Would you recommend MBTI to a friend?

[KazeCraven]

Having looked at a number of typology, temperament, and type personality theories, I can't help but wonder whether they do more harm than good, even for people who attempt to use them properly.

I suppose I got this idea because all the distinctions I started pulling up when trying to get a video typing, and how something isn't actually the case despite apparent manifestations... etc etc. I'm specifically focusing on INFJ vs INTP, but there's sure to be many analogous cases here. I'm not asking whether you think MBTI is true or can be useful, but rather whether you think other people will find it useful by just typing in whatever key terms you suggest they put in their browser.

I've been trying to formulate a network of theories for understanding the mind and human behavior, but it seems the more I learn the less useful any one concept is. I've started to wonder whether I should just stick to only scientifically verified theories and leave the wholes in knowledge as-is, despite the fact people will inevitably seek more solid ground.

 

[Razare]

I would recommend MBTI to a friend, if they bothered to understand it entirely, instead of focusing on their own type. Figuring out your own type is a waste of time, because it doesn't actually benefit you much other than allowing you to 'belong'.

If you learn enough to type other people in your life, then it's very useful and I would recommend it to a friend. I guess it depends on if my friend is an NT, whether I would recommend trying MBTI or not.

I've been trying to formulate a network of theories for understanding the mind and human behavior, but it seems the more I learn the less useful any one concept is. I've started to wonder whether I should just stick to only scientifically verified theories and leave the wholes in knowledge as-is, despite the fact people will inevitably seek more solid ground.

Solid theories wont work. Each person is too nuanced to be quantitatively assessed using a single model. Psychology at work for me is an individualized approach. You figure out people one person at a time, learn their nuances, figure out how they tick and construct a unique model just for them.

Each person gets their own personality model that way, which can be completely individualized to understand and predict their behavior.

Such an approach wont work unless you're good at figuring out people. For some reason I am exceptional at it, except when it comes to myself.

 

[KazeCraven]

Hmmm, my only problem with that approach is not that it is ineffective, but rather that's how people actually get to know people. In short, we make predictions about what our friends mean when they do something, or what they would probably like or dislike, based on our past experience with them.

I think of personality theories as stereotypes, similar to "this guy is from X culture, so he probably A, Q, and M." Obviously the stereotypes are only a starting point, as when there's conflicting information it's because the stereotype does not hold for that person. And just to cover the first few arguments against stereotypes, most people would be pretty put off if you started with no assumption about whether studying was fun, for example. "Oh, you are studying? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?" I know I speak mostly from just personal experience, but the most effective communicators I met made terribly wrong assumptions about me before knowing me; however, they changed their view quickly and tactfully without ever acting strongly on those initial stereotypes (uncertain knowledge -> uncertain behavior).

 

[Ska]

I think of personality theories as stereotypes

While this may be somewhat true due to the type descriptions of MBTI, it is in no way true in regard to the theory. The theory is what MBTI is based off of, and all MBTI is is a test to help you figure out what your top two functions are. The type descriptions are similar, as they are only based on the top two functions of a type, and do not take into account people with well developed tertiary and inferior functions. Everything comes back to the theory in the end, which is all about the cognitive functions. This is in no way stereotyping, as it's just giving insight as to how your brain functions. The stereotyping comes from the shorthand method that is MBTI which was designed to quickly test and categorize people. But in the end, it's only the functions that we use and the order in which we use them that make us a type, and it's how we've used those functions and our life experiences that make us unique and who we are.

 

[cheese]

^Yeah, it's all very neat theoretically, but are the functions actually real? Do they operate in the way we understand them to? Have their purpose and manifestation been discretely defined enough that we can map them to discrete activity in the brain? Is it all nifty psych work, or does it have proper basis in reality?

I wouldn't recommend MBTI to a friend. I used to, but it's generally misunderstood and no one takes quite enough time to get into it. I myself should buy a whole bunch more books before I spout what could be misinformation on a forum (but hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em) ( you wait.)

Personality typing's the way I was brought up though. Family're stereotypers by nature. Well, you get to recognise patterns when you hang aroung diverse groups.

