Lets Talk Distributions

[ygolo]

I didn't post this in the science section because I wanted to find out more about how they relate to the Big Five, MBTI Step II and MBTI Step III. I am a "lay person" when it comes to these things but quite statistically savvy. It may sound arrogant, but I believe I understand common factor analysis, principle component analysis, other factor models, and multivariate linear regression in general, better than most people--even many who (over)use it regularly.

This is what I do know (I'll be doing a lot of "explaining," not to be condescending, but simply to get people who may be interested up to speed).

There are two kinds of distributions that seem to come up in this forum:

"bimodal" distributions. Bi-modal meaning "having two modes." Mathematically speaking the mode of a distribution is the most frequently occurring value in the distribution--the "peak" if you will. A bimodal distribution will show two peaks. Granted, one may be the official mode, mathematically speaking. But plotting the distribution visually will show to peaks.

This kind of distribution, I believe, is popular in the Myers-Briggs and related typologies. I have no idea what particular bimodal distributions are used for each dichotomy, but I suspect the sum of two Gaussians of different means is popular.

"Gaussian" distributions. Also, called "bell curves," or "normal" distributions. I dislike the use of the word "normal" because, in my training, that is reserved for the Gaussian of mean 0, and standard deviation of 1. Also, words like "normalize" are used for distributions of all sorts, so it can create confusion in the belief that when we "normalize" something we are trying to force fit something to a Gaussian (which may or may not be true).

Gaussians are the kinds of distributions seen in the Five Factor Model typology, I believe.


Some facts that I believe everyone participating in the discussion should know


The most important statistical fact (beyond the Law of Large numbers which people seem to know inherently) I believe people should know is the Central Limit Theorem.
The Central limit theorem states that the sum of independent, identically distributed random variables of finite variance tends towards a Gaussian distribution. It should be clear to people that the same is true for averages of identically distributed random variables (simply scaled down by the number of variables added together).

The relevance here is that if you have a big questionnaire in which all the questions have bimodal distributions in the answers, the sum or average will tend to be Gaussian, unless there is a strong correlation between the answers given on each of the questions. This seems to be an artifact of testing also. In a way, you can create "noise" in a test which when added together tends to be Gaussian (this is especially true if the noise is purely random).

A psychological tendency know as the Central Tendency Bias. When given a range of selections to chose from, people tend to chose toward the middle, even if a more extremal value is more accurate. When it comes to answering questions describing our own personalities, this will also tend to create a more Gaussian distribution.

The distribution of answers on a question with only two answers will necessarily be bimodal because there are only two possible values. That is Bivalent implies bimodal. This seems to be an artifact of how the question is asked, not necessarily anything real.



My questions in general concerning the "validity" of personality systems


Why we believe that Step III will be more valid than the current MBTI?
Why is the FFM more "academically blessed?"
Why are MBTI, DiSC, Temperament (all Myers-Briggs like), etc. more popular in corporations still?
Do you believe the use of either typologies leads to Self-fulfilling prophecies?
Do you believe use of either typology will do more harm than good?
Although, I understand the statistics behind various factor analysis, I find psychometric papers hard to read, because of assumed knowledge of what particular letter-denoted variables are, and general use of psychometric jargon. Is there a good way to find out what factor models are being used, and what the original data sets, correlation matrices, or covariance matrices were?

[ptgatsby]

This kind of distribution, I believe, is popular in the Myers-Briggs and related typologies. I have no idea what particular bimodal distributions are used for each dichotomy, but I suspect the sum of two Gaussians of different means is popular.

IIRC, it's not. The actual distribution is kurtotic and is still unimodal (I am assuming you are talking about the test scores, not preferences) Unfortunately, CAPT doesn't support much research into this, strangely enough, so there isn't much else I can say to it. It's been mentioned to me several times now, however, that test results from step II are decidedly not bimodal.

[ygolo]

IIRC, it's not. The actual distribution is kurtotic and is still unimodal (I am assuming you are talking about the test scores, not preferences) Unfortunately, CAPT doesn't support much research into this, strangely enough, so there isn't much else I can say to it. It's been mentioned to me several times now, however, that test results from step II are decidedly not bimodal.

Its funny, when I was introduced to the FFM, I remember reading that one of the differences is that the distributions are not bi-modal.

It is quite possible (IME likely) that non-zero kurtosis is the result of an underlying bimodal distribution added with Gaussian noise.

To bring onlookers up to speed:
kurtosis is the 4rth "moment" of a distribution.

The moments of a distribution is an analogy (a perfect mathematical one) to physical moments.

The first moment is the mean of the distribution.
The second is the variance.
The third skewness.
The fourth is kurtosis.

You can find all the moments of a distribution using a moment generating function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment-generating_function) assuming it exists.

I hope someone knows where to find further information.

[ptgatsby]

Its funny, when I was introduced to the FFM, I remember reading that one of the differences is that the distributions are not bi-modal.

That's what I thought at first. However, a while back I got PMed from a researcher using MBTI who corrected me. I remember looking into it and coming to the same conclusion. Then again later, elsewhere, I was talking to a psychologist who mentioned it to me when CAPT was talking about massaging their data. It was generally rejected to do any normalization - the reference was how it was unusual to not attempt to fit the data to any existing model, even though the data tended to resemble a normal model.

(I bring it up for those that want to look into it - I'm out of the psychometrics investigation department now :D )

[edcoaching]

The reason corporations still use MBTI etc. is because the instruments themselves have no magic--it's how individuals/teams/coaches/trainers APPLY knowledge about self and others that brings about change or efficiencies or better communication or cohesive teams or whatever the purpose of taking the instrument was.

So...corporations are often looking for trainers/consultants who have expertise in those applications. They often use the MBTI because it's pretty reasonable and very effective when interpreted by knowledgeable people who help people find their best-fit types as opposed to only using reported types.

For really good trainers...it doesn't really matter what instrument they use. The real work starts in the interpretation and application. Most of them don't need any instrument but instead can help people understand differences through reflection and exercises.

[edcoaching]

And Step III...it's a whole different animal.

