More Than Four MBTI Traits?

[Infinitatis]

The four MBTI traits are:
– Energy (Extroversion / Introversion)
– Information (Sensation / Intuition)
– Decision (Feeling / Thinking)
– Lifestyle (Perceiving / Judging)
– Trait (Categories)

While 16 MBTI types summarize the human population rather elegantly, I've often wondered if 32 (or more) MBTI types would bridge the gaps between existing MBTI types thus allowing for a more comprehensive description for each type and a reduction in ambiguity. Myers-Briggs typology is, after all, an arbitrarily defined system.

So here are a few questions to help generate ideas:
– What are some notable discrepancies that arise in the current MBTI system? (i.e. What differences seem to exist between individuals who both belong to the same MBTI type?)
– Could additional trait(s) help resolve this issue?
– What additional trait(s) could help resolve this issue?
– Could additional categories (i.e. more than two possible categories for each trait) for any of the traits help resolve this issue?
–What additional categories (i.e. more than two possible categories for each trait) for any of the traits could help resolve this issue?

I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm going to do some advertising on the behalf of Yellow, for their wonderful take on types:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23514

 

[headspace]

The architecture of the OP basically offers a guided/structured thought process whereupon one may arrive at the conclusion offered by the title of the thread,

However is distinctly lacking in specific insight which would catalyze the system into action.

 

[Infinitatis]

The architecture of the OP basically offers a guided/structured thought process whereupon one may arrive at the conclusion offered by the title of the thread,

However is distinctly lacking in specific insight which would catalyze the system into action.

As you've accurately alluded to, my purpose in posting this was primarily to brainstorm several ideas. I have attempted to answer these questions single-handedly before, so as to acquire unique insight, but I typically end up deciding that any of my theorized traits are already determined by existing traits. Thus there would be no reason for it to be a trait. I hope to build off of what other's have to say.

 

[Yellow]

Well, as QT advertised, I'm working on a different system. Though the ideas are still in a state of flux as I study further, I would at least add two basic, defining, and consistent characteristics.

1. Prosocial/Antisocial.
Not to be confused with E/I or F/T. It's the idea that some people more prone to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than others in a way that transcends type entirely.

2. Calm/Neurotic
Again, not to be confused with T/F. We get young INTPs here all the time crippled by existential crises and and the pressure of everyday life. It's really obvious when an Feeler is prone to surges of panic or rage, but Thinkers seem to have this issue in relatively equal number. Or conversely, there are plenty of calm-in-a-crisis feelers.

I'm thinking about throwing "Dominant v. Passive" into the mix. It certainly carries on throughout life in various forms, but convinced yet that it's independent of the other categories. In fact, they seem like they are intertwined with the other traits. We'll see.

 

[QuickTwist]

@OP,

Are you aware of SLOAN/Big 5?

 

[Alias]

Not trying to advertise or advocate, but 16personalities suggests a T versus A, T being Turbulent, A being Assertive. www.16personalities.com should help you find it. See what you think.

I do like Yellow's system. The fact that the whole forum can give her feedback is really cool.

 

[Infinitatis]

Well, as QT advertised, I'm working on a different system. Though the ideas are still in a state of flux as I study further, I would at least add two basic, defining, and consistent characteristics.

1. Prosocial/Antisocial.
Not to be confused with E/I or F/T. It's the idea that some people more prone to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than others in a way that transcends type entirely.

2. Calm/Neurotic
Again, not to be confused with T/F. We get young INTPs here all the time crippled by existential crises and and the pressure of everyday life. It's really obvious when an Feeler is prone to surges of panic or rage, but Thinkers seem to have this issue in relatively equal number. Or conversely, there are plenty of calm-in-a-crisis feelers.

I'm thinking about throwing "Dominant v. Passive" into the mix. It certainly carries on throughout life in various forms, but convinced yet that it's independent of the other categories. In fact, they seem like they are intertwined with the other traits. We'll see.

