On the thinking behind MBTIc

[Xander]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalise the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake? Surely the pattern is resulting from the study of people. The pattern itself is a result and not the primary source, ergo arguing over where it follows a trend and where it does not can only be done out of interest voiding any revelations stumbled upon during the investigation.

I only highlight this as I've had many discussions where I get the feeling that people are basing their assumptions and advice more on an investigation and understanding of a pattern of results than on actual observation of the primary material, ie people.

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, just challenging the approach.

[Jennifer]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalise the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake?

What, you mean the theoretical approach?

Rather than checking to see if the theory still matches up with reality, people are merely looking to see if the theory has internal consistency and using that as evidence that the pattern is valid?

Sure, that would be a logic flaw. (incidentally, one that shows up in ANY type of belief system, whether religion or politics or whatever -- mistaking internal consistency for external validity.)

[Jack Flak]

Yes Xander, we've apparently been thinking along similar lines. If I take your meaning properly.

[BlueWing]

What, you mean the theoretical approach?

Rather than checking to see if the theory still matches up with reality, people are merely looking to see if the theory has internal consistency and using that as evidence that the pattern is valid?

Sure, that would be a logic flaw. (incidentally, one that shows up in ANY type of belief system, whether religion or politics or whatever -- mistaking internal consistency for external validity.)

External validity is contingent upon internal consistency. In other words, we do not know if what we observe is sound unless we have thought about it. Thinking about it is necessarily an internal process.

Internal consistency must hold primacy over the external observations for this reason. As an example, take the theoretical notion that Se manifests as an external perception of sensation.

We look at a person who claims to be an Se, who is in his 60s, for some reason he seems to be using Ni in this situation, so we ought to conclude that Se does not manifest in terms of external perceptions.

A more plausible way to look at the situation would be to say functions are justified by virtue of internal conceptual framework, but the way they manifest in people is a whole another matter.

Type in itself is an unconscious tendency. It has nothing to do with human behavior. Human behavior represent various manifestations of type, but not type itself.

For example, consider the idea of how different a Chinese INTP would be from an Australlian. If we had the fortune of spending time with both of them, our initial hunch (based on the mere positivistic external observation) would be to conclude that they are not INTPs at all. If external validity holds primacy over internal conceptual framework, the whole system shall crumble as it is the internal conceptual framework that makes the system possible. External observations are only part of the system.

Hence, in recapitulation we get that pure typology could be figured out based on the tendencies of mind without the observations of people. (Jung figured this out more from inquiring into how people think, rather than how they behave in social situations. This is why he studied philosophy, literature and biographies, and in therapy focused more on the deeper thoughts of his patients rather than the observations of their basic behaviors in social situations.)

For the purposes of applied typology, carefully controlled empirical studies are necessary. If we are asking for example, how do Se people tend to behave. We need to know what kind of Se people we are dealing with, and in what context. Based on pure typology and information concerning the circumstances we could concoct a hypothesis, yet reliable knowledge requires observations of people.

But once more, that is not the heart of type. If we wish to understand the archetypal quiddity of Se, we need not observe human behavior at all, we need to observe the internal conceptual framework and human thought to continue re-working the aforementioned system. Human behavior will only throw us off as it often shows only very superficial traces of one's thought and how one's mind works. This in effect leads to the confusion of type for personality. That is the error that has led many, especially the new students of the subject to believe that they are their type.

[Jennifer]

External validity is contingent upon internal consistency. In other words, we do not know if what we observe is sound unless we have thought about it. Thinking about it is necessarily an internal process.

Internal consistency must hold primacy over the external observations for this reason.

I'd like you to take this concept and apply it to a particular religious doctrine, then, like evangelical Christianity, and see if your thoughts would still be palatable to you...

... which is essentially what i was describing in my post: The tendency for people, once they get their theory up and running, to operate in "theory mode" rather than continuing to make sure the theory remains anchored in the external reality it is supposed to represent.

It's like a hot-air balloon that was released into the sky, and people still assume they're over Thailand because the balloon (which they constantly monitor) looks consistent and safe to them... but meanwhile the wind currents have carried them over Greenland.

A theory is just hot air if it does not reflect the reality from which it claims to be derived. Thus the point of error is only secondarily the internal consistency of the theory, and it can only be used as part of logical triangulation, not as the main support for whether or not the theory reflects reality.

...But once more, that is not the heart of type. If we wish to understand the archetypal quiddity of Se, we need not observe human behavior at all, we need to observe the internal conceptual framework and human thought to continue re-working the aforementioned system. Human behavior will only throw us off as it often shows only very superficial traces of one's thought and how one's mind works. This in effect leads to the confusion of type for personality. That is the error that has led many, especially the new students of the subject to believe that they are their type.

You've pointed out some of the flaws, true. And yes, I find myself frustrated with people who take particular behavioral indicators as representative of type individually, rather than fitting them into the larger theoretical framework and thus "context."

But again, the danger of a closed theoretical construct is that it can separate itself from the reality it is supposed to reflect. Theory is not reality, but an attempt to understand it.

And especially when theory is applied against people as means of influence or control over their lives, I find this increasingly unpalatable and even dangerous. You and I have both been burned by people with a "theory" about how life is supposed to work, that seems internally consistent to them, but it's not really connected to how the world actually works.

[BlueWing]

I'd like you to take this concept and apply it to a particular religious doctrine, then, like evangelical Christianity, and see if your thoughts would still be palatable to you...

... which is essentially what i was describing in my post: The tendency for people, once they get their theory up and running, to operate in "theory mode" rather than continuing to make sure the theory remains anchored in the external reality it is supposed to represent.

It's like a hot-air balloon that was released into the sky, and people still assume they're over Thailand because the balloon (which they constantly monitor) looks consistent and safe to them... but meanwhile the wind currents have carried them over Greenland.

A theory is just hot air if it does not reflect the reality from which it claims to be derived. Thus the point of error is only secondarily the internal consistency of the theory, and it can only be used as part of logical triangulation, not as the main support for whether or not the theory reflects reality.



You've pointed out some of the flaws, true. And yes, I find myself frustrated with people who take particular behavioral indicators as representative of type individually, rather than fitting them into the larger theoretical framework and thus "context."

But again, the danger of a closed theoretical construct is that it can separate itself from the reality it is supposed to reflect. Theory is not reality, but an attempt to understand it.

And especially when theory is applied against people as means of influence or control over their lives, I find this increasingly unpalatable and even dangerous. You and I have both been burned by people with a "theory" about how life is supposed to work, that seems internally consistent to them, but it's not really connected to how the world actually works.

If you truly seek truth, you will want internal consistency. If you want the truth, you won't have a closed system. You will continue re-working it.

That said, religious zealots tend not to be concerned with the truth, but only with affirmation of their prejudices.

[Jennifer]

If you truly seek truth, you will want internal consistency. If you want the truth, you won't have a closed system. You will continue re-working it.

So you're saying that both are important and it's NOT all about the internal consistency?

[BlueWing]

So you're saying that both are important and it's NOT all about the internal consistency?

Correct. Though internal consistency is more important. Just like for example, if you go on a trip, it is more about what you make of it in your reflections about the trip than the experience itself. (Yet the experience itself is doubtlessly an indispensible factor). A retard or an animal could have the same trip with an internal effect hardly reminiscent of ours.

[Xander]

What, you mean the theoretical approach?

Rather than checking to see if the theory still matches up with reality, people are merely looking to see if the theory has internal consistency and using that as evidence that the pattern is valid?

Sure, that would be a logic flaw. (incidentally, one that shows up in ANY type of belief system, whether religion or politics or whatever -- mistaking internal consistency for external validity.)
:nice:

(Btw nice conversion process... I like the pretty words ;) )

[Ilah]

Replying to the OP. How much of it is theory and how much is observation?

Using INTJs as an example:
If your dominant is Ni and auxillary is Te, your third strongest trait is supposed to be Fi and four should be Se. Why are Fi and Se listed as 3 and 4?

Is it based on theory? Something like, logically if one of your percieving is introverted the next one should be extrovert for balance. So Ni is backed up by Se, not Si. But that makes me wonder why not Ni, Te, Se, Fi?

Or is it based on observation. Statistically, did most people that were NiTe have Fi as third and Se as fourth?

If the order is based on theory, it would seem like a large number or people whose traits don't fall into proper order would question the vallidity of the theory.

On the other hand if it is just statistics then having many people whose traits fall into order does not invalidate it.

It doesn't seem to be that the order is just statistics though. There is a pattern to determining traits 3-8 based on the first 2 that is consistent for all the types. That seems to point more to theory than statistics.

[Xander]

Yes Xander, we've apparently been thinking along similar lines. If I take your meaning properly.
Of course you understand properly... the alternative is being a blithering idiot and as you're not a blithering idiot then you must agree with me... it's only logical!


;)

[Victor]

Surely all this is moot if all qualified psychometricians say MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

To argue logically from a false premise gives a false conclusion.

And psychometricians say MBTI is a false premise.

[Jack Flak]

To argue logically from a false premise gives a false conclusion.
It can.

[Xander]

Replying to the OP. How much of it is theory and how much is observation?

Using INTJs as an example:
If your dominant is Ni and auxillary is Te, your third strongest trait is supposed to be Fi and four should be Se. Why are Fi and Se listed as 3 and 4?

Is it based on theory? Something like, logically if one of your percieving is introverted the next one should be extrovert for balance. So Ni is backed up by Se, not Si. But that makes me wonder why not Ni, Te, Se, Fi?

Or is it based on observation. Statistically, did most people that were NiTe have Fi as third and Se as fourth?

If the order is based on theory, it would seem like a large number or people whose traits don't fall into proper order would question the vallidity of the theory.

On the other hand if it is just statistics then having many people whose traits fall into order does not invalidate it.