Anyway, MBTI and its variants are too complicated to introduce to someone. It'll just mess around with their life and mine.

 

[KazeCraven]

All I'll say to that, cheese, is that several people have cited Leonore Thompson (I think that's the guy's name?) as having located the four pairs of functions as showing up in specific areas of the brain. I never bothered to look into it, but that's the extent to which it has been mapped to brain activity.

Oh, and psychology can have basis in reality without being mapped to brain activity, though perhaps not cognitive psychology, which is the area in question.

 

[cheese]

I think it's a woman.

Yeah, I've seen that and looked into it, but there were counter-arguments that I can't remember (bit of a fog of confusion in there). Basically, it's not certain, but so far it works very well. My concern is that the more I'll know the more holes I'll see. At the moment theory and reality seem to hang together nicely, but we'll see.

Yeah. This is supposed to be directly linked though, hence Adymus's confidence in visual typing. The eye drifts are supposed to show you which area of the brain is working, when it's working.

 

[Ska]

^Yeah, it's all very neat theoretically, but are the functions actually real? Do they operate in the way we understand them to? Have their purpose and manifestation been discretely defined enough that we can map them to discrete activity in the brain? Is it all nifty psych work, or does it have proper basis in reality?

Are the functions real? I'd say they'd have to be real to an extent. What amazes me is how they correlate with eye movement! Why is that so? But nonetheless, that is a pretty good indication to me that the functions are real (along with how we can type people and how we all have at least a few similar, defining qualities here based on our type/functions).

It's funny that you bring up the fact that we may not understand the functions completely. I have been thinking lately about the possibility that the each function can be broken down into different functions that make up that function. So instead of just the eight functions there are now, maybe there would be 64 functions in 8 categories (TiA, TiB, TiC, etc.) There seems to be a whole lot that goes into the function descriptions, and each function has a wide range of capabilities, so this leads me to believe that the above is plausible.

I also believe it has proper basis in reality. Understanding the functions one's mind uses is, to me, fantastic insight to how their brain works and a good way of approaching problems that individual might have. While the theory can certainly drive someone deeper into a hole (by feeling sorry for themselves, justifying their problems and not working towards fixing them because "it's just the way they are," etc.), it seems equally useful in helping people understand and overcome their weaknesses.

This could all just be me talking out of my ass, though. I'm no expert.

 

[cheese]

How do we know functions correlate with eye movement, and not that we're simply attributing certain functions to certain eye movements? I mean, considering we can't even rely on type profiles, how do we know the eye movements indicate anything more than activity in that region of the brain that may or may not have any correlation with any particular function's "powers"?

Having said all that though, I do tend to believe there's a large-ish element of truth in it. If Adymus and Co. really have been testing this against tons of people they know, and all of them that show the same signs relate to the same cognitive functions - well, that's sort of interesting, isn't it.

I'd really like for all this to be true. I just love this stuff. Teaches you how to fold people into small rectangular spaces as economically as possible. Great practice for when I lose my balls and become a wife under house arrest.

*edit
No really, I love typology. I should probably work out why - might be a bit unhealthy.

 

[Fukyo]

All I'll say to that, cheese, is that several people have cited Leonore Thompson (I think that's the guy's name?) as having located the four pairs of functions as showing up in specific areas of the brain. I never bothered to look into it, but that's the extent to which it has been mapped to brain activity.

Katherine Benzinger's research is a lot more extensive and in depth than Lenore's from what I can tell. Some bits are fascinating in particular, like the theory on Falsification of Type and the relation between Reticular Activating System and Introversion/Extraversion.

But also, take a look at this. Sounds familiar?

Spoiler

• Electrical Resistance: Any situation, chemical or structure which interrupts or otherwise impedes the flow of electricity through a particular pathway. Typically, more work or energy is required to flow through these paths with higher levels of resistance, simply in order to overcome the higher levels of resistance. Two known truths about resistance: 1) the work done to overcome higher levels of resistance is often observed as “heat”; and 2) generally, all else equal, energy, currents and rivers naturally flow along the path with the least resistance.

