MBTI Needs To Change

[John K]

I've only just skimmed through the thread, so I'll have a better look tomorrow, but just one quick thought. My experience of joining this forum is that there are a greater percentage of people here who share some or even many of my perspectives on life than I have come across anywhere else. There are probably more here than I've met in the rest of my 69 years put together elsewhere in the world, and I've shared more of my inner life comfortably here than anywhere else. To my mind, however the type sorting is being done, it is concentrating people with similar orientations to the world into the forum. Maybe the process of establishing mbti type is only the entry point and the forum weeds out those who aren't turned on by its content, but I don't think so because there is a lot of parallel between the way people behave in the forum, and the infj type descriptions in the literature. So on the basis of supposing that mbti is sorting people into different ways of orienting to the world, and looking at the effect of filtering on infj into the forum, I'd say the hypothesis / test approach is at least encouraging. Of course this isn't sufficient, because we aren't a randomly selected set of infjs, other types are not included, and the judgement I've made is subjective - but it is encouraging.

 

[John K]

@Wyote – yeah.
I don't usually full-out disagree with others because most issues worth discussing are multi-faceted. There are exceptions to this rule, but we don't need to go there.
I agree that people should change how they approach MBTI. Can one of the changes be to stop writing those insipid articles that are the MBTI equivalent to the, "Geniuses Do (whatever meaningless habit a lot of people do)" articles?
I don't think it has to become something new when it changes, though. We could simply emphasize different points.
I think if it were a perfect model, it would not die out, nor would it have so many issues. Being imperfect does not make it meaningless.
A sense of individualism is part of Western Culture. I see both the good and bad in this. :/


Finding out one's type, a type that truly resonates with oneself, is rewarding. Understanding typing in general helps us accept and understand other's behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses, as well.
This is at the root of my frustration. It is not ultimately helpful to be blatantly mistyped.
People who choose types based on the fluff are giving away more about what their egos value than people who attempt to type accurately. (For example, person who chooses "the mastermind", or "the rare one", or the "virtuoso", or "the artist", etc.)
Does typing solve everything, or perfectly explain people as individuals? No.

I know an INTJ who tested as INTJ when she first took the tests, but then insisted she could not be an INTJ based on the fluff descriptions. She didn't find much worth in MBTI because she couldn't find her type and the types she considered (INFJ because of Ni, INFP because she knew her empathy was Fi based) didn't describe her well, either. A year and a half later, she took the official test, got INTJ, and the official description deeply resonated with her. This anecdote adds to the point Ren raised that much of the misinformation is actually outside the official MBTI boundaries. So, it may not be MBTI that is the problem, but the other popular "MBTI-like" stuff online that is the problem. However, at what point do we say, "This is MBTI now?" Sometimes the infiltrators take over the meaning of movements and ideas.

Maybe we should make up a new system that maps people's brains as complexly as star charts in astrology. LOL. I am joking.

I think you neatly summed up where I got to after reading through all the comments @Asa. Just to add a few additional thoughts.

Ever since I first came across mbti, I've felt that it is unwise to abstract and use it completely independently of Jung's overall psychological theory. In particular, the way type dynamics should evolve over our lifetimes needs an understanding of the process of individuation, and this isn't possible without having some knowledge of jung's theory of the unconscious - which is a much larger set of theory than his psychology of the conscious.

I have not found it possible to get at my type using the questionnaires - I agree with the idea that the way we answer the questionnaires is determined to a great extent by our environment, circumstances, and an almost unavoidable tendency to dishonesty in some sections. I found the best way was to read the type descriptions in the best literature, observe people and see how they match the descriptions, then try and apply the learning to myself. I also found that recognising which was my inferior helped a lot. I think the questionnaires may set people on the road to discovery, but it's probably best to assume the first assessment is tentative and use it as an entry point not an exit point for the typing process. I think if I went into it professionally in another existence, I'd probably confirm type for people by looking at shadow function and inferior behaviours because these are likely to be not under full conscious control.

There's an awful lot of nonsense out there - Ni and Fe are not at all well described for example. At the same time the infj type seems to be fashionable on many mbti web sites, and there's a lot of material out there about it - probably because true infjs are more likely to be turned on by this sort of thing and there are many of them who write about it and make videos. Like happens with a lot of trending things on the Internet, some people are wanting to identify with it because of this regardless of whether it really suits them.

