# Is the MBTI Personality Theory Flawed?



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Is the MBTI Personality Theory Flawed?

This question was raised by a few topics I discovered elsewhere where called:

What is your theory of type anyway?
Why MBTI is a fraud.
MBTI FUD takedown thread.

I thought I'd react to these titles. First off what does "flawed" mean? We could say it is flawed if it doesn't portray personality adequately. We could say it is okay if has some predictive value meaning a label like INTP adequately distinguishes it from the other 15 types.

My answer to this is twofold. It does have predictive value but both the particular type of sixteen is fuzzy in definition as well as the person's behavior. By "fuzzy" I mean both are not precise. Think of an apple. We could say it is "round" but not precisely. The other is there are competing theories which are equally flawed but are based on something else.

What is the MBTI based on? Here are some foundations that come to my mind:
1. Eight cognitive functions are defined.
2. Personality types are broken into sixteen types based on these functions, not the other way around.*
3. A primary function is supposed to exist and be the one one is most "comfortable" with (as opposed to the one used the most).
4. A secondary auxiliary function is supposed to be in the opposite arena (inside versus outside the self**) for balancing purposes which supports the primary.
5. A tertiary and an inferior function fall into place naturally according to further alternation rules.

One can see right away the possibility for flaws. 
1. and 2. don't have to be defined that way. Other theories do it differently.
3. The existence of this "primary" depends a lot on its stability. Has one settled into a primary or not? First it assumes this can be done and second it assumes it is done. Who is to judge anyway? The self or others? Is one emotionally stable? Has environmental pressure distorted one's development? Since four cognitive functions define the personality a lot depends on whether one's life circumstances have brought one to a stable state.
4. and 5. This assumes this form of support is necessary for a stable personality. Two consecutive introverted or extroverted functions would create a personality in turmoil. The self would be in conflict.

These are flaws within the theory. The other way of looking at it is to look at competing theories. Pod'Lair (16 or 32 similar types) is one though I don't know too much about it. My understanding is it is based on a different premise: visual observation. The MBTI is based on longer term behavior, not visual. 

Is one theory better or more flawed than the other? A lot of the answer to this depends on how they are used. Each will have their value depending on how close judgment is based on foundations. This is true for all theories. The further each one gets from their foundation, the more fuzzy conclusions and applications become. As an example, Einstein is commonly judged to be an INTP. This may be an oversimplification, but Pod'Lair initially looked at his warm photos and judged him to be a feeling type. This was not correct in the opinion of many in the know. Yet Pod'Lair has the ability to judge quickly by visual observation when the MBTI judge is left scratching their head.

* By that I mean the cognitive functions come first. They are not founded on the 16 personality types.
** And perceiving versus judging. One observes; the other decides.


----------



## maust (Jul 14, 2014)

Yes. 

The test doesn't always reflect a person's true type. 
The types are shifting and not everyone fits into one. 
MBTI is entirely based on Jung's observations of life around him rather than any actual "science" done that differentiates the types based on anything other than (and even this is a stretch) behaviorism. There's no science behind it. 

But it's a useful framework for me to better understand people.


----------



## Schema B (Aug 9, 2015)

maust said:


> Yes.
> But it's a useful framework for me to better understand people.


That's all I've ever believed MBTI to be and all its use. (Also why I don't mind a devil's advocate.) I have about as much emotional investment in my "type" as my bowl of cereal. And I'm very noncommittal with breakfast.

Why did I join PerC? To remind myself that wrestling with identity is the rule, not the exception. To meet other NTs in particular.


----------



## Delicious Speculation (May 17, 2015)

MBTI is flawed. Identity is really complex. As flawed as it is, MBTI is another way to explore identity. Identify exploration and speculation are fun!

