Cultural archetypes, stereotypes and modal types

[edcoaching]

Thought I'd start a new thread on how "experts" look at type and culture--the people who are writing articles on it and getting paid to use type with teams to work with cultural and other diversity.

First, cultures have "archetypal" images of the best way to be. Heroes, values taught in school, traits that are rewarded at work, etc., are the kinds of things that are looked at to determine archetypes.

The president of the French type association points out how Decartes is held up as the greatest French Philosopher (I think therefore I am...) and the goddess of the Revolution is Reason
He pointed to many other characteristics of French schooling and business practices that point to Thinking being valued


Then there are the "stereotypes" other cultures hold. Most Americans, for example, when thinking of France are more likely to think "passion, amore" and come up with Feeling as the stereotype of that country.

Finally, there is the modal type--the one most frequent in the population. Solid research has only been done in a few countries--the statistically sound studies where a valid type sorter is used with random samplings of people. There isn't one yet for France, but the type association there reported at the 2005 International Conference on Psychological Type that they estimated about 65% of the population prefers Feeling. He said only half-jokingly that he believed that the archetypes developed in his country were an attempt to temper their natural temperaments...

Sometimes archetype, stereotype and modal type match up--The United States and Extraversion, for example. Sometimes they don't.

[Haight]

Although your post seems more like a statement then anything else, I'd like to debate this a bit. However, I need two questions answered first:

a/ When one says, "The amount of INTJs in the population is 1%," for instance, is that a world population total, or could, or has, that been broken down into country statistics?

b/ How do these samples work, exactly? In other words, would one type be more likely to respond to the sample/survey relative to another type?

[entropie]

I think for germany, from observation, the things count as following by approximation:

E: 20%
I: 80%

T: 60%
F: 40%

S: 70%
N: 30%

P: 60%
J: 40%

The most intresting thing is, while I have come to know the stereotype that germany is S-land, it really is I-land. The most types, you will meet are ISTJ, ISTP and INTJ, from my opinion.

In the past years, everything is getting more "open-" and "-hearted" but it really still developes much around Introverted Sensing, which holds things in life for benevolent good gods or devilish bad things.

I wonder how easy it would be for an ENTP to become president here xD. Well forget this thought, I bet it is pretty impossible. Will do that in France :D

[Haight]

See . . . it's that type of sample and analysis that I fear.

"80%" introverts!? Never mind, don't answer that.

Anyway, I'll wait for your answer, ec. Thanks.

[entropie]

Explain ? I dont understand

[nolla]

USA is an extrovert feeler who got bullied at school, ran away from home when teenager and now suppresses all that shit but can't help exploding from time to time. That's how it seems from here.

[edcoaching]

Although your post seems more like a statement then anything else, I'd like to debate this a bit. However, I need two questions answered first:

a/ When one says, "The amount of INTJs in the population is 1%," for instance, is that a world population total, or could, or has, that been broken down into country statistics?

b/ How do these samples work, exactly? In other words, would one type be more likely to respond to the sample/survey relative to another type?

Thanks--I s'pose it was a statement, kind of a report on "how it's done" in some circles. I find it useful when working with groups of educators because a) when your school district has students who speak over a hundred languages you need something for convenience! b) it helps point out how students can differ from their cultural backgrounds as far as learning styles and c) it often prevents negative stereotyping. But to answer...

The samples are done country by country and there are two kinds

Samples of convenience, which means people who use type professionally turned in results of verified (hopefully) type from workshops. These can be really skewed, though, because often they're all corporate managers or something. The samples do show similarities around the world on who goes into management!
National representative samples. With these, the statisticians use their methods to figure out how many people they need to poll to get an adequate representation of the population--it was 3,009 in the United States, from across different demographic groups.


They do their best to correct for things like, will E's or I's be more likely to answer the phone, etc. There are a lot of details in the MBTI manual about how they chose the sampling. I do know they had trouble finding enough people from minority populations as, with good reason, they tend to be suspicious of tests and experiments...for the National Representative Sample, they multiplied these responses to equal their % in the general population--not perfect but a statistically acceptable method and better than nothing???

[Jeffster]

USA is an extrovert feeler who got bullied at school, ran away from home when teenager and now suppresses all that shit but can't help exploding from time to time. That's how it seems from here.

USA is a country, with like 300 million different people in it. Trying to "type" a country as a whole is just silly.

[nolla]

USA is a country, with like 300 million different people in it. Trying to "type" a country as a whole is just silly.