For some of us, the type we have accepted becomes part of our identity and we will resist any suggestion that it's wrong, unless it comes from within. I'm a bit like that, and I can sway the questionnaires to agree with me without being fully aware I'm doing it at the time - they are useless for people who are familiar with the mbti model and are experienced with the sort of questions presented, imho.

I think maybe too much is expected of mbti, which was never intended to be a precision tool as far as I can see - Jung seemed to treat each patient as highly individual and used his typology just to get some initial orientation. After all, it only has 16 different types and I think we should compare it with a simple compass rose:

A 16 point compass is not meant to be a precision instrument - it will happily give you a broad direction, but it ain't a professional gps system with a global set of map grid references accurate to a centimetre. A mistake I think gets made over and again is to confuse the model with the underlying reality. You get this a lot in hard science too, with people thinking that quantum mechanics is reality rather than an incomplete model of it. Mbti breaks down easily if we push it too hard, but it seems to me that if we keep within its scope of validity it works OK as a heuristic.

 

[Wyote]

A 16 point compass is not meant to be a precision instrument - it will happily give you a broad direction, but it ain't a professional gps system with a global set of map grid references accurate to a centimetre. A mistake I think gets made over and again is to confuse the model with the underlying reality. You get this a lot in hard science too, with people thinking that quantum mechanics is reality rather than an incomplete model of it. Mbti breaks down easily if we push it too hard, but it seems to me that if we keep within its scope of validity it works OK as a heuristic.

Yup!

 

[Wyote]

This is at the root of my frustration. It is not ultimately helpful to be blatantly mistyped.
People who choose types based on the fluff are giving away more about what their egos value than people who attempt to type accurately.

I see your point here. This is also the crux of a lot of my own frustrations with it.
I'm not sure what can be done, other than to stress the importance of having yourself professionally typed if you want to engage in discussions at a professional level.
People always muck things up. Often it's not entirely their fault, but implementing better strategies can dissuade negative behavioral patterns.

 

[Nautilidae]

As a business, MBTI is still successful enough such that incentives to change it are likely not present. It has it's place in business and with hobbyists. In terms of accuracy, this will likely be provided by competing systems lead by people who are more interested. Objective Personality is probably the one that provides the most familiar experience for those who like the MBTI-style nomenclature. They seem to care about creating an accurate product.

 

[mancino]

I've just read this somewhat old thread and found it very enriching! Thanks to @Asa for starting it, and to all the contributors.

I agree with most of what has been said: the MBTI unofficial tests are vastly improvable, to say the least. I can't speak of the official one, as I haven't taken it. However, I would put some of the blame on the way a casual newbee is likely to take a free online test - as I did many times - guilty as charged! That is, in a lazy, unrespectful, superficial way. Maybe the official test gives a better result just because you pay for it (Yup!) and you have an actual "certified expert" giving it to you, and then - I believe - evaluating your answers and cross-checking your type.

If you will, finding your true self is a journey that has always been spiritual, and as such was NOT done alone, but with mentors-sage-shaman-counselor figures helping along the way. Now, in this age of technology, we want a machine to tell us who we really are! Press some buttons, get a code, done! No fuss required.

On the other hand, if you look at a more respected personality inventory like the Big 5, you can better speculate about how it will evolve in time. It really doesn't have a theory behind it, its lexical hypothesys means that the inventory is based on language, and thus will change as the language changes, i.e. very, very slowly. But it will change. The fluid sexual identity, for exampe, is generating new words to talk about individuals, so eventually you could have new facets being introduced in the Big 5 to reflect that. But I don't see any actual fundamental change any time soon in the way we humans are.

Spoiler: Wonkish

With the psychometric standard practice in the Big 5, scores are normalized to get percentile values, so even if people change drastically through the years, you wouldn't see it.
If you believe that Cognitive Functions are actually pointing at something substantial in the brain (which I'm agnostic about), then you could argue that Jungian Typology would be able to measure a shift in averages in population. I've seen somewhere that there is already a trend going on: Intuition raising its share compared to Sensing. I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me.
I wonder if you would have had a different E/I split in the XIX Century, as Romanticism prized introspection and sensibility, or if there were more Ts during the rational Enlightenment, or more Js under the Spanish Inquisition... but I digress...

Actually, if you look at Culture, it is astonising to see to what extent the Wisdom of the Old can speak to us, dwellers of the XXI Century. Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Lao Tzu, The Bible... there is a underlying pattern in the human condition that hasn't changed, and will not change...
...My Ni speaking, can't help it!

