't the one being asked. The question is what is your overall preferred method of dealing with things.
I said "not strong in one direction". Your response says "that doesn't mean my preferences aren't strong", which is missing out the second half of the phrase.
[ 27. October 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: I said "not strong in one direction". Your response says "that doesn't mean my preferences aren't strong", which is missing out the second half of the phrase.
Maybe. I still don't think my preferences are 'somewhere near the middle' though.
When I decide with which company I'll buy my next flight ticket, my preference is strongly towards reason. When I decide what I'll eat for dinner tonight, my preference is strongly towards feeling.
I guess you could average them out and say 'Between reason and feeling, your preference is somewhere in the middle', but I don't think this average means a lot.
Perhaps my preference between reason and feeling isn't some kind of bell curve with a big bulge near the middle.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Perhaps my preference between reason and feeling isn't some kind of bell curve with a big bulge near the middle.
And yet, the fact that the average is near the middle is a perfectly accurate description of you saying "it depends", is it not? It does depend. You have extremely clear ideas of WHAT it depends on, rather than it being some kind of random roll-the-dice exercise, but it is entirely consistent with what I originally said about a score near the middle.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: And yet, the fact that the average is near the middle is a perfectly accurate description of you saying "it depends", is it not? It does depend.
In your original post, you didn't say 'the average is near the middle', you said 'the preference is near the middle'. There's a difference here.
Suppose that exactly half of the Australian has a strong preference for Coca Cola, and that exactly half of the population prefers Pepsi. Yes, you could say 'the average is near the middle'. But would you say 'the preference is near the middle?'. No-one's preference is near the middle (whatever that would be). They all have a strong preference towards one side.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
