Myers-Briggs , Carl Jung and me?

Roger Bissell wrote: "One source of discrepancy between the indicator results and one's "best fit" (the one of the 16 profiles one feels best described by) is that one or more of one's preferences may be on or near the mid-point of the scale. ... even though I have "tested" also as an ENTJ and an INTJ."

The same is true for me and therefore I have the same judgment. The MBTI is an indicator, more like a financial "Balance Sheet," than like a "Profit-Loss Statement." The test shows generally where you are right now. Like you, I am neither strongly Extroverted nor Introverted, so my score has gone both ways there. I am either INTJ or ENTJ.

It should be no surprise that tens of millions of people share 16 convenient pigeonholes. We are all descended from the same tribe, really, from the same parents. We are all the children of Lucy. More testing, more refinement, more definitions, and ultimately, we are up to 9 billion names for 9 billion people.

Post 21

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:35pm

Michael E. Marotta wrote: "Like you, I am neither strongly Extroverted nor Introverted, so my score has gone both ways there. I am either INTJ or ENTJ."

In my readings of personality and temperament, I have come across
a fascinating study of how two types of fears manifest in personality,
beginning at a very early age. (See Jerome Kagen, Galen's Prophecy,
especially chapter 6.)

One dimension of fear is called "distress," in which a baby or child
reacts with happiness or fretfulness and crying to a novel situation.
The other dimension is called "avoidant," in which a baby or child
reacts with approach and interaction or avoidance to a novel
situation.

A given child may characteristically manifest one or the other of
these kinds of fears -- or both -- or neither. (About 5% of children
could not be so categorized.)

Those children manifesting both kinds of fears (avoidance and
distress) were called "high reactive" (about 20% of the sample).
Those manifesting neither kind of fear were called "low reactive"
(about 40% of the sample). These I take to be the paradigm
cases of introversion and extraversion, respectively.

Then there were those who manifested only distress, but not
avoidance (called "distressed"). These I take to be another, but
less extreme kind of extraversion (about 25% of the sample).
And those who manifested only avoidance and not distress
(called "aroused"). These seem to be another, less extreme
kind of introversion (about 10% of the sample).

The upshot of this, in my opinion, is that there are (at least)
two dimensions of nervous system/emotional processing
involved in extraversion and introversion. If one is low
reactive, one is a "true" extravert -- and if high reactive,
a "true" introvert. However, if one is distressed, one is
a "weak" extravert -- and if avoidant, a "weak" introvert.
These latter two types, I suggest, could explain the MBTI
results of those of us with borderline extravert/introvert
results. We might best be described as "ambiverts."
That alone increases the number of possible types from
16 to at least 24.

"It should be no surprise that tens of millions of people share
[one or the other of] 16 convenient pigeonholes."

It should also be no surprise that various other subtleties
of each of the four dimensions (generating the 16 types)
have multiple facets that add much variety and nuance
within each of the 16 types. An expanded version of the
MBTI identifies five facets for each dimension (e.g., five
different facets of thinking vs. feeling), which enormously
multiplies the possibilities with which to describe individual
differences. For instance, my dear wife, who is an ENTJ
field marshal type, has "tender" (feeling facet) rather than
"tough" (thinking facet) on one of her sub-dimensions,
which gives a very delicious (to me) twist to how I usually
experience these types. It is probably a major element in
our interpersonal chemistry, and it was measured by
the expanded form of the MBTI. Quite a revelation,
and quite an unexpected treat of taking the indicator...

Best to all,
REB

Post 22

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:40pm

Roger: "So, type preferences are not necessarily stable in a given person."

Interesting. That explains something that puzzled me. Some time ago, I began taking the Meyers-Briggs test, but I quit part way through because I had the uneasy feeling that quite a few of the answers I was giving were not what I would have given on another day or in another mood or at another level of energy. Perhaps I should try again.

Barbara

Post 23

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 12:28am

Roger, some Hippocratic themes ...
---------------------
Those children manifesting both kinds of fears (avoidance and distress) were called "high reactive" (about 20% of the sample).
---------------------
I call that: Phlegmatic. Consummate avoiders, they love to appeal to either authority, or absolute relativism (to relinquish themselves from the intellectual responsibility of moral judgment).

---------------------
Those manifesting neither kind of fear were called "low reactive" (about 40% of the sample).
---------------------
I call that: Choleric. Will-worshippers, unable or unwilling to acknowledge proper anxiety (proper behavioral constraint), they exert their will on the world, and the people around them.

---------------------
Then there were those who manifested only distress, but not avoidance (called "distressed"). These I take to be another, but less extreme kind of extraversion (about 25% of the sample).
---------------------
I call that: Sanguine. Easily moved, toward either histrionics or desperation, they vicariously live via their effects on others -- social metaphysician extraordinaires. Keenly aware of their effects on others, notoriously unaware of themselves, as a growing spirit.

---------------------
And those who manifested only avoidance and not distress (called "aroused"). These seem to be another, less extreme kind of introversion (about 10% of the sample).
---------------------
I call that: Melancholy. Able and willing to tackle life's most difficult issues -- though this "ability" separates them from the commonality of society. Keenly aware of the Big Picture -- though often, circumstantially, unaware of the little steps required for actual human progress.