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

In the years since MBTI was established, society has changed. Humans are raised differently, have different values, different life experiences, and different senses of self.

For example: In the 21st century, individualism is prized. Decades ago, being unique was something people wanted to keep under wraps. Most humans feel alone, misunderstood, and unique. This is a facet of the human condition. In present society, those feelings are celebrated; we're all special, unique, and 'different'. Furthermore, society is more openly diverse. When MBTI was established, society was presented ad homogenized. (It was not homogenized then, merely presented that way.) This slowly growing acceptance of diversity, countered with resistance to diversity in the same culture, is making room for people to recognize that they are unique, but causing them to continue to feel alienated, different and misunderstood.

Decades ago, introversion was considered a flaw. Now, introversion is desirable.

MBTI began in 1917. The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944 and the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. The second edition was published in 1985. The third edition was published in 1998.

Decades ago American society had strict social codes that needed to be followed, WWI and WWII soldiers returning from war, tract housing for WWII veterans, factory work, housewives attempting to fit the stereotypes presented in magazines, new materials that made it easier (and more affordable) for a rising, middle class to obtain possessions (feeding a 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentality), and the 'Silent Generation' who valued fitting in, staying quiet about radical and personal thoughts, and 'going with the flow'. When the first manual arrived in 1963, the Hippie movements and protests of Vietnam had not yet happened. Punk rock had hit by the time the second edition arrived in1985, but anyone who is part of Gen X will tell you rebels and individualism of all types (punk, Goth, hippies, etc.) were still considered "social outcasts". The mentalities of the Millennial Generation, as well as how they were raised, truly changed how Americans think about themselves and about society as a whole.

The ages of fearing individuality, and denying that we feel different, is ending. In truth, most people feel different and misunderstood. We all crave deep connection. We all want to find people who understand us. We all think we are creative, thoughtful, intelligent, (etc.) individuals. The term ambivert is growing in popularity. More people believe they are 'empaths', or 'highly sensitive'.

As gender stereotypes fragment, and gender is accepted as a spectrum, certain traits will become more evenly distributed, notably Thinking and Feeling traits that have traditionally been assigned gender roles. (Women are Feelers, men are Thinkers.)

As long as MBTI test questions stay as they are, more and more people who take the tests (particularly the free online tests), instead of studying function, are going to mistype.


This creates an interesting dilemma for INFJs:

Are INFJs becoming more popular, or are the attitudes about individualism, combined with outdated test questions, causing more and more people to be mistyped as INFJs? Will changing the test questions reduce the number of over-all mistypes? Mistyping will make MBTI meaningless.

If the questions are not changed, and if mistyping continues, MBTI must stop describing INFJ as the "rarest" type.

BTW: The official MBTI website already states that female INTJs are the rarest type, not INFJs.

The questions on an online test are purely subjective to expectation of cognitive function expression and possible personal bias. The way that the system was created goes with the fluidity of social change by keeping to objective facts and principles of those cognitive functions created by Jung and further developed by Myers Briggs in a different time. Quite possibly the online tests are too flawed and the knowledge of mbti not as well understood as it could be. Granted, I agree that it should be taken a little more seriously than it has been.

 

[Krypton]

I think the biggest problems with the tests are that the questions are too vague (allowing for bias to creep in--it's much harder to correctly answer whether you use your head or your heart to make decisions as opposed to why you picked the college you went to, for example), that the dimensions are described too abstractly (thus so many extraverts mistyping as introverts, if that statement is true--when all your information about extraverts is "they get energized from people", it's easy to assume that if you aren't 100% that you aren't an extravert), and that once you understand what the questions are asking it's easy enough to cherry-pick data about yourself to get any answer you want.

The first is pretty easy to solve, and the second could be solved easily enough with phrases like "compared to your friends" or having friends answer questions as you, and with more nuanced descriptions. The third would just have to be solved through awareness and outsourcing more of the questions to friends I guess.

 

[Ren]

The first is pretty easy to solve, and the second could be solved easily enough with phrases like "compared to your friends" or having friends answer questions as you, and with more nuanced descriptions. The third would just have to be solved through awareness and outsourcing more of the questions to friends I guess.

Don't think it would solve anything to be honest.

Suppose that x is true. (For instance, x = 'Krypton is an extrovert'). The test does not and cannot capture x.