It doesn't seem to be that the order is just statistics though. There is a pattern to determining traits 3-8 based on the first 2 that is consistent for all the types. That seems to point more to theory than statistics.
Quite true. However a few things occurr to me.

The function order is not necessarily 1234 as written. After investigation I can find arguments for either 1234 or 1278 (8 functions with only 4 listed). So you may be steered wrong by that alone.

Secondly you are dealing with a guidebook in it's infancy to a persons preferences of internal processes. There is no rule or maxim which can be applied universally, only guidance and suggestion. Ergo if you study the theory without reference to external guidance then you are likely to end up making the wrong conclusions or getting tied up in dead ends of thinking.

That not to say that there aren't dangers in trying to tie up the external world with the theories but hopefully with some time and help the two will begin to look more similar.

Anyhow at the end of the day I was under the impression that the MBTI was designed to facilitate communication by highlighting differences. For that few people need such levels of internal consistency which many are looking for.

(Oh and I should just underline that this thread isn't targetting anyone. I aim not to single out people but rather to just air the thinking and see what people make of it...)

[Xander]

Surely all this is moot if all qualified psychometricians say MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

To argue logically from a false premise gives a false conclusion.

And psychometricians say MBTI is a false premise.
Qualified in what?

Who says that their theories are any more valid than the next man's?

I've never met any so I restrain from making judgements on the idiots!
( ;) )

[Xander]

External validity is contingent upon internal consistency. In other words, we do not know if what we observe is sound unless we have thought about it. Thinking about it is necessarily an internal process.
A logical error?

A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

The fact that things which are true to reality make sense to you does not mean that for things to be true they must make sense.

To make sense of what is reality we apply a mask to it. Not a mask as in a charade but more masking reality with tape so that we may spray the bits we know green and the rest is left to explore... the problem being that we forget that we applied a mask. The green areas are as close as we could get to what we know (ie they're imprecise) and the very masking procedure we used covered some details so they could not be observed whether known or unknown.

Our system of understanding has no validation. Ergo our understanding of something validates it to no one but ourselves.

[Victor]

It can.

This is quite true. To argue from a false premise can give a false conclusion. And to argue from a false premise can give a correct conclusion.

But the conclusion in the second case is problematic. For instance the conclusion may have nothing to do with the premise which means it is impossible to generalise this argument.

Or perhaps the conclusion is empirically correct but we cannot say where it came from.

But you are quite correct -

It can.

[Victor]

Qualified in what?

Who says that their theories are any more valid than the next man's?

I've never met any so I restrain from making judgements on the idiots!
( ;) )

Psychometrics is a branch of Psychology. It measures the psyche and in this case, personality types.

Psychometrics is empirical - it can be tested - and any particular test can be falsified.

MBTI has been tested and found to be false.

And the creators of MBTI, Mrs Briggs and her daughter, did not know how to make a valid and reliable personality test. In fact they copied their test from the book, "Personality Types", by the New Age Guru, Carl Jung.

If you wish to talk to a qualified psychometrician, you can ring the Psychology Department of your nearest University and ask to speak to a psychometrician.

Why not?

[BlueWing]

The fact that things which are true to reality make sense to you does not mean that for things to be true they must make sense.

To make sense of what is reality we apply a mask to it. Not a mask as in a charade but more masking reality with tape so that we may spray the bits we know green and the rest is left to explore... the problem being that we forget that we applied a mask. The green areas are as close as we could get to what we know (ie they're imprecise) and the very masking procedure we used covered some details so they could not be observed whether known or unknown.

Our system of understanding has no validation. Ergo our understanding of something validates it to no one but ourselves.

The bottom line is that the reason why you have an idea of an external occurence is because of an internal cognitive perception.

A logical error?

A implies B does not imply that B implies A..

No idea what you are talking about.

Generally, it should be noted that no system can be positivistic. As this cancels out all thinking altogether. Internal framework is the system in itself, yet the external observations are the additional data we need to collect. Our internal framework is sound if it is logically consistent and founded upon sound premises which hinge on factual information. It is important to continue to observe the external world to make sure that we have the correct factual information to found our premises on.

[Ilah]

Surely all this is moot if all qualified psychometricians say MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

To argue logically from a false premise gives a false conclusion.

And psychometricians say MBTI is a false premise.

I am curious:

Is there another personality typing system you think is more valid or do you disagree with personality typing in general? If so what system(s) do you like?

In other words is it just MBTI you disagree with or the whole idea of classifying people into types?

[Antisocial one]

I think everybody has some personal combination. But there is good chances that some combination is more typical for some type and that some functions are far more likely to appear as stronger in that type.

All of my four letters are very strong but the combination of functions doesn't fit.

But I have strong Ni and Te.

[Xander]

Psychometrics is a branch of Psychology. It measures the psyche and in this case, personality types.

Psychometrics is empirical - it can be tested - and any particular test can be falsified.

MBTI has been tested and found to be false.

And the creators of MBTI, Mrs Briggs and her daughter, did not know how to make a valid and reliable personality test. In fact they copied their test from the book, "Personality Types", by the New Age Guru, Carl Jung.

If you wish to talk to a qualified psychometrician, you can ring the Psychology Department of your nearest University and ask to speak to a psychometrician.

Why not?
You know I was being facetious right?

The proven theory was at one time that the moon was made of cheese.
There was a proven theory of relativity, then proven to be unproven.
A scientists team declared they had proved that cold nuclear fusion could be done, then another team proved them wrong.

Against what background of proof am I to accept that those who choose who is acceptibly proven and who is not are actually qualified to make such decisions and who qualified them.

You are perfectly entitled to accept this second hand authority as valid but that does not disqualify anyone else as valid unless you are to propose that the theories persued by your supported faction are in fact the only approach which works.

[Xander]

The bottom line is that the reason why you have an idea of an external occurence is because of an internal cognitive perception.
So you are saying that if I think that all bald people are mutants and go killing them that I shouldn't rectify this?
No idea what you are talking about.
That is most obvious old fellow.
Generally, it should be noted that no system can be positivistic. As this cancels out all thinking altogether. Internal framework is the system in itself, yet the external observations are the additional data we need to collect. Our internal framework is sound if it is logically consistent and founded upon sound premises which hinge on factual information. It is important to continue to observe the external world to make sure that we have the correct factual information to found our premises on.
That bit bothers you doesn't it.

So basically you believe that the universe would stop working if we could no longer understand it?

So how come we could see light before we knew how fast it went?

Does this not mean that entire systems and models (ie the universe) exist with or without our thought or understanding? Ergo our thought and understanding has no effect on how things are, only on our perception of them. Theory <> Reality. Reality > Theory.

[BlueWing]

So you are saying that if I think that all bald people are mutants and go killing them that I shouldn't rectify this?

That is most obvious old fellow.

That bit bothers you doesn't it.

So basically you believe that the universe would stop working if we could no longer understand it?

So how come we could see light before we knew how fast it went?

Does this not mean that entire systems and models (ie the universe) exist with or without our thought or understanding? Ergo our thought and understanding has no effect on how things are, only on our perception of them. Theory <> Reality. Reality > Theory.

You're confused. Universe will work just fine if you close your eyes, but your observations of it require a process of cognition. A retard or an animal can look at the chalk board and not retain a thing about what it looks like.

[Xander]

You're confused. Universe will work just fine if you close your eyes, but your observations of it require a process of cognition. A retard or an animal can look at the chalk board and not retain a thing about what it looks like.
Correct so in what way does it matter if the order of things makes sense to you other than it mattering to you personally?

Ergo a system may appear to be incorrect according to your thinking and yet function regardless. In these cases you may find the answer with a better understanding of the system or you may just have to accept that system and try applying it in the real world.

So far I have found in the last twelve years that the MBTI is not a flawlessly concurrent system of understanding but it's a damn good guide to the trends in people's thinking.

If you accept that the world works without your thought then you must also recognise that whatever pattern we notice in it has also existed without our input and therefore is not subject to our own validations. If, however, we put a system in place, a mask, to better understand those patterns then any errors found are within our own conversion process.

Hence how I did my nut when some scientists found a gap in their colourful map of the universe and declared that as proof of another dimension. How do such people manage to grasp high end science and yet miss the obvious. A gap in their pattern made by their system only proves that in that case their system produces a gap.

Hence our theories orbit reality and never the other way around.

[edcoaching]

Psychometrics is a branch of Psychology. It measures the psyche and in this case, personality types.

Psychometrics is empirical - it can be tested - and any particular test can be falsified.

MBTI has been tested and found to be false.

And the creators of MBTI, Mrs Briggs and her daughter, did not know how to make a valid and reliable personality test. In fact they copied their test from the book, "Personality Types", by the New Age Guru, Carl Jung.

If you wish to talk to a qualified psychometrician, you can ring the Psychology Department of your nearest University and ask to speak to a psychometrician.

Why not?

MBTI has been tested and found to be a reliable, valid self-reporting instrument. It will not hold up to diagnostic psychometrics because it wasn't designed to--Isabel didn't think people liked to be told who they were and that an interactive process would be better. It's reliability/validity is actually excellent by psychometric standards but is discounted by people who think it should fit the Bell curve because they haven't read the manual.

Isabel and Katherine knew exactly what they were doing. No, they weren't psychiatrists--but they were college-educated which was extremely rare for women born in 1870 and 1900. They were taught to think and used their smarts (and Mr. Briggs' knowledge as head of teh Bureau of Standards) to actually invent two statistical techniques that no one else used until supercomputers were invented; Isabel ran the correlations involved by hand.

Further Form M was developed via Item Response Theory and subjected to all kinds of research. But the publishers aren't interested in diagnostic tools; they make people suspicious and that isn't what's needed when you're trying to use the tool to improve interactions.