That's very interesting. I hope to hear more as you develop your theory.
Thanks to this, I've recalled a thought that I have occasionally pondered. (I really should just write this stuff down so my ideas are readily available.) I'll do my best to organize my Ne (it can get pretty messy).
One discrepancy that I've seen on multiple occasions in dozens of personality questionnaire and profiles is that thinkers (T) predominantly value logic and justice, and feelers (F), on the other hand, predominantly value ethics and mercy. What I believe to be flawed with this is that, as a thinker (T), I find that logic does not disregard human emotion. I prefer to think of logic as a system devised to achieve specific optimal results – an algorithm if you will. In fact, I find it confusing when logical solutions and ethical solutions are used to mean two different things. How I see it, the most logical solution is the most ethical solution, and the most ethical solution is the most logical solution. It is for this reason that I find it very difficult to answer some questions when taking personality tests, because while I am certainly an INTP, I know that I'm also a kind and forgiving person. If my reasoning is correct, it would seem that the decision-making trait (F / T) of MBTI tests perhaps makes too many generalizations about how people use ethics and logic. With that being said, I think that there is probably either another trait (one of which I have yet to hypothesize) that creates a distinction in the ways that people apply logic/ethics, or the current decision-making trait (F / T) itself is paradoxical.

 

[Infinitatis]

@OP,

Are you aware of SLOAN/Big 5?

I'm slightly familiar with them, but certainly not familiar enough. Now that I've considered what QT and Yellow have to say, it makes more sense to reconsider MBTI entirely, and, like Yellow, to devise a new system. I'll try to do some research on SLOAN and Big 5 sometime soon, and hopefully that will lead somewhere.

 

[Alias]

It is for this reason that I find it very difficult to answer some questions when taking personality tests, because while I am certainly an INTP, I know that I'm also a kind and forgiving person.

Wow, that really summarized my thoughts on ethics vs. logic. Nice job encapsulating how I felt about the subject.

 

[Yellow]

Well, that may be the reason that T/F is omitted from the Big Five. And though it lacks luster, the Big Five has a lot of research behind it. On the other hand, there is an observable difference between people in the T/F department. I agree wholly that MBTI lumps too many traits together to mean feeling/thinking. Like the idea of putting others before yourself. In MBTI, it's considered an "F" trait. However, there are Ts with an enormous sense of duty to society/fellow man. In retrospect, I think my two additions were partly to soothe my frustration with how vague T/F are.

It's worth noting here, that some studies scrutinizing MBTI have found that T-J pair and F-P pair more often than not, and S-J and N-P pair more often than not.

MBTI just accepts this, and chalks it down to uneven frequencies in the population. Frequencies for SJs and NFPs are certainly high. But it's also possible that the traits are not completely independent of each other, which would indicate a design flaw.

It's not too hard to see, after all, "I don't like change" is a "sensor" thing, but NJs might very well agree with that statement. Similarly, have you ever known an ISFP who doesn't think of him/herself as a "free thinker"? Something hitherto considered an "N" trait.

Now, I really think these are separate sets of traits. I think they are just identified poorly in most MBTI tests. That's why, despite the struggle I'm going to have making the survey relatively universal, I really want to have questions that juxtapose these traits, so that I can eliminate these apparent bias errors. If I'm testing for (in a manner of speaking) J/P and S/N at the same time, with SJ, SP, NJ, NP as the four options, I think the results will be more reliable. Of course, then you have to pair (or treble) them all in various combinations, just to be sure they aren't overlapping.

 

[headspace]

T and F isn't necessarily omitted it just isn't such a strong correlation as the other categories.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Infinitatis, I think the fact that yourself and Yellow came to the same conclusion about the T/F dichotomies really says something. I am just one example where because of the logical/mercy distinction I found myself at odd with the T/F things as well. So while most frequently test as a T, I have had more than a few people say I am an Fi dom.

