MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by toonia

These may need to be refined a bit, but there is clearly a distinction, two separate poles that can interrelate. Focus on individual vs. the community (intra vs. inter) forms two mutually exclusive poles that address the same process of relating the individual to the whole. The poles of E and I are mutually exclusive in that they define whether the processing of the ideals is focused inward or outward in relation to the individual. What do you think?

Well, for one, in practical usage, can you really separate Fi/Fe into inter/intrapersonal traits?

What I find is that people I know who are Fi do both inter/intra things, and people with Fe do both as well. I don't know if they are as exclusive as you have made them here. Is there any consistent basis for these traits to be subdivided?

Originally Posted by toonia

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N? Or are they separate processes entirely?

Good question.

If you look at the mind and body from a physiological standpoint they are clearly separate processes. The brain has sections devoted primarily to emotional processing - in everyone. I haven't heard any info that these sections are smaller in Ts for example.

Not sure on that issue. I wonder what the activity tests have shown when people make decisions. (I think there have been some studies on this -- which areas of the brain seem to activate more strongly, depending on the person who is reacting to an offered scenario.)

Also the processing of emotion releases chemicals that affect physiology. Is T an absence of chemicals? From the F standpoint, T looks like the absence of F, while from the T standpoint, F looks like personalized reasoning. Do you see justification for this because I don't? A person can personalize their thinking, reject reason w/o any emotionally driven chemical processes occurring, correct? A person can be flooded with hormones and endorphines and still reason, correct?

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

Yes, one process can, and often does, dominate the other, but the same can be said of the relationship between N and T, or N and F, or T and S, etc. I would be very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

IOW, can the functions be paired up and polarized as given in the MBTI, or could there be connection between S/N and T/F?

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Well, for one, in practical usage, can you really separate Fi/Fe into inter/intrapersonal traits?

What I find is that people I know who are Fi do both inter/intra things, and people with Fe do both as well. I don't know if they are as exclusive as you have made them here. Is there any consistent basis for these traits to be subdivided?

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences separates the two.

Linguistic intelligence

Logical-mathematical intelligence

Musical intelligence

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence

Spatial intelligence

Interpersonal intelligence

Intrapersonal intelligence

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by toonia

Interpersonal intelligence
Intrapersonal intelligence

Well, yes, but he's not separating Fi/Fe into two more categories, equaling four categories as you have suggested. Instead of using Fi/Fe, he's essentially replacing them (at best) using interpersonal and intrapersonal as the relational terminology.

So, can you clearly subdivide Fi and Fe into interpersonal and intrapersonal, or are they different systems that simply overlap somewhat?

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Well, yes, but he's not separating Fi/Fe into two more categories, equaling four categories as you have suggested. Instead of using Fi/Fe, he's essentially replacing them (at best) using interpersonal and intrapersonal as the relational terminology.

So, can you clearly subdivide Fi and Fe into interpersonal and intrapersonal, or are they different systems that simply overlap somewhat?

Yes, it might be a problem as it's just a hypothesis. They may correspond too closely to Fi and Fe? It struck me, though, on one of the MBTI tests I took that measured Fe in terms of a desire to host and care for the well-being of the group. Groups overwhelm me and I process feeling in the outside world, but care more for the inner-harmony of each individual rather than the harmony 'between' individuals. I saw this system as potentially defining my process in a way that MBTI hasn't. That is part of where this came from. It helped me to distinguish between a number of contrasting emotional processing styles that are quite noticeable, but not accounted for - at least as my knowledge of it goes.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by toonia

Yes, it might be a problem as it's just a hypothesis. They may correspond too closely to Fi and Fe? It struck me, though, on one of the MBTI tests I took that measured Fe in terms of a desire to host and care for the well-being of the group. Groups overwhelm me and I process feeling in the outside world, but care more for the inner-harmony of each individual rather than the harmony 'between' individuals. I saw this system as potentially defining my process in a way that MBTI hasn't. That is part of where this came from. It helped me to distinguish between a number of contrasting emotional processing styles that are quite noticeable, but not accounted for - at least as my knowledge of it goes.