Yeah.

So can I type their foreign policy? :devil:

[booyalab]

USA is an extrovert feeler who got bullied at school, ran away from home when teenager and now suppresses all that shit but can't help exploding from time to time. That's how it seems from here.
sorry....when did we get bullied, what's school, what's home, when were we a teenager, what are we suppressing, and what do you consider exploding?

[edcoaching]

USA is a country, with like 300 million different people in it. Trying to "type" a country as a whole is just silly.

The attempt isn't to say "everyone is this type" but that the country values some preferences over others. For example in the US Extraversion is way more valued

We grade on class participation
We worry about our "shy" children
There was just a study in Harvard Management Review expressing surprise that Introverts can be good leaders. Like thinking before acting is a bad thing...
In most settings those who speak up fastest are considered brighter or smarter. Compare that to many First Nations where those who listen to everyone else, then synthesize and add wisdom, are considered the great leaders


So it's looking systemically to see what is valued, not stereotyping behaviors. that's a different thing...

[ajblaise]

sorry....when did we get bullied

by the Brits a few hundred years ago. At Colonial Junior High.

[entropie]

You got bullied the last soccer world championship :D

[edcoaching]

sorry....when did we get bullied, what's school, what's home, when were we a teenager, what are we suppressing, and what do you consider exploding?

Actually most think we're Extraverted Thinking--we do not step into the shoes of others to consider the impact of our decisions on them...:blush:

[nolla]

sorry....when did we get bullied, what's school, what's home, when were we a teenager, what are we suppressing, and what do you consider exploding?

Uh. It was a joke. :doh: I dislike explaining them...

USA started from being some small religious groups in europe (this is the bullying part) and sailed across the ocean (and this is the run-away-as-a-teenager part) and is now a country that starts a war every other decade, licks his wounds until they get new president and then go again. (That was the exploding part)

[booyalab]

Actually most think we're Extraverted Thinking--we do not step into the shoes of others to consider the impact of our decisions on them...:blush:

Yeah, boo hoo. It must have really sucked for Europe when we saved its butt and forgave every debt.

Anyway, I want to expand on the ran away from home analogy. K, so we got bullied, ran away from home...that part's good. But substitute "suppressed all that shit" with "got rich and famous while distant relatives stayed unemployed and bitter".
:run:

[entropie]

Yeah, boo hoo. It must have really sucked for Europe when we saved its butt and forgave every debt.


This one did hurt my feelings :cry:

XD

[nolla]

How about we compromise: "got rich and famous, yet feels empty inside and can't help but to feel for the senile relatives back home"? Plus some rage.

[edcoaching]

Uh. It was a joke. :doh: I dislike explaining them...

USA started from being some small religious groups in europe (this is the bullying part) and sailed across the ocean (and this is the run-away-as-a-teenager part) and is now a country that starts a war every other decade, licks his wounds until they get new president and then go again. (That was the exploding part)

Actually pretty accurate. Still think we're more T--their feelings get hurt too...

How about we compromise: "got rich and famous, yet feels empty inside and can't help but to feel for the senile relatives back home"? Plus some rage.

Is it rage or total obliviousness to others...

[nolla]

Is it rage or total obliviousness to others...

You might be on to something. Maybe America is so total extrovert that he doesn't think about that much before doing? It must be the extrovert among the countries...

[entropie]

How about we compromise: "got rich and famous, yet feels empty inside and can't help but to feel for the senile relatives back home"? Plus some rage.

That sounds familiar, I second it :D

[6sticks]

Since personality types are supposedly innate, then all this shows is the unreliability of the MBTI. It's not like the USA aborts fetuses who test INFP, and the Germans aren't genetically predisposed to birth ISTJs, Aryan propaganda aside.

[entropie]

okokok was just a general feeling

In the end we are all alone, not in the feeling of a society, aint we ?

[6sticks]

okokok was just a general feeling

In the end we are all alone, not in the feeling of a society, aint we ?
srite

[Gabe]

What I've always wondered is how much a country's type is based on the actual 'modal type' (just a hypothetical of if that existed. Because I think it's impossible to measure) or cultural history, or institutions, or what? Particularily, I often wonder if factors having nothing to do with people in said country (resources, existing government structure, different challenges). For instance, how the functions of academia make it very much a Theorist culture, even though the majority of professors may very well NOT be theorists.

