Personality Cafe banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
THE IRON GIANT
Joined
·
10,129 Posts
Discussion Starter #1


Global 5/Big 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey correlations

What they're saying here is that some Global 5 dichotomies can be roughly mapped to MBTI dichotomies. I was OK with it until I got to the last line (highlighted). Quite plainly, they're claiming the metric of sensing and intuition in MBTI correlates to Global 5's Intellect in a "medium-high" fashion. And within these systems, you know... they may be right to some extent.

:frustrating:

As much as I like Jung, MBTI is awful, and here's why: this adaptation of Jungian cognitive function theory was done so carelessly, and in an apparent effort to take something cognitive and make it behavioral, that it destroys a large portion of JCF's usefulness in describing the way the different types think. Did they really think they were doing anyone a favor when they flat-out changed the way the functions are described in this adaptation?

Well, at least it's not as bad as Keirsey.

Thoughts?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,145 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Yeah, I think that MBTI simplification would have been better if they had focused more on the functions than the role that these types are supposed to play. I have to admit, MBTI is what first got me started along the path of learning about cognitive functions though, and it is a lot easier to say someone falls under an MBTI category than to try and determine the strength of ones cognitive functions in the correct order.

I like the idea of classifying people as a Myer-Briggs type, but explaining the functions rather than using the description MBTI or Keirsey provides, although, I do think that those descriptions add a lot of popularity to those theories. Anyone who eventually takes interest in it cannot help but find out about Jung's parent theory. There should be a better way to sum it all up, there are pieces I like from each. They need to have a love-child.

Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Openness to experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my main concern is that people will see it and think that a non-curious type would be 'stupid', like that whole misconception towards sensors thing.
Two of the best programmers I have ever met in my field of work are ISTJ's. They are power houses of productivity, it is kinda scary. I'd laugh at anyone who thinks a sensor is stupid. Then I'd be all like "Oh, you're serious? I'm so sorry...", sarcastically of course. >.>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,780 Posts
Isnt the problem with the difference in approach Jung and the MBTI use? Keirsey especially tries to deduce type based on behavior, while Jung uses many months of introspection to get at a person's preferred functions. To be honest Keisey's archetypes are especially misguided :p.

The type of psychology here differs. The problem with going with the behavioral approach is that the same behavior may manifest from different functional preferences. Fi and Fe may do the same thing but from different perspectives - for example. Then there is also a problem with using fixed descriptions of type in stead of going with the nature of the function attitude that is preferred.

No 2 INFPs are the same and we can wildly differ from one another in behavior and preferences, one size doesn't fit all.

The BIG 5 is mainly a way to check for a person's mental state. Being reserved can mean a lot of things, which are not introversion and the opposite is true ofc. Same goes for emotional stability and the rest. It doesn't correlate well with the types.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Yea in a Jungian sense both MBTI and Five Factor Model tests generally are only trying to quantify someone's persona (which as we know personas change all the time so this is really pointless). With Five Factor Model this is excusable since it is trying to be scientific and not get caught up too much in esoteric concepts like 'the psyche' (though one wonders why it bothers to call itself psychology), but Big 5 is at least heavily peer reviewed and accepted if for nothing else than a decent snapshot of a person is in the moment.

MBTI, however, operates under very different precepts. In MBTI everything is built around judging and perceiving AS THEY DEFINE it, so from the get go you have to take at face value the paradigm that they set up. Unlike Jung whose ideas are generally adaptations or re-imaginings of psychological theory that had mostly already been in existence (the idea of ego, persona, complexes, etc., pre-date Jung) you can't really measure judging and perceiving against anything. If Myers says that all Fi-doms must be 'perceivers' (like things open-ended) then they must be. There's no allowance for a 'judger-like' Fi-dom in MBTI.

Furthermore as @Stephen pointed out, MBTI re-defined the functions to make their behavioral theories work. So Intuition stopped being about nebulous notions or gut-feelings and became about abstraction and creativity. This is crazy because as @Kayness points out this type of thinking quickly leads to the idea that types without strong intuitions can't be creative or abstract, when we know this isn't the case. Si stopped being about subjective perception and became about traditionalism, or high conscientiousness, sticking to what one knows, when in reality Si-doms run the map on all of these things (I know Si-doms who are very traditional and others who are crazy -- anyone gonna call Van Gogh a traditionalist?)

So then Kiersey, who is more of a social/behavioral psychologist comes along with the four temperaments and adapts MBTI to fit his model, picking and choosing from it what he wants (basically he keeps the type codes and the basic character gists and combines it with his existing theories). Kiersey is somewhat dismissive of both MBTI and Jung outwardly in some cases (much moreso dismissive of the Jungians...and Lenore Thomson) and his character roles make sense, but they are highly stereotypical. At best very surface-level categorizations. The real problem with Kiersey is actually that, for whatever reason, he used the MBTI style type codes instead of creating one of his own. This is what creates the issue of the NFs vs NTs or SJs which make no sense when you try to look at this from a broader perspective. If Kiersey had just stayed with Rationals and Artisans and not NTs and SPs he'd be much less problematic because any type might have moments of being either rationale or artisan (or might be socialized as such). But when you apply the terms NT and NF, etc., even just casually, now it becomes nonsensical because surely not only strong Se-types can be artisans (a great many architects out there are Ti and Si-doms for example).

The thing with MBTI though is that much of what we know of MBTI is sometimes not actually MBTI itself. There's a lot of theories that are just accepted as part of the JCF/MBTI world that don't actually come from MBTI itself (like the 8-function model). In fact MBTI is the only theory, besides Jung, that actually only uses four functions (all the rest use 6 or 8). There are other things out there too like type dynamics which we generally apply to MBTI, but wasn't originally part of the MBTI theory to my knowledge. I know @Yukawa over at PerN was saying that MBTI originally started out much more reverent to Analytical Psychology, but has since moved away, maybe due to some re/misinterpretations of Jung and just the general development of their own product in its own direction. I don't think today you could really call MBTI psychology but rather behavioral study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
In my opinion, it was the price to pay to make the theory more popular.
Analyzing yourself around some nebulous abstract function? Clearly that's going to be a success...
Now change that for "You pass this simple test, and now you can discover yourself and improve your team building ability" and suddenly people are throwing themselves on the theory like a cloud of flies on a bottle of butterscotch.

On one hand, I'm pretty sure that more people read Jung's original book than if the MBTI didn't exist. On the other hand, it spread misinformation about the subject to most people.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top