What it captures is P(x), i.e. 'perception of x'. Sure, you can break this down into Pk(x) ('Krypton's perception of x'), Pr(x) ('Ren's perception of x'), etc. But what you will get is only an average of different perceptions, not x. There is no way to move from P(x) to x.

With more nuanced descriptions you can hope to ensure that P(x) approximates x, perhaps. But there's only so much nuance you can add to a test before it becomes meaningless. Which is why it's better to opt for a qualitative study of the functions (not a test), where you can have all the nuance you want. You still won't be able to get from P(x) to x, but you will at least have reasonable grounds to assume that your perception is correct (in the sense of approximating x), because you will have engaged in a study rather than an expression of opinion, directed—and thus intrinsically biased—at every point by the internal mechanism of the test.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[Krypton]

Don't think it would solve anything to be honest.

Suppose that x is true. (For instance, x = 'Krypton is an extrovert'). The test does not and cannot capture x.

What it captures is P(x), i.e. 'perception of x'. Sure, you can break this down into Pk(x) ('Krypton's perception of x'), Pr(x) ('Ren's perception of x'), etc. But what you will get is only an average of different perceptions, not x. There is no way to move from P(x) to x.

Yeah but there's an inherent value in moving the self-assessment outside of the self that makes assessment with input from others more accurate. It's been said elsewhere on this thread that people aren't aware enough of themselves, and often have preferences with regards to who they'd like to be that don't match up with reality. Assuming they act according to what they authentically feel in the moment most of the time, however, and the people around them don't have really severe type biases (I would argue many people don't, and to the extent that they do it can be fixed with better descriptions again, as others have said), another person wouldn't feel the need for you be a certain type as you might feel for yourself, and they for them. It's not a hit on my ego if someone I talk to/like is a type I don't want to be--that's not who I am.

This may become less true with more specific questions though, since our understanding of motivations increases a bit with specificity and others might not know the thought process that went into this or that decision. So that's something to think about.

Reference to others makes it more accurate in a different way, also. It's not about combining perceptions of x, but having a frame of reference for what terms mean. When you have descriptions that could apply to multiple different kinds of behaviour (e.g. Extraversion is described either as "being energized by people", which could mean literally always choosing to spend time with people when possible, or choosing to spend time with people 70% of the time, etc., or "a focus on the object", which could mean literally only thinking about things outside yourself, or thinking about things that matter to everyone and not just you most of the time--which has its own linguistic problems, since what matters to everyone could mean global warming or what everyone's talking or thinking about in the moment, etc.), you really benefit from having that concrete example.

With more nuanced descriptions you can hope to ensure that P(x) approximates x, perhaps. But there's only so much nuance you can add to a test before it becomes meaningless.

I would hope the test would be more nuanced, but not that nuanced then.

Which is why it's better to opt for a qualitative study of the functions (not a test), where you can have all the nuance you want. You still won't be able to get from P(x) to x, but you will at least have reasonable grounds to assume that your perception is correct, because you will have engaged in a study rather than an expression of opinion, directed—and thus intrinsically biased—at every point by the internal mechanism of the test.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

1. Why would a high level of nuance be acceptable in qualitative study but not a test?
2. Studying the functions doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for better descriptions and the ability to use others as a reference point. For instance, if you read Jung's Ni description you might think that you're not an Ni user unless you have a symbol for everything you see, or you might think that if you've ever had symbolic thoughts you could be Ni dom--even if some parts of the text contradict that, at a certain level of density it becomes too difficult to figure that out for a lot of people (I know I personally have had problems like that).
3. Many people aren't going to take the time to study the functions.
4. Why would your own personal study be less biased than a test? You're deciding what parts of the reading you focus on, what data from your personal life you put into it, and so on. In a test at least you can try to standardize the data.

 

[John K]

Don't think it would solve anything to be honest.

Suppose that x is true. (For instance, x = 'Krypton is an extrovert'). The test does not and cannot capture x.

What it captures is P(x), i.e. 'perception of x'. Sure, you can break this down into Pk(x) ('Krypton's perception of x'), Pr(x) ('Ren's perception of x'), etc. But what you will get is only an average of different perceptions, not x. There is no way to move from P(x) to x.