 

[nanook]

I've thought about this, but to begin with you have to differentiate
organic traits (functions aka lines of intelligence),
developmental traits (structural stages of lines of intelligence),
and surface traits (arbitrary quantifiers like the volume of intelligence for any line or individually acquired skills, defined by something external to the individual).

you can't possibly put all of them into a single typology. it would no longer be an analytical tool, only a meaningless snapshot, a tool for prejudice, for fascist assessment of citizens.

stages ain't typological, they change over time. (except in so far as higher stages are inclusive of the core aspects of lower stages, so lower stages don't change completely, when higher stages emerge, but higher stages are somewhat transformative of lower stages)

type stays the same, except a transformation may change all of it's traits. but a caterpillar does not become a frog, it becomes a butterfly, so type does not change during transformation.

bottom-line, i could not think of a function worthy of being included next to jung's functions, but lines of intelligence deserve more attention, i guess ...

about sloan: this is a crude infusion with developmental traits and it only causes problems. chaotic people are at early stages, orderly people are at mediocre stages, but perfectly mature people can transcend order for elegant flexibility and the result of such a dichotomy will be what integral jargon calls pre-trans-fallacy: when early and late stages of development are confused and considered identical by people who think in invalid pairs of opposites and look at things superficially. ie both undeveloped and perfectly developed people are not obsessed with order.

likewise social and antisocial are probably developmental traits. same logic applies. people who are pre conformist are violently antisocial and postconformist people are not selfishly destructive at all, but are perceived nevertheless as a thread to public order by people in the middle of development, mediocre conformists. post-conformists invest little energy in maintaining conformism, they have better things to do.

so basically you create a test that equates idiots (or children) with gifted (well matured) individuals .... bad idea.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

1. Prosocial/Antisocial.
Not to be confused with E/I or F/T. It's the idea that some people more prone to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than others in a way that transcends type entirely.

How exactly would you define "social responsibility", Yellow? Is it a responsibility to "society as a whole" or just "my fellow man."

Because I have a much stronger inclination towards helping people, but don't see it as any kind of duty or responsibility of mine to aid humanity as a whole. I basically can't say no if someone individually asks me for a favor (I actually volunteered to pay for a customer's CDs today because he'd lost his card (he's a regular face and friends with a coworker, so it's not like I completely threw 30 bucks away)). On the other side of things, the idea that I owe society as a whole and need to pitch in or whatever is gratingly annoying to the point where it almost makes me not want to do whatever thing is that I'm being asked to do for humanity.

Just curious where you draw the line on those two.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

+3 nanook!

 

[Feather]

I think that we get input of reality from two different places.
1. Our biological body {external senses}
2. Our mental structure {thoughts, memories, Ideas, motivation, feelings}

If we are put in a deprivation tank from physical input we still get mental input into our awareness. Putting aside the option that somehow the brain is responsible for this, we have two modes that can compete for awareness.

It seems like as the brain develops so does intellectual ability, memory, and ??? other functions. Biological Code gets converted to Mental Code and vise versa. Our bodies sense something and our bodies re-act to some degree automatically this gets also fires off automatic process in the mental structure as memories and thoughts generate off of the physical stimulus. At the same time if input enters the mind it automatically fires off sequences of memories and thoughts and infringes some degree of automatic reaction to the body. If you have ever day dreamed and flinched your body you will get an idea of this.

If you have ever had a near death experiences or have spent time in other realities - you will notice that you lose your Brain/Mind personality. The manner your mind structure fires off to thoughts and memories is no longer how you operate. You no longer have the same memory profile or intellect or any of the brain/mind functioning that associates you to your identity. There is some link still intact that only very specific objectives or goals past defined are obtained - there is some link necessary to remember the experience latter and integrate the information into your brain/mind structure.

I do think our Avatar's personality is defined in some degree in how the brain/mind develops biologically and its genetic makeup. But from my experience beyond the brain/mind - I have to factor into my thinking this 'other' mode of operating. It is hard to define but what drives or propels those experience is a sense of being directed with a semiology for context and understanding of what leads to meaning as if you are sourcing a history of past experience and results.

