Thread: Myers Briggs for congregations? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027817
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
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."
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Exactly my sentiments, Barnabas62.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.'
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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?)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on
:
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?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Myers Briggs for congregations?
No, never.
Myers Briggs is pernicious bollocks.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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)
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
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?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
The research base for it is pretty crap, there is a fair bit in common with a skilled cold reading.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
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.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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 ?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I bet they are 'T' - thinkers rather than feelers.
And J - because once their minds are made up, they don't entertain any new evidence and are not persuaded by other people.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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".
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
So what personality type responds with "it depends" to most of the questions on the test?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Bloody awkward.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
"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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In addition, it most unwise to look at any of the personality types and see them as stereotyping that someone will always behave in a way immediately seen as fitting that description.
I have had a couple of people say "how can you be an introvert, you're so talkative", and "how can you be a J (judging) when you're so messy?". And yet, I've seen material on INFJs that says they are particularly talkative by the standards of introverts, and the kind of J most likely to have a messy desk. But the drivers of me being talkative are not the same as the drivers of an extrovert.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
Actually I said preferences. Plural. Say average preferences. Or overall preferences. Either is fine by me. The average of the preferences is, overall, near the middle. Feel free to mix and match the words as you see fit.
But I did not say "the preference" as if everyone had one single preference that dictates everything they say or do. Indeed, I am repeatedly agreeing with exactly the point you're making, that for some people it's highly contextual.
Why you keep insisting on trying to depict me as claiming that you can't possibly have strong contextual preferences, I've no idea.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Actually I said preferences. Plural. Say average preferences. Or overall preferences. Either is fine by me.
Hmm, I don't think this gets you off the hook. You wouldn't say 'preferences are near the middle' in the Australian Coke / Pepsi case either.
But perhaps this was me interpreting some sloppy statistical language.
quote:
orfeo: Why you keep insisting on trying to depict me as claiming that you can't possibly have strong contextual preferences, I've no idea.
Don't worry, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm somewhere near the middle ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You wouldn't say 'preferences are near the middle' in the Australian Coke / Pepsi case either.
Why on earth not?
Frankly I think this is just a case of you having different meanings for words to the ones that I have. Because if I'm trying to talk about the overall results of such a survey, I wouldn't have the slightest problem in saying preferences are near the middle, or they're about even, or whatever. But I think from the context of talking about the overall results that it would be fairly obvious I wasn't suggesting that each individual person surveyed had a preference somewhere near the middle.
In any case I think this entire conversation is based on a misrepresentation of the kinds of questions Myers-Briggs surveys ask. They ask questions with words like "usually" or "often". If you're someone that has strong preferences in both directions but depending on context, you'll end up answering 'No' to two opposite questions that both suggest you "usually" do something, and the two 'No' responses will cancel each other out.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In addition, it most unwise to look at any of the personality types and see them as stereotyping that someone will always behave in a way immediately seen as fitting that description.
I have had a couple of people say "how can you be an introvert, you're so talkative", and "how can you be a J (judging) when you're so messy?". And yet, I've seen material on INFJs that says they are particularly talkative by the standards of introverts, and the kind of J most likely to have a messy desk. But the drivers of me being talkative are not the same as the drivers of an extrovert.
Excellent points. In psychotherapy, it is fatal to categorize people, as they usually start to act out of type.
In addition, if you go back to Jung's own personality typology, it was not seen as static. In particular, at certain ages, Jung believed that some people begin to pick up neglected aspects of personality (which he called 'the inferior function'), and start to develop them.
In addition, the inferior functions can have a big impact on us, as they work as a kind of dark shadow, which we tend to project onto others. Of course, it is a lot more complex than this.
In practice, you just have to be empirical, since people will always surprise you. The quiet unassuming man becomes a raging bull in a certain context, e.g. watching Manchester City.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In short, you would not get a question like "Do you use reason or feeling to take decisions?". You would get a statement like "I usually use feelings to make decisions" and be asked to indicate whether you agree or disagree with this statement.