If you take MBTI super seriously and get a superiority complex and work hard to fit into the stereotype, then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I would start by saying that every label, category, &c. - arguably even every mental concept, and every abstraction - are "flawed" insofar as they don't portray reality completely accurately; every theory is inherently deficient to the extent that it is not a wholly truthful encapsulation of the reality it seeks to describe. But to write off such things as useless or wrong on that basis would be a mistake, also, because their failure is their imperfection, the fact that they are mere heuristics for understanding, rather than that they specifically make incorrect or misleading claims. A theory that is manifestly incorrect about reality obviously does warrant discarding, at least to the extent of the inaccuracy... 

I would say the MBTI theory contains aspects of both imperfection (as with any heuristic) and inaccuracy, though the latter is, in a sense, "shielded" from direct criticism by various phrasings that make evaluating those claims practically impossible. This unwillingness to be specific about what is claimed is frustrating, at times, because it obfuscates concepts that should be clearer - like what exactly is necessarily entailed by a person having a given function/preference/&c., and what is merely typical for such people but capable of exception, for example. Arguably, the official typing process lacks rigour - sure, you take a test, but your "verified type" is determined by subsequent discussion with a practitioner about which of the sixteen type profiles fits best... and then, of course, all of this is further clouded by the various claims that people subsume under the "MBTI" label online, many of which are not actually part of the theory at all, just concoctions by online communities that get passed along through time, worming their way into forum orthodoxies (I don't believe an official source has ever referenced dom-tert loops, for instance, or explicitly endorsed the claim that the tertiary function shares an attitude with the dominant).

For all of that, studies have shown some predictive value to the four personality dimensions (I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P), and it would be hard to claim that some of the other differences the theory appears to tap into aren't relevant considerations about a person. Taking such a broad view of personality as to sort it into only sixteen categories means that the majority of the complexities of human personality won't be captured by the system, but that isn't necessarily an issue provided people recognise the limitations of the heuristic - the issues arise when the theory steps from the imperfect to the inaccurate, or, as with both this and plenty of other theories, by not being sufficiently clear about what is claimed, presumably in order to avoid criticism for inaccuracy.


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

As others have said, one's personality is too complicated to be held within the constructs of four letters. That being said, one could kinda guess-timate one's personality by utilizing the MBTI. I take the test with a pinch more interest than the horoscope, but not as anything with any scientific fact :happy:


----------



## vesper007 (Aug 11, 2015)

I've heard MTBI referred to as "astrology for nerds". I don't think it's flawed, but I think people are flawed in their interpretations of how MTBI can be used to predict relations and dynamics between people.

I've found MTBI to be extremely useful to understand someone's communication style, work style, and motivations, especially if they have "functions" that differ from the ones we naturally use. It helps us understand someone to a certain degree.

I think it's flawed in that it doesn't take into account the degrees to which someone presents themselves in certain situations. For example, I test "ENTP" the vast majority of the time, but I know there are quiz answers to which I give the "I", "F", "J", or "S" response. 

I'd like to know if there are areas of my life (e.g., relationships, competitions, travel, workplace) where I may act like more like, for example, an ENTJ, ENFP or an ESTP (or any other type), ESPECIALLY since cognitive functions are apparently everything in determining how we interact with others and the outside world. Like if I test 51% T and 49% F, am I an ENTP that can also roll well in the cognitive functions of the ENFP? 

I also think that we tend to stereotype the 16 types in ways that are very limiting. Like why can't an ESFJ chick be bright and into corporate law or computer science, especially if she was raised around a lot of nerds? Why do we always think they're like Regina George? Or why can't an INFJ dude be an investment banker? Can't he think "oh my career affords me the ability to contribute materially to certain meaningful charities" or something like that?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

vesper007 said:


> I've heard MTBI referred to as "astrology for nerds". I don't think it's flawed, but I think people are flawed in their interpretations of how MTBI can be used to predict relations and dynamics between people.
> 
> I've found MTBI to be extremely useful to understand someone's communication style, work style, and motivations, especially if they have "functions" that differ from the ones we naturally use. It helps us understand someone to a certain degree.
> 
> I think it's flawed in that it doesn't take into account the degrees to which someone presents themselves in certain situations.


You mention "relations" and "situations." Isn't what one *is* greatly different than how one *relates*?