What is interesting you don't really "think" as we know it when we use our brains intellect and it is not exactly make decisions with "feelings". I think what makes decisions in that other mode is the common true theme behind both thinking and feeling as we know it when we are in our brains. Thinking and feeling is more similar in its intent but differs in how we want to express it into action.

<><><>

Now, @ OP.

{S} is awareness on statistical {deductive} past or present data
{N} is awareness on probable {Inductive} future data.

This seems reasonable that these two cover it all for the "tense" of the data we are aware of.

{F} is Judgment on abstract {intuitive} importance of data.
{T} is Judgment on concrete {reduction} importance of data.

This seems reasonable that these two covers the spectrum of it all for the "style" of interpretation of the data we make judgments on.

I think in art {T} is just as critical as {F} and in science {F} just as vital as {T}.

{I} and {E} is how much focus you give to "add" to the input and seek less experience or if you "add" less and seek more experience. I think these are very I different ways to define sets of history that gets stored and used to operate in that other mode.

{J} and {P} are consequential I think. It depends on the method you use to accomplish your goal and it just so happens that structure and perfectionism helps some while creative patience helps achieve others.

I am completely open to more chopping up these spectrums into more pieces I just can't think of how personally.

That other mode I spoke of is what I think ultimately supplies our values and intent in our brain/mind structure because I have no idea why I spend my time thinking about stuff like this rather than drinking beer and chasing woman which is a more productive endeavor. I rationally can't make sense of why I do so other than programmed so the world doesn't turn into a giant orgy.

There are small percentage of INTP's I can't help but think why there is a smaller percentage of INTP's versus say ESFJ and what if those percentages were flipped and why are they this way.

I also think that as you cure you brain/mind structure your these functions and traits blend to that true theme intent behind them such that you can operate in this other mode but still return with your memory of it and integrate into your brain/mind.

This also can explain why some people don't relate perfectly with the division put forth in MBTI.

 

[Yellow]

How exactly would you define "social responsibility", Yellow? Is it a responsibility to "society as a whole" or just "my fellow man."

Because I have a much stronger inclination towards helping people, but don't see it as any kind of duty or responsibility of mine to aid humanity as a whole. I basically can't say no if someone individually asks me for a favor (I actually volunteered to pay for a customer's CDs today because he'd lost his card (he's a regular face and friends with a coworker, so it's not like I completely threw 30 bucks away)). On the other side of things, the idea that I owe society as a whole and need to pitch in or whatever is gratingly annoying to the point where it almost makes me not want to do whatever thing is that I'm being asked to do for humanity.

Just curious where you draw the line on those two.

they seem to be different approaches at the same inclination.

Most people follow the "golden rule" most of the time. It's advantageous for a social animal. How this rule is interpreted may vary with one's levels of convention, extroversion, etc., but it's the underlying concept of duty treat others decently.

In the spectrum's two extremes, you'd get (not literal) martyrs and complete assholes.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Feather,

In determining what are the values that drive that instinctive force I believe this is exactly the kind of thing that Enneagram touches on.

One might be able to categorize adding to the MBTI by instinctual variant, such as aCceptance (C) vs. pro-activity (P). This would allow for the combination of both T/F and J/P. So we would then have the dichotomies of N/S and C/P. What one could use the system for is measuring things on like a immediate or future mindset. Those high in N/P would be more futurists. Those high in the immediate concerns would be S/C. Ofc you could still keep the I/E dichotomies and put values of Ce-Ni-Se-Pi for example.

Also with this system, you could have room for every combination of I/E in S/N and P/C. So not only would you have Ce-Ni-Se-Pi, but also Ce-Ni-Pe-Si

 

[OmoInisa]

1. Prosocial/Antisocial.
Not to be confused with E/I or F/T. It's the idea that some people more prone to have a stronger sense of social responsibility than others in a way that transcends type entirely.