What we know is that what I just mentioned occurs extremely often- Either people develop and accomplish things through a non-preffered function because of a real or percieved neccesity (e.g Freud's extraverted thinking) or engage in some compulsory version of a culturally-accepted function.

Anyway, what must be true is that a culture with a certian type does NOT have to mean that type is an actual modal type!

The other side of this, is, I wonder if at some point biology starts to respond to culture, and in that way a cultures type begins to actually become a modal type. (Hopefully not, although it wouldn't be the end of the world. *Living* requires all 8 functions, so that kind of evolution would have to always reverse eventually)

Have any of the experts been looking into any of that stuff?

[edcoaching]

Since personality types are supposedly innate, then all this shows is the unreliability of the MBTI. It's not like the USA aborts fetuses who test INFP, and the Germans aren't genetically predisposed to birth ISTJs, Aryan propaganda aside.

It isn't that there aren't INFPs in the United States--it's that the culture doesn't value their strengths as much as those of other types. People who've studied suicide rates postulate that the reason INFPs are 7 times more likely to attempt suicide in the United States than any other type is because the culture is opposite to their preferences...

What I've always wondered is how much a country's type is based on the actual 'modal type' (just a hypothetical of if that existed. Because I think it's impossible to measure) or cultural history, or institutions, or what? Particularily, I often wonder if factors having nothing to do with people in said country (resources, existing government structure, different challenges). For instance, how the functions of academia make it very much a Theorist culture, even though the majority of professors may very well NOT be theorists.

The archetypes don't seem to be built on modal type--other than perhaps the modal type of whoever takes control. You can figure out the archetypes of corporations, too, and very often there's a CEO component in newer companies as to what is honored. But the modal type may be different. At 3M in the early days of using type there, for example, it was common for every manager in a session to come out ESTJ and verify that as their type. Then in the halls they'd tell the trainer, "I'm really __ __ __ __ but I can't admit it..." The culture was that strong then.

[QUOTE=Gabe;314124]What we know is that what I just mentioned occurs extremely often- Either people develop and accomplish things through a non-preffered function because of a real or percieved neccesity (e.g Freud's extraverted thinking) or engage in some compulsory version of a culturally-accepted function.

Yup. Culture changes the way we express type. For example, people who have extraverted Judging functions in Perceiving cultures (think South America) are much more relaxed about time and schedules than J's in J cultures.

Anyway, what must be true is that a culture with a certain type does NOT have to mean that type is an actual modal type!

Absolutely. See my opening example on France. The current US sample says the modal type is ISFJ by a hair. I think. I didn't pull out the manual to check...

The other side of this, is, I wonder if at some point biology starts to respond to culture, and in that way a cultures type begins to actually become a modal type. (Hopefully not, although it wouldn't be the end of the world. *Living* requires all 8 functions, so that kind of evolution would have to always reverse eventually)

Have any of the experts been looking into any of that stuff?

Mmmm, I think the consensus is behavior adapts rather than biology responds. For example, the samples we have (and they aren't perfect) from First Nations , just a few of them and the nations definitely differ, is that a majority prefer Sensing, just like in the United States. But for the Nations who have described their own archetypes, it's been Intuition. They theorize that as they fine-tuned survival skills, their minds turned to creating explanations for life and the universe and how things should be. Think of the phenomenal government system of the Iroquois nations and the abstract nature of their art (again, these are their examples--I don't figure out another culture's archetype...if I'm "following the rules")

I worked with the staff of an Ojibwe charter school. For each preference pair they discussed what their culture valued and concluded INFP. The principal looked at me and said, "And for 350 years we thought you were listening..."

[Haight]

So ec, do you have a link to stats or reports that would show me how MBTI population percentages are broken down by country?

Because . . . that would be interesting.

[6sticks]

It isn't that there aren't INFPs in the United States--it's that the culture doesn't value their strengths as much as those of other types. People who've studied suicide rates postulate that the reason INFPs are 7 times more likely to attempt suicide in the United States than any other type is because the culture is opposite to their preferences...
Maybe so. But if modal type changes from country to country then either personality type isn't innate or the MBTI is unreliable. Or, I guess, that the suicides really add up.

[Haight]

Maybe so. But if modal type changes from country to country then either personality type isn't innate or the MBTI is unreliable. Or, I guess, that the suicides really add up.Who said that one's personality is 100% innate?