It's like saying Bill Gates couldn't have built Microsoft because he didn't finish college...

[edcoaching]

I think everybody has some personal combination. But there is good chances that some combination is more typical for some type and that some functions are far more likely to appear as stronger in that type.

All of my four letters are very strong but the combination of functions doesn't fit.

But I have strong Ni and Te.

A bunch of type theorists are actually figuring out how to hold a forum right now on this issue. Some advocate for a set order of development. And they don't agree on the order. Others hold that beyond the first two functions, experience, education, environment might influence the order (my camp). I think you're right that there's a more typical combination--that'd match with my position :)

[Eric B]

I am curious:

Is there another personality typing system you think is more valid or do you disagree with personality typing in general? If so what system(s) do you like?

In other words is it just MBTI you disagree with or the whole idea of classifying people into types?
The broader psychological community does not seem to respect any "type" theories, though you can find mention of "temperament", especially for children. However, this is not what we normally think of it as (basically, the old humour theory renamed and mapped onto a type system as basically, a larger "type" taxonomy. And because the medical "humor" concept was the original basis of it, and has long been disproven, people still think this is what our use of "the temperaments" is about!)
Taylor-Johnson (T-JTA) seems to be an example of a "temperament" analysis that has more respect and use in psychology. It just scores the nine factors, and does not make "types" or name "temperament" categories out of them. Hence, it looks like amore professional, clinical instrument.

[Delphyne]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalise the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake? Surely the pattern is resulting from the study of people. The pattern itself is a result and not the primary source, ergo arguing over where it follows a trend and where it does not can only be done out of interest voiding any revelations stumbled upon during the investigation.

I only highlight this as I've had many discussions where I get the feeling that people are basing their assumptions and advice more on an investigation and understanding of a pattern of results than on actual observation of the primary material, ie people.

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, just challenging the approach.

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.

[edcoaching]

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.

Ni is often described as butterfly thought because it's so nonlinear. Actually we're more likely to take a bit of a theory, see how it would help people, and spin off into new permutations that seem most likely to change the world. Was your friend trained in critical thinking? Most of my INFJ colleagues and I are really good at glossing over flaws if we see value. If we don't see value we move on to something else...

[Delphyne]

Ni is often described as butterfly thought because it's so nonlinear. Actually we're more likely to take a bit of a theory, see how it would help people, and spin off into new permutations that seem most likely to change the world.

Ni doesn´t follow one continuous line, it changes different perspectives. It´s linear in the way of following a lot of different lines. Maybe it can feel like having a holistic approach, but Ni doesn´t grasp a pattern as a whole like Ne does. Can you identify with that?

Was your friend trained in critical thinking? Most of my INFJ colleagues and I are really good at glossing over flaws if we see value. If we don't see value we move on to something else...
Yes, he was and he´s also good at glossing over flaws. Sometimes I hate that, because I like to follow patterns and try to look how they manifest themselves and he says, no, stop, first we have to look at the exact definition of the words, which are used. I like to use the theory first and check if it´s as good as it promises to be.

[Athenian200]

I've seen many people taking the MBTI function orders and such as a pattern and then trying to rationalize the pattern against itself, looking for areas where the pattern does not match and so on. Now is it just me or is this a mistake? Surely the pattern is resulting from the study of people. The pattern itself is a result and not the primary source, ergo arguing over where it follows a trend and where it does not can only be done out of interest voiding any revelations stumbled upon during the investigation.

I only highlight this as I've had many discussions where I get the feeling that people are basing their assumptions and advice more on an investigation and understanding of a pattern of results than on actual observation of the primary material, ie people.

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, just challenging the approach.

This sounds complicated.... I'm not sure I know what you mean.

If you mean what I think you mean, then I think you have a point. It seems like people are often starting with the pattern, filling it in with their own experiences, and using their own experiences a way of interpreting things back to the pattern. Which is the wrong way, most likely. You shouldn't necessarily filter your experiences or your perceptions to fit them into a pattern. I think, rather, you should keep your perceptions and experiences intact, and only use the pattern where it matches them to express them, and admit the places where the pattern and the experiences don't completely match.

It can be annoying when people start throwing out all the rationalizations for why a person could be a particular type, and getting mad at you if you question it or say it's unlikely, everyone else wanting to just jump on board and agree with the idea. It happens a lot actually... people throw out an idea, and everyone else just builds it up and says how great it is, adds some of their own interpretation and extension to it. Then if someone else comes along and pokes holes in it, everyone gets angry and defensive, at least dismissive, and often rationalize that you don't have a mature understanding, overanalyze, or are closed-minded.

Does that make sense?

[Victor]

MBTI has been tested and found to be a reliable, valid self-reporting instrument. It will not hold up to diagnostic psychometrics because it wasn't designed to--Isabel didn't think people liked to be told who they were and that an interactive process would be better. It's reliability/validity is actually excellent by psychometric standards but is discounted by people who think it should fit the Bell curve because they haven't read the manual.

Isabel and Katherine knew exactly what they were doing. No, they weren't psychiatrists--but they were college-educated which was extremely rare for women born in 1870 and 1900. They were taught to think and used their smarts (and Mr. Briggs' knowledge as head of teh Bureau of Standards) to actually invent two statistical techniques that no one else used until supercomputers were invented; Isabel ran the correlations involved by hand.

Further Form M was developed via Item Response Theory and subjected to all kinds of research. But the publishers aren't interested in diagnostic tools; they make people suspicious and that isn't what's needed when you're trying to use the tool to improve interactions.

It's like saying Bill Gates couldn't have built Microsoft because he didn't finish college...

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.

[edcoaching]

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.

The MBTI isn't what matters--it's just a tool created to help people gain access to a tool that helps people make constructive use of differences. I use the theory to help people resolve conflicts, heal wounds, and help all children succeed.

But what I wrote about Myers and Briggs is true.

Whether psychometricians believe in the instrument has nothing to do with whether, in the hands of a capable facilitator, one can help people get along.

[BlueWing]

Correct so in what way does it matter if the order of things makes sense to you other than it mattering to you personally? ..

??????????????????????

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system. If the current system does not accurately depict external occurences, it must be re-worked,(but first you must truly make sure that the system contains inaccurate information about the world, that it is not one of those cases where we see a 60 year old Se man who seems to be using Ni a lot and there we conclude that Se is really an abstract function, rather than concrete external perception as our system led us to believe hitherto) yet there is no reason at all to abandon systematic thought in favor of positivistic observations.

[Jack Flak]

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system.
:headphne:

[Xander]

In order for there to be any coherent view of the external environment there must be a sound system. If the current system does not accurately depict external occurences, it must be re-worked,(but first you must truly make sure that the system contains inaccurate information about the world, that it is not one of those cases where we see a 60 year old Se man who seems to be using Ni a lot and there we conclude that Se is really an abstract function, rather than concrete external perception as our system led us to believe hitherto) yet there is no reason at all to abandon systematic thought in favor of positivistic observations.
So don't check the system to itself, check it to reality?

It sounds like you agree with me but I'm not quite sure.

[Xander]

I couldn't understand why you would make such a misleading post until I discovered you have a vested interest - you are President of the Association for Psychological Type Int'l.

I couldn't understand why you would mislead such vulnerable people until I realised you were pushing your own barrow.

And although no astronomer believes in astrology, there is money to be made in astrology.

And in the same way, although no psychometrician believes in MBTI, it is plain there is money to be made from MBTI.

Integrity is one of the first virtues, while for a confidence man, a sucker is born every minute.
Few engineers believe in computers...

...so what?

Belief has nothing to do with it, being "qualified" is only a guideline, being "recognised" is only a public qualification and being "official" only means people are comfortable with it. These things are not related to truth.

That being said it also means that MBTI cannot be said to be any more valid than any other system. All I know is it works fairly reliably and is of use. I need no other reason to continue with it.

[Xander]

This sounds complicated.... I'm not sure I know what you mean.

If you mean what I think you mean, then I think you have a point. It seems like people are often starting with the pattern, filling it in with their own experiences, and using their own experiences a way of interpreting things back to the pattern. Which is the wrong way, most likely. You shouldn't necessarily filter your experiences or your perceptions to fit them into a pattern. I think, rather, you should keep your perceptions and experiences intact, and only use the pattern where it matches them to express them, and admit the places where the pattern and the experiences don't completely match.

It can be annoying when people start throwing out all the rationalizations for why a person could be a particular type, and getting mad at you if you question it or say it's unlikely, everyone else wanting to just jump on board and agree with the idea. It happens a lot actually... people throw out an idea, and everyone else just builds it up and says how great it is, adds some of their own interpretation and extension to it. Then if someone else comes along and pokes holes in it, everyone gets angry and defensive, at least dismissive, and often rationalize that you don't have a mature understanding, overanalyze, or are closed-minded.

Does that make sense?
I was going to start out with "WHAT?" but I then realised that although your point is different to mine it's also very true.

I was thinking more in terms of arguing about how the system's pattern is valid or not measuring it's success or faliure by whether it meets up with what people expect or not without recourse to finding out whether it works in real terms, ie by seeing if it does help people communicate and see how other kinds of thinking works.

Your point, if I read it right, is more that people start with a few pointers and then assume that the rest of the pattern fits or persuade people by altering how they read things so that whatever they observe fits. You're quite correct that this is logically wrong.. well unless you include inductive logic.

Personally I'd say that a certain amount of such pattern prediction is necessary as no person ever really matches up to any description perfectly and some margin of contradiction is only to be expected. However the amount of contradiction is a factor and if a person consistantly contradicts their type then there is reasonable grounds to doubt that they are that type.

In combination with this I'd also personally say that it is necessary to try to predict the rest of the pattern as a hypothesis to allow us to compare what we expect with what occurs, there by highlighting any areas of divergance.

So, yeah, that does make sense.