2. Calm/Neurotic
Again, not to be confused with T/F. We get young INTPs here all the time crippled by existential crises and and the pressure of everyday life. It's really obvious when an Feeler is prone to surges of panic or rage, but Thinkers seem to have this issue in relatively equal number. Or conversely, there are plenty of calm-in-a-crisis feelers.

I'm thinking about throwing "Dominant v. Passive" into the mix. It certainly carries on throughout life in various forms, but convinced yet that it's independent of the other categories. In fact, they seem like they are intertwined with the other traits. We'll see.

1. Pro/antisocial (in the sense you introduce) has little typological relevance as far as I can see. It's mainly environmental. When your wise old grandmother warns you to srcutinise the family of your fiancee, that's because she's aware of this.

2. Calm/Neurotic is reasonably well illuminated by MBTI I think. You just have to move away from a purely dichotomy-centric outlook to see it. The tests unfortunately test dichotomies (and rather clumsily at that) rather than functions.
I suspect calmness/neuroticism is strongly aligned with Ji/Je and mildly with T/F. So your average Ti-dom should be rather more calm in a crisis than your average Fe-dom (these being the extreme poles). An Fi-dom would also probably be calmer in a crisis than a Te-dom.
Regarding those young INTPs spewing forth their existential angst, note that this is internal and not external neuroticism. Just one of the ways the internet (and the medium of writing generally) turns the world inside out.

3. Dominant/Passive is aligned with Je/Ji as well (and weakly aligned with T/F). Find me a solid IP who's more dominant than a solid EJ

It's not too hard to see, after all, "I don't like change" is a "sensor" thing, but NJs might very well agree with that statement. Similarly, have you ever known an ISFP who doesn't think of him/herself as a "free thinker"? Something hitherto considered an "N" trait.

"I don't like change" is an Si thing, not a sensor thing. More generally, it's a Pi thing. All Js have it in common in a sense, because they're all introverted perceivers. Introverted perception takes a narrow, deep and rigid view of reality. An ISFP is an extroverted perceiver, so I would indeed expect them to be more relaxed about a reality in flux. Pe-doms and Pi-doms are the extreme poles in this.

Now, I really think these are separate sets of traits. I think they are just identified poorly in most MBTI tests. That's why, despite the struggle I'm going to have making the survey relatively universal, I really want to have questions that juxtapose these traits, so that I can eliminate these apparent bias errors. If I'm testing for (in a manner of speaking) J/P and S/N at the same time, with SJ, SP, NJ, NP as the four options, I think the results will be more reliable. Of course, then you have to pair (or treble) them all in various combinations, just to be sure they aren't overlapping.

That would be very interesting indeed.

 

[Yellow]

I suspect calmness/neuroticism is strongly aligned with Ji/Je and mildly with T/F. So your average Ti-dom should be rather more calm in a crisis than your average Fe-dom (these being the extreme poles). An Fi-dom would also probably be calmer in a crisis than a Te-dom.
Regarding those young INTPs spewing forth their existential angst, note that this is internal and not external neuroticism. Just one of the ways the internet (and the medium of writing generally) turns the world inside out.

Ah, but what if I'm looking for neuroticism as an independent trait? In that case, whether introverted or extroverted, it's something that some people have more of than others. Like any other trait, it appears to have its roots in very early childhood development, but once its found a home in your mind, it's nearly impossible to control. Have you ever known someone who was hellbent on being heartsick? They're stuck in their heads and immune to environmental factors that would help them improve their condition.

Also, I would argue that a Fe-dom is just as often calm in a crisis as a Ti-dom. We've had many world leaders that are Fe-dom (including Obama, from the looks of it), who appear completely unflappable.

3. Dominant/Passive is aligned with Je/Ji as well (and weakly aligned with T/F). Find me a solid IP who's more dominant than a solid EJ

That's why I'm not sure of this one. I know that some will exist, but it's uncommon. The trait frequencies must be independent to be valid.