[6sticks]

Who said that one's personality is 100% innate?
In the "are you born with it?" thread (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/313663-post15.html)

The research done so far shows that type is innate; culture, family, workplace, environment influence our expression. That's why typing others is so difficult. We have a type but we learn behaviors (or end up OCD or psychotic or a robot or somehow dysfunctional or ostracized...)
So if types are innate then modal types only show the expressed behaviors favored by a culture, and not the true types. If the MBTI were more accurate in determining the true type, the percentages of, say, INTPs in every culture would be the same... once you factor in suicides, witch-hunts, and whatnot.

[Jeffster]

You might be on to something. Maybe America is so total extrovert that he doesn't think about that much before doing? It must be the extrovert among the countries...

America still ain't a person.

[nottaprettygal]

America still ain't a person.

Dude. It's an analogy.

[Haight]

In the "are you born with it?" thread (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/313663-post15.html)You missed my "100%" part:

The research done so far shows that type is innate; culture, family, workplace, environment influence our expression. The bolded part would make it less than 100%, if you get my drift.

Therefore, type is innate to a degree, but not absolutely innate. I say this because you created an either-or scenario when a third options exists.

[6sticks]

The research done so far shows that type is innate; culture, family, workplace, environment influence our expression.
Expression isn't type.

[Haight]

I disagree.

[Jeffster]

Dude. It's an analogy.

I get that. But it's stupid to try to attribute a personality type to an entire country. Not all analogies are good analogies.

[edcoaching]

In the "are you born with it?" thread (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/313663-post15.html)


So if types are innate then modal types only show the expressed behaviors favored by a culture, and not the true types. If the MBTI were more accurate in determining the true type, the percentages of, say, INTPs in every culture would be the same... once you factor in suicides, witch-hunts, and whatnot.

The modal types are supposed to come off of verified type, not reported (instrument type). Behaviors, not type, changes. For example my ENTP British colleagues are much more subdued than American ENTPs, but still more like others of their type than the other types in Britain.

Lots of genetic things vary by culture/country...

So ec, do you have a link to stats or reports that would show me how MBTI population percentages are broken down by country?

Because . . . that would be interesting.

No links...These are the only two official national representative samples.

US (From the MBTI Manual, CPP, 1998)
ISTJ 11.6%
ISTP 5.4
ESTP 4.3
ESTJ 8.7
ISFJ 13.8
ISFP 8.8
ESFP 8.5
ESFJ 12.3
INFJ 1.5
INFP 4.4
ENFP 8.1
ENFJ 2.1
INTJ 2.1
INTP 3.3
ENTP 3.2
ENTJ 1.8

UK also from MBTI manual
ISTJ 13/7
ISTP 6.4
ESTP 5.8
ESTJ 10.4
ISFJ 12.7
ISFP 6.1
ESFP 8.7
ESFJ 12.6
INFJ 1/7
INFP 3.2
ENFP 6.3
ENFJ 2.8
INTJ 1.4
INTP 2.4
ENTP 2.8
ENTJ 2.9

The samples from Spain, Germany, Ital, Netherlands, are too heavily weighted with business types to be anything near representative. They show more S's than N's, in all places. All over the world, managers are overwhelmingly TJ...

[Haight]

And just for the record, I don't think that is as much about genetics as it is about environment. I do think this factor is slight - as opposed to my wife, for example - but I do know and believe that it exists. But I understand why it's debatable.

[edcoaching]

I get that. But it's stupid to try to attribute a personality type to an entire country. Not all analogies are good analogies.

It can also be very useful. Say you want to win a presidential campaign. Knowing the culture has, say, an archetype around Extraversion and Sensing can help you plan your campaign--especially if you know the modal type is also ES. Here's what you'd do:

Make a big deal any time your opponant seems to get more information and therefore change position--or if he says "This is a complicated issue and there isn't a clear-cut, always-works rule." Call him a flip-flopper.
Kick the national security threat level up just before any important vote to remind the public that the country is safe
Make the most of clear-cut decisions. Make them a virtue. Stay the course. You're either with us or against us. Etc.
Focus on voter pocketbooks rather than global issues. For example--offshore drilling for immediate relief rather than remindingpeople that global warming is also an issue here and that in the past when we've rallied around huge challenges (think ABomb whether we should have dropped it or not or getting to the moon) we make it. Don't mention the tax subsidies you voted for that kept Detroit making SUVs far too long. Or, the fact that several alternative energy companies have packed up and moved to Europe recently where incentives are already inplace--one from Ohio just relocated 300 engineers to Germany
Keep the focus on whether you as a parent have a choice in where to send your child rather thanon the bigger issue that for a democracy to function every child needs to be able to think
Keep the focus present oriented. Like, focus on the "Surge" results. Not on the fact that we went in under false pretenses or that we destroyed the infrastructures of the country, creating enemies left and right.
Make sure you point to titles like "community organizer" that aren't as well-defined as senator or representative or attorney or mayor so you can get people thinking that no leadership could have taken place in such a role


Don't think for a second that I'm saying S's are more vulnerable or idiotic than N's. It's just that by sheer numbers, not by % within the preference, idiotic S's outnumber idiotic N's...in this country...