[X-Post, this follows on from my previous post, had to go find the proper text to replicate.]
[ 27. October 2014, 12:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Why on earth not?
Because it's false. If half of Australia strongly prefers Coke and the other half strongly prefers Pepsi, saying "preferences are near the middle" is false. No-one's preference is. Saying "preferences average out near the middle" would be correct I guess, but in that case it would still be good to look towards second order predictors (the standard deviation would be rather large in this case).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Why on earth not?
Because it's false. If half of Australia strongly prefers Coke and the other half strongly prefers Pepsi, saying "preferences are near the middle" is false. No-one's preference is. Saying "preferences average out near the middle" would be correct I guess, but in that case it would still be good to look towards second order predictors (the standard deviation would be rather large in this case).
OVERALL preferences are near the middle. This is precisely why I highlighted the context of talking about the overall results.
Again, why do you think there has to be a correlation between an individual strong results in one direction and the overall results? As soon as you say "no-one's preference is near the middle" you are changing the question completely. You are asking about individual results.
If you're claiming that an overall result in the middle means it's an inaccurate predictor of an individual result, then you're simply wrong. If the results are a 50/50 split, with 50% strong preference in each direction, then it is entirely correct to say that this means there is an equal chance of a given person preferring Coke.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jengie jon: "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?"
I've said this before, but I never understood the connection between extrovertism (extroversy?) and crowds.
I'm an extrovert. I was on a five day conference last month with around 200 people. I speak with everyone, make jokes, talk a lot about myself, listen to people, help organise the cultural evening, get on stage ... You couldn't have missed me if you were on that conference.
But I absolutely hate crowds. Put me in an anonymous crowd of thousands of people pushing against eachother, and I'll run away screaming, literally. I feel physically unwell in crowds. I don't think this has anything to do with me being an extrovert though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Best definition of introversion and extroversion I ever heard was that extroverts solve problems by talking them through, and introverts solve problems in their head then talk about the solution.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: OVERALL preferences are near the middle. This is precisely why I highlighted the context of talking about the overall results.
Hm, 'overall preferences of these Australians are somewhere near the middle'? No sorry, doesn't work for me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: OVERALL preferences are near the middle. This is precisely why I highlighted the context of talking about the overall results.
Hm, 'overall preferences of these Australians are somewhere near the middle'? No sorry, doesn't work for me.
Well then, as I said, it seems you simply have a different understanding of the English language to my own.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Well then, as I said, it seems you simply have a different understanding of the English language to my own.
That may be, I'm not a native speaker after all. But I think you were just using sloppy statistical language when you said 'preferences are near the middle'. This can be forgiven though ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Well then, as I said, it seems you simply have a different understanding of the English language to my own.
That may be, I'm not a native speaker after all. But I think you were just using sloppy statistical language when you said 'preferences are near the middle'. This can be forgiven though
This isn't a statistics lecture.
I'm well aware of the ways in which statistics can be misused, to give the impression that they show something other than what they actually show. But I don't see anything misleading about using "overall" and two plurals - the "preferences" of "these Australians". I can't see how that can reasonably convey anything other than the average result.
And yes, for some purposes other measures such as the standard deviation, which would reveal that lots of people weren't near the centre, assuming questions were asked that asked not just for the existence of the preference but the 'strength' of the preference. They may not have been, depending on the purpose of the survey.
If I said a class was neither male-dominated nor female-dominated, it would be an extremely odd person who would interpret this as meaning that every student in the class was transgender or androgynous.
Half of the point of this discussion is that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of what Myers Briggs is trying to do, both by people who are enthusiastic about it and people who are critical of it. I still cannot see any problem in a statement that a score near the middle means you don't tend to have strong preferences in one direction, because it's still true as an overall statement about the whole of your experience, which is the only sensible way to interpret a general statement.
To not be true you have to provide additional context which is not in the general statement. To get meaningful answers for a particular context you would have to ask questions specifically relevant to that particular context.