"I don't like change" is an Si thing, not a sensor thing. More generally, it's a Pi thing. All Js have it in common in a sense, because they're all introverted perceivers. Introverted perception takes a narrow, deep and rigid view of reality. An ISFP is an extroverted perceiver, so I would indeed expect them to be more relaxed about a reality in flux. Pe-doms and Pi-doms are the extreme poles in this.

You've explained that this is something that Js have in common. Yet, this question/statement, which is on every MBTI test at least once in one form or another, gives you a point in the "S" category, not "J". As the MBTI theory goes, Ss value tradition and rely on experience, and Ns are more interested in things that are new or different.

No wonder there are so few NJs.

 

[headspace]

Neuroticism in my opinion is a valid 'fifth construct' which compels another sub-category of typology.

It depends on the extent to which it correlates with other configurations. If we observe a relatively random distribution of "C & L" (calm & limbic) dispositions across the board then there really is no reason not to include it somehow.

If, however, we observe that a vast majority of INTJs are Calm and ISTJs are Limbic then we may intuit a particular pattern of association whereupon neuroticism depends subliminally on the configuration of one or more of the other dichotomies. Perhaps, for example, neuroticism is really expressed as a product of low extroversion plus low openness, then it should not be included as a fifth trait.

Unfortunately, the Big Five pretty much has the pistol stuck right in your face on this.

As for pro-social/anti-social disposition, again I'm tempted to suggest this is probably a product of certain configurations of deeper, more basic traits as well as upbringing. Not that I would argue that environmental conditioning should be absent from a typological system, just that these particular systems look at "traits" as being distinct from "dispositions", in that a disposition is really just a product of psychic interplay between traits and environment. A purist may argue that the four main underlying traits are more or less genetic in origin whereas neuroticism is potentially epigenetic and fluid, same with social disposition.

 

[OmoInisa]

Ah, but what if I'm looking for neuroticism as an independent trait? In that case, whether introverted or extroverted, it's something that some people have more of than others. Like any other trait, it appears to have its roots in very early childhood development, but once its found a home in your mind, it's nearly impossible to control. Have you ever known someone who was hellbent on being heartsick? They're stuck in their heads and immune to environmental factors that would help them improve their condition.

It's true that some people have more of it than others. Just as with any other kind of trait/disposition. But when you ask the question about neuroticism as an independent trait, you should be careful to define precisely what you have in mind and what your testing is recording. Wikipedia defines it thus:

"Neuroticism is a fundamental personality trait in the study of psychology characterized by anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry, envy, frustration, jealousy, and loneliness"

Are these feelings even coherent to begin with, such as to be meaningfully captured in a single definitive word? If no, then we might need to break down and reshape the concept. If yes, do they always present in the same fashion? I imagined the likelihood of anxiety or frustration looking rather different to an outside observer if processed inwardly from what it looks like if processed outwardly.
Will the test take take this into account and attempt to test for it? There would certainly have to be an accepted theoretical basis for it to begin with.
And so on

Also, I would argue that a Fe-dom is just as often calm in a crisis as a Ti-dom. We've had many world leaders that are Fe-dom (including Obama, from the looks of it), who appear completely unflappable.

The notion of Obama as an ENFJ has always been a controversial one. The points in favour are his soft and warm demeanor, his Fe-like vocational choices and the Fe-like tone of his political message. And then it's assumed that anyone with such charisma and oratorical gifts must be an extrovert.
The other side is that he is very cool, composed, and dispassionate - most unnaturally for any kind of extroverted feeler (even an INFJ). And those close to him attest to his aloof disposition. He also gives new meaning to the old adage of campaigning in verse and governing in prose. So it would seem that the campaigning phenomenon we've all come to know is an impressively cultivated skill.
He has always seemed more Ti to me, but I'll leave the question up in the air, since typing public figures is only a little less troublesome than typing fictional characters.