And yes, I could quickly find ways the Democrats have similarly pandered to Sensing types in teh last elections, but their big, election-losing moves in the last two go-rounds were when they stuck to Intuitive rhetoric.

[Jack Flak]

edcoaching, what makes you think MBTI statistics are accurate? They never made sense to me until I concluded that people who take MBTI have other motives than proper self-assessment and ISTJ is the "most common type" because people want to appear responsible.

In anticipation of a possible response (One of my major strengths as ISTJ, er INTP):

I'd bet serious cash that I could come to your office tomorrow and test as ISTJ, as many people could and surely already have done without even knowing what ISTJ means, they simply put on the front of being a quiet, responsible fellow who follows orders.

I'm not so sure I could fool a socionics practitioner. Not that I would want to, I'd take the test, then we'd get some beers and talk socionics.

Official MBTI is antiquated and defunct.

[edcoaching]

edcoaching, what makes you think MBTI statistics are accurate? They never made sense to me until I concluded that people who take MBTI have other motives than proper self-assessment and ISTJ is the "most common type" because people want to appear responsible.

There are two main sources for normed reference samples:

the database at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. They've collected thousands and thousands of Form G results submitted by practitioners all over the place, from people working in multiple fields. In a ton of those fields, ISTJ isn't considered particularly responsible. Further, in high schools, where a lot of the early sampling was done, ISTJ is definitely NOT considered the way to be...In the CAPT database, I think ESTJ is the modal type--I can't find my old manual that shows it...
The National Representative Sample developed by the publisher of the official MBTI, CPP, Inc. When they created Form M in 1998, they performed a rigorous study using all the statistical gizmos to get as good of a sample as they could across education/income/gender/culture/career to correct for as much bias as they could. In this sample there are really 2 modal types since score ranges are shown: ISFJ and ESTJ.


I can also see evidence that a majority of people answer as they prefer, not as they think they should, when I look at results from people within specific careers--the data on how types cluster in careers is actually validity for the theory. And a lot of that data is on best-fit type: the types people select after going through training, not merely their reported scores.

In anticipation of a possible response (One of my major strenghts as ISTJ, er INTP):

I'd bet serious cash that I could come to your office tomorrow and test as ISTJ, as many people could and surely already have done without even knowing what ISTJ means, they simply put on the front of being a quiet, responsible fellow who follows orders.

I'm not so sure I could fool a socionics practitioner. Not that I would want to, I'd take the test, then we'd get some beers and talk socionics.

Official MBTI is antiquated and defunct.

Of course you could. It's a self-reporting instrument. I can come out any type too. Isabel Myers didn't think people would respond well to being told what they were, so she designed an interactive process. People are supposed to hear the theory, self-select preferences, then see their results and full type descriptions and then decide for themselves what they are. They are to take their "shoulds" off and answer as they prefer. The stats tests show that 75% of people agree with results and 90% with 3 of 4 letters.

The point of the instrument is to help figure out types faster so you can get on to interpretation. If I don't use the instrument with a group, I need about another 30 minutes to do some concrete exercises so people can "See" the preferences and decide which ones suit them best. If training is effective, by the end of the second day everyone appreciates the gifts of each preference, how all types contribute to a team, and why you'd only want to be yourself.

[Jack Flak]

I could see INTPs being comfortable testing as INTP if they are computer programmers. As ESFPs would be comfortable testing as ESFP in lingerie sales. But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI, and in interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJs: another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills).

Of course you could. It's a self-reporting instrument. I can come out any type too. Isabel Myers didn't think people would respond well to being told what they were, so she designed an interactive process. People are supposed to hear the theory, self-select preferences, then see their results and full type descriptions and then decide for themselves what they are. They are to take their "shoulds" off and answer as they prefer. The stats tests show that 75% of people agree with results and 90% with 3 of 4 letters.
That probably has something to do with her being more NF and friendly than a good strategic thinker. If you're engaging in job placement based on type, it is generally inadvisable to let people self-assess.

