Profiles, Temperament

From: Vanessa_0 
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:09:04 -0400


OK, Leslie, it's time for you to go read (in this order):

_Please Understand Me_ by Kiersey and Bates (first book, not _PUM2_)
_Gifts Differing_ by Isabella Briggs Myers
The official MBTI user's manual

You'll love'm.

> http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html

OK, a word about MBTI profiles.

I collect them for a reason.  Every set has flaws.  Generally they
reveal the biases and blindnesses of the authors.  

That in and of itself is one of the fascinating things about the study
of Type: that it turns out just about everyone has Types which they
have a hard time "seeing into", and tend to dislike.  While anecdotal,
its one of those little things which seems to me to help make the case
that Type is a valid and useful paradigm. Even without knowing about
Type, people do react to Type.  Even after they have studied Type (at
length) the gulf between Types is wide enough to thwart even the most
determined-to-be-open-minded.

So, the Type profiles in Keirsey's book tend to work find on NTs and
SPs.  Keirey knows, likes, and respects those people.  But Keirsey
doesn't understand NFs, and so there's not enough differentiation
between his four NF profiles.  But at least Keirsey has some respect
for the NFs.  Keirsey doesn't like SJs or have a very high opinion of
them, and it comes out -- despite his efforts to be fair -- in his SJ
profiles.

The http://www.typelogic.com/ profiles were writen largely by an INTJ
(Marina used to be on my INTJ list, back when I had an INTJ list :).
The INTJ profile is pretty good.  Her SJ profiles are pretty good.
But the SP profiles lack insight.


> Everyone is going to have a different take, and 
> from what I have been reading, having a clear handle on what each of the 
> types are is critical to finding yours.  Actually, it goes against MBTI 
> ethics to administer an indicator without professional consultation--because 
> folks have questions and somebody who understands the theory deeply is able 
> to answer these questions and either confirm or disconfirm the validity of 
> the pencil and paper test for the test taker (and help them find out what 
> personality *does* fit if the test is wrong).  The pencil and paper test is 
> not foolproof.  Anyhow, whatever way you decide to determine your 
> personality, reading or hearing descriptions and deciding if they match for 
> you is a critical step.

Right.  The general method is: Take a test.  Read suggested profile.
Read other profiles until you figger it out.

This is why, when I do typings in person, I bring not just one set of
16 profiles, but several sets, and use known strong profiles.

> http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html
> 
>   This site explains why it can be hard to find reliable online tests (they 
> are not officially sanctioned for the reasons listed above, therefore they 
> are also not often scientifically validated.)  Kate, that explains why the 
> test you took before was faulty.  The hoster of that site did specifically 
> say that he is trying to validate the thing.

This is true to a first approximation, only.  Don't fetishize
validation, though, yes, that is why the realt MBTI(tm) is better than
all these little whipped up questionaires.

It turns out writing a functional Type sorter is much harder than it
looks.  (Yea, verily, I am the voice of experience.)  You absolutely
must have a great grasp of Type theory and how Type exists *in the
real world* to pull it off.  

I would say the reason the test Kate took (which I went and looked at)
didn't work is because their grasp of Type practicals was poor.  Their
theory may be OK, but their questions failed to correctly discern what
they seemed to think they would.  

> Another note--there is a difference between the Keirsey personality 
> sorter and the MBTI--even though they are based on the same Jungian 
> personality types and use the same letters.  The difference is such that one 
> could conceivably score differently on a Keirsey test than they will on the 
> MBTI.  

The KTS and the MBTI try to do the same thing, and use similar
methodologies (of questions), but the KTS is in no way validated, and
is less reliable than the MBTI -- which is itself not terribly
reliable.

I use the KTS with an interesting scoring variant which improves it's
reliability.  

> One site I visited stated that Keirsey developed his test to 
> accompany his book "Please Understand Me" so readers could be actively 
> involved in what he was saying.  

That is also correct, the bit abou being for _PUM_.  However, no, it
is the first thing in the book so readers aren't really intereacting
with it in a different way.

> It is shorter, and from what this site 
> states, based on some different testing mechanisms.  

The full MBTI(tm) is ~200 questions; the KTS is 70.  Keirsey also now
has a 20 question version.

> If anyone is able to 
> direct me to a detailed explanation of the differences and how they affect 
> test outcomes I would be much obliged.  

Too big for the margin of this email. :) Hope all this so far is
helpful, though.

> Anyhow, one thing you will notice is 
> that Keirsey divides the 16 types into 4 categories: SJs, SPs, NTs, and NFs. 
>   Now why Keirsey does not divide them according to dominant and auxiliary 
> functions, ie: SF, ST, NF, and NT is something I do not know right now.

Temperament Theory!  This is Keirsey's big contribution to the canon
of Type theory.  I'm a big fan.  Strict MB adherants pretend it
doesn't exist, the same way strict Jungians pretent MB doesn't exist.

Keirsey looked at Type and said, "Hey everybody, look at this!  If you
slice the pie in this other interesting way, you get...."  And the
resultant Temperament Theory allows much more powerful
generalizations, especially for discussing large populations.  I think
Keirseian Temperament is the thing that really make s Type hang
together and gel.

(I have also looked into other ways of slicing the Type pie, and
learned other useful things e.g. think about the generalizations one
can make about IP/EP/IJ/EJ).

One of the big groovienesses about Temperament Theory is that it says,
in essencen, "OK, yes, according to Jungian Functional analysis, INTJ
and INFJ are very similar types (more similar than INTJ/INTP), but
looked at from this *other* perspective, there's this big gulf between
them and INTJ/INTP are much closer."  Using these two different
perspectives, Jungian Functional analysis and Keirseian Temperament
Theory, together are a fantastic techique for Typing people.  Instead
of getting stuck in "This person is clearly IN?J, and it's only the
T/F that I can't discern" one can say, instead, "Alright, is this
person an NF or NT" and one suddenly has an entirely different tact to
take.