[Xander]

It seems to fit the different approach of Ni versus Ne. A good INFJ friend of mine first tries to find the weak points in a theory. The correct application of words and definitions and the internal consistency of a system are his primary concern. I´m first oriented to see the gestalt of a theory and how it manifests itself in different people. I don´t think it´s surprising that I often share the same perception with INTPs, whereas discussions with Ni dominants are sometimes difficult, because their approach is so different.

Ni is more linear, whereas Ne is holistic. Ni is concerned with perspective itself, Ne tries to find patterns.
I'm not certain of the types engaged in such conversations where the system comes under fire for it's lack of sticking to expected parameters but your definitions seem sound to me.

I recall a conversation between myself and an INTJ where he was arguing that a system was floored by measuring it's success or failure by internal structure alone where as I noted to him that it did work in practice and therefore had use even if it's internal structure was not ideal. I think it was the 3rd/3.5 ed of D&D level structure which started that argument.

[BlueWing]

So don't check the system to itself, check it to reality?

It sounds like you agree with me but I'm not quite sure.

Yes the factual information that comprises the axioms for your system must derive from the external world.

[BlueWing]

I'm not certain of the types engaged in such conversations where the system comes under fire for it's lack of sticking to expected parameters but your definitions seem sound to me.

I recall a conversation between myself and an INTJ where he was arguing that a system was floored by measuring it's success or failure by internal structure alone where as I noted to him that it did work in practice and therefore had use even if it's internal structure was not ideal. I think it was the 3rd/3.5 ed of D&D level structure which started that argument.

Delphyne had an interesting point. Ni doms tend to see the environment in terms of how it relates to them. For this reason they often confuse their world of imagination with the real world.

Extroverted perception takes the external environment for granted and is concerned with understanding the external reality first and foremost.

[Athenian200]

I was going to start out with "WHAT?" but I then realised that although your point is different to mine it's also very true.

I was thinking more in terms of arguing about how the system's pattern is valid or not measuring it's success or faliure by whether it meets up with what people expect or not without recourse to finding out whether it works in real terms, ie by seeing if it does help people communicate and see how other kinds of thinking works.

OH! Okay, I see. Well, I do see that... measuring it against expectations rather than how it works practically would be an error. MBTI does have it's uses on the macro scale, regardless of whether it can describe any individual perfectly, and this should not be overlooked. :yes:

Your point, if I read it right, is more that people start with a few pointers and then assume that the rest of the pattern fits or persuade people by altering how they read things so that whatever they observe fits. You're quite correct that this is logically wrong.. well unless you include inductive logic.

Yes, that was it.

Personally I'd say that a certain amount of such pattern prediction is necessary as no person ever really matches up to any description perfectly and some margin of contradiction is only to be expected. However the amount of contradiction is a factor and if a person consistently contradicts their type then there is reasonable grounds to doubt that they are that type.

In combination with this I'd also personally say that it is necessary to try to predict the rest of the pattern as a hypothesis to allow us to compare what we expect with what occurs, there by highlighting any areas of divergence.

Well, yes... MBTI couldn't be used any other way. I'm just pointing this out for the sake of saying that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, and then have everyone jump on board and rationalize why this might be true, without actually questioning why it might not be true or reasonably considering any alternative ideas. I've experienced a lot of times when people would do that, and then get dismissive (possibly even angrily accusing me of being closed-minded) when I point out a contradiction and suggest another idea.

[Xander]

Yes the factual information that comprises the axioms for your system must derive from the external world.
This I would agree with. The crux of the issue lies more in how far can you progress from these origional axioms without checking for consistancy with the factual information?

Extrapolation leads to compound errors the further you extrapolate without error checking.

[Xander]

I'm just pointing this out for the sake of saying that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, and then have everyone jump on board and rationalize why this might be true, without actually questioning why it might not be true or reasonably considering any alternative ideas. I've experienced a lot of times when people would do that, and then get dismissive (possibly even angrily accusing me of being closed-minded) when I point out a contradiction and suggest another idea.
Just add to your signature something like the sentiment I used to have "If I have to say each time that this is my present thinking and not a certainty or a fixed answer, just my current understanding, then each post would be three pages long".

I guess it's just a matter of people getting used to you being more matter of fact than most. They should meet some of the people I hang out with :D

[Victor]

The MBTI isn't what matters--it's just a tool created to help people gain access to a tool that helps people make constructive use of differences. I use the theory to help people resolve conflicts, heal wounds, and help all children succeed.

But what I wrote about Myers and Briggs is true.

Whether psychometricians believe in the instrument has nothing to do with whether, in the hands of a capable facilitator, one can help people get along.

I think it is to your credit that you use theory to help people resolve conflicts, heal wounds, and help all children to succeed.

And perhaps I am just being pedantic by focusing on the history of MBTi.

However I am aware that theory guides action. For instance I am aware that the theory of Marxism, over 70 years and across the world, led to the death of 100 million of their own people. And I am aware that the Myth of the Noble Savage has led to the continuation of child sexual abuse and the murder of tribal women.

On the other hand I am aware that the political theory of Liberal Democracy has led to the limitation of power and what we call political freedom.

And I am also aware that the modern economic theory of Adam Smith has led to the overcoming of scarcity for the first time in human history.

So it seems to me that theory can have good and bad effects.

So when I examine MBTI, I see it was copied from Carl Jung who failed his own Analysis with Sigmund Freud and who volunteered to collaborate with the NAZI Party and who abused his female patients. And after WW II, Jung became a New Age guru.

And although Mrs Briggs and her daughter had a college education, they had no qualifications in psychometrics.

So my criticism of MBTI is two fold - first it doesn't work and second it reifies the psyche.

However I do accept you want to help people understand individual differences. And so do I.

Even yours and mine.

[Jack Flak]

Victor, if you strip the MBTI-derived-type-system down to the functional elements, you don't even need to worry about who developed it. It's simply a system for categorizing people. If you categorize enough people, you can study, then generalize them to whatever degree you want.

When people start to include assessments not based on the original categorization (such as function order), things can very easily go haywire.

[Xander]

Victor, if you strip the MBTI-derived-type-system down to the functional elements, you don't even need to worry about who developed it. It's simply a system for categorizing people. If you categorize enough people, you can study, then generalize them to whatever degree you want.

When people start to include assessments not based on the original categorization (such as function order), things can very easily go haywire.
I didn't know that was a later add on... interesting. I'd always wondered why if ESFJ is supposed to be part of INTP that the function order also showed ENTJ/INTJ and ISFP/ESFP too. I mean where the text about this third and fourth element to the INTP psyche?


@Victor,
Who started an idea is irrelevant to whether an idea is good or not. If you don't like Jung, fair enough, but what does that have to do with whether the MBTI is useful or not.

Note I reject the idea of ideas being "valid" or not. Most evaluations as such are mere arrogance.

[Jack Flak]

I didn't know that was a later add on... interesting. I'd always wondered why if ESFJ is supposed to be part of INTP that the function order also showed ENTJ/INTJ and ISFP/ESFP too. I mean where the text about this third and fourth element to the INTP psyche?
MBTI was supposedly based on Jung's function study. I meant that you don't have to know that, and it might be better if you don't. I think they went way too far with implying (For an INTP) Ti-Ne-Si-Fe based on preferring solitude, imagination, hard-heartedness, and laziness. They're not necessarily tied together. I thought that's what you were getting at earlier.

[Jack Flak]

This article illustrates the problem quite well, but I wonder if Functional Analysis is worth anything to begin with.

J/P = problem (http://www.socionics.com/articles/jpproblem.htm)

[Victor]

@Victor,
Who started an idea is irrelevant to whether an idea is good or not. If you don't like Jung, fair enough, but what does that have to do with whether the MBTI is useful or not.


I know this is a commonly held viewpoint but I can help but feel queasy when I discovered that Martin Heidegger, the founder of Existentialism, was an unrepentant member of the NAZI Party. I felt bound to question Existentialism. Particularly as his follower, Jean-Paul Sartre, was a Stalinist. I think there are just too many bodies to sweep under the carpet.

Perhaps a scientific theory is independent of its author because it is falsifiable, but an unfalsifiable social theory like Jung's seem to carry the smell of the author.

[Xander]

MBTI was supposedly based on Jung's function study. I meant that you don't have to know that, and it might be better if you don't. I think they went way too far with implying (For an INTP) Ti-Ne-Si-Fe based on preferring solitude, imagination, hard-heartedness, and laziness. They're not necessarily tied together. I thought that's what you were getting at earlier.
Well yes.. that's taking it an additional step further.

What I meant specifically was people looking into whether the functions should be one way around or another not based on people they know but just simply based on some warped ideal that the pattern will be symetrical or some such nonsense without ever actually looking at the people it describes to see if it is symetrical or not.

I find it irritating that people set out with the idea that a pattern should look like X and then alter every pattern forcibly to match X instead of entertaining the possibility that this pattern is not similar to X or even that the pattern is too complex to map right now so accept the things we can see working and go from there instead of trying to warp their thinking so X is always right.

[Xander]

I know this is a commonly held viewpoint but I can help but feel queasy when I discovered that Martin Heidegger, the founder of Existentialism, was an unrepentant member of the NAZI Party. I felt bound to question Existentialism. Particularly as his follower, Jean-Paul Sartre, was a Stalinist. I think there are just too many bodies to sweep under the carpet.

Perhaps a scientific theory is independent of its author because it is falsifiable, but an unfalsifiable social theory like Jung's seem to carry the smell of the author.
Oh don't get me wrong, understanding who wrote the theory and their aims for it are essential to understand the theory... I just advocate not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Jack Flak]

Well yes.. that's taking it an additional step further.