I doubt she even had official capacities in mind when developing it, so the use of it there is further made to seem absurd.

[Haight]

But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI and interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJ is another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills)That presupposes that other types have the desire and capability to manipulate the test results in the manner you're presenting. I think most people that run into the MBTI test don't have the background experience and the foresight as to what the results mean so they don't come to it with a "plan" in the same way you do or might.

If the statement is that the test can be manipulated, then the answer is of course. But manipulating tests comes with experience with those tests.

[Jack Flak]

That presupposes that other types have the desire and capability to manipulate the test results in the manner you're presenting. I think most people that run into the MBTI test don't have the background experience and the foresight as to what the results mean so they don't come to it with a "plan" in the same way you do or might.
As I stated up there, Haight, people know what makes an ISTJ more than they know what MBTI ISTJ is. They act like an ISTJ would, without having ever heard the four letters.

[Haight]

As I stated up there, Haight, people know what makes an ISTJ more than they know what MBTI ISTJ is. They act like an ISTJ would, without having ever heard the four letters.Right. I just don't believe that. Since if that were the case, then utilizing the test for business hiring practices would be useless, and known to be useless, therefore we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Carry on . . .

[edcoaching]

I could see INTPs being comfortable testing as INTP if they are computer programmers. As ESFPs would be comfortable testing as ESFP in lingerie sales. But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI, and in interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJs: another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills).


That probably has something to do with her being more NF and friendly than a good strategic thinker. If you're engaging in job placement based on type, it is generally inadvisable to let people self-assess.

I doubt she even had official capacities in mind when developing it, so the use of it there is further made to seem absurd.

Well, if it's being used for job placement, that's like using a lawn mower to snowblow your driveway. All the MBTI does is help people decide how clear they are about preferences. It doesn't measure skills or maturity or education. It's actually unethical to use it as a criteria for hiring--but beyond the ethics, it's stupid!!!

With motivation, people can succeed at jobs that at first glance seem unlikely for their type. In fact, since they may have a different perspective they may be the most valuable member of a team (unless the team shuts them down...but that's the subject o fother studies...)

It's a great tool, though for career exploration and management development. You can show people the careers that others of their type have found satisfaction in, help them understand what draws them to a specific career and whether they're willing to put up with being different from peers because of their motivations. Or, if they've got a clear idea of what the career involves (there are more people in dental school that don't get, for example, that it's all fine motor skills...).

And in management development...instead of accusing executives of faults, you can disarm them with typical developmental needs of people with their preferences and gain buy-in to skills development. But ANY type can be a great leader if they lead from their strengths. Research shows, though, that most F's opt out of corporate leadership because they can't get over the politics--why isn't everyone acting like they're on the same team? Why can't we just work together? How could anyone backstab? :huh:

[Jack Flak]

Right. I just don't believe that. Since if that were the case, then utilizing the test for business hiring practices would be useless, and known to be useless, therefore we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Carry on . . .
I don't think it's use-less. I think it's flawed, and there are better methods of typing than the Official MBTI. And as stated, I fully believe the type distribution statistics of Official MBTI to be bogus. These are my cases.

[Jack Flak]

Re: edcoaching: I think some 16-type system, probably socionics since they've done the most interpersonal and group-dynamic research, is an excellent tool precisely for job placement. I would love to be singled out and placed in an appropriate job with appropriate co-workers. The typing should be done by an expert, not the subject.

Again, for the several'th time, I just don't think Official MBTI tests are the way to go here.

[edcoaching]

I don't think it's use-less. I think it's flawed, and there are better methods of typing than the Official MBTI. And as stated, I fully believe the type distribution statistics of Official MBTI to be bogus. These are my cases.

You're absolutely right. The best way of typing is guiding people through experiential exercises. It's more fun, too--I get to watch people fall out of their chairs as they see the real differences.

But so many people want quick answers. Paper and pencil. "How do I type my students?" I tell teachers they don't have to. They've got kids of every type in their classrooms and they need to start differentiating how they teach so some aren't always being force to do things that are a mismatch--especially if the kid is only 6 years old!

[edcoaching]

Re: edcoaching: I think some 16-type system, probably socionics since they've done the most interpersonal and group-dynamic research, is an excellent tool precisely for job placement. I would love to be singled out and placed in an appropriate job with appropriate co-workers. The typing should be done by an expert, not the subject.