With more nuanced descriptions you can hope to ensure that P(x) approximates x, perhaps. But there's only so much nuance you can add to a test before it becomes meaningless. Which is why it's better to opt for a qualitative study of the functions (not a test), where you can have all the nuance you want. You still won't be able to get from P(x) to x, but you will at least have reasonable grounds to assume that your perception is correct (in the sense of approximating x), because you will have engaged in a study rather than an expression of opinion, directed—and thus intrinsically biased—at every point by the internal mechanism of the test.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Agree Ren. I just re-read my old comments here from over two years ago, and I haven't changed my mind since then. I still think the questionnaires are mostly of use with someone who knows very little about Jungian typology, and doesn't have a prior commitment to one of the MBTI types. For those of us who have spent time chewing it over and learning about it, the best way forward is to compare your own behaviours to those described in the literature - that means getting some good books as well as browsing the mixture of good and dodgy web sites. Getting feedback from friends and family is a good idea - but on the actual characteristic behaviours not on the answers to the questionnaires.

What @Krypton picked up about people falling along a spectrum between the attitude and function poles is quite right. No-one is all extravert or all introvert, and everyone uses all the functions in either orientation. I don't actually like the phrase 'I am an INFJ', 'He is an ENTP'. For myself my closest match seems to be INFJ, but it's not a perfect fit, just a better fit than the others. The way I tried to pin down my type was to start with the questionnaires, then read extensively and match myself to what I read, restricting most of my attention to the types most closely related to what the questionnaires were throwing up. When I closed in on INFJ, I joined the forum here, to see how I compared with other INFJ type folks in actual life, and that pretty well gave me as much confirmation as is reasonable.

It's obvious looking at the way people behave related to the type they claim for themselves that MBTI does actually split people up into groups of distinct behaviour preferences. It's pretty crude, and there's a lot of overlap but that's to be expected. After all, it's only using 16 distinct types, and there are only three or four independent behavioural vectors in the classification, if indeed they are independent. Those vectors are limited in scope which means that there is plenty of human behaviour that falls outside of their range. The implication is that each MBTI type includes a very great range of behavioural variation. It's easy to see this by looking at an alternative typing system such as the Enneagram which shows there are plenty of E1, E2, E4, E5 and E9 types all happily accommodated within INFJ, with other E types also possible.

I think a good way for someone to pin down their closest MBTI match is to use the type behaviour descriptions and choose the one that you find is best for you. Then go and hang out with other people of that type and act out those behaviours. You'll soon pick up whether it's a comfortable fit or not.

 

[Ren]

Reference to others makes it more accurate in a different way, also. It's not about combining perceptions of x, but having a frame of reference for what terms mean. When you have descriptions that could apply to multiple different kinds of behaviour (e.g. Extraversion is described either as "being energized by people", which could mean literally always choosing to spend time with people when possible, or choosing to spend time with people 70% of the time, etc., or "a focus on the object", which could mean literally only thinking about things outside yourself, or thinking about things that matter to everyone and not just you most of the time--which has its own linguistic problems, since what matters to everyone could mean global warming or what everyone's talking or thinking about in the moment, etc.), you really benefit from having that concrete example.

I agree in principle, but in practice you're likely to end up with a lot of disagreement as to the frame of reference. I'll give you a concrete example. I'm pretty sure I'm an introvert, but like almost 50% of my friends think I'm an extrovert. When I talk to them it's quite clear that they have different frames of reference to begin with. And I've even had friends debating what the correct frame of reference should be, without being able to reach a consensus.

The problem is that the vagueness around the introversion/extroversion divide is internal to the test, so it's likely impossible to fix it externally--no matter how many people you consult.

1. Why would a high level of nuance be acceptable in qualitative study but not a test?

I think simply because a high level of nuance doesn't admit of yes/no answers, or even 'very much agree' to 'very much disagree' type answers. I think that when you engage in a study, you are also in a different frame of mind than when you give answers to a test. The approach is more in depth and holistic.

3. Many people aren't going to take the time to study the functions.

True, but that's also because most people are not so much interested in figuring out their true type as indulging in a little vanity project

Just because most people aren't going to take the time doesn't mean it's not the best approach. It's just not what most people really seek, I guess.

. Why would your own personal study be less biased than a test? You're deciding what parts of the reading you focus on, what data from your personal life you put into it, and so on. In a test at least you can try to standardize the data.

That's a really good question, and I think there is an answer to it. However, I'll need to develop a bit so I'll have to do it later.