What I meant specifically was people looking into whether the functions should be one way around or another not based on people they know but just simply based on some warped ideal that the pattern will be symetrical or some such nonsense without ever actually looking at the people it describes to see if it is symetrical or not.

I find it irritating that people set out with the idea that a pattern should look like X and then alter every pattern forcibly to match X instead of entertaining the possibility that this pattern is not similar to X or even that the pattern is too complex to map right now so accept the things we can see working and go from there instead of trying to warp their thinking so X is always right.
OK, I didn't misunderstand. That's exactly what I'm saying. The only results that don't seem drawn from a hat in this arena of thought are the ones based on repeated and careful observations of people. Keirsey does this well, and the Socionics researchers do it well with regard to relationships.

But again, Functions are so all over the place on everyone, and so hard to define through observation (self or external), that I don't trust them at all. The whole study reeks of hokum.

[Victor]

...but what does that have to do with whether the MBTI is useful or not.


Look, I agree with you that MBTI can be useful and I am sure it is used in good faith here.

But at bottom I don't want to be seen as useful - I don't want to be used - I want to be valued for my own sake, as I am sure you do too.

So in a similar way MBTI can have an extrinsic use but I can't help asking, what is its intrinsic value?

What are the deeper values that MBTI teaches?

It seems to me it teaches blind faith and reification.

This may not matter on a day-to-day basis when used in good faith, but almost all members of cults act in good faith such as the cult of Bhagwan Ragneesh's Orange cult and Jim Jones' cult.

This is the odd thing about cults - they attract intelligent, well intentioned members - the best and the brightest - until it is time to pass the Cool-Aid.

[Xander]

This article illustrates the problem quite well, but I wonder if Functional Analysis is worth anything to begin with.

J/P = problem (http://www.socionics.com/articles/jpproblem.htm)
I think that article shows the problem quite well.

J's are rational are they? What about ENFJs? Rational? I think not. certainly not when the bit is between their teeth. Yet they have Fe as their first function and are Js. They meet the criteria as set down by the pattern gurus and yet it doesn't work.

Part of this is due to perspective, from a certain point of view ENFJs are completely rational... just not to outside observers...(ie everyone else).

Part of it is due to human beings not conforming to patterns very well. Yes you can say that EJs are this and NTs are that but it's all generalisations. ENFJs are ENFJs, the pattern of the letters is irrelevant. An apple is not similar to metal not because it's spelt differently, that's just the GUI, they ARE different.

People spend far too much time shouting at computers for not doing what they meant to ask it to do but lack the understanding to phrase it properly and also shouting at the MBTI because it doesn't match up to their concept of what a pattern should be.

Now I've said all that I'm unsure of how to read your post... did you mean this article is indicative of the problem with people or the system?

[Victor]

Oh don't get me wrong, understanding who wrote the theory and their aims for it are essential to understand the theory... I just advocate not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So the interesting question is, how can we save the baby?

[Jack Flak]

So in a similar way MBTI can have an extrinsic use but I can't help asking, what is its intrinsic value?

What are the deeper values that MBTI teaches?

It seems to me it teaches blind faith and reification.
None.
None.
It's just a framework; It does nothing.

[Jack Flak]

I think that article shows the problem quite well.

Now I've said all that I'm unsure of how to read your post... did you mean this article is indicative of the problem with people or the system?
It shows the problem with screwed up functions in MBTI, among other things.

I think the practical solution until there's a better alternative is to ignore functions entirely, and just use the Keirsey method of grouping by temperament. If you categorize people into groups, any groups, and find commonality among those within each group, you have yourself a system. Functions are extraneous and problematic.

[Victor]

None.
None.
It's just a framework; It does nothing.

Poetry does nothing - we write it for its own sake.

But MBTI was written by Mrs Briggs and her daughter specifically to fit British women into the war fighting machine.

And MBTI today is used to fit us for jobs in corporations.

[Xander]

Look, I agree with you that MBTI can be useful and I am sure it is used in good faith here.

But at bottom I don't want to be seen as useful - I don't want to be used - I want to be valued for my own sake, as I am sure you do too.

So in a similar way MBTI can have an extrinsic use but I can't help asking, what is its intrinsic value?

What are the deeper values that MBTI teaches?

It seems to me it teaches blind faith and reification.

This may not matter on a day-to-day basis when used in good faith, but almost all members of cults act in good faith such as the cult of Bhagwan Ragneesh's Orange cult and Jim Jones' cult.

This is the odd thing about cults - they attract intelligent, well intentioned members - the best and the brightest - until it is time to pass the Cool-Aid.
A group will always be judged by it's extremities and extremist MBTI accolytes are both obvious and often wrong. However that again is the people and not the theories. The theory is supposed to allow other's to better appreciate you for you.

For example, my father (ENTJ) has gone into business with an ENFP from Ireland. He said to me over the phone that this ENFP was writing what they wanted on the website. I exclaimed at him releasing control to an ENFP of all people, in jest. His remark came back "Oh no he's quite good. I rarely have to correct much." now with MBTI knowledge I know he didn't mean it to sound patronising... not that I let him off with it :devil:

My SO is an ESTP and she's a messy person. Now without having studied other ways of thinking, through MBTI, I would constantly chastise her over the mess. She'd get peeved and no doubt I'd have left. With that knowledge I can berrate her much more effectively ;)

Perhaps your message should be "Be careful how you weild that system" more so than "MBTI sucks"?

I must say though, from an MBTI perspective, you don't sound like an ESFP. I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just a little surprised (that's a good thing btw).

[Xander]

So the interesting question is, how can we save the baby?
Make a thread where those righteous beings who use the system for good can out and ridicule those who use it for evil and nefarious ends!!

;)

[Ilah]

I would say it teaches the value that no one type is better or worse than any other. Extroverted is not better that introverted. Introverts are not better than extroverts. Thinkers are not better than feelers, etc.

It might seem like a minor thing to some people, but it is a big thing to me. I gotten a lot of criticism in my life for being too introverted, too day dreamy, too lost in my own thoughts, thinking too much, not conciderate enough of other people's feelings, etc. In otherwords too INT, not enough ESF. So it is very comforting to know that, at least to some people, these are just personality differences and not character flaws.

Ilah

Look, I agree with you that MBTI can be useful and I am sure it is used in good faith here.

But at bottom I don't want to be seen as useful - I don't want to be used - I want to be valued for my own sake, as I am sure you do too.

So in a similar way MBTI can have an extrinsic use but I can't help asking, what is its intrinsic value?

What are the deeper values that MBTI teaches?

It seems to me it teaches blind faith and reification.

This may not matter on a day-to-day basis when used in good faith, but almost all members of cults act in good faith such as the cult of Bhagwan Ragneesh's Orange cult and Jim Jones' cult.

This is the odd thing about cults - they attract intelligent, well intentioned members - the best and the brightest - until it is time to pass the Cool-Aid.

[Victor]

A group will always be judged by it's extremities and extremist MBTI accolytes are both obvious and often wrong. However that again is the people and not the theories. The theory is supposed to allow other's to better appreciate you for you.

For example, my father (ENTJ) has gone into business with an ENFP from Ireland. He said to me over the phone that this ENFP was writing what they wanted on the website. I exclaimed at him releasing control to an ENFP of all people, in jest. His remark came back "Oh no he's quite good. I rarely have to correct much." now with MBTI knowledge I know he didn't mean it to sound patronising... not that I let him off with it :devil:

My SO is an ESTP and she's a messy person. Now without having studied other ways of thinking, through MBTI, I would constantly chastise her over the mess. She'd get peeved and no doubt I'd have left. With that knowledge I can berrate her much more effectively ;)

Perhaps your message should be "Be careful how you weild that system" more so than "MBTI sucks"?

I must say though, from an MBTI perspective, you don't sound like an ESFP. I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just a little surprised (that's a good thing btw).

Yes, it is good to understand our strengths and weaknesses. And it is a good exercise in tolerance as we see here as MBTI is both well run and tolerant.

So I ask for a little tolerance for me for I know criticism usually hurts and is often unwelcome.

However I am suggesting it hurts mainly because we tend to identify with any group to which we belong.

For instance the Bay of Pigs disaster was caused by group think. And the way to avoid group think is by tolerating criticism of the group itself - and this is fairly rare.

So I am suggesting we think not only in terms of the types in MBTI, but we also think of the group itself - and a way to do this is by questioning assumptions.

I am also suggesting we don't identify completely with the group to which we belong.

So it's like thinking two thoughts at the same time.

And as a personal explanation, I am not saying MBTI sucks, I am saying let's take a step back.

[Victor]

I must say though, from an MBTI perspective, you don't sound like an ESFP. I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just a little surprised (that's a good thing btw).

Oh yes, I forgot - Jeffster gave me my type, ESFP, however I am open to further suggestions.

What type do you think I am?

[Victor]

I would say it teaches the value that no one type is better or worse than any other. Extroverted is not better that introverted. Introverts are not better than extroverts. Thinkers are not better than feelers, etc.

It might seem like a minor thing to some people, but it is a big thing to me. I gotten a lot of criticism in my life for being too introverted, too day dreamy, too lost in my own thoughts, thinking too much, not conciderate enough of other people's feelings, etc. In otherwords too INT, not enough ESF. So it is very comforting to know that, at least to some people, these are just personality differences and not character flaws.

Ilah

You sound a bit like me. I have always been different - and for a very long time I thought there was something wrong with me - so I explored myself in encounter groups, in Reichian groups and very importantly, with those I fell in love with.

And I found I am completely free of psychosis and am only mildly neurotic. However I am highly excitable and the literature describes me as over-excitable (OE). I prefer to describe myself as emotionally labile.

Also I have the facility to easily enter and leave trances. This is enjoyable and useful, as in a trance I have total recall. Also I can concentrate for long periods of time.

Also I learn very well when I can direct my own learning. And I can learn well when I like my teacher.