[ 27. October 2014, 13:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: But I don't see anything misleading about using "overall" and two plurals - the "preferences" of "these Australians". I can't see how that can reasonably convey anything other than the average result.
I do. Overall ≠ average (and you didn't use 'overall' in your first post). But as you said, this isn't a statistics lecture.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: But I don't see anything misleading about using "overall" and two plurals - the "preferences" of "these Australians". I can't see how that can reasonably convey anything other than the average result.
I do. Overall ≠ average (and you didn't use 'overall' in your first post). But as you said, this isn't a statistics lecture.
Then what else can "overall" possibly mean?
You're doing a fair amount of criticism of my use of language without actually offering alternatives.
[ 27. October 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Then what else can "overall" possibly mean?
Maybe it isn't even a very good word in this context. You brought it up, not me.
I guess in my example you could say things like "Overall, the Australian preference for soft drinks is polarised."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Then what else can "overall" possibly mean?
Maybe it isn't even a very good word in this context. You brought it up, not me.
I guess in my example you could say things like "Overall, the Australian preference for soft drinks is polarised."
Well yes, you could, so long as the standard deviation is what you actually cared about and that you'd asked questions about the strength of preference, not just asked "which do you prefer, Coke or Pepsi?".
Which is actually the kind of question you presented as a Myers-Briggs question, not me. You cannot GET a measure of polarisation from a "which do you prefer" question.
[ 27. October 2014, 13:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Well yes, you could, so long as the standard deviation is what you actually cared about and that you'd asked questions about the strength of preference, not just asked "which do you prefer, Coke or Pepsi?".
In my example, I always said 'half of the population has a strong preference for Coke, the other half has a strong preference for Pepsi'. This implies that the format included questions about the strength of the preference.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Well yes, you could, so long as the standard deviation is what you actually cared about and that you'd asked questions about the strength of preference, not just asked "which do you prefer, Coke or Pepsi?".
In my example, I always said 'half of the population has a strong preference for Coke, the other half has a strong preference for Pepsi'. This implies that the format included questions about the strength of the preference.
Yes, but the question you claimed was a Myers-Briggs question wasn't of that type. Your criticism is doubly flawed, firstly because I don't think that's what Myers-Briggs questions look like, and secondly because if they DID then they could not possibly deliver the information about strength of your preferences that you want.
I don't think the actual Myers-Briggs questions ask about "strength" in that sense either. They ask for frequency. Which is an overall question. How often you do something, not whether you do it with wild enthusiasm each time that you do it.
As much as my N-type personality loves this analysis of concepts and linguistic gymnastics, this is not worth encouraging my insomnia over. I am going to bed. Goodnight.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
I agree that they're not (technically speaking) but that is not how they are used as you admit. Some people do categorise on the basis of judgemental assumptions or observations. Myers Briggs has certain assumptions that underly it which means it is not a value free tool.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Yes, but the question you claimed was a Myers-Briggs question wasn't of that type.
I said thought it was something like a Myers-Briggs question, I didn't claim anything. Our discussion isn't about whether it was or not, at least not from my part.
You formulated something a bit badly, that's all.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Introversion and extroversion is about where you get your energy from, what you do to relax and recover. As an INFJ I am a more talkative/sociable introvert, but actually very strongly introverted in the sense that I need space alone to relax properly. I enjoy being around people but it's tiring. For example, I like going out to dinner but not dinner parties because I like my home to be my 'me space', and I have to always be 'on' around people.
Extroverts on the other hand will seek people out to be around in order to relax.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Introversion and extroversion is about where you get your energy from, what you do to relax and recover. As an INFJ I am a more talkative/sociable introvert, but actually very strongly introverted in the sense that I need space alone to relax properly. I enjoy being around people but it's tiring. For example, I like going out to dinner but not dinner parties because I like my home to be my 'me space', and I have to always be 'on' around people.
Yes, I'm very much like this too. And I think Myers Briggs is very useful indeed if used in this way - I now realise that I enjoy being around people but that it tires me out and I need time on my own to rest and recharge.