It will only be available for purchase by people trained in counseling. The instrument is totally separate from Step I and Step II and looks for type development--how well a person uses Perception (through S and N) and Judgment (through T and F).

Here's a link to the most current information on it.

MBTI Step III - CAPT.org (http://www.capt.org/research/mbti-step3.htm)

[ygolo]

Maybe I've been brainwashed by working in a technical field, but if the tests themselves aren't useful indicators how do you go build a "body of knowledge?"

How do you know if your coaching is effective or good? do you use feedback surveys? or do you just have a great memory?

How does one transfer the knowledge of what is effective from one coach to another?

Do you find Myers-Briggs theory itself applicable?

Sorry if this feels like the third degree, I just have a lot of questions.

I am asking because, I have never been a "natural" at anything. I generally get better by learning and incorporating "Best known Methods" in particular fields into my thinking.

The reason I turned to personality theories is to learn something I could incorporate into my thinking.

I don't necessarily want to become a coach, but I do want to know how they go about doing things.

[edcoaching]

Maybe I've been brainwashed by working in a technical field, but if the tests themselves aren't useful indicators how do you go build a "body of knowledge?"

First off, you rely not on reported type [results from MBTI, Golden, PTI, etc.] but on best-fit type--the type a person self-identifies through multiple methods which may include an instrument. The best studies are based on best-fit, not reported type, because the instruments were never meant to be diagnostic tools. They're self-reporting so there's more error variance than, say, in the MMPI.

Second, a huge body of knowledge has been built up by professionals who have gathered information from confirmed people of the 16 types that show distinct patterns in all kinds of things--career choice, communication preferences, change needs, decision making, and so on.

Third, you see "what works" and capture that in studies. For example (and this won't surprise you) Extraverted and Sensing students catch onto math concepts faster when they use hands-on materials and are given time to experiment with them in order to make sense of the problem. They need to move, talk and ask questions to develop understanding. We filmed students doing the same tasks and there were clear differences (and yes, we used best-fit, not reported type, in the study).
How do you know if your coaching is effective or good? do you use feedback surveys? or do you just have a great memory?

I mostly coach teachers, so I'm looking for whether they change their teaching practices. Sometimes I'm looking at assignments, classroom management, differentiated activities, rigor...I might actually record class time spent in each learning style, or rate the rigor of assignments, or together we'd look at student work to see if any one group of students is not catching on. So my effectiveness is judged by whether the teacher is meeting the needs of more students.

For teams, sometimes I survey before and after. If I've been called into mediate in a huge conflict situation, I might do a blind survey a few weeks later to find out who thinks they've made progress toward resolution and who thinks more intervention is needed. The last time I did that, where there'd been huge problems, over 70% were ready to move ahead with teaming, 20% were ready but wanted a few more protocols to continue the progress, and just 10% felt things hadn't been resolved (100% had felt there was too much conflict to team effectively before the intervention...)

How does one transfer the knowledge of what is effective from one coach to another?

There are great books and resources on coaching, teambuilding, conflict resolution, etc. Type puts patterns to things we see in human nature and you can learn how to use those patterns to foster understanding.

There are workshops all over the place where you can experience things that work and learn how to use them with others.

I train coaches through "live" case studies, where they learn how to adjust their style to interview and create action plans with people of dissimilar types. They're a blast and people quickly grasp why changing up their style is so important.

Do you find Myers-Briggs theory itself applicable?

Absolutely. It's the theory, not the instruments, that does the work. Here are some examples.

When I finally got teachers to grasp the different needs of Judging and Perceiving students at one school, the teachers worked to implement strategies that took the failure rate on science fair, ,history day, major reports, etc., from 30 % to 0-2%.
In a team where over 60% of the employees were siding with the "old" president who still worked there, I used type theory to help them understand and appreciate the style of the new president. The intervention was so lasting that other department chiefs had me work with their staffs.
One team's meetings had been ending in shouting matches. We did an afternoon workshop just on communication and at the end the biggest troublemaker looked at all the work posted around the room and said, "Can we always sit in our [ST, SF, NF, NT] groups so we remember that we actually speak foreign languages?" The employees asked to have me return for at least 4 other meetings, working on other issues with them.
One student, responsible for 50% of the referrals to the principal's office, learned about his own type and his best approaches to learning and so did his teachers. He was NEVER in the principal's office again.


I could go on and on. Ethically used, type can help people understand each other's strengths in ways that can truly be constructive. Hope this doesn't sound like a lecture--it is true that it is often misused, so a lot of people have only had superficial experiences and have no idea how effective deep use of the theory can be...

[ygolo]

Thanks edcoaching. That was very edifying.

Since the original topic seems to be a boondoggle (unless you can speak to the distributions), I'd like to follow-up on your last post.

1) How does one go about finding the best-fit type of a person?
2) What are some principles to adjusting one's style to others?
3) How do you overcome skepticism regarding applying type theory in groups?
4) What sources would you recommend to understand Myers-Briggs theory like a coach?
5) What other knowledge is needed to put type theories in context?

[edcoaching]

Thanks edcoaching. That was very edifying.

Since the original topic seems to be a boondoggle (unless you can speak to the distributions), I'd like to follow-up on your last post.
Sorry about that...but you did ask about Step III :)
1) How does one go about finding the best-fit type of a person?
Think I'll make that a separate thread
2) What are some principles to adjusting one's style to others?
If they're the ones who have to do the changing, then you're the one who has to switch styles. So...if you want an employee to perform better, communicate in their style. If a student is struggling, meet their learning style needs.

Adjusting for E and I means thinking about wait time, time to process out loud, etc. Adjusting for J and P means thinking about the other person's closure style, not your own. Fairly simple yet rocket science in its effectiveness.

The heart of communication style, then is the function pairs. ST, SF, NF, NT. Quick tips:
ST: Be brief and cover the details in order
SF: Give me the details that affect me and those I work with or serve
NF: Relate to big ideas and listen to me as well
NT: Respect my intelligence and give me the options
3) How do you overcome skepticism regarding applying type theory in groups?
If I've been brought in as a trainer, within the first 10 minutes I get the group involved in an exercise where the type differences are clearly demonstrated. They sit down saying, "Okay, this is real. Now show us what we can do with it..."