Ed

Post 24

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:27am

Ed Thompson wrote:

> Roger, some Hippocratic themes ...

I'm glad that Ed raises this issue in connection with personality type and temperament. Although I didn't include it in my previous post, Jerome Kagan applied the Hippocratic temperaments to the four groups of children, also. However, he applied them differently than Ed does...

1. > "Those children manifesting both kinds of fears (avoidance and distress) were
> called "high reactive" (about 20% of the sample)." I call that: Phlegmatic.
> Consummate avoiders, they love to appeal to either authority, or absolute
> relativism (to relinquish themselves from the intellectual responsibility of moral
> judgment).

Kagan identified the High Reactive types as Melancholic, since they both fretted about things and withdrew from things that bothered them. To be a Phlegmatic, on the other hand, suggests that one quietly (non-frettingly, non-distressedly) avoids that which one is bothered by, which best describes the Avoidant types. (See paragraph 4.)

2. > "Those manifesting neither kind of fear were called "low reactive" (about 40%
> of the sample)." I call that: Choleric. Will-worshippers, unable or unwilling to
> acknowledge proper anxiety (proper behavioral constraint), they exert their will on
> the world, and the people around them.

Kagain identified the Low Reactive types as Sanguine, because they are cheerfully optimistic (neither fretting nor avoiding that which bothers them). To be a Choleric, on the other hand, suggests that one noisily (frettingly, distressedly, angrily, etc.) confronts that which one is bothered by, which best describes the Distressed types. (See paragraph 3.)

3. > "Then there were those who manifested only distress, but not avoidance (called
> "distressed"). These I take to be another, but less extreme kind of extraversion
> (about 25% of the sample)."I call that: Sanguine. Easily moved, toward either
> histrionics or desperation, they vicariously live via their effects on others -- social
> metaphysician extraordinaires. Keenly aware of their effects on others, notoriously
> unaware of themselves, as a growing spirit.

Kagan's research implies that the Distressed types are Choleric, because they tend to be angry and outgoing, fretting about but also confronting that which bothers them. To be Sanguine, on the other hand, suggests that one is neither distressed nor avoidant, but instead cheerfully, benevolently engaged with the world, which best describes the Low Reactive types. (See paragraph 2.)

4. > "And those who manifested only avoidance and not distress (called "aroused").
> These seem to be another, less extreme kind of introversion (about 10% of the
> sample)." I call that: Melancholy. Able and willing to tackle life's most difficult
> issues -- though this "ability" separates them from the commonality of society.
> Keenly aware of the Big Picture -- though often, circumstantially, unaware of the
> little steps required for actual human progress.

Kagan's research implies that the Aroused types are Phlegmatic, because they quietly (non-fretfully) avoid that which bothers them. To be Melancholy, on the other hand, suggests that one is both distressed and avoidant, fretfully withdrawing from the world, which best describes the High Reactive types. (See paragraph 1.)

Best to all,
REB

Post 25

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:16am

Eh? Well ... at least I got the descriptions of the 4 classic temperaments right (!?) ...

Influenced early on by a book written by Florence Littauer (?), I've had trouble with contemporary treatment of the classic 4. I even find Keirsey (the preeminent, contemporary temperament researcher) to be in error on this.

What is agreed upon (among professionals and myself) is that melancholies and phlegs are introverts, and cholerics and sangs are extro-. However, in many cases, I see inconsistency within these groupings.

I do acknowledge the descriptions Roger gives above, it is the 'distress' and 'avoidance' that has me distressed, but not avoidant here (making me a choleric, which is contrary to my self-ascription of melancholy).

I am not a choleric [said forcefully, attempting to exert his will on the world],

Ed

Post 26

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:56am

Ed Thompson wrote: "Eh? Well ... at least I got the descriptions of the 4 classic temperaments right (!?) ..."

Oh, sure! And in relating Kagan's version of how the four classic temperaments correspond to extraversion/introversion and emotionality, I was merely trying to add to what I had already shared about Kagan's research and analysis, since you had expressed an interest in the ancient temperaments. I'm delighted to find someone else who finds this area interesting. :-)

"Influenced early on by a book written by Florence Littauer (?), I've had trouble with contemporary treatment of the classic 4. I even find Keirsey (the preeminent, contemporary temperament researcher) to be in error on this."

Littauer's Personality Plus is a bit quirky and strained in how it assesses and describes the four temperaments. Her tendency to search for sets of four, usually unrelated descriptors that all begin with the same letter is an example of what I'm talking about: e.g., optimistic (Sanguine), outspoken (Choleric), orderly (Melancholic), obliging (Phlegmatic). If you wade through enough of these arbitrary descriptor groupings, you might get a bit irritated by the alliteration, as I did. It doesn't mean her approach is invalid, but it makes her appear to be more interested in the patterns of her presentation than in the patterns in human personality. Packaging run amok!