So, for example, being busy and sociable two or three evenings in a row means I really should have a Quiet Night In the following day, or else I'm storing up trouble for myself!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Yes, but the question you claimed was a Myers-Briggs question wasn't of that type.
I said thought it was something like a Myers-Briggs question, I didn't claim anything. Our discussion isn't about whether it was or not, at least not from my part.
You formulated something a bit badly, that's all.
No, you decided to read it in a certain way because you were anxious to make a point about how strong your circumstantial preferences were. Nothing I said was actually inconsistent with that. What I said was framed entirely by the fact that Myers Briggs questions don't ask about circumstances in that way. They are frequency of behaviour questions, not strength of feeling questions.
[ 27. October 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: No, you decided to read it in a certain way because you were anxious to make a point about how strong your preferences were.
I'm not entirely sure if speculating about my reasons for posting or attributing terms like 'anxious' to my personality are permitted in Purgatory. Maybe I should ask about this in the Styx, but I'd appreciate it if you could stop doing it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
*shrug*
Okay, I'll change it to "you were making a point". Which seems equivalent to you describing what I was doing. I'll agree that this time my choice of words could have been better.
But I stand entirely behind my original response to Karl that you decided to disagree with. And I'll repeat: Myers-Briggs questions don't tend to ask about the strength of your response. They ask about your frequency. In so far as people read a score as meaning that a preference is "strong" or "weak" they are wrong if they mean that your preference in any given situation is going to be a strong or a weak one.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: I'll agree that this time my choice of words could have been better.
Ok, accepted.
quote:
orfeo: But I stand entirely behind my original response to Karl that you decided to disagree with. And I'll repeat: Myers-Briggs questions don't tend to ask about the strength of your response. They ask about your frequency. In so far as people read a score as meaning that a preference is "strong" or "weak" they are wrong if they mean that your preference in any given situation is going to be a strong or a weak one.
I don't know if there are standard formulations for the questions of the Myers-Briggs. In the online test I just did, the question I was talking about was formulated as "You trust reason rather than feelings".
My answer to this (which the test doesn't allow me to give) is 'it depends'. I trust reason in some situations (when I choose an airline company), I trust feeling in others (when I choose what to eat for dinner).
There's nothing about either strength or frequency in this question. And I don't think that my preference for reason vs. feeling is 'somewhere near the middle'.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ah, well, you've just discovered an online test that is rather crappy. This is not exactly a surprise.
Although it would be slightly better if it had some kind of instruction to pick the one that's more often true.
[ 27. October 2014, 20:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Ah, well, you've just discovered an online test that is rather crappy. This is not exactly a surprise.
Ah, this is not the 'real' MB test? Is there a 'real' (standard) one?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My answer to this (which the test doesn't allow me to give) is 'it depends'. I trust reason in some situations (when I choose an airline company), I trust feeling in others (when I choose what to eat for dinner).
...
And I don't think that my preference for reason vs. feeling is 'somewhere near the middle'.
And I continue to not understand why you don't accept that "sometimes I choose X, and sometimes I choose Y" is not equivalent to saying that on the whole, your preference for X vs Y is somewhere near the middle. It clearly is. If your preference for X over Y or Y over X fluctuates in that way, it's a perfectly correct statement that that overall you don't strongly prefer one over the other.
You seem hung up on WHY your preference fluctuates - circumstances/context - as if that matters. It doesn't. That only matters if we're asking about particular circumstances. But if in 50% of circumstances you would choose X (however emphatically) and in 50% of circumstances you would choose Y (however emphatically), it remains the case that adding that up means that you don't consistently prefer one over the other. Not taken as a whole.
The fact that you consistently prefer one over the other in a given context is a different question. And if we are specifically interested in that context, we should absolutely take notice of the result for that context and not the overall result. For which you would need to take a test that actually asked questions about that context (eg, I've done a test at work that was focused on methods of working, and had no interest in my behaviour in private life).
I realise you live your life as a series of specific situations, each of which might involve a strong preference one way or the other, but that doesn't make a general statement about the collective result wrong. It just makes it not as precise as statements about specific contexts.