If they're considering whether to use it at all, usually the skepticism arises from what they've heard about the instruments. I emphasize that it's application that counts and describe the very real results I've gotten.

If it's an individual within a group, usually by the end of the day they've seen enough to know that even if it's not their first choice of theories, there's something to it.
4) What sources would you recommend to understand Myers-Briggs theory like a coach?
Visit Differentiated Coaching for Educators - Home (http://www.edcoaching.com) and take a look at the coaching style descriptions available on the first page, and the case studies. The book is great too. You'll see seminars on coaching through type offered around the country by different local type organizations. Check calendars at Welcome to APT International (http://www.aptinternational.com) And, there's a coaching SIG that you can join free that is organized through the same organization.
5) What other knowledge is needed to put type theories in context?
The stock answer is that you need to have the expertise in whatever field you're going to use type. So...you'd study marriage counseling, spiritual direction, coaching, teambuilding/organizational development, counseling, career counseling, etc. and use type within those contexts.

For example I'd already been trained as a strategic planning facilitator and the way we ran those sessions made an easy bridge to building teams.

[edcoaching]

[QUOTE]Why is the FFM more "academically blessed?"
There is such bias against a bimodal distribution in the psychological community for the reasons you listed that the FFM, coming from factor analysis, fits what they think they know as reality. There is still great prejudice against Myers as well because she wasn't a psychologist, even though she developed two statistical techniques that no one else used until they could use supercomputers...

They also think an instrument should measure. Type instruments don't measure, they sort. One group or the other. Bimodal.

Do you believe the use of either typologies leads to Self-fulfilling prophecies?
If people use it to excuse their behaviors, yes. If people use it for development and growth, individually or in teams, no. I see people learn to operate out of their preferences when appropriate all the time (and thus move toward maturity)
Although, I understand the statistics behind various factor analysis, I find psychometric papers hard to read, because of assumed knowledge of what particular letter-denoted variables are, and general use of psychometric jargon. Is there a good way to find out what factor models are being used, and what the original data sets, correlation matrices, or covariance matrices were?

You'd have to find the manuals for the NEO-PI, Sloan (I think that's a separate one) etc.

I'm not that big of an instrument buff--I can do what I do with or without an instrument and sometimes it's better to use nothing at all than to risk people feeling like an instrument is labeling them...

[Kora]

Now there's even a Step III? Oh wow.

[edcoaching]

Now there's even a Step III? Oh wow.

It's TOTALLY different. Not about finding 4 letters but about finding your best paths to development...

[INTJMom]

...
My questions in general concerning the "validity" of personality systems
Why are MBTI, DiSC, Temperament (all Myers-Briggs like), etc. more popular in corporations still?

I'm not sure, but I suspect that they may be more heavily marketed, and that for various reasons.
It takes a long time for new ideas to catch on.
Do you believe the use of either typologies leads to Self-fulfilling prophecies?I have witnessed it a little bit of that on forums.
I assume it happens with a very small percentage of the people.
Do you believe use of either typology will do more harm than good?As in everything else, it depends what it is used for. I have heard of people suffering negative consequences in the workplace by being pigeon-holed by their superiors. That is definitely a danger. I think Type Theory should be used as a guide for understanding, not as hard and fast ruler for pre-judging. I believe Type Theory does much more good than harm. It fosters understanding and acceptance among people. In my own experience, understanding my childrens' types may be the single most helpful thing I have ever learned as a mother.

[INTJMom]

...
Absolutely. It's the theory, not the instruments, that does the work. Here are some examples.

When I finally got teachers to grasp the different needs of Judging and Perceiving students at one school, the teachers worked to implement strategies that took the failure rate on science fair, ,history day, major reports, etc., from 30 % to 0-2%.
In a team where over 60% of the employees were siding with the "old" president who still worked there, I used type theory to help them understand and appreciate the style of the new president. The intervention was so lasting that other department chiefs had me work with their staffs.
One team's meetings had been ending in shouting matches. We did an afternoon workshop just on communication and at the end the biggest troublemaker looked at all the work posted around the room and said, "Can we always sit in our [ST, SF, NF, NT] groups so we remember that we actually speak foreign languages?" The employees asked to have me return for at least 4 other meetings, working on other issues with them.
One student, responsible for 50% of the referrals to the principal's office, learned about his own type and his best approaches to learning and so did his teachers. He was NEVER in the principal's office again.


I could go on and on. Ethically used, type can help people understand each other's strengths in ways that can truly be constructive. Hope this doesn't sound like a lecture--it is true that it is often misused, so a lot of people have only had superficial experiences and have no idea how effective deep use of the theory can be...
Thank you for sharing your experience with us.
This part of your post reflects the very reason why I am so excited about MBTT! :static:
It has been a tremendous help in my life, and I wouldn't have half the success I have in my relationships if it wasn't for MBTT! and namely, Barron and Tieger's work especially.

[edcoaching]

This part of your post reflects the very reason why I am so excited about MBTT! :static:
It has been a tremendous help in my life, and I wouldn't have half the success I have in my relationships if it wasn't for MBTT! and namely, Barron and Tieger's work especially.

Yeah, Tieger's stuff is great...I've talked to lots of INTJ moms who were "saved" by type as they learned why the preschool years weren't quite as enchanting for them as they were for a lot of moms. One told me, "Crafts? Pouring juice? There aren't any goals in my day. I want to discuss the book I just read, learn something, explore something!" They so appreciated when their kids hit grade school...

[ptgatsby]

They also think an instrument should measure. Type instruments don't measure, they sort. One group or the other. Bimodal.


That should be binary, not bimodal... unless they introduced strength as a component, anyway, which would require it to measure, not sort. If they have, I actually have to reject the premise of sorting into two groups rather than comparative to population, since the distribution of the sorters do not indicate any preference of one dimension over the other in a bimodal fashion.

[ygolo]

That should be binary, not bimodal... unless they introduced strength as a component, anyway, which would require it to measure, not sort. If they have, I actually have to reject the premise of sorting into two groups rather than comparative to population, since the distribution of the sorters do not indicate any preference of one dimension over the other in a bimodal fashion.