At school my chaplain, Fr Fletcher, said, integrity is a real thing for me. And he was right - intellectual integrity is my watchword.

And unfortunately I am overly critical of those whom I see as lacking in intellectual integrity. And this gets me into trouble.

And last but not least, and I hesitate to tell you, but I have a high measured IQ. Most people don't like me telling them this because they think I am saying I am superior. But as you say, Ilah, I am not superior, I am just different.

And the most important thing I have found is to learn to accept and enjoy my difference - just like you.

[edcoaching]

This article illustrates the problem quite well, but I wonder if Functional Analysis is worth anything to begin with.

J/P = problem (http://www.socionics.com/articles/jpproblem.htm)

The article doesn't reflect the nomenclature of Jungian type theory as coded by Myers. For example it says,
"One "Introverted Intuitive with Thinking" takes MBTI and comes out an INTP, another "Introverted Intuitive with Thinking" comes out an INTJ. This introverted complexity is not limited to these two types. All other introvert types too are affected by it. But what interesting is that extrovert types are affected by it as well, but not as badly as introvert types."

Actually someone following Myers' work would say that an INTP prefers Introverted Thinking with Intuition. Jung described this separately from Introverted Thinking with Intuition. The dominant is inherent in the code because that's how the codes were set up. It IS confusing if you haven't studied the nomenclature which is why people are supposed to take a class before interpreting actual MBTI results for other people...but it isn't that hard to understand once it's been pointed out that J/P points to the function used in the external world which, by definition, is the auxiliary for I's. We keep our best side inside unless we want to share...

[edcoaching]

Oh don't get me wrong, understanding who wrote the theory and their aims for it are essential to understand the theory... I just advocate not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Well, keep in mind that Briggs had actually published articles on HER theories about human differences before Jung was published in English. two people in different countries simultaneously derived teh same theory. With the biases against women inherent in the times (and still today, sigh) they became students of Jung's work. Briggs and Myers were Quakers and honestly thought if they could make the theory accessible they could help people get along, bring about world peace. They started working on the instrument during WWII...

[Haight]

Briggs and Myers were Quakers and honestly thought if they could make the theory accessible they could help people get along, bring about world peace. They started working on the instrument during WWII...That's interesting.

[edcoaching]

Yes, it is good to understand our strengths and weaknesses. And it is a good exercise in tolerance as we see here as MBTI is both well run and tolerant.

So I ask for a little tolerance for me for I know criticism usually hurts and is often unwelcome.

However I am suggesting it hurts mainly because we tend to identify with any group to which we belong.

For instance the Bay of Pigs disaster was caused by group think. And the way to avoid group think is by tolerating criticism of the group itself - and this is fairly rare.

So I am suggesting we think not only in terms of the types in MBTI, but we also think of the group itself - and a way to do this is by questioning assumptions.

I am also suggesting we don't identify completely with the group to which we belong.

So it's like thinking two thoughts at the same time.

And as a personal explanation, I am not saying MBTI sucks, I am saying let's take a step back.

What sucks is unethical use of type theory or any other theory.

First we need ethical use of instruments, whether it's the real MBTI, the Kiersy, Golden, PTI, JTI or any free, unverified internet version. The ethical way to help people discover their own type is to A) explain the preferences and/or functions and allow them to self select the preferences that describe them best. B) Provide instrument results--all tools currently available are self-reporting instruments, not diagnostic tools like the MMPI, and need to be interpreted accordingly, which means the person tkaing it gets to argue with the results. C) Provide a full type description (hopefully one that is accurate and without type bias) so they can see if the description fits them
Ethical use of the theory means that A) all types are considered equally valuable B) at all times it is used to expand and not limit opportunities. For example a career counselor should never say, "You're an ESTJ. You don't have the skills to be a preschool teacher." Instead it should be, "What skills and interests do you have that attract you to that profession...here's what's the norm...how might you fit in..."
Being a type expert doesn't make one an expert facilitator/counselor/educator/spiritual director. Those are separate skills that one might add type expertise to.
Anyone who is an expert knows there is always more to learn about the theory, about how it plays out in the real world, and what is useful and not useful...


Just FYI Association for Psychological Type International (http://www.aptinternational.org) is a membership organization run by volunteers, including me. Our members use MBTI, Golden, PTI, JTI, Kiersey, INteraction Styles, DISC--you name it. Our mission is promoting the practical application and ethical use of type. I get as upset as Victor when it's used to label, demean, or box in people.

Didn't mean for this to get so long but our members really are a bunch of people, worldwide, who want others to get along. We dont' publish the MBTI or any other instrument.

[Xander]

Oh yes, I forgot - Jeffster gave me my type, ESFP, however I am open to further suggestions.

What type do you think I am?
I read you origionally as an INTJ and have been trying to read you as such ever since but I'm finding that it doesn't really fit.

I'm considering INTP, probably NT from what I've seen (that maybe a style you adopt, I'm not sure)... I don't really know you well enough.

The things you said to Ilah made me think INTP but I'm usually worse at reading people's type's in these situations... I'd be terrible if you were an INTP because I'd read that as me... you try finding one like me!!! ;)

[Xander]

Didn't mean for this to get so long but our members really are a bunch of people, worldwide, who want others to get along. We dont' publish the MBTI or any other instrument.
I thought he was taking the piss actually :eek:

[Xander]

Well, keep in mind that Briggs had actually published articles on HER theories about human differences before Jung was published in English. two people in different countries simultaneously derived teh same theory.
That does not necessarily follow. I'm sure that Jung's work spread to other countries before the translated texts did. Word of mouth is faster than the hand ;)
With the biases against women inherent in the times (and still today, sigh) they became students of Jung's work. Briggs and Myers were Quakers and honestly thought if they could make the theory accessible they could help people get along, bring about world peace. They started working on the instrument during WWII...
:eek: All this time I've been thinking about hippies theories!!!

Arrrrgggghhh!!!!


Well I guess I can forgive them. They do make nice porridge.

;)

[Jack Flak]

The article doesn't reflect the nomenclature of Jungian type theory as coded by Myers. For example it says,
"One "Introverted Intuitive with Thinking" takes MBTI and comes out an INTP, another "Introverted Intuitive with Thinking" comes out an INTJ. This introverted complexity is not limited to these two types. All other introvert types too are affected by it. But what interesting is that extrovert types are affected by it as well, but not as badly as introvert types."

Actually someone following Myers' work would say that an INTP prefers Introverted Thinking with Intuition. Jung described this separately from Introverted Thinking with Intuition. The dominant is inherent in the code because that's how the codes were set up. It IS confusing if you haven't studied the nomenclature which is why people are supposed to take a class before interpreting actual MBTI results for other people...but it isn't that hard to understand once it's been pointed out that J/P points to the function used in the external world which, by definition, is the auxiliary for I's. We keep our best side inside unless we want to share...
I don't know if you're explaining to me or the whole board, but I'm quite familiar with the terminology and the meanings, and have decided it's silly.

[edcoaching]

I don't know if you're explaining to me or the whole board, but I'm quite familiar with the terminology and the meanings, and have decided it's silly.

Not to you at all...I was reacting to the article you sent us to. You know, decades ago when Katherine and Isabel added J/P I have a feeling they pictured people only being introduced to the theory through expert instruction. They certainly would be struck dumb by how much is on the internet.

I agree the J/P thing is confusing; my husband says, "What do you mean they call two different things "Judging?" And I have to teach it to people all the time if they're going to use the stuff correctly...silly is probably a good description.

[Victor]

I read you origionally as an INTJ and have been trying to read you as such ever since but I'm finding that it doesn't really fit.

I'm considering INTP, probably NT from what I've seen (that maybe a style you adopt, I'm not sure)... I don't really know you well enough.

The things you said to Ilah made me think INTP but I'm usually worse at reading people's type's in these situations... I'd be terrible if you were an INTP because I'd read that as me... you try finding one like me!!! ;)

OK, OK mate, I am now an INTP.

And I can't be all bad if I am like you.

[Jack Flak]

OK, OK mate, I am now an INTP.

And I can't be all bad if I am like you.
Actually I think you're INTJ because you favor Ni. My God, I crack myself up. (If you don't get this: it's not an insult)

[Victor]

Just FYI Association for Psychological Type International (http://www.aptinternational.org) is a membership organization run by volunteers, including me. Our members use MBTI, Golden, PTI, JTI, Kiersey, INteraction Styles, DISC--you name it. Our mission is promoting the practical application and ethical use of type. I get as upset as Victor when it's used to label, demean, or box in people.

Didn't mean for this to get so long but our members really are a bunch of people, worldwide, who want others to get along. We dont' publish the MBTI or any other instrument.

OK.

[Victor]

Actually I think you're INTJ because you favor Ni. My God, I crack myself up. (If you don't get this: it's not an insult)

I am rather judgemental, in fact I can be rather unkind.

However I don't know what Ni means.

Will you tell me?

[Jack Flak]

I am rather judgemental, in fact I can be rather unkind.

However I don't know what Ni means.

Will you tell me?
It was just a joke. Over the course of this thread I decided that observing use of Functions like Ni (or Introverted Intuition) is not a worthy method to describe people. The joke is: instantly contradicting myself.

On a serious note, if I had to guess a type for you it would be INFJ. I am by no means confident of this.

[Victor]

It was just a joke. Over the course of this thread I decided that observing use of Functions like Ni (or Introverted Intuition) is not a worthy method to describe people. The joke is: instantly contradicting myself.

On a serious note, if I had to guess a type for you it would be INFJ. I am by no means confident of this.

I'll tell you what - I will stick with with Xander's INTP and see how it sits.

But after a while I will try your INFJ.

How's that?

[Jack Flak]

I'll tell you what - I will stick with with Xander's INTP and see how it sits.