• Cortical Electrical Efficiency: According to the work of Dr. Richard Haier of San Diego, the natural level of electrical resistance varies across the cortex, such that in one area a person’s cortex can be shown to have much higher level of resistance to the flow of thoughts than in another area of their cortex. Moreover, Haier’s research has shown repeatedly that most people have one area which enjoys a much lower level of electrical resistance – using only one one-hundredth the oxygen / energy – when compared with all the other areas of that person’s cortex. Thus, when the person is thinking with or using the one portion of their cortex which enjoys this markedly lower level of resistance, that person is using much less energy to think than they must use when thinking with the other areas of their brain. From a resource management or conservation perspective, we can observe that the person is being naturally efficient when using the area in which they enjoy a lowered level of cortical resistance. Whereas, the same person is being markedly inefficient when thinking with any area other than his natural lead.

I vaguely wonder why Adymus didn't bring this up in his 101 Function theory thread, instead of just slapping the pictures of separated brain quadrants and asserting the location of the functions without further explanation.


Although, even Benzinger's theories are arguable, there's at least some plausibility to them, I think, if nothing else because they give more material about how the physiology of brain relates to type to chew on.

 

[KazeCraven]

If you learn enough to type other people in your life, then it's very useful and I would recommend it to a friend. I guess it depends on if my friend is an NT, whether I would recommend trying MBTI or not.

Just to clarify, you mean that you would tell it to NTs and not other types, because you'd expect NTs to actually be focused on the theory itself rather than on what it said about them?

@Fukyo: this information is quite fascinating. Too much to comment on just yet.

 

[Ska]

That was a good read Fukyo...thanks for the link. The one thing that stood out to me is that she clearly stats some people are neither extroverted nor introverted, but somewhere in the middle. Do they just have very well balanced dominant and secondary functions, or does the theory need to be expanded?

 

[Fukyo]

That was a good read Fukyo...thanks for the link. The one thing that stood out to me is that she clearly stats some people are neither extroverted nor introverted, but somewhere in the middle. Do they just have very well balanced dominant and secondary functions, or does the theory need to be expanded?

It should be noted that Benziger doesn't go into cognitive functions, only considering the 2 dichotomies of Feeling, Thinking, Sensing, and Intuition.

The so called third category for those who have a “balanced level of arousal” is, I'm guessing what would account for the middle ground between Introversion and Extroversion, or rather the flow of information described.

Concerning arousal, Hans Eysenck's research suggests that humans are distributed along a continuum according to a normal bell curve. That is, fifteen percent (15%) are very aroused, fifteen percent (15%) are only minimally aroused, and seventy percent (70%) are in the middle.

 

[KazeCraven]

It seems to be the case that the theory in that link is not at all concerned with introverted or extraverted functions at all. Rather, it just distinguishes among the four modes (Sensing, Thinking, Intuiting, Feeling). I'm really not sure what to make of it, as not only does it completely disregard the J/P dichotomy, but also it makes no mention of it when mentioning the MBTI. In fact, it seems like she (the creator) is saying that an N-type (S-type, T-type, or F-type) has two secondary functions and one inferior.

By that theory, we're all introverted thinkers, period. I'm still looking for details.

Edit: Oh, Fukyo just cleared this up.

 

[KazeCraven]

Okay, read through most of this and I have to say that falsification of type and the brain efficiency stuff is critical for anyone thinking about becoming a 'well-rounded person'. The theory is rather vague about the nature of types and how one can tell when she's falsified her type, but I suppose it's probably due to the fact (and this "fact" is actually an educated guess on my part) that Dr. Benziger has only found a neural basis for N, S, T, and F. Also, since she focuses more on the dynamic nature of introversion and extroversion, it follows that she'd consider that to be quite separate from the four modes themselves.

Wow, not only have we gone way off the original topic, but also I posted this thread in the wrong section in the first place. Oh well, guess that's to be expected.

Back on topic, having since cleared up my own type and related issues, I have redirected my attention to the traits of other types and have to agree that it's useful for thinking about how other people's needs are different from one's own.