 

[John K]

Yeah but there's an inherent value in moving the self-assessment outside of the self that makes assessment with input from others more accurate. It's been said elsewhere on this thread that people aren't aware enough of themselves, and often have preferences with regards to who they'd like to be that don't match up with reality. Assuming they act according to what they authentically feel in the moment most of the time, however, and the people around them don't have really severe type biases (I would argue many people don't, and to the extent that they do it can be fixed with better descriptions again, as others have said), another person wouldn't feel the need for you be a certain type as you might feel for yourself, and they for them. It's not a hit on my ego if someone I talk to/like is a type I don't want to be--that's not who I am.

This may become less true with more specific questions though, since our understanding of motivations increases a bit with specificity and others might not know the thought process that went into this or that decision. So that's something to think about.

Reference to others makes it more accurate in a different way, also. It's not about combining perceptions of x, but having a frame of reference for what terms mean. When you have descriptions that could apply to multiple different kinds of behaviour (e.g. Extraversion is described either as "being energized by people", which could mean literally always choosing to spend time with people when possible, or choosing to spend time with people 70% of the time, etc., or "a focus on the object", which could mean literally only thinking about things outside yourself, or thinking about things that matter to everyone and not just you most of the time--which has its own linguistic problems, since what matters to everyone could mean global warming or what everyone's talking or thinking about in the moment, etc.), you really benefit from having that concrete example.



I would hope the test would be more nuanced, but not that nuanced then.



1. Why would a high level of nuance be acceptable in qualitative study but not a test?
2. Studying the functions doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for better descriptions and the ability to use others as a reference point. For instance, if you read Jung's Ni description you might think that you're not an Ni user unless you have a symbol for everything you see, or you might think that if you've ever had symbolic thoughts you could be Ni dom--even if some parts of the text contradict that, at a certain level of density it becomes too difficult to figure that out for a lot of people (I know I personally have had problems like that).
3. Many people aren't going to take the time to study the functions.
4. Why would your own personal study be less biased than a test? You're deciding what parts of the reading you focus on, what data from your personal life you put into it, and so on. In a test at least you can try to standardize the data.

My last post crossed over yours - some more thoughts.

My feeling is that what you say is pretty consistent with my own experience that by themselves, tests and study are only basic groundwork in a serious attempt to find our own type with any confidence. They are the same as reading about how to drive, and studying the highway code for your country, taking online tests etc - but we'll never actually learn unless we get in a car and climb the hill of what it's like out there on the roads, behind the steering wheel. I think this is similar to discovering our type, because it's really the bumps and stresses of trying to live to a type that will prove in the end whether it fits comfortably or not - and it may even be that none of them do.

I think it's unavoidable that there is significant effort involved, as there is with any form of serious personal development and self-discovery. There's no compulsion to go beyond the basic tests of course, but there's a pretty high chance of being mis-typed that way. For example I found that I took on the ambient type flavour of my working environment originally, which was very INTx, and that confused me a lot at first. I don't think a more sophisticated test would have helped, and in fact the one I took originally was an official one carried out on a management training course by a trained consultant which came out with INT and a dead heat on P/J - which I rejected later after reading a lot about it. Perhaps, like with driving, it would help greatly if we were guided by a qualified expert, but that's not easily available and costs quite a lot.

 

[Krypton]

I agree in principle, but in practice you're likely to end up with a lot of disagreement as to the frame of reference. I'll give you a concrete example. I'm pretty sure I'm an introvert, but like almost 50% of my friends think I'm an extrovert. When I talk to them it's quite clear that they have different frames of reference to begin with. And I've even had friends debating what the correct frame of reference should be, without being able to reach a consensus.

To be clear, when I talk about referencing others I don't mean asking them what they think--that is a part of what I think should be done, but it's one of several things. I mean like providing examples in the test, or before or after. Asking others or asking you to compare to others is its own thing.

The problem is that the vagueness around the introversion/extroversion divide is internal to the test, so it's likely impossible to fix it externally--no matter how many people you consult.

I don't think the tests as they exist shouldn't be changed, so I sort of agree here.

I think simply because a high level of nuance doesn't admit of yes/no answers, or even 'very much agree' to 'very much disagree' type answers. I think that when you engage in a study, you are also in a different frame of mind than when you give answers to a test. The approach is more in depth and holistic.