[ 27. October 2014, 20:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: And I continue to not understand why you don't accept that "sometimes I choose X, and sometimes I choose Y" is not equivalent to saying that on the whole, your preference for X vs Y is somewhere near the middle. It clearly is.
No, it isn't. There's sweet food, and there's sour food. There are also these 'sweet and sour sauces' that you put on rice etc.
Suppose for a moment that I love sweet food, so sometimes I choose sweet food. I also love sour food, so sometimes I choose sour food. But I absolutely hate sweet and sour sauces, and I'd never choose them. (This isn't in accordance with my real tastes, but for argument's sake.)
In this case, you would say "on the whole, your preference for sweet vs. sour food is somewhere near the middle". I'm just making a simple substition for X and Y here in your words.
But I would interpret "somewhere near the middle between sweet and sour food" as these sweet and sour sauces, which I hate. I don't think it's very unusual to interpret the phrase in this way. In fact, I'd say this interpretation comes rather naturally.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: And I continue to not understand why you don't accept that "sometimes I choose X, and sometimes I choose Y" is not equivalent to saying that on the whole, your preference for X vs Y is somewhere near the middle. It clearly is.
No, it isn't. There's sweet food, and there's sour food. There are also these 'sweet and sour sauces' that you put on rice etc.
Suppose for a moment that I love sweet food, so sometimes I choose sweet food. I also love sour food, so sometimes I choose sour food. But I absolutely hate sweet and sour sauces, and I'd never choose them. (This isn't in accordance with my real tastes, but for argument's sake.)
In this case, you would say "on the whole, your preference for sweet vs. sour food is somewhere near the middle". I'm just making a simple substition for X and Y here in your words.
But I would interpret "somewhere near the middle between sweet and sour food" as these sweet and sour sauces, which I hate. I don't think it's very unusual to interpret the phrase in this way. In fact, I'd say this interpretation comes rather naturally.
However natural it is, it's wrong, and furthermore you know it's wrong as soon as you know that we're talking about an average, which is all that a single figure could possible be.
If I give you a single figure for the age of the population, or their height, or tell you about "the typical voter", you know perfectly well that I'm giving you an average, don't you? No-one believes that all people are the same age or the same height or all young working mothers who live in Essex.
It's an incredibly obvious statistical error to think that the average result says something about any given individual result. So obvious, in fact, that I wouldn't normally see any need to point it out. And yet you are constantly insisting that it's absolutely vital that I don't state an average result lest it be interpreted as the only possible individual result.
Every time you quote me, you leave out words like "on the whole" as if they're not relevant to what I'm saying. Every time you do that, you're leading yourself into logical errors. I'm not doing it. You're doing it. You're repeatedly removing the distinction between an average and individual results in order to complain that the average doesn't provide enough information about individual results, as if that was the purpose of an average in the first place.
Basically, what you're talking about is stereotyping. And yes, stereotyping is wrong. Using Myers Briggs to stereotype people is every bit as wrong as declaring that black people are all good at the same thing or all bad at the same thing. It's every bit as wrong as stereotyping men or women and telling every man or woman they must be like that.
But that doesn't mean that average differences don't exist. It doesn't mean that there's something horribly wrong with stating that men are on average taller, heavier and stronger than women. Heck, it doesn't mean that there's something horribly wrong with just saying that men are taller, heavier and stronger than women, because in many contexts people would understand perfectly well that you're talking about the average and not asserting that every man is taller, heavier and stronger than every woman.
So if you interpret "doesn't especially favour either sweet or sour" as "always prefers the two to be combined", that's your erroneous logic driving that result. There is nothing wrong with the statement that you don't especially favour either sweet or sour.
[ 27. October 2014, 21:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: However natural it is, it's wrong, and furthermore you know it's wrong as soon as you know that we're talking about an average, which is all that a single figure could possible be.
You didn't give a figure, you said 'preferences are somewhere near the middle'. Which I interpreted as sweet and sour sauce. No thank you.