But after a while I will try your INFJ.

How's that?
That's fine. If you're interested in finding out what "MBTI" type you might be, I recommend the tests and descriptions at Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website (http://www.keirsey.com).

[Xander]

Actually I think you're INTJ because you favor Ni.
I think I know now why it's so tempting to do this. It's not just the Ni that you're analysing on. ENTJs use Ni and you never mention that in your analysis, presumably because your checklist of ENTJ traits remained unsatisfactoraly unticked.

Perhaps this is how such practices are taught? Watching the practised take shortcuts and trying to emulate?

Anyhow I'm re-evaluating Victor on a post by post basis. I'm still on NT, I'd love to hear why you think NF, but I'm leaning more towards ENTP more than INTP. There seems to be mental flexibility but not under concious control like an INTP... I could be just blowing smoke however.

[Jack Flak]

X:

I was joking about Ni, just to contradict myself about f. analysis. Not that some descriptions of Ni aren't accurate. Basically there are too many different descriptions of the functions, and they're impossible to reliably pin down in subjects. This applies even to the dominant function, and 2nd/3rd/etc. functional observation is laughable.

Victor's entertaining as all get out once you realize he knows exactly what he's saying.

[Xander]

X:

I was joking about Ni, just to contradict myself about f. analysis. Not that some descriptions of Ni aren't accurate. Basically there are too many different descriptions of the functions, and they're impossible to reliably pin down in subjects. This applies even to the dominant function, and 2nd/3rd/etc. functional observation is laughable.
I know... just carrying out the tangent to it's natural conclusion... reflex :)
Victor's entertaining as all get out once you realize he knows exactly what he's saying.
Eh?

You wouldn't be using all the right words but not necessarily in the right order would you?

[Jack Flak]

"get out"="hell" or something to that effect. Americana

[Victor]

Victor's entertaining as all get out once you realize he knows exactly what he's saying.

It might be helpful to remember that whereas you make the distinction between sincere and phoney, we make the same distinction between amusing and boring.

So I can compliment you by calling you sincere, and you can compliment me by saying I am amusing.

So I am delighted you think I am entertaining.

[Victor]

Anyhow I'm re-evaluating Victor on a post by post basis. I'm still on NT, I'd love to hear why you think NF, but I'm leaning more towards ENTP more than INTP. There seems to be mental flexibility but not under concious control like an INTP... I could be just blowing smoke however.

I don't think you are blowing smoke Xander.

I have done a test of introversion and extroversion and I scored high on both. This is unusual as most tend to one score, at either end or in the middle. However a high score on both introversion and extroversion does seem to correlate with creativity.

My personal experience of this is that I can switch between the two parts of my brain. So that when I am tired out by one, I switch to the other to refresh myself.

And I do like give up conscious control for a while and enter what I call a trance. It is a bit like the trance Colmena enters when he goes for a walk. Let's call it the walking trance. And Colmena has commented that the mental state he enters on a walk is quite like the trance I enter in front of this screen. Let's call it the trance of the Noosphere.

But when I have taken my fill of a particular trance, I like to return to my fully conscious mind, my awake mind, and digest the experience of the trance and integrate it into my thinking mind. Then I get new ideas for my next trance and I can't wait to try them out. So I keep my appetite sharp.

I am very interested in what you think my type is. Partly because I am highly suggestible in a trance and am interested in trying out the various types, then thinking about the experience and analysing it and evaluating it.

Also I am interested in you typing me because I think the most important part of this site is person to person conversation. So I am interested in what you think and how it affects me and you and everyone here.

I see this site a a field where each member affects each other member and the whole.

I am particularly interested how each member affects the whole group.

[Xander]

I am very interested in what you think my type is. Partly because I am highly suggestible in a trance and am interested in trying out the various types, then thinking about the experience and analysing it and evaluating it.
Not being mean or anything, I'm doing this for clarity though it may sting.

This was what I was picking up from you. I disagree that it's possible, I think it's self fulfilling prophecy and not healthy.

That said I am interested in what you "feed" to yourself before the trance to allow you to alter your type.

[Victor]

Not being mean or anything, I'm doing this for clarity though it may sting.

This was what I was picking up from you. I disagree that it's possible, I think it's self fulfilling prophecy and not healthy.

That said I am interested in what you "feed" to yourself before the trance to allow you to alter your type.

I don't mind you being mean and a little sting may bring clarity.

I understand you disagree that you think it is possible it is not healthy.

However I agree with you that a trance can be a self fulfilling prophecy. In fact I am strongly in favour of designing trances in advance to produce chosen results.

But what can I say? For instance I can enter a trance in front of a beautiful tree and completely identify with the tree to such and extent that I can speak as the tree. As far as I am concerned I am the tree as long as I am in that particular trance.

So there is no reason I can't fully indentify with any particular type when I am in a trance.

I understand this is bring up cognitive dissonance within the rubric of MBTI.

In fact this cognitive dissonance highlights the fact that MBTI reifies the personality, whereas by identifying with each and all personality types returns the personality to the person.

So rather than treating each person as a thing in MBTI, we see that we are living persons, not things.

I full recogise this is subversive of MBTI. And I think this subversion is incoherently recogised by most here.

And this explains the negative response I get from members here - they at least unconsciously recognise that I am subversive - but even worse, that I am sincerely subversive.

So we reach the interesting question of how this cognitive dissonance that I engender may be resolved.

Well, you could choose one side or the other; or you could recognise we are simply asking the wrong question; or you could transcend the cognitive dissonance and enter a new understanding.

And as they say, when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?

And learning is not putting facts into your mind but changing your mind itself.

But our mind resists change and we find cognitive dissonance painful so we prefer to shoot the messenger.

Don't shoot, don't shoot - I am only the messenger.

[Xander]

I don't mind you being mean and a little sting may bring clarity.

I understand you disagree that you think it is possible it is not healthy.

However I agree with you that a trance can be a self fulfilling prophecy. In fact I am strongly in favour of designing trances in advance to produce chosen results.

But what can I say? For instance I can enter a trance in front of a beautiful tree and completely identify with the tree to such and extent that I can speak as the tree. As far as I am concerned I am the tree as long as I am in that particular trance.

So there is no reason I can't fully indentify with any particular type when I am in a trance.

I understand this is bring up cognitive dissonance within the rubric of MBTI.

In fact this cognitive dissonance highlights the fact that MBTI reifies the personality, whereas by identifying with each and all personality types returns the personality to the person.

So rather than treating each person as a thing in MBTI, we see that we are living persons, not things.

I full recogise this is subversive of MBTI. And I think this subversion is incoherently recogised by most here.

And this explains the negative response I get from members here - they at least unconsciously recognise that I am subversive - but even worse, that I am sincerely subversive.

So we reach the interesting question of how this cognitive dissonance that I engender may be resolved.

Well, you could choose one side or the other; or you could recognise we are simply asking the wrong question; or you could transcend the cognitive dissonance and enter a new understanding.

And as they say, when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?

And learning is not putting facts into your mind but changing your mind itself.

But our mind resists change and we find cognitive dissonance painful so we prefer to shoot the messenger.

Don't shoot, don't shoot - I am only the messenger.
Shoot the messanger? Some **** took my bullets when I was really young!

I prefer the knife anyhow :devil:

Seriously though, I meant it as a discourse not a witch hunt, hence the forewarning apology.

I disagree not in that you have trances, okay that does give me the heeby geebies, but more so that the claim to be able to alter type is, in my considered opinion, hogwash. The reason being is that you experience things through your cognitive wiring yes? (even if you don't like the MBTI's translation of it, you agree that such things exists yes?) Well then if so and you are an ENTP for example, then your ISTP will be an ENTPs take on an ISTP and not a person who has grown and developed as an ISTP. Ergo you aren't being an ISTP, just trying to think like one.

Don't get me wrong, I admire the ideal. Seeing things from another perspective is something I rate highly as a desirable attribute in a mind. I'm just not sure that the particular methodology and designs being employed are a healthy way to investigate different types.

[Ilah]

Victor,

Actually I think it could all be explained in MBTI language.

You are more in touch with - and better at using - your shadow [functions 5-8] and your 3rd and 4th functions than most people.

Most Jungian inspired psychologist concider this to be a good thing.

[Victor]

I disagree not in that you have trances, okay that does give me the heeby geebies, but more so that the claim to be able to alter type is, in my considered opinion, hogwash.

I'm just not sure that the particular methodology and designs being employed are a healthy way to investigate different types.

The heeby geebies are the precursor to a trance.

It is natural to feel fear as we enter a trance because we are going to be vulnerable without our cognitive faculties.

And I believe it is your natural fear that leads you to rationalise that trance is unhealthy.

In fact trance is a normal part of life and most trances are entered into unconsciously. You enter the hypnogogic trance as you fall asleep every night and as you wake every morning. You enter the sexual trance when you make love. You enter a light trance when you watch TV. You even enter a light trance when you ride in an elevator.

The trances you enter as a matter of course every day are too numerous to mention. But every time you go to the movies you enter the movie trance. When you give birth, you enter the birth trance. Runners enter the running trance. Why, even Colema enters the walking trance.

When you go to Mass, you enter the religious trance. And when you attend a dinner party, you enter a group trance. Music induces the music trance. And when you drink, you enter the alcoholic trance. And of course there are the cigarette trance, the marijana trance, the heroin trance and the meth trance.

Sharmans have been using naturally occurring narcotics to enter sharmanic trances for millennia.

And of course there are the psychotic trances such as the schizophrenic trance.

And last but not least, are the addictive trances which consist of double trances, one trance that is induced inside another trance - these are very difficult trances to terminate.

And almost all these trances are culturally sanctioned trances - they are taken for granted - and they very rarely give the warning sign of fear - so you don't even notice them - they are normal.