You get a spread because of noise and randomness in the environment. It is quite common in classification problems. Granted, I am coming from an an engineering background but the principles ought to be the same.

For instance, when making a decision of whether or not there is an object in front of you based on the intensity of a reflected signal coming back.

This is a statistical phenomenon. You will get a bimodal distribution of the signal coming back if you run experiments with a portion of the time with object there, and a portion without it there(proportions chosen according to prior likely hood of object being there). The reason is that the medium carrying the signal introduces noise.

The less noise there is the more cleanly bi-valent the distribution will be. But a bi-valent (binary) distribution is a kind of bimodal distribution.

[ptgatsby]

You get a spread because of noise and randomness in the environment. It is quite common in classification problems. Granted, I am coming from an an engineering background but the principles ought to be the same.

For instance, when making a decision of whether or not there is an object in front of you based on the intensity of a reflected signal coming back.

This is a statistical phenomenon. You will get a bimodal distribution of the signal coming back if you run experiments with a portion of the time with object there, and a portion without it there(proportions chosen according to prior likely hood of object being there). The reason is that the medium carrying the signal introduces noise.

The less noise there is the more cleanly bi-valent the distribution will be. But a bi-valent (binary) distribution is a kind of bimodal distribution.

Good points, but I was only referring to the "model" being chosen to fit the data into.

The question I ask you - why do you accept a binary/bimodal distribution as the model of choice? Do you see "sorting" as different than "measuring"? Are the traits fairly reduced to a 0/1 state?

If you know that it should be bi-modal, then it works. Do you?

[ygolo]

Good points, but I was only referring to the "model" being chosen to fit the data into.

The question I ask you - why do you accept a binary/bimodal distribution as the model of choice? Do you see "sorting" as different than "measuring"? Are the traits fairly reduced to a 0/1 state?

If you know that it should be bi-modal, then it works. Do you?

I see sorting as one form of measurement. It has to do with what possible values the actual situation would create. Probability theory, plus some basic assumptions followed with mathematical reasoning yields which model we use.

In the case of detecting an object, I know it will be bimodal. The object is either there or not, and there will be noise. This follows from the understanding of the situation at hand.

In the case of a coin-flip, we also know it will be bimodal (a Bernoulli distribution to be more precise.)

In the case of defects in a part, or random events in a continuum, the distribution would be a Poisson distribution.

One expects Gaussians when averaging or summing large number of quantities.

One expects when multiplying random variable the the log of the resulting random variable will Gaussian.

Gaussians also come up in linear regression. In fact, this is when Gauss introduced the distribution, when he created linear regression.

An understanding of the problem at hand determines the distribution to use based on probability theory and plausible "first principles". It will often also give a-priori conditions. There is no getting around this problem. One always has to have assumptions about distribution based on some logical understanding before modeling. Believing that you don't have assumptions only means you don't understand your assumptions.

If your intention is to sort. Your are likely going to sort to a finite number of categories. The "measure" in this case is discrete. But you have to have a way to make the measurement also. The measuring apparatus needs to be calibrated, and once you do, you will know what sort of distortion or noise the instrument will introduce. The laws of probability will then give you an expected kind of distribution and a-priori values for the parameters of the distribution. The data then modifies the distribution to give a "posterior" distribution.

This actually a very interesting topic in itself. But I am probably belaboring something you knew, since this is introductory inferential statistics.

[edcoaching]

...I guess it gets back to the fact that Myers wasn't trying to diagnose or design an instrument that would verify whether the types existed in the first place. She, Briggs and Jung had built their theoretical model to explain the very real differences they saw in people. The MBTI was designed to sort people into the Jungian categories. We don't look for instrument scores or results to verify the theory because you're right--she built it to see what she presupposed it would show. This just isn't how the academic world views testing so they can't wrap their brains around the fact that her instrument meets its goals and works well for its given purposes.

The validity for the MBTI comes from the high percentage of people who agree with their results, but that's only a small part of it. More important are the studies that show the effectiveness of using the theory.


You don't have to use any instrument to use the theory.
As far as I know, all of the tools out there are self-reporting instruments, even the NEO-PI, so there's more error variance than on, say, the MMPI
Validity of the theory arises from the body of studies that show that people behave in patterns predicted by the theory
Probably more important, when you help people apply the theory to teaming, communicating, coaching, parenting, career search, etc., they become more effective.


Yes, you can use the five-factor models to help people discover essentially the same elements of their personality (the correlations with MBTI scales and NEo-PI scales for Extroversion, Agreeableness, Openness and . But because the five-factor models do get at neuroticism (although some have relabeled the term) [I]they aren't very useful in group settings. People have enough problems getting along without using a tool that labels abnormalities.

So in fact a lot of type professionals are rather independent of any one instrument. Note that Roger Pearman of Certification training in coaching tools, leadership skiils assessment, personal and organizational assessment | Qualifying.org (http://www.qualifying.org) just switched to training people to use the Golden Type Indicator from Pearson. It's the theory we love to use, not any one instrument.

[edcoaching]

And again, on the very practical side of using these tools with people, take the Sloan/Big 5-style test on this site and view the language used to describe you.

Big Five Personality Test (http://similarminds.com/bigfive.html)

Can you imagine handing that stuff out to a team where there's already trust issues or conflict? Or where a manager is trying to control and has mega favorites???

There's a reason that so many type descriptions have lengthy descriptions of strengths first, with carefully worded developmental needs following, an equal number for each type :cheese:

[mlittrell]

myers briggs is a model for something we just dont understand, nothing more, nothing less

[ptgatsby]

I see sorting as one form of measurement. It has to do with what possible values the actual situation would create. Probability theory, plus some basic assumptions followed with mathematical reasoning yields which model we use.

Right, and I'm asking - why this model for MBTI/personality theory (what assumptions are you making, and are they fair/etc.) Imagine having to defend it in a thesis, after your observations, your tests, your interviews and the analysis of root factors all show that behavior, attitude, self-selection and so forth are all normally distributed.