Again, for the several'th time, I just don't think Official MBTI tests are the way to go here.

Just don't confuse the instrument with the research and applications on what makes for good job placement or team dynamics. They're two separate things...

For example, Thursday I'll be taking a hundred school district personnel through a daylong workshop on collaboration. We're not using the instrument. We're instead going right to the heart of student learning with films showing S and N students doing math tasks where the differences are striking (How do I know the student types? They had 6 hours of interactive type instruction, chose for themselves, and verified it as they worked with the different learning style activities). By the end of the day, if the group is like all the other groups I've worked with, they'll "see" where their biases are and understand the preferences in a way that leads to new thinking about what students need.

[Haight]

Ah, that's interesting.

So as Jack stated (in different words, of course), other tests could be better utilized and more accurate for job placement testing and employee hiring purposes, but MBTI is quicker and cheaper.

Given the short term thinking of corporate America in general, that makes a lot of sense to me.

[edcoaching]

Ah, that's interesting.

So as Jack stated (in different words, of course), other tests could be better utilized and more accurate for job placement testing and employee hiring purposes, but MBTI is quicker and cheaper.

Given the short term thinking of corporate America in general, that makes a lot of sense to me.

Unfortunately it also leads to bad hiring decisions since again the MBTI says nothing about skills. The type association didn't give the MBTI to candidates it was interviewing for exec director. Instead we looked for evidence of administrative skills--training, past experiences, interview questions. The person we hired went through the 4-day MBTI training after he was hired and decided he's ESTJ but we could have hired other types with teh same skill sets...

[Haight]

Yes, the failure of this thinking is self-evident.

But you'd have to hope that they (employers) are at least calculating this margin for error into their hiring practices and have concluded that it's acceptable - possibly based on lack of alternative information for whatever reason/s.

[Jack Flak]

But you'd have to hope that they (employers) are at least calculating this margin for error into their hiring practices and have concluded that it's acceptable - possibly based on lack of alternative information for whatever reason/s.
Met many employers? That's a very unsafe bet.

[edcoaching]

Yes, the failure of this thinking is self-evident.

But you'd have to hope that they (employers) are at least calculating this margin for error into their hiring practices and have concluded that it's acceptable - possibly based on lack of alternative information for whatever reason/s.

Or that the type police find them and coerce them into changing their evil ways...:yes:

[edcoaching]

Re: edcoaching: I think some 16-type system, probably socionics since they've done the most interpersonal and group-dynamic research, is an excellent tool precisely for job placement. I would love to be singled out and placed in an appropriate job with appropriate co-workers. The typing should be done by an expert, not the subject.

Again, for the several'th time, I just don't think Official MBTI tests are the way to go here.

By the way, I've taken the quiz at socionics.com. is there another one? An INTP colleague and I were discussing how the average person might not handle the vocab well.

[Haight]

Met many employers? That's a very unsafe bet.Right, but they're free to make that calculation.

[Jack Flak]

By the way, I've taken the quiz at socionics.com. is there another one? An INTP colleague and I were discussing how the average person might not handle the vocab well.
Socionics folk don't really approve of tests, much like myself. They have tests, to cater to those who like tests. (I'm not sure what you mean by "vocab").

By the way, I consider their functional analysis theories to be just as questionable as MBTI's. Since Keirsey doesn't use functions, I gravitate toward his work for the most part, but value socionics interpersonal research greatly.

[edcoaching]

Socionics folk don't really approve of tests, much like myself. They have tests, to cater to those who like tests. (I'm not sure what you mean by "vocab").

By the way, I consider their functional analysis theories to be just as questionable as MBTI's. Since Keirsey doesn't use functions, I gravitate toward his work for the most part, but value socionics interpersonal research greatly.

The quiz I took had you choose adjectives you'd use to describe yourself and adjectives you'd never use to describe yourself. I came out INFp but thought a lot of the adjectives were great for English majors like myself but...

Functional analyses as far as order of preferences?

Don't you think Kiersey's awfully behavior-oriented?

[Jack Flak]

The quiz I took had you choose adjectives you'd use to describe yourself and adjectives you'd never use to describe yourself. I came out INFp but thought a lot of the adjectives were great for English majors like myself but...

Functional analyses as far as order of preferences?

Don't you think Kiersey's awfully behavior-oriented?
I've taken both types of Socionics test, and always came out INTp, so they apparently work for me (this type has been confirmed by relationship analysis on my part). It's common for INFJ to equal socionics INFp.