However we are now moving into the Noosphere, the global village, the neo-tribal village, which is all about trance.

And we are unprepared.

So we need to learn to understand trances - we need to learn how to design trances safely.

The great artists of the Noosphere will be trance designers.

And you may learn about trance and trance design on The Trance Institute (http://www.trance.edu)

[Xander]

I actually meant i disagree that you can change your type, especially so easily. The method is quite irrelevant.

[Ilah]

That's some very interesting information about trance, both in your post and in the link. I haven't read everything in the link, but I have it bookmarked.

I trance very easy, for a large part of my life I was not comfortable with it. Earlier in my life I had many occurances of involuntary altered consciousness which made it scary for me. Now I am exploring this area again, seeing how it can be a positive aspect of my life.

The following is something I had written a couple years back on altered states.

“I have experienced several types of what might be called altered states of consciousness. Some of them might be related to epilepsy. (I now believe I had epilepsy as a teen, but tested negative because of poor testing available at the time.) Some of them might be dissociation. Some might be called a trance state. Some are spiritual/metaphysical. Some or all of them might be related. It seems too much of a coincidence that I have experienced all of them. None of these were triggered by the use of drugs, alcohol, herbs or any mind altering substance.



“1. Partial brain shutdown: I am only partially aware of what is going on. For example, I could tell that a person next to me is making word sounds, but not what the person is saying. I am taking in things but not able to process at all. I can continue very simple repetitive movements but cannot talk or doing anything requiring any thought. Pretty scary. I don't get these anymore, but they were common in high school.



“2. Brain shutdown, mental vacation, spaced out: My mind just shuts down except for vital functions like breathing. (I remain standing or sitting or what ever position I was in.) I do nothing but stare blankly. Time passes and I have no memory of it passing. In my teen years, in my room I would often have instances where I realized I had been staring at the wall or a blank sheet for a half hour to an hour. They are less serious now, thought it tends to happened a couple times a month in the shower. It is easily broken by my husband yelling at me that I will be late for work though the bathroom door.



“3. Daydreaming: Sometimes I will become so lost in my own thoughts or a pleasant day dream that I tune out the outside world. I am not sure if this is properly called an altered state or not.



“4. Open, receptive, trance: I am not interacting at all with the outside world or physical world. During this time I am in tune with the either the inner world (my subconsious thought, inner self, etc.) or the spirit world. During this time I am open to visions, feelings, etc. I can currently do this at will now, though usually I will opt for #5 instead.



“5. Open, receptive, light trance, both worlds: This is like number 4 except that I am able to interact with both the physical and non-physical world at the same time with no more distraction than I would have with a normal conversation. I believe this is my current default state and I can enter into it at will. I think there may be a little bit of a continuum between 4 and 5.



“6. Disconnected: My body feels like it is not firmly connected to my mind/spirit/soul. I feel like I am watching my life rather than actively living it. Emotions and physical sensations may be blunted or numb. Interaction with the world is not impaired.



“7. Bliss: A sense of deep peace, calmness, serenity. This is usually triggered by repetitive movement (crochet or other craft) or music with an hypnotic or psychedelic quality. Having to concentrate on something else breaks the bliss. Normally I am not thinking anything at all, just experiencing feelings and sensations, though sometimes my mind can wander around during this time and maintain the state of bliss. I am thinking this is perhaps the state of Nirvana some seek to obtain though meditation. I also feel like perhaps it is similar to what some people may experience on drugs.”



The heeby geebies are the precursor to a trance.

It is natural to feel fear as we enter a trance because we are going to be vulnerable without our cognitive faculties.

And I believe it is your natural fear that leads you to rationalise that trance is unhealthy.

In fact trance is a normal part of life and most trances are entered into unconsciously. You enter the hypnogogic trance as you fall asleep every night and as you wake every morning. You enter the sexual trance when you make love. You enter a light trance when you watch TV. You even enter a light trance when you ride in an elevator.

The trances you enter as a matter of course every day are too numerous to mention. But every time you go to the movies you enter the movie trance. When you give birth, you enter the birth trance. Runners enter the running trance. Why, even Colema enters the walking trance.

When you go to Mass, you enter the religious trance. And when you attend a dinner party, you enter a group trance. Music induces the music trance. And when you drink, you enter the alcoholic trance. And of course there are the cigarette trance, the marijana trance, the heroin trance and the meth trance.

Sharmans have been using naturally occurring narcotics to enter sharmanic trances for millennia.

And of course there are the psychotic trances such as the schizophrenic trance.

And last but not least, are the addictive trances which consist of double trances, one trance that is induced inside another trance - these are very difficult trances to terminate.

And almost all these trances are culturally sanctioned trances - they are taken for granted - and they very rarely give the warning sign of fear - so you don't even notice them - they are normal.

However we are now moving into the Noosphere, the global village, the neo-tribal village, which is all about trance.

And we are unprepared.

So we need to learn to understand trances - we need to learn how to design trances safely.

The great artists of the Noosphere will be trance designers.

And you may learn about trance and trance design on The Trance Institute (http://www.trance.edu)

[Victor]

That's some very interesting information about trance, both in your post and in the link. I haven't read everything in the link, but I have it bookmarked.

I trance very easy, for a large part of my life I was not comfortable with it. Earlier in my life I had many occurances of involuntary altered consciousness which made it scary for me. Now I am exploring this area again, seeing how it can be a positive aspect of my life.

The following is something I had written a couple years back on altered states.

“I have experienced several types of what might be called altered states of consciousness. Some of them might be related to epilepsy. (I now believe I had epilepsy as a teen, but tested negative because of poor testing available at the time.) Some of them might be dissociation. Some might be called a trance state. Some are spiritual/metaphysical. Some or all of them might be related. It seems too much of a coincidence that I have experienced all of them. None of these were triggered by the use of drugs, alcohol, herbs or any mind altering substance.



“1. Partial brain shutdown: I am only partially aware of what is going on. For example, I could tell that a person next to me is making word sounds, but not what the person is saying. I am taking in things but not able to process at all. I can continue very simple repetitive movements but cannot talk or doing anything requiring any thought. Pretty scary. I don't get these anymore, but they were common in high school.



“2. Brain shutdown, mental vacation, spaced out: My mind just shuts down except for vital functions like breathing. (I remain standing or sitting or what ever position I was in.) I do nothing but stare blankly. Time passes and I have no memory of it passing. In my teen years, in my room I would often have instances where I realized I had been staring at the wall or a blank sheet for a half hour to an hour. They are less serious now, thought it tends to happened a couple times a month in the shower. It is easily broken by my husband yelling at me that I will be late for work though the bathroom door.



“3. Daydreaming: Sometimes I will become so lost in my own thoughts or a pleasant day dream that I tune out the outside world. I am not sure if this is properly called an altered state or not.



“4. Open, receptive, trance: I am not interacting at all with the outside world or physical world. During this time I am in tune with the either the inner world (my subconsious thought, inner self, etc.) or the spirit world. During this time I am open to visions, feelings, etc. I can currently do this at will now, though usually I will opt for #5 instead.



“5. Open, receptive, light trance, both worlds: This is like number 4 except that I am able to interact with both the physical and non-physical world at the same time with no more distraction than I would have with a normal conversation. I believe this is my current default state and I can enter into it at will. I think there may be a little bit of a continuum between 4 and 5.



“6. Disconnected: My body feels like it is not firmly connected to my mind/spirit/soul. I feel like I am watching my life rather than actively living it. Emotions and physical sensations may be blunted or numb. Interaction with the world is not impaired.



“7. Bliss: A sense of deep peace, calmness, serenity. This is usually triggered by repetitive movement (crochet or other craft) or music with an hypnotic or psychedelic quality. Having to concentrate on something else breaks the bliss. Normally I am not thinking anything at all, just experiencing feelings and sensations, though sometimes my mind can wander around during this time and maintain the state of bliss. I am thinking this is perhaps the state of Nirvana some seek to obtain though meditation. I also feel like perhaps it is similar to what some people may experience on drugs.”

Now I feel nervous writing to you. I put off replying trying to compose the best reply in my mind.

But it never works - everything I thought of seemed wrong or inadequate.

I guess I am delighted and a bit overwhelmed to find someone else who has the gift of trance.

I am nervous about saying the wrong thing to you and giving you the wrong impression - but what is the right impression?

Reading your diary it was as though I was right beside you. You describe your involuntary trances very well - very clearly and sensibly.

You remind me of my own involuntary trances.

Trance has been very important for me. It has given me a depth and delight in life that I might otherwise not have had.

In fact my involuntary trances sent me looking for an explanation. And I found an explanation with Dennis Wier who wrote a trance theory - and interestingly, a falsifiable theory.

Dennis Wier is himself experienced in trance and has also been trained in logic. And so he put them both together and came up with Trance Theory.

And interestingly Trance Theory is not part of the New Age Movement but comes straight out of the Enlightenment.

I have had the experience of two, perhaps three men, who I felt spoke directly to me. The first was Ainslie Mears who wrote, "Relief Without Drugs"; and the second was Dennis Wier who wrote, "Trance Theory"; and perhaps the third was Ronald Laing who wrote, "The Divided Self".

Each one of them spoke directly to the inner life - to my inner life. So I never forget them.

But things are changing rapidly as we move into the electronic media and even literacy becomes the content of the new media - look, I am writing, and you are reading, text on the internet.

When literacy was our media environment, trance was largely unconscious, even repressed. But in the new electronic media, trance is becoming visible - the unconscious is becoming conscious.

So we are now in a position to design our own trances for our own purposes - and guess what - we have Wier's Trance Theory to guide us.

And whereas your gift had to be hidden under the regime of literacy, in the noosphere, in the electronic media, your gift is essential to the happiness and well being of us all.

I am delighted to meet you.

Victor.