More than this, how do you take normally distributed data - data that shows people's preferences - turn it into a strict bimodal model in which you show people's preferences are strongly opposing (ie: you assume strength contrary to data), claim that is who they are, then hedge your bets by adding noise (ie: "has a tendency to", "may") to soften the bimodal fit...?

I don't oppose doing it - but I don't understand how the data supports the model. You can assume it, sure, and would if you gain some understanding. What value do you see?

FWIW, I agree with Edcoaching and the tool usage, the limits of using models in a "friendly" academic way and the effectiveness. I do disagree with the sorting mechanism.

The question, simply put, is: Do you think you are better able to understand people by calling them "F", or by having someone state their strength relative to population (40% F).

Do you understand me better when I say I'm an "I", or when I say I'm in the top 5% of Is. What about if I say I'm in the top 70% for S, 50% for T, 20% for P. Or would you be better off just knowing I'm an ISTP? Is it reasonable justification to call me an ISTP, stripping away those percentages, and then say that "most ISTPs will be thrill seekers", when even a quick glance shows that because of strong I tendencies and weaker S tendencies, this would not likely represent me at all (example for highlighting the issue, not a real assumed trait.) Adding "most ISTPs" is just adding fuzzyness to hide the real root of the fuzzyness - assumption of strength (the bimodal assumption).

[Jack Flak]

Strength of preference is a useless concept. How are you measuring that? Not a test, because they do nothing of the sort.

[ptgatsby]

Strength of preference is a useless concept. How are you measuring that? Not a test, because they do nothing of the sort.

All tests do, as they contain multiple expressions of underlying traits, giving you the probability that the underlying condition responsible for the trait falls within certain ranges. This remains true if a test only offers binary choices or asks for self-reported strength.

This assumes that the questions are accurately grouped into an underlying cause.

[Eric B]

Yes, you can use the five-factor models to help people discover essentially the same elements of their personality (the correlations with MBTI scales and NEo-PI scales for Extroversion, Agreeableness, Openness and . But because the five-factor models do get at neuroticism (although some have relabeled the term) [I]they aren't very useful in group settings. People have enough problems getting along without using a tool that labels abnormalities.
Actually, Openness (i.e. "to new experiences") is the one correlated with S/N.
Conscientiousness is correlated with J/P. But more accurately, Conscientiousness would probably fit Keirsey's Cooperative/Pragmatic better, while Agreeableness (correlated with T/F) would be Role-Informative/Directive. (Both factors do alternate between T/F and J/P). Perhaps Keirsey's theory wasn't big or respected enough for the factor analysts to use those scales. But the concepts are pretty much the same.

Then, there's also the Type Differentiation Indicator, which is a version of MBTI that adds "Comfort/Discomfort" to match Neuroticism. It seems to have more of a specialty use, like for mental hospitals, or something like that. Its subscales were supposedly originally part of Myers' research, but were dropped from being seen as too negative.

[edcoaching]

Actually, Openness (i.e. "to new experiences") is the one correlated with S/N.
Conscientiousness is correlated with J/P. But more accurately, Conscientiousness would probably fit Keirsey's Cooperative/Pragmatic better, while Agreeableness (correlated with T/F) would be Role-Informative/Directive. (Both factors do alternate between T/F and J/P). Perhaps Keirsey's theory wasn't big or respected enough for the factor analysts to use those scales. But the concepts are pretty much the same.
Knew I shoulda pulled out the manual...
As for Kiersey, he didn't release any reliability/validity data on his instrument until I believe last spring. It was 2007 or 2008 at any rate. I don't remember how it held up to the other instruments
Then, there's also the Type Differentiation Indicator, which is a version of MBTI that adds "Comfort/Discomfort" to match Neuroticism. It seems to have more of a specialty use, like for mental hospitals, or something like that. Its subscales were supposedly originally part of Myers' research, but were dropped from being seen as too negative.
Yeah...believe me, for widespread distribution talking about problems just isn't a good idea--especially in self-reporting instruments...

[ygolo]

Right, and I'm asking - why this model for MBTI/personality theory (what assumptions are you making, and are they fair/etc.) Imagine having to defend it in a thesis, after your observations, your tests, your interviews and the analysis of root factors all show that behavior, attitude, self-selection and so forth are all normally distributed.

More than this, how do you take normally distributed data - data that shows people's preferences - turn it into a strict bimodal model in which you show people's preferences are strongly opposing (ie: you assume strength contrary to data), claim that is who they are, then hedge your bets by adding noise (ie: "has a tendency to", "may") to soften the bimodal fit...?

I don't oppose doing it - but I don't understand how the data supports the model. You can assume it, sure, and would if you gain some understanding. What value do you see?

FWIW, I agree with Edcoaching and the tool usage, the limits of using models in a "friendly" academic way and the effectiveness. I do disagree with the sorting mechanism.

The question, simply put, is: Do you think you are better able to understand people by calling them "F", or by having someone state their strength relative to population (40% F).

Do you understand me better when I say I'm an "I", or when I say I'm in the top 5% of Is. What about if I say I'm in the top 70% for S, 50% for T, 20% for P. Or would you be better off just knowing I'm an ISTP? Is it reasonable justification to call me an ISTP, stripping away those percentages, and then say that "most ISTPs will be thrill seekers", when even a quick glance shows that because of strong I tendencies and weaker S tendencies, this would not likely represent me at all (example for highlighting the issue, not a real assumed trait.) Adding "most ISTPs" is just adding fuzzyness to hide the real root of the fuzzyness - assumption of strength (the bimodal assumption).

Actually, questions like this are why I brought up the topic. I have the same sort of questions. I am really rather open to answers in general.

I have the same doubts about Myers-Briggs Theory as I do about FFM.

What the assumptions are in Myers-Briggs Theory are easier to find, but there is also a lot of misinformation. Many FFM supporters say they make no assumptions. That is nonsensical to me. It is simply not possible.

I am not saying that you are one of the FFM people. I certainly don't want to make it personal.

I would like to discover the logic behind the "truth" of either model.