I would agree that yes/no or agree/disagree answers aren't good for this. I would have something like written answers followed by another step where others compare the answers you've written to the answers written by examples picked by the test makers. To keep this from falling into the pitfalls of questions like "what is your thought process like", or "give your interpretation of this picture", they'd be about clearly real-world decisions where one would know what their thought process was, rather than something they would observe in the moment, or detailed hypothetical scenarios only if a real-world decision couldn't be found.

True, but that's also because most people are not so much interested in figuring out their true type as indulging in a little vanity project

Just because most people aren't going to take the time doesn't mean it's not the best approach. It's just not what most people really seek, I guess.

I guess it does depend on what your goals are with the system. For me personally it really is a vanity project but if you wanna have a test that fosters a community that doesn't mistype, that gives accurate results, etc. improving it in a way that people would use would be important (although maybe not the most important thing...)

That's a really good question, and I think there is an answer to it. However, I'll need to develop a bit so I'll have to do it later.

Awesome. Thanks, Ren!

 

[slant]

In the years since MBTI was established, society has changed. Humans are raised differently, have different values, different life experiences, and different senses of self.

For example: In the 21st century, individualism is prized. Decades ago, being unique was something people wanted to keep under wraps. Most humans feel alone, misunderstood, and unique. This is a facet of the human condition. In present society, those feelings are celebrated; we're all special, unique, and 'different'. Furthermore, society is more openly diverse. When MBTI was established, society was presented ad homogenized. (It was not homogenized then, merely presented that way.) This slowly growing acceptance of diversity, countered with resistance to diversity in the same culture, is making room for people to recognize that they are unique, but causing them to continue to feel alienated, different and misunderstood.

Decades ago, introversion was considered a flaw. Now, introversion is desirable.

MBTI began in 1917. The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944 and the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. The second edition was published in 1985. The third edition was published in 1998.

Decades ago American society had strict social codes that needed to be followed, WWI and WWII soldiers returning from war, tract housing for WWII veterans, factory work, housewives attempting to fit the stereotypes presented in magazines, new materials that made it easier (and more affordable) for a rising, middle class to obtain possessions (feeding a 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentality), and the 'Silent Generation' who valued fitting in, staying quiet about radical and personal thoughts, and 'going with the flow'. When the first manual arrived in 1963, the Hippie movements and protests of Vietnam had not yet happened. Punk rock had hit by the time the second edition arrived in1985, but anyone who is part of Gen X will tell you rebels and individualism of all types (punk, Goth, hippies, etc.) were still considered "social outcasts". The mentalities of the Millennial Generation, as well as how they were raised, truly changed how Americans think about themselves and about society as a whole.

The ages of fearing individuality, and denying that we feel different, is ending. In truth, most people feel different and misunderstood. We all crave deep connection. We all want to find people who understand us. We all think we are creative, thoughtful, intelligent, (etc.) individuals. The term ambivert is growing in popularity. More people believe they are 'empaths', or 'highly sensitive'.

As gender stereotypes fragment, and gender is accepted as a spectrum, certain traits will become more evenly distributed, notably Thinking and Feeling traits that have traditionally been assigned gender roles. (Women are Feelers, men are Thinkers.)

As long as MBTI test questions stay as they are, more and more people who take the tests (particularly the free online tests), instead of studying function, are going to mistype.


This creates an interesting dilemma for INFJs:

Are INFJs becoming more popular, or are the attitudes about individualism, combined with outdated test questions, causing more and more people to be mistyped as INFJs? Will changing the test questions reduce the number of over-all mistypes? Mistyping will make MBTI meaningless.

If the questions are not changed, and if mistyping continues, MBTI must stop describing INFJ as the "rarest" type.

BTW: The official MBTI website already states that female INTJs are the rarest type, not INFJs.

Not to mention the pattern that I see, that the experience of social isolation and certain forms of childhood abuse are common themes with INFJ which makes me question:

How much of this feeling "different" and "special" and "apart from society" is an innate personality trait versus a specific experience of life due to circumstances? And further, is this idea that the traumatic events we have gone through, and the impact of those events, truly groundwork to say "this is WHO I am" versus "this is WHERE I've been"?

How much is this belief is a non scientific, self reported test holding back the personal development of those who use is as a framework to explain and justify themselves?

