Things to consider about MBTI® theory (Part 2)
by Sergei Ganin
After the initial publication of the "Things to consider about MBTI® theory (Part 1)", I approached some experts in Jung and MBTI theory in order to clarify this confusion around Judging/Perceiving preference and here is what happened:
"Linda V. Berens, Ph.D. ...
Your Comments: 1+
|C1 To quote, "Whether or not Myers J/P definition does exactly that is another question. " And hence the whole j/p problem. I believe it is a major stretch to assume that all MBTI J/P questions accurately measure extraverted situations without being influenced, at least in part, by introverted functions (this being especially pertinent to introverted types). This goes against Jung's writings and simply does not seem to play out in reality. Does anybody have further thoughts on this? -- Anonymous|
|C2 This is interesting stuff. For me, the main benefit of the MBTI is not the psychometric test aspect, but that, because it is a relatively straightforward theory (and of course people are more complex than this), once one understands it, it is possible to guess (with a high degree of accuracy) peoples’ type simply by observing four aspects of them, and then use the theory to understand them. For this purpose, the Myers definition of J and P is much more sensible, as if it relates to the extroverted function then it is observable. With the j/p model, how would you know which an introvert is without asking him/her to take the test? -- Mike|
|C3 My take on the j/p model (versus the J/P one) is that one can still see the extraverted function in introverts (ie. the secondary function) but it will be the opposite direction of the MBTI secondary function. For example, an INTj will have extraverted Ne rather than Te, which MBTI would prescribe. This has consistently been the case with introverts, in my experience. I like the socionics model here, because, it argues that an introvert will use the secondary extraverted function to creatively fuel the dominant function, rather than existing as a completely independent function (MBTI). Back to the INTj, this implies that this type would use Ne, but it would always be a servant to the dominant Ti, and hence the person's extraverted actions would not be entirely perceiving in nature, as one would expect from dominant Ne types (ENTp, ENFp). Furthermore, V.I. and intertype relations can shed a great deal of light on a person's type. I wasn't inititally sold on these aspects of socionics (particularly V.I.). but once again, they really do seem to play out in reality. Bottom line: introverts are complex creatures as far as typology goes. As such, they require a bit more detective work in determining the j/p dimension. Good discussion. -- the INFp bloke who wrote C1|
|C4 It is nice so read Linda Berens reaction. See admits the J/P problem. It seems to me that her Interaction style model is still valid, because here classifaction for Introverts and Extraverts is according the same system and seems independent of the J or P in the MBTI type. But what I don't understand is the fact that on (her) Interstyle site http://www.interstrength.com/curriculum/16types.html there is a reference to the model of John Beebe, a modern Jungian analyst, who developed a model of each of the patterns in terms of the archetypal role each process plays in the pattern. This model follows the MBTI model of dominant functions. I would expect from a Jungian analist a different approach, because also according to Linda Berens the Socionics model seems to be the correct Jungian concept. Were Jonh Beebe, Linda Berens and David Keirsey blindly following Meyer Briggs, or did they have a good reason for this, or is it just to late for them to admit a mistake? I'm still confused about this. -- Anonymous|
|C5 What strikes me about MBTI is that the INTJ is compatible to the socionics INTp and the INTP is so to the socionics INTj, while the whole system fails for all other introverted types. I would understand the system of the J/P switch if it was consequently applied to all types. But read MBTI descriptions of an ISTJ and you have a perfectly similar one of an ISTj in socionics. That can't work. The same is for ISTP and ISTp. So what is their Dominant Function? This question leads to abstruse definitions of the introverted Functions. For example Si in MBTI is interpreted to give the ISXJs an expectation of the right conception of things. How cryptic! That´s much to complicated to be of practical value, that´s my opinion about MBTI. In socionics Si means being driven to seek for comfort and relaxation as well as for physical sensation. In socionics Si is the dominant function of the ISXps. Paradoxically this is exactly what MBTI writes about their ISTP and ISFP. But the latter must consequntly be socionics ISXjs, but irritatingly they correspond to the ISXJs in MBTI. There is an article on this site, in which the author calls this confusion a "bloody mess". I agree to that. -- INTj |
|C6 C5 said: "What strikes me about MBTI is that the INTJ is compatible to the socionics INTp and the INTP is so to the socionics INTj". I will NEVER understand how an INTj can think of himself as INTP. Just check your relations!!! The question concerning socionics: "Do you like ESFj's or ENFj's better?" If you like ESFj's better you are INTj. The question concerning MBTI: "Do you like ENFP's or ENFJ's better?" If you like ENFP's better you are INTJ. I am definately INTj and INTJ. I don't know ANY INTj who is INTP (or INTp who is INTJ). I don't even believe such persons exist. MBTI uses a different order of functions - so what? Just IGNORE the MBTI-functions and everything is alright ) -- INTj|
|C7 http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=MBTI -- Anonymous|
|C8 @C6 - Over the last 17+ years, I've consistently tested as INTP on various MBTI styles of tests (with a fairly strong P on my last test result)...and have also consistently tested as INTj on various socionics tests for the last 18 months when I first heard about socionics (scoring fairly strongly as a j). I believe it's b/c J vs P is behavioral or "trait" based (or a comparative collection of)-tested as a relatively independent scale on MBTI tests, whereas j vs p is theoretically more geared to testing how you "function" best, and tested dynamically-connecting to T/F (j) & S/N (p) scales-where the more "dominant" function scale determines j or p. I can certainly tell you, no matter which personality test I take, all of them tell me I prefer to most frequently use introverted thinking (however each defines it) in my general decision making processes. (All true in INTP's, INTj's, and Enneagram 5's.) -- Soc INTj, MBTI INTP, SLOAN rcoei, Enne 5w4|
|Would you like to add anything?|
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.