Further to the above, I would say that the FE-dom world leaders who appear unflappable are playing a role. That's not to say an ESFJ is not capable of calmly negotiating a crisis, or that an ISTP will always be calm. However the ISTP should more naturally approach the crisis with composure.

You've explained that this is something that Js have in common. Yet, this question/statement, which is on every MBTI test at least once in one form or another, gives you a point in the "S" category, not "J". As the MBTI theory goes, Ss value tradition and rely on experience, and Ns are more interested in things that are new or different.

They're not completely incorrect to give a point in the "S" category. while "I don't like change" is most strongly aligned with Pi over Pe, it is also weakly aligned with S over N (so Si and Ne are at opposite ends of the scale). That correlation was noticed and overplayed. And then it entered into canon and was never re-examined.
These things happen. Since there is no concept of functions in the tests, there is really no direct way to code such a thing into the tests (apart from something along the lines of your interesting idea from before ).

This issue does touch on something that's at the root of half the problems with MBTI, namely that the J/P axis has been taken as a meaningful dichotomy in itself, rather than merely a pointer to function attitude, as it really is.
A good way to make MBTI tests more meaningful might be to abandon the questions that attempt to establish Jness or Pness as a fundamental trait. Instead questions could be posed with function attitude in mind, and a tick could be put into the J or P column along with a tick in the relevant N or S column or T or F column with each question.

 

[OmoInisa]

As for pro-social/anti-social disposition, again I'm tempted to suggest this is probably a product of certain configurations of deeper, more basic traits as well as upbringing. Not that I would argue that environmental conditioning should be absent from a typological system, just that these particular systems look at "traits" as being distinct from "dispositions", in that a disposition is really just a product of psychic interplay between traits and environment.

Indeed

A purist may argue that the four main underlying traits are more or less genetic in origin whereas neuroticism is potentially epigenetic and fluid, same with social disposition.

That traits are at least to some degree innate seems self-evident. Beyond that, things are more debatable. Are traits innate in a binary and consistent fashion? Do they present with the same strength at birth? What are the possible congenital causes?
Why might neuroticism, or some element of it, not be innate?
Etcetera

 

[Infinitatis]

It's worth noting here, that some studies scrutinizing MBTI have found that T-J pair and F-P pair more often than not, and S-J and N-P pair more often than not.

MBTI just accepts this, and chalks it down to uneven frequencies in the population. Frequencies for SJs and NFPs are certainly high. But it's also possible that the traits are not completely independent of each other, which would indicate a design flaw.

It's not too hard to see, after all, "I don't like change" is a "sensor" thing, but NJs might very well agree with that statement. Similarly, have you ever known an ISFP who doesn't think of him/herself as a "free thinker"? Something hitherto considered an "N" trait.

Now, I really think these are separate sets of traits. I think they are just identified poorly in most MBTI tests. That's why, despite the struggle I'm going to have making the survey relatively universal, I really want to have questions that juxtapose these traits, so that I can eliminate these apparent bias errors. If I'm testing for (in a manner of speaking) J/P and S/N at the same time, with SJ, SP, NJ, NP as the four options, I think the results will be more reliable. Of course, then you have to pair (or treble) them all in various combinations, just to be sure they aren't overlapping.

I definitely agree that there are traits in the MBTI system that are not fundamental to an individual's personality (and that only fundamental traits should constitute a typological system). However, I do propose that it would not necessarily be erroneous to have traits that could give rise to other traits' occurences. For example (ignoring that these traits might not be fundamental), if a person tests as an N, they are more likely to test as a P than a J. I don't think that this necessitates that the P/J trait is dependent upon the N/S trait, but simply that when predicting whether or not an N is a P or a J, an individual is more likely to be a P. I'm not entirely sure if that was clear, so I'll try an analogy (which may just make things worse ).