Ah, okay, that gives me more context for what you were thinking and why you brought E/I into it.

iow, those with Fe as their primary function (ExFJ) are more inclined to look at the well-being of the group as a host, while those with it as a secondary function (IxFJ) are more inclined to think about the inner-harmony of each individual as a host? Is that what you're suggesting? And so forth? (I see some possibilities there.)

And would T have a similar schematic for anything?

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

My question is, could such emotion equally disrupt intuition or sensing? When someone loses temper their awareness of their surroundings change, they can punch a wall, not feel it, etc. They can also become oblivious to external information or processing associated with intuition, correct? There is no question that feeling can disrupt thinking, but is this relationship unique when compared to its disruption other traits?

Originally Posted by Fortunato

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

That implies a potentially emotional pairing with any function. Is that a consistent measure for a lesser function? Aren't there people who make inept decisions w/o anxiety? Couldn't someone be so oblivious to feelings that making personalized decisions that affect people would cause no anxiety whatsoever? It could cause discomfort to attempt to apply the wrong function to solve a given problem.

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."

Interesting. However there can be personal relevance w/o emotional ties. For example, one person could look at the table, remember how much it cost, the weight of it moving it through the door, that the leg landed on Jim-Bob's foot and made him holler, and that the scratches resulted from the cat tearing across the house and skidding across the top. The person may see this as emotionally neutral, but that is still their concept. Another non-emotional response could be seeing the table as an archetype. Is that partly an S N difference?

I agree that there are poles of thinking that should be explored. Some of these have to do with personalizing the information. Is it proven that personalizing information is necessarily related to emotional processing? (edit) There is a kind of stubborness of thought, a narrowed perspective encountered very often in people that doesn't 'appear' to have emotional ties. It has to do with faith in certain assumptions. That appears to be more of a polar opposite to logic and reason than emotional processing imo.

The MBTI step II uses logic vs empathy as two polar opposites. In my mind this distills the problem with this system. Empathy in its purest form is highly nuanced information. When I teach, I tend to have a certain degree of empathy for each student. This sometimes occurs without noticing it. When a student first comes to me and is anxious, there is a place in the back of my mind that mirrors this. What is interesting is that it makes me more effective teaching them because it is true and useful information to factor into the equation. The objective is to teach the student certain concepts. By having insight into their mind, its state, strengths, abilities, the path towards achieving this goal becomes clear. I can calm the student initially, because that is an effective first step. If I were not empathetic or aware of the need to accomplish this first step, I would be less effective as a teacher. Empathy contributes to reason and accomplishing a given task. It is information. How can that be a polar opposite of logic?

["?"]

Fortunato,

I really wished I had an opportunity to go over my assessment, to see how I answered the questions in 2000. I recently threw out my results of the Step II and Geier Assessments, becuase they both resulted in my being INTP. After studying the subject for the past seven years, I knew that I was not INTP. To the best of my recollection, my results were:

INTROVERSION: Very Clear (received 30)
INTUITION: Slight to Moderate
THINKING: Clear to Very Clear
PERCEIVING: Moderate (maybe slight to moderate)

Some thoughts on taking the Step II. I was instructed to take the test, as I appear at home. However, even in attempting to do that, some answers would be relative in comparison to people who surround you.

The majority of people that I worked with were SJ, and as my Administrator said, my S/N results were due to working in a sensing type environment, doing sensing type work at the time. I was looking over the S/N and J/P distinctions and realized that my family members and colleagues perceive me differently than I do myself. If I asked them to rate me, this is what I have a strong belief they would say:

*Systematic/Casual – Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Orderly/Leisurely –My environment
*Stuctured/ Easygoing – My environment
*Dislikes diversions/ Welcomes diversion – Consider this E/I
*Planful/Open-Ended-
*Concerned about the future/ Spur of the moment –Not as much as my SJ-SO
*Likes things settled in advance /Dislikes being tied down to plans
*Early Starting /Pressure-Prompted- Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Begins right away/Stress-facilitated
*Acts to minimize stress /Works well under pressure-Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Seeks to avoid emergencies/ Accomplishes much in the last-minute rush
Scheduled/* Spontaneous – Although my family would totally disagree
*Prefers the comfort of routine /Uncomfortable with routine – Depends. I am a creature of habit, but have a strong disdain for repetitive work.
*Prefers tried-and-true method /Wants freedom to respond to the unexpected –Considered this S/N question
*Methodical/Emergent –Current employer and co-workers think so
*Organized/ Trusts solutions will emerge from process - Current employer and co-workers think so
Makes plans for current task /*Proceeds without plans
Lists subtasks before proceeding – I don’t write down plans at all, although I keep them in my head

On the other hand, I read over the S/N distinctions, and see myself, or my family sees me as:

Concrete/* Figurative – Others would see me differently
Literal /*Symbolic– Others would see me differently
*Tangible /Likes original ideas
*Likes exact facts /Imaginative
Realistic/*Ingenious – Others would see me differently
Sensible /*Imaginative – Others would see me differently
Matter of fact/*Focuses on novelty
*Focuses on effectiveness /Inferential
Practical/*Scholarly
Pragmatic/*Ideas-oriented
Results-oriented/*Enjoys knowledge for its own sake
*Enjoys applied interests/ Theoretical– Others would see me differently
Experiential /*Conceptual
Realistic/*Big picture– Others would see me differently
*Empirical
*Traditional/Original– Others would see me differently
*Conventional/Unconventional– Others would see me differently
Accepting/*Idiosyncratic
Values established institutions /*Values inventiveness
*Facts are valuable experiences/Facts make patterns

Since I have a more knowledge of the subject, paying to take the test would be futile since I would skew my scores. My family considers me quite rigid, however I think that I am pretty casual. Any pointers?

[booyalab]

Originally Posted by toonia

This breaking down of the functions into sub-poles seems to articulate the problems with using T and F as opposing poles.

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N?

The differences between T and F are not made as apparent through language as the differences between sensing and intuition. Sensing and Intuition inform the way you learn. Thinking and feeling inform your decision-making. Therefore it's easier to be precise in coming up with a vocab for the former than the latter.. Effectively differentiating between thinking and feeling preferences would require something more interactive and determinative than a series of bullet points. (totally unrealistic and possibly bad example: how would two civilians, one F and one T, function in a battlezone? Especially the cliched movie scenario with the nazi baddies tearing the lovers/children-parents/etc. apart. My guess is the typical outrageously emotive movie version is more F-ish. The T would probably wish that their lover/child/mother would stop crying and fighting the soldier because they'll both get shot in the head, then they would proceed to figure out a way to get the person back.)
Of course, you could very well be right...maybe they're not "opposites". but you're using the wrong medium to test your hypothesis. And you're not putting the same test to the other functions. I had some issues with S-N, for instance. I don't think Ns necessarily focus on novelty, per se, much less focus on effectiveness less than sensors. At least not all Ns.

[Eric B]

A "shortcut" way to take it to get an idea is to grade the subscales directly, (and then average the scores for each scale).
I like the idea of the subscales, because even though I still edged out in the F area, it picked up my "out of scale preference" (OOPS), which was Questioning over Accomodating, which was one of the things that I did not seem to see in the pure NFP types.
This actually makes me interested in taking the whole thing, as I think I still may not have understood all the subscale descriptions perfectly, and may have graded too high in favor of some of the other F choices as well as I.

[Eric B]

Now that the subscale ball is rolling, we can go to the next step, which is like an extension of Step II ("Step 2A", perhaps?): the Type Differentiation Indicator, which adds the Comfort-Discomfort scale that supposedly matches the missing FFM category of Neuroticism. Continuing from Step II, it also is broken down into subscales:

COMFORT.............DISCOMFORT

optimistic..........guarded
compliant...........defiant
carefree............worried
decisive............ambivalent
intrepid............inhibited
leader..............follower
proactive...........distractible