I agree with you that Keirsey's take on temperament is incorrect. He totally discounts extraversion and introversion as being primary factors in temperament. Instead, he equates the SPs with Sanguine, the SJs with Melancholic, the NFs with Choleric, and the NTs with Phlegmatic. I've always been of the opinion that he force-fit the ancient temperaments onto his preferred grouping (SP, SJ, NT, NF), which has a number of other problems. (I go into some of these in essays on my Achilles Tendencies website. http://members.aol.com/achillesrb/index.html )

I think that, other than Kagan, the contemporary guy who came closest to nailing the relationship of the ancient temperaments to personality measurement was Hans Eysenck, the famous British I.Q. researcher. He identified two primary dimensions that map into temperament: extraversion-introversion and emotional stability-instability (this latter sometimes called the Neuroticism factor). Here is how they relate, according to Eysenck. Also, note how they match up with Kagan's analysis in Galen's Prophecy. (See this website: http://www.trans4mind.com/personality/EPQ.html )

stable extraverts (sanguine qualities such as - outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing, lively, carefree, leadership) [These are Kagan's Sanguine, Low Reactive types, who neither fuss nor avoid]

unstable extraverts (choleric qualities such as - touchy, restless, excitable, changeable, impulsive, irresponsible) [These are Kagan's Distressed types -- distressed, as in: stimulated to fuss, but not to avoid]

stable introverts (phlegmatic qualities such as - calm, even-tempered, reliable, controlled, peaceful, thoughtful, careful, passive) [These are Kagan's Aroused types -- aroused, as in: stimulated to avoid, but not to fuss]

unstable introverts (melancholic qualities such as - quiet, reserved, pessimistic, sober, rigid, anxious, moody). [These are Kagan's Melancholic, High Reactive types, who both fuss and avoid]

Clearly, I am excited about the potential for integrating Kagan's and Eysenck's research and perspectives.

"What is agreed upon (among professionals and myself) [and myself! reb] is that melancholies and phlegs are introverts, and cholerics and sangs are extro-. However, in many cases, I see inconsistency within these groupings."

It appears to me that there are emotionally unstable and emotionally stable introverts (melancholics and phlegmatics, and that there are emotionally unstable and emotionally stable extraverts (cholerics and sanguines). If this is so, then any one of the eight Jungian/MBTI introverted types may have a melancholic or phlegmatic temperament -- and any one of the eight extraverts may have a choleric or sanguine temperament.

In other words, emotional stability-instability is a fifth personality factor, in addition to extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuiting, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving. This emotionality factor is recognized by the Five Factor Model of McCrea and Costa and measured by their NEO-PI (Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory). Google "neo-pi" and check out the first several hits for more information on this model of personality.

In the past 10 years or so, the Myers-Briggs folks have revised the MBTI to include a fifth scale called "Comfort-Discomfort" (less negative connotations than Neuroticism!), in order to make their product more competitive and credible, in the face of the Five Factor Model's pre-eminence in the field. It was long known by the MBTI folks that there was a fifth personality dimension, but it was held to be to inflammatory and subject to abuse in assessing personality, so public awareness of this factor was deliberately suppressed, and items measuring the factor were deliberately omitted from the MBTI, for several decades. Tsk, tsk. At any rate, the MBTI is now "up to speed" with the rest of the industry, and studies correlating the MBTI and NEO-PI show high rates of correlation between what they are measuring.

The upshot of all of this as it relates to temperament is that (except for the Keirsey folks) the consensus is building that temperament is extraversion-introversion plus emotional reactivity. Either the MBTI (in its Expanded Analysis form, using the Comfort-Discomfort scale) or the NEO-PI will provide you with an assessment of both your personality type and your temperament.

Best to all,
REB

Post 27

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:26pm

Roger,

I'm delighted to find someone else who finds this area interesting. :-)

As am I. Originally a psych-major in college, I had a vision of unification/integration of all the predominant personality typologies, such as: MBTI, Jungian, classical humours, Enneagram, triple-axis Eysenck (with pychoticism axis), etc. Perhaps after interacting with you, Roger -- I may pick up this task which I had been put down years ago ...

More later,
Ed

Post 28

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 2:05pm

Funny, I had wanted to do that with the MBTI, humours, and MMPI - eg. what correlation is there between schizoidal and MBTI I, narcissism and sanguine, etc.

Post 29

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:07pm

Ed Thompson wrote:

Originally a psych-major in college, I had a vision of unification/integration of all the predominant personality typologies, such as: MBTI, Jungian, classical humours, Enneagram, triple-axis Eysenck (with pychoticism axis), etc. Perhaps after interacting with you, Roger -- I may pick up this task which I had been put down years ago ...

And "Aaron" wrote:

Funny, I had wanted to do that with the MBTI, humours, and MMPI - eg. what correlation is there between schizoidal and MBTI I, narcissism and sanguine, etc.

Why not, guys? Go for it!

I've been chipping away at a masters degree in psychology for a few years now, and I've been interested in personality typologies for nearly 20 years, and the possibility of carrying out the kinds of projects you have alluded to is very intriguing to me. If you find out of any such attempts in the literature, please let me know!

Best regards,
REB

Post 30

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:05pm