Averages are very useful when a distribution follows more or less a bell curve. You have to be careful though when the distribution consists of two spikes. In this case, the average still exists, but the distribution there is empty.
[ 27. October 2014, 21:26: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: So if you interpret "doesn't especially favour either sweet or sour" as "always prefers the two to be combined", that's your erroneous logic driving that result.
You didn't say "doesn't especially favour either sweet or sour". You said "the preference lies somewhere near the middle".
I don't understand why it is so difficult to admit that you formulated something badly. I do it all the time.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: So if you interpret "doesn't especially favour either sweet or sour" as "always prefers the two to be combined", that's your erroneous logic driving that result.
You didn't say "doesn't especially favour either sweet or sour". You said "the preference lies somewhere near the middle".
I don't understand why it is so difficult to admit that you formulated something badly. I do it all the time.
Because you are still misquoting what I actually said. And even what you are misquoting, you are reading in isolation from the context in which it was written.
What I actually said somewhere near the word "preferences" was "preferences are not strong in one direction". Kindly stop altering this to "the preference lies somewhere near the middle", because the two statements are not equivalent.
[ 27. October 2014, 21:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Because you are still misquoting what I actually said. And even what you are misquoting, you are reading in isolation from the context in which it was written.
What I actually said somewhere near the word "preferences" was "preferences are not strong in one direction". Kindly stop altering this to "the preference lies somewhere near the middle", because the two statements are not equivalent.
Here is your original post. You said "'It depends' answers also help illustrate that preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle." The statements "the preferences are not strong in one in one direction" and "[they are] somewhere near the middle" seem equivalent to me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
This entire conversation boils down to two propositions.
Me: Preferences are not strong in one direction.
You: I have strong preferences in two opposing directions.
You continue to assert that one of these statements somehow negates the other. I continue to maintain that you are mistaken.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: This entire conversation boils down to two propositions.
Me: Preferences are not strong in one direction.
You: I have strong preferences in two opposing directions.
No, the conversation is:
O: Preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle. (A literal quote from your post. I just capitalised the initial p.)
L: I have strong preferences in two opposing directions. What lies near the middle doesn't interest me much.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: This entire conversation boils down to two propositions.
Me: Preferences are not strong in one direction.
You: I have strong preferences in two opposing directions.
No, the conversation is:
O: Preferences are not strong in one direction, but somewhere near the middle. (A literal quote from your post. I just capitalised the initial p.)
L: I have strong preferences in two opposing directions. What lies near the middle doesn't interest me much.
Fine. And you to continue to assert that one of these statements somehow negates the other, and I continue to maintain that you're mistaken.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Fine. And you to continue to assert that one of these statements somehow negates the other, and I continue to maintain that you're mistaken.
Well, then you're wrong.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Fine. And you to continue to assert that one of these statements somehow negates the other, and I continue to maintain that you're mistaken.
Well, then you're wrong.
Says you.
Are we done?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Are we done?
If you wish. I'm sitting here, sipping some good whisky while posting on the Ship. It's the same to me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Good. Pleasure not really managing to do with business with you.
Although truth be told, I would really like to know one part of your Myers-Briggs type. I have a theory based on this exchange.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Although truth be told, I would really like to know one part of your Myers-Briggs type. I have a theory based on this exchange.
It's probably somewhere near the middle.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, my working theory is about which side of the middle you might fall on a particular scale. But hey, if you think your Myers-Briggs type is EISNFTJP, go with it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: But hey, if you think your Myers-Briggs type is EISNFTJP, go with it.
I don't give a fig's ass what my Myers-Briggs type is.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Then I don't understand why would you spend so much time ensuring that I understand your thinking/feeling preferences! Caring about the fact that a result is wrong, it seems to me, doesn't make sense if you don't care what the result is.
[ 28. October 2014, 00:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Then I don't understand why would you spend so much time ensuring that I understand your thinking/feeling preferences!
I wasn't discussing my preferences, I was just correcting an error.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
An error that is, apparently, of no consequence after all.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
What if you consistently pick one side of the line because you think the administrator of the test will think you're lying if you give inconsistent answers?