Personally, I think functional analysis is completely unnecessary, even though it may have merit. Primary functions are generally fairly obvious if you pick one definition of a function, and one way to split the populace into eight categories a la Jung--But they aren't as apparent/observable as ones type anyway. I see all functions but the first as potentially out of order, and when people contemplate them they base their conclusions on what their preconceived notions of function order are. I have been guilty of this myself, of course.

I think Keirsey's beautifully behavior-oriented.


Add: I'm MBTI INTP, and socionics INTp, and my respective primary functions should be Ti and Ni. But by most definitions, I have almost no use of Ni. I don't like functional analysis because of problems like this, and because I find it extraneous. Just like Keirsey.

[edcoaching]

I've taken both types of Socionics test, and always came out INTp, so they apparently work for me (this type has been confirmed by relationship analysis on my part). It's common for INFJ to equal socionics INFp.

It seemed the equivalent to me...

Personally, I think functional analysis is completely unnecessary, even though it may have merit. Primary functions are generally fairly obvious if you pick one definition of a function, and one way to split the populace into eight categories a la Jung--But they aren't as apparent/observable as ones type anyway. I see all functions but the first as potentially out of order, and when people contemplate them they base their conclusions on what their preconceived notions of function order are. I have been guilty of this myself, of course.

I think Keirsey's beautifully behavior-oriented.

Ah...my least favorite application of type is typing from afar...I want people to figure out their own types. Doesn't mean I never do but I'm not looking for a system. And I usually have to work with someone before I know for sure. By that time they've usually figured it out themselves...

And Kiersey--I kinda threw him away after his Please Understand Me remark, "The relative rarity of the ESTP's opposite on the Intuitive side, INFJ, means that shuch matings will be quite infrequent, as they should be." I"ve been married to an ESTP for decades, thank you, and it's been a whole lot of fun. Didn't like the stereotyping.

[Jack Flak]

I've said before that Keirsey's relationship conclusions don't seem to be based on a great deal of study.

There's no perfect system; that's why I pick and choose what works.

[edcoaching]

I've said before that Keirsey's relationship conclusions don't seem to be based on a great deal of study.

Nor his instrument--he only last spring released any validity studies...

There's no perfect system; that's why I pick and choose what works.

In that, we are in total agreement.

[Jeffster]

It can also be very useful. Say you want to win a presidential campaign. Knowing the culture has, say, an archetype around Extraversion and Sensing can help you plan your campaign--especially if you know the modal type is also ES. Here's what you'd do:
[LIST]...


Yeah, but that's about figuring out the personalities of a lot of individuals that make up the whole. Some people around here were actually trying to personify a country, as if we were this big monolith with one brain. It's a big difference.

[Falcarius]

Yeah, boo hoo. It must have really sucked for Europe when we saved its butt and forgave every debt. Bullshit, you been watching far too many Hollywood films.:steam:

Also, you seem to be forgetting a country which the US "never forgave every debit" and of which she made them pay back the full amount.

[sarah]

It seemed the equivalent to me...



Ah...my least favorite application of type is typing from afar...I want people to figure out their own types. Doesn't mean I never do but I'm not looking for a system. And I usually have to work with someone before I know for sure. By that time they've usually figured it out themselves...

And Kiersey--I kinda threw him away after his Please Understand Me remark, "The relative rarity of the ESTP's opposite on the Intuitive side, INFJ, means that shuch matings will be quite infrequent, as they should be." I"ve been married to an ESTP for decades, thank you, and it's been a whole lot of fun. Didn't like the stereotyping.


Keirsey's Please Undestand Me is pretty difficult to find any practical use for unless you disregard all his examples of behavior and just focus on the patterns themselves. I'd feel insulted by his steroetyping no matter what type I thought was mine. None of his portraits of temperament fit anyone I know.

I know Keirsey qualifies his statements (most of the time) with words like "might" and "could", but they still irriatate me. I only found the book helpful in that he outlines four patterns of preferences on his charts comparing the temperaments, and after a LOOOOONG Time of considering my habitual behavior and trying to separate how I really think/feel with what I have grown up to value thanks to parents, friends, etc, I finally realized I fit one of those patterns.

Too bad Keirsey couldn't resist throwing in a whole lot of stereotypical behavior traits in those type/temperament descriptions. It just makes people like me who prefer Sensing and who care about details and accuracy not able to see our best fit pattern very easily.

Sarah
ISFP