In statistics, you have parameters, which are measurements made with consideration to the entire population, and statistics, which are measurements made with consideration to only part of the population (a sample of the population). When estimating what the mean value is for an entire population when you only know the mean value for a sample of that population, you calculate confidence intervals. The confidence intervals tell you with what confidence it can be concluded that the mean for a population falls in a given interval. For instance, if I calculate a 90% confidence interval to find the mean of the entire population of men's heights when I only know the mean value of a sample of that population, I conclude that I am 90% confident that the mean for all men's heights falls within a given range (such as between 64 inches and 72 inches). However, because the population mean either does or does not fall in the interval (because it is fixed), this does not mean that there is a 90% probability that the population mean falls within the range. Thus the population mean is independent of the sample mean.

What I hope to communicate with this cumbersome analogy is how traits can be more likely to occur in certain combinations (i.e. more confidently concluded to occur in certain combinations) than with other traits, not necessarily because such traits are dependent upon one another (and, of course, not necessarily because such traits aren't dependent upon one another).

 

[Yellow]

What I hope to communicate with this cumbersome analogy is how traits can be more likely to occur in certain combinations (i.e. more confidently concluded to occur in certain combinations) than with other traits, not necessarily because such traits are dependent upon one another (and, of course, not necessarily because such traits aren't dependent upon one another).

I agree that it's a definite possibility. Many biological traits are correlated, many psychological traits are correlated, so why not personality traits?

Unfortunately as things stand, there are no tests (to my knowledge) that go about eliminating the chance that it is, in fact, a design flaw. First, one would need to re-examine to determine whether they are really correlated or if the test design is artificially lumping them.

If it's the test, the test can be redesigned.

If the frequencies remain similar, another investigation should begin.

You'd have to find a way to determine whether the traits are truly correlated, or if they are a reflection of natural fluctuation of traits in the populations. Spoiler to see me take a crack at this.

Spoiler

We're lead to believe that E/I is a 51/49 split in the population, S/N is 73/27, F/T is 60/40, J/P is 54/46.

Theoretical frequencies ----- Observed Frequencies
ESFJ - 7.4% -------------------- ESFJ - 12.3%
ISFJ - 7.4% --------------------- ISFJ - 13.8%
ESFP - 7.2% -------------------- ESFP - 8.5%
ISFP - 7.1% -------------------- ISFP - 8.8%
ESTJ - 6.8% -------------------- ESTJ - 8.7%
ISTJ - 6.8% -------------------- ISTJ - 11.6%
ESTP - 6.6% ------------------- ESTP - 4.3%
ISTP - 6.5% -------------------- ISTP - 5.4%
ENFJ - 6.0% -------------------- ENFJ - 2.5%
INFJ - 5.9% --------------------- INFJ - 1.5%
ENFP - 5.8% ------------------- ENFP - 8.1%
INFP - 5.7% -------------------- INFP - 4.4%
ENTJ - 5.4% -------------------- ENTJ - 1.8%
INTJ - 5.3% --------------------- INTJ - 2.1%
ENTP - 5.1% -------------------- ENTP - 3.2%
INTP- 5.0% --------------------- INTP - 3.3%
stats conjured from here. There are other sources, but they say similar things, so I just used the most legit looking one I could find on the first page of google.

It doesn't take a statistician to see that we are way beyond our margin of error here.

If the traits are correlated, then we must face the possibility that we're dealing with an inadequate set of indicators. To fix this, we have to either identify basic traits that actually arise independently of one another, or else tweak the criteria for the indicators to tease out all of the nuances that would allow such correlation to exist.

 

[bvanevery]

In MBTI, it's considered an "F" trait. However, there are Ts with an enormous sense of duty to society/fellow man.

Is it a duty to actual people, or a duty to intellectual concepts that describe relations between people? There's a difference. One is built on specific emotional bonds, or the compulsion to create and maintain such bonds when faced with others. The other is trying to devise a rational system for fairness that is optimal for most people, and not horrible for anybody. To gloss it: "Bedside Manner" vs. "Law Giving".