I may not have made myself clear with the "object detection" example. I was simply illustrating that "bad measuring equipment" could be the source of the Gaussian, and non modality--in fact, Gaussians are what "bad measuring equipment" tends to produce.

Take pure randomness, break it up into groups, and average the groups, you will get a Gaussian. This is mathematical fact. In fact, which Gaussian you get is based purely on how you define the groups--again Mathematically provable.

Generally speaking you cannot "support" inferences by looking at "data" alone. Data simply describes or summarizes what is seen. You could be seeing what you are seeing for any number of reasons, including broken equipment.

I realize that many FFM advocates will say it is simply describing the data seen in personality surveys. I have no issues with that in particular. But you could really just be measuring they survey and not the people taking the survey.

I don't think I need to remind you off all they polls taken about political and economic beliefs. Quite often, what is being measured is the reaction to survey questions, more than anything else.

Survey questions produce Gaussians in general (unless you find a particular question that creates a repeatable anomalous response).

The anomalous response is the phenomenon we we are after when sorting, but are bad when we want honest surveys of the population.

"Rate how much you agree with the following statement from 0-100, 'I enjoy killing babies.' 0 is completely disagree, 100 is completely agree."

This, I suspect, will be bimodal (or multi-modal), in it's response, with one mode strongly clustered near 0, and another one somewhere else. Those people who answered somewhere else are a different kind of survey responder. We won't know why. But they are different in some way (at least at the moment they responded).

In a nation divided between those who support intelligent design and those who don't, you will also likely see a bimodal distributions for statements like, "I support the teaching of intelligent design along with ." If this was a more ordinary issue, you would get a more Gaussian distribution.

If you are aiming to sort the people taking the test, your very questions on the survey will be different from surveys for central tendency.

Note also, the reason I brought up the Central Limit theorem is that when your survey is based of some sum or average of scores on individual questions like these, you will make the resulting distribution more Gaussian because that is simply a mathematical fact--Summing creates Gaussian distortion.

If you're intention is to create a sorting mechanism, questions that don't evoke a bi-modal response are actually noise.

This is the way science always works, you set-up your equipment to find the phenomenon you are looking for. The equipment is meant to amplify the signal you are looking for, and filter the other stuff because the other stuff is noise.

The flip side of-course is if you believe Myers-Briggs Theory is nonsense, and that MBTI researchers are like ESP researchers in that they keep looking for something that doesn't exist. That is a different issue.

I find it hard to find research on establishing the "truth" of any personality model.

[Eric B]

Knew I shoulda pulled out the manual...
As for Kiersey, he didn't release any reliability/validity data on his instrument until I believe last spring. It was 2007 or 2008 at any rate. I don't remember how it held up to the other instruments So a factor analysis can't be done until the person releases this information?
That would make sense. Wonder if anyone will try to redo the analysis with Keirsey's additional factors, now.

[edcoaching]

So a factor analysis can't be done until the person releases this information?
That would make sense. Wonder if anyone will try to redo the analysis with Keirsey's additional factors, now.

It's more that Kiersey's instrument was really nothing more than a parlor game as long as there was no reliability/validity data.

[ptgatsby]

If you're intention is to create a sorting mechanism, questions that don't evoke a bi-modal response are actually noise.


That is a very good point. I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, so it made me pause.

I'm not a FFM person, really, so I won't defend it. It does have less assumptions than MBTI theory, I will say that, but the methodology used from the outset makes it prone to certain biases. I do use it every bit as much as I use it as MBTI. To me, both are a form of language. Something used to describe things, where 'things' are just mutally agreed upon concepts.

I do like FFM for this purpose, simply because it is much easier to use in putting people into a framework. I don't do coaching and never will - I'm not a people person :D I also don't care about helping them with the tool, or avoiding offending them.

I do believe in using the best tool possible to understand something. I think the main difference between us is that I'm excessively pragmatic - I actually don't care about the validity of the tests themselves. I'll use MBTI theory to explain conceptual theories - and yet, I strongly disagree with MBTI theory. I'll use the MBTI test results to explain something else, even though I don't believe it should be used as a sorter. I'll use FFM when I can relate it to other research. I've been asked why I sometimes use them and sometimes attack them. It just depends on if I think there is a better tool available. Otherwise, I use what I can.

However, your statement here brings up a very good point about the validity of testing, and I would say strongly supports Ed's viewpoint on applying them. I'll have to think on it for a while... it doesn't change much for my use, but it does change my perception on reported scores.

[edcoaching]

Actually, questions like this are why I brought up the topic. I have the same sort of questions. I am really rather open to answers in general.

I have the same doubts about Myers-Briggs Theory as I do about FFM.

What the assumptions are in Myers-Briggs Theory are easier to find, but there is also a lot of misinformation. Many FFM supporters say they make no assumptions. That is nonsensical to me. It is simply not possible...

If you're intention is to create a sorting mechanism, questions that don't evoke a bi-modal response are actually noise.

This is the way science always works, you set-up your equipment to find the phenomenon you are looking for. The equipment is meant to amplify the signal you are looking for, and filter the other stuff because the other stuff is noise.

The flip side of-course is if you believe Myers-Briggs Theory is nonsense, and that MBTI researchers are like ESP researchers in that they keep looking for something that doesn't exist. That is a different issue.

I find it hard to find research on establishing the "truth" of any personality model.
Okay, I've got an MBA in finance and only took basic stats so...I'll admit I can't answer all the questions you're posing!!!

But...It's simply a fact that Myers believed that Jung's theory accurately described how normal people take in information and make decisions. She did not design the instrument to see whether reality bore out the theory. Rather, she wanted to make the theory accessible to people so they could improve their lives, careers, relationships, etc.

Coincientally I'm reviewing Gordon Lawrence's (People Types and Tiger Stripes, retired UF Gainesville professor, worked with Myers....) newest manuscript, prepublication. In it he cites two key studies comparing five-factor and MBTI, both reported in Measures of the five factor model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory, James Newman, ed., 1996, CAPT. Remember the NEO-PI was developed based on trait theory, where I is considered lack of E. MBTI is type theory and is either/or. You have a preference and develop skills as opposed to behaviors being driven by traits...