(To be fair, that's not a critique of MB so much as those psychometric tests that some HR departments think are really clever.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"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.
This is my general experience with online quizzes of this nature - the questions are so badly worded that "it depends on what the question actually means" ends up being the answer. Given that the questions all tend to be written by the same person, and that that person tends not to be very good at reversing the sense of a question, you end up with a question set that has large built-in biases.
What's the MBTI type for ornery gits who turn the affair into a meta-analysis of the questions? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What's the MBTI type for ornery gits who turn the affair into a meta-analysis of the questions?
Seriously, there almost certainly is one. At the very least an interest in analysis is a tendency towards 'N', because an 'N' preference means you like to deal in abstract concepts.
Believe me, I'd spot problematic questions as fast as anyone.
I don't know exactly what's required for an MBTI test to be regarded as legitimate by the people who actually came up with MBTI, but I've a fair idea that any test no-one is paying for (ie most of the self-testing you can do online) probably doesn't qualify. Anyone can set up a webpage. The only time I can definitely remember doing MBTI 'properly' was as part of a work course, and I'm pretty sure the test was one my employer had paid for (mind you, this was in about 2005/6 so I can't be 100% certain of my recollection).
I've read INFJ descriptions online. Many of them describe me to a tee. Some of them I look at with bewilderment. That can only mean that some people are giving completely different descriptions of what INFJ means - and given that many of them are consistent, it's the ones that are weirdly off that are probably just made up by some fool armed with an HTML editing tool.
[ 28. October 2014, 13:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Myers Briggs testing should only be carried out by suitably qualified professionals. Results should be given in person or by phone in an interactive feedback session.
(I came out INTP when tested by someone training to be a tester but several of those are weak preferences)
Like all these things: VAK, Gardner multiple intelligences, Enneagram - they are all useful in highlighting that different people learn / worship / manage / are managed better in different ways, and one size does not fit all. So make sure that different styles of said learning / worship / management are available. Because the creeping homogenisation of church services is leaving people who don't find that particular form of homogenised worship helpful with nowhere to go.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
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".
Ken also wrote a book Myers-Briggs: some critical reflections with the tongue in cheek subtitle 'How to pass your MBTI'.
His main issue was with the MISuse of MBTI, e.g. as an interview tool to weed out trouble makers. Companies often need the joker in the pack to get them out of a rut.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the creeping homogenisation of church services is leaving people who don't find that particular form of homogenised worship helpful with nowhere to go.
It's just as possible to argue that since the advent of Common Worship (a symptom, not a cause), worship is becoming less homogenised... pick and mix so that every church does something different. Probably true in many non-Anglican contexts too. With the BCP you had a stodgier diet, true, but knew what to expect.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I'd be interested to see if there's any breakdown of Myers Briggs types by denomination, or at least by clergy denominations. I remember seeing something about most US clergy being extroverts but most UK clergy being introverts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pomona
I've just found a personality test I did a while back. I think it's Myers Briggs. I come out as an INFJ. My introversion indicator is strong.
Your question was interesting because at the bottom of my test it indicates that INFJ's may have 'a strong calling towards the religious life as clergy, nun, or director or religious education.' I've always found this slightly strange. Although I do have certain leanings in that direction it seems somewhat reductive to suppose that these traits must always be predominant in these occupations. Depending on the nature of the mission - and the denomination - rather different personality types might be preferable.
For example, Leslie J. Francis, a British researcher into the psychology of religion, finds that evangelical clergy tend to be marked by extraversion rather than introversion. Interestingly, he's also found that Methodist clergy have different personality traits from Anglican clergy. (And Anglican clergy come in different types too, so one wonders where the stereotype of the introverted and socially awkward vicar comes from. I haven't read what he says about this.) He doesn't rely wholly on MB for this research, but refers to a range of psychological theories and tests.
There are various links to his work, but most of his articles are only available online as abstracts. A small number are available as pdfs docs, which you can find by googling.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0