How do we know that the personality is set in stone, and even presuming somehow that was proven, how do we know that we have enough self awareness and impartiality to answer a self reported test in an accurate way that would reflect who we truly are instead of what we want to be?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

tudying the functions doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for better descriptions and the ability to use others as a reference point. For instance, if you read Jung's Ni description you might think that you're not an Ni user unless you have a symbol for everything you see, or you might think that if you've ever had symbolic thoughts you could be Ni dom--even if some parts of the text contradict that, at a certain level of density it becomes too difficult to figure that out for a lot of people (I know I personally have had problems like that).
Many people aren't going to take the time to study the functions.
Why would your own personal study be less biased than a test? You're deciding what parts of the reading you focus on, what data from your personal life you put into it, and so on. In a test at least you can try to standardize the data.

I guess something would always have to be referenced to another thing as Ms. Ren has said.
Considering we’re all biologically capable of using every cognitive function finding when and how something can be expressed in a social situation, like with the roles of those by cognitive functions vs the perception of the user, so it’s less of a total bias as much as it is just a normal flaw in differentiating the trees from the forest. It’s easy to see the objective, it’s more difficult to see the subject in smaller terms. And in that case, hats off to Ren on a constant for her ability to logically break her logic down for others. Finding out your cognitive functions create other cognitive functions shows where you’re standing in life from your own perception, not the perception of everyone around you.

"this is WHO I am" versus "this is WHERE I've been"

Now this is quite a lot for me to process and for my personal perspective, one of those things that have been difficult for me. Where I’ve been created who I am, yet who I am is dependent on my choice of character. How do I make better choices from where I’ve been without loathing the gift of the mistakes that could still make me, but not allow it to be apart of my character, and a better person. I can’t fully say. The mystery of what I am can never amount to what I’ve been through as much as who I wish to provide for others by caring for their experience. (Granted, I’ve been reading and it’s shaping my point of view, which would be the objective of what I wish to understand with personality theory, but also makes me subjective to the experience of understanding it. The dependent of this is myself which makes it subjective to those who are around me. The independent being those who have found their comfort in themselves already.) please excuse my way of speech pattern. When I try to learn something, my mind natural gets into the language of the one expressing it.

I guess that means the opposite must be true. I must be able to have self acceptance to express a personality of where I’ve been that has created who I am, and manage to make choices that are inconsistent with it to not only shape myself, but help my environment to shape itself with a presentation of new choice. This may be where the self loathing of infjs come from. That memory of what could’ve been done differently, and the inability to forgive themselves for not being able to carry everyone around them or allow their environment to adjust the principle of caring for others.

My subjective point of view to this: I’m constantly in development, just as everyone else is. I’m okay with a supportive spot in my life. Because I can never fully be a carrying spot to others due to my inability as a naturally imperfectly made being, nor can I ever fully see or understand myself outside of the lens of the experience of another. Personality theory has been a load of crap to me, but allowing it to be the beauty of how much people care for eachother in other languages— thats amazing.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

With that said. I appreciate having a place to talk about these things with others. And I’m sorry if I’m not as forth coming about my experience as I could be. Having a place where I’m not alone is nice, so I’m sorry if I’ve come off as an online counselor without anyone getting the opportunity to deeply know me as I get through therapy. Just having the support and listening ears has been a blessing in itself.

 

[Ren]

I guess something would always have to be referenced to another thing as Ms. Ren has said.

Mr. Ren Apologies, my avi is confusing (although the character is actually genderless in the show).

And in that case, hats off to Ren on a constant for her ability to logically break her logic down for others.

That's a great compliment, I appreciate it very much.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Mr. Ren Apologies, my avi is confusing (although the character is actually genderless in the show).



That's a great compliment, I appreciate it very much.

Ah. My apologies and condolences, good sir.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

With that being said, I love your posting under your name. The Myers Briggs system does have its issues as we all express each of those preferences in different ways just as much as the Jungian typing of cognitive functions has everyone holding to each function but not displayed around people. People tend to show development depending on their surroundings which may explain the people around them being a shaping factor just as much as the Jungian cognitive functions can leave someone in constant objectivity.

on that note, I AM a Christian so my view of typology has been in development of how we may affect the person, which further deviates us from the factors Jung was wishing to diminish in society, just as much as we ignore the possibility of what we contribute, in that case, I’ve been a douche to you for not allowing you to think how you wish to and brining up balancing those lower and higher performing functions as if you have a complete misbalance.
Keep your cookies and treats, though, as you tend to do very well at handling if someone is more on that sensing side. I can only hope that my presence isn’t a pain as much as it’s beneficial to others since you guys do get me thinking about things as much as I enjoy to. I’m sorry I’m a butthole though, on the real.