At any rate, to compare the two instruments MBTI scores were made continuous and the high correlations were found. (Extraversion/EI: .70, Openness/SN, .70, Agreeableness/TF, .45, Conscientiousness/JP, .47--all at the p<.005 level of significance...) Mitchell investigated whether type then, really described traits. To do this he looked at 1,568 randomly chosen Step II results where the sbscores are on a continuum to see if they were explainable as traites, i.e., no type influence was exerted on teh scores. The resource above gives the full results but in summary, Mitchell wrote "The analyses presented here yield clear evidence of Jung's theory, his typology...There were clear differences between the trait and typological predictions, sufficiently clear, in fact, that there is no middle ground between them. There are few times in teh behavioral sciences, and especially personality research, when one encounters such dramatic, clear-cut differences bwtween two opposing viewpoints in as many different empirical tests aw were presented here. The results, in every case, support the MBTI version of the Jungian typology and refute a trait interpretation of its dimensions..." And so on.

If you search the bibliography at CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type. (http://www.capt.org) you can find the study under Newman--apparently they presented at one of the type conferences, so you could dismiss it as biased or try to find a copy. They make copies at cost...

[edcoaching]

That is a very good point. I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, so it made me pause.

I'm not a FFM person, really, so I won't defend it. It does have less assumptions than MBTI theory, I will say that, but the methodology used from the outset makes it prone to certain biases. I do use it every bit as much as I use it as MBTI. To me, both are a form of language. Something used to describe things, where 'things' are just mutally agreed upon concepts.

I do like FFM for this purpose, simply because it is much easier to use in putting people into a framework. I don't do coaching and never will - I'm not a people person :D I also don't care about helping them with the tool, or avoiding offending them.

I do believe in using the best tool possible to understand something. I think the main difference between us is that I'm excessively pragmatic - I actually don't care about the validity of the tests themselves. I'll use MBTI theory to explain conceptual theories - and yet, I strongly disagree with MBTI theory. I'll use the MBTI test results to explain something else, even though I don't believe it should be used as a sorter. I'll use FFM when I can relate it to other research. I've been asked why I sometimes use them and sometimes attack them. It just depends on if I think there is a better tool available. Otherwise, I use what I can.

However, your statement here brings up a very good point about the validity of testing, and I would say strongly supports Ed's viewpoint on applying them. I'll have to think on it for a while... it doesn't change much for my use, but it does change my perception on reported scores.

Just curious...is it the binary (or did we agree bimodal is appropriate here) distribution that you disagree with? Or that Jungs theory of preferences for Perception and Judgment accurately describe how minds are organized, albeit trait or type?

[ptgatsby]

Just curious...is it the binary (or did we agree bimodal is appropriate here) distribution that you disagree with? Or that Jungs theory of preferences for Perception and Judgment accurately describe how minds are organized, albeit trait or type?

The issue I have is the relationship between MBTI and MB theory. I don't believe they support one another.

However, if you are asking my viewpoint, I disagree that the bimodal (and most notable, the binary) distribution is the correct model to assume for people. I realise where ygolo is coming from, so it may be feasible that it is correct on some dimensions. Even if that was the case, absent of the ability to find clumping around the traits, I don't believe that people are best served by sorting. So I have a lot of levels of disagreement.

But as far as it goes, in this thread, I'm arguing that MBTI data does not support the sorting theory (that is, MBTI <> MB's functional theories).

I remember HR at work going through various instruments and methods, and MBTI was rejected for much the same purpose. Most of the company ended up using the predictive index instead, and only with our manager, to aid in understanding the work relationship we had with them. FWIW, I thought this was a much better approach (but obviously not suitable for group dynamics, whereas I do think MBTI is suitable, accurate or not, because it fosters overcompensation towards understanding others.)

[edcoaching]

The issue I have is the relationship between MBTI and MB theory. I don't believe they support one another.

However, if you are asking my viewpoint, I disagree that the bimodal (and most notable, the binary) distribution is the correct model to assume for people. I realise where ygolo is coming from, so it may be feasible that it is correct on some dimensions. Even if that was the case, absent of the ability to find clumping around the traits, I don't believe that people are best served by sorting. So I have a lot of levels of disagreement.

But as far as it goes, in this thread, I'm arguing that MBTI data does not support the sorting theory (that is, MBTI <> MB's functional theories).

I remember HR at work going through various instruments and methods, and MBTI was rejected for much the same purpose. Most of the company ended up using the predictive index instead, and only with our manager, to aid in understanding the work relationship we had with them. FWIW, I thought this was a much better approach (but obviously not suitable for group dynamics, whereas I do think MBTI is suitable, accurate or not, because it fosters overcompensation towards understanding others.)
And the MBTI is only accurate for about 75% of the people who take it, which is why the best-fit process is part of the ethics of using it...It is so superficially used in so many workplaces that I'd rather people used other tools...

And if it's used as you are/aren't vs. you prefer __ and develop skills with the other preference it definitely doesn't serve anyone well.

[ygolo]

If you search the bibliography at CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type. (http://www.capt.org) you can find the study under Newman--apparently they presented at one of the type conferences, so you could dismiss it as biased or try to find a copy. They make copies at cost...

Thanks edcoaching. I wound the paper in the list from searching. To request a copy do we call them?

I think my interest in type and its application have been renewed.

Its funny, I did get a sense that FFM was based on some form of trait theory, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the web descriptions I read so far. It would be interesting to learn the details of the trait theory.

I doesn't surprise me that persistent personality traits and persistent archetypes are at odds with each other despite the correlations. One could make analogy to phenotypes and genotypes in biology.

[INTJMom]

Gee. It's too bad you guys have been talking way over my head for most of this thread. :huh:
I'd really like to understand the conclusions you have come to. :)

[edcoaching]

Thanks edcoaching. I wound the paper in the list from searching. To request a copy do we call them?

I think my interest in type and its application have been renewed.

Its funny, I did get a sense that FFM was based on some form of trait theory, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the web descriptions I read so far. It would be interesting to learn the details of the trait theory.

I doesn't surprise me that persistent personality traits and persistent archetypes are at odds with each other despite the correlations. One could make analogy to phenotypes and genotypes in biology.

Yup. 1-800-777-capt.

[ygolo]

Gee. It's too bad you guys have been talking way over my head for most of this thread. :huh:
I'd really like to understand the conclusions you have come to. :)

We didn't come to any major conclsions as far as I could tell.

The basic question comes down to:
1) Are people all essentially the same with varying degrees of a number of traits, or
2) Are people fundamentally different from each other in that they come from distinct psychological archetypes
?

The last paper edcoaching mentioned purports to both:
1) show that the archetype assumption and trait assumption are measurably different in emperical terms.
2) show that the data supports the achetype assumption.

We could dismiss it as biased or take in what the argument is (and then dismiss it as biassed, if we want).

Now, we are all human, and we share humanity, that is not what the question is about.

This sort of distinction is among the few times, I have felt the familiar feeling of "science" happening in personality theory.

[INTJMom]

Thanks.

[edcoaching]

This sort of distinction is among the few times, I have felt the familiar feeling of "science" happening in personality theory.

You mean that last paper trying to distinguish between trait and archetype? What Mitchell aimed for in his paper?

There's also the real life side. For example I'm filming students doing math tasks to try to verify any definite differences in approaches taken by ES, IS, EN, IN students, the learning styles I use. Best-fit type, of course.

The differences among the groups are striking. Here's a summary of what we found...

Introversion and Sensing (IS)
• Used squares paper and markers; none used tiles unless the facilitator suggested it
• None used numbers to find common denominators

Introversion and Intuition (IN)
• Only students who drew shapes other than rectangles or used isometric graph paper
• One student built shapes with markers rather than the tiles
• Worked quietly for up to nine minutes on a task
• All used numbers to find common denominators

Extraversion and Sensing (ES)
• Altered the materials to make sense of problems (only ones who shaded tiles, divided graph squares in half, etc., to fit in thirds and sixths)
• Used trial and error without asking for help in between experiments
• None used numbers to look for common denominators
• Used square graph paper and tiles

Extraversion and Intuition (EN)
• Careless mistakes; used colors that didn’t match problem or counted tiles and squares incorrectly
• Unaware of the denominator they were illustrating, i.e., talking about 12ths while illustrating 10ths.
• So confident in their answer that they didn’t see mistakes even while explaining their solution
• Long verbal explanations

This is just the tip of the iceberg--we're repeating the whole thing with more controls this year. Already, though, some of teh "math experts" I'm working with are realizing that the curricula they're advocating took quickly take away concrete representations, etc. It isn't trait but an actual split in what kids need to learn...

[ygolo]

You mean that last paper trying to distinguish between trait and archetype? What Mitchell aimed for in his paper?


Yeah, that one. I had become rather skeptical about the whole notion of psychological type (even though it matched experience rather well, most of the popular web-sites were saying that Jung and Meyers-Briggs theories were being replaced more by the Five Factor Model in personality research), and the trait theory did make much sense either (plus it was nearly impossible to find any coherent description--making it look like an unfalsifyable, shape-shifting theory that could not be pinned down to be tested). I was strarting to think the whole notion of "personality" is an artifice, and that we are all just social meme machines.

The fact that people have actually worked out the implications of two sets of theories and are doing measurements that will differentiate between them is very encouraging.


There's also the real life side. For example I'm filming students doing math tasks to try to verify any definite differences in approaches taken by ES, IS, EN, IN students, the learning styles I use. Best-fit type, of course.

[...]

This is just the tip of the iceberg--we're repeating the whole thing with more controls this year. Already, though, some of teh "math experts" I'm working with are realizing that the curricula they're advocating took quickly take away concrete representations, etc. It isn't trait but an actual split in what kids need to learn...

Interesting. So the idea is to use the results to tailor teaching methods to students and to teach them to be as flexible in the working styles as possible, despite their preferences?

[ygolo]

I just realized that if the confidence level on each dichotomy was even as high as 93%, the likelyhood of being correct on all 4 would still be below 75% (assuming no correlation on correctness on dichotomies).

(0.93)^4=about 0.748

Actually, knowing that it is meant as a sorter means I conceptually understand the number given being a confidence level fairly well now.

So if I take my scores on a sorting instrument and multiply the confidence scores (taken as fractions), I'll get a confidence of my type based on the instrument (assuming no correlation on correctness). Of course, even a high confidence level could still be wrong.

Just curious how close my deductions are on this.

[edcoaching]

Interesting. So the idea is to use the results to tailor teaching methods to students and to teach them to be as flexible in the working styles as possible, despite their preferences?

Exactly. Students need to learn in all 4 styles. A very crude example:
IS: memorizing math facts
ES: measurement, applying mathematics to practical situations
IN: synthesizing math learning to solve new problems--logic, etc.
EN: math discussions that further understanding.

Students need all 4, but when they don't "get" a big concept (such as...1/16 is smaller than 1/6) they generally need some instruction in their own style to get the light bulb to go off. But...for the students, knowing there are different styles and this activity matches a different style is far different than thinking you're stupid and can't learn...

[edcoaching]

I just realized that if the confidence level on each dichotomy was even as high as 93%, the likelyhood of being correct on all 4 would still be below 75% (assuming no correlation on correctness on dichotomies).

(0.93)^4=about 0.748

Actually, knowing that it is meant as a sorter means I conceptually understand the number given being a confidence level fairly well now.

So if I take my scores on a sorting instrument and multiply the confidence scores (taken as fractions), I'll get a confidence of my type based on the instrument (assuming no correlation on correctness). Of course, even a high confidence level could still be wrong.

Just curious how close my deductions are on this.

Yeah, I think so? I usually tell groups that about 75% will agree with all four letters. And when we're done, when I ask for a show of hands it's really close to that. Unless...

It's a multicultural group. My experience is that more of their scores will be close to the midpoint because they're adapting behaviors all the time. So odds are they'll be less clear.
If it's a group of educators. They're so afraid of negative labeling that they can't make up their minds what they are. I like having them for 2-day workshops because eventually a light bulb goes off...