To take an extreme example, 4 = 2 x 2. We believe we know what "4" is. However what one does with 4 matters a great deal. The 4 multiplied by itself is a far different relationship than 4 added to itself or the square root of same or 4 to the 4th power.

A less extreme example, as an INTP, I am far more comfortable thinking about something to myself than in giving a spontaneous speech or hosting a surprise party.

Conversely if one starts with the relationship, one can't tell what the person is. The host of a surprise party may: (a) be having loads of fun, (b) terrified things will go wrong, (c) bored to death or (d) caught up in analysis paralysis.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

There are some flaws, but to be flawed I don't think it is


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Nothing is perfect, but is it flawed in what it claims to be? Remember kids, if you try to criticize certain dogmas, you will simply be told that you don't understand them.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

We could divide the approach to personality theory two ways: One is from the top down; the other from the bottom up. I wonder if most approaches are the former, from the top down. The way that would work is we'd look at lots of personalities, experience them as perhaps Jung did. Then we'd try to classify them. I call this method a possibility for a skilled and sophisticated person ... one with great intuition. That would be difficult or impossible for me. It troubles me when an INTP is described by one person and then another description is provided by another. Having two different INTPs without saying how they are different doesn't seem like the best theory to me.

My approach would be from the bottom up ... at least to start. Take those cognitive functions starting with T F S N, maybe divide them into conscious and unconscious, and try to define them. The hope I'd have is that for some theorists it would be easier to try to firm up what each cognitive function is and then slap them together and see what we get personality-wise. The advantage of this is we'd start with something well-defined; the disadvantage is when we try to construct something out of them we wouldn't get anything. Imagine using this technique to describe an INFJ. I've heard it said each is very different. That doesn't wash for me. I would want all INFJs to have a commonness that would identify them from the other fifteen and if that didn't work, to know why.

I invite you to think about this. How would you go about defining each cognitive function and their unconscious counterparts?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> We could divide the approach to personality theory two ways: One is from the top down; the other from the bottom up. I wonder if most approaches are the former, from the top down. The way that would work is we'd look at lots of personalities, experience them as perhaps Jung did. Then we'd try to classify them. I call this method a possibility for a skilled and sophisticated person ... one with great intuition. That would be difficult or impossible for me. It troubles me when an INTP is described by one person and then another description is provided by another. Having two different INTPs without saying how they are different doesn't seem like the best theory to me.
> 
> My approach would be from the bottom up ... at least to start. Take those cognitive functions starting with T F S N, maybe divide them into conscious and unconscious, and try to define them. The hope I'd have is that for some theorists it would be easier to try to firm up what each cognitive function is and then slap them together and see what we get personality-wise. The advantage of this is we'd start with something well-defined; the disadvantage is when we try to construct something out of them we wouldn't get anything. Imagine using this technique to describe an INFJ. I've heard it said each is very different. That doesn't wash for me. I would want all INFJs to have a commonness that would identify them from the other fifteen and if that didn't work, to know why.
> 
> I invite you to think about this. How would you go about defining each cognitive function and their unconscious counterparts?


It definitely makes sense to me that the definitions should come first - that, in order to have a theory to begin with, we have to know what it is that's necessarily true of people who have a preference, and necessarily untrue of people without that preference. The problem, I guess, is that the very structure of the theory involves positing a unifying concept behind a given set of behaviours - that all of the behaviours stem from "thinking", say, or "introverted sensing" - but it's distinctly _not_ the claim that any given behaviour _must_ be present in a person with a particular type/preference/function. How, then, can we construct a meaningful definition of that unifying concept that is capable of being properly evaluated, if behaviour cannot be considered anything more than a potentially useful guide? Hard to say...

Of course, any theory we have must apply to the reality it seeks to describe, else it has no value as a personality theory, so what you've termed the "top-down" approach would make some sense - but, then again, the use of that is in spotting a trend and positing a unifying cause, which seems to me, broadly, to be what Jung did. If we already have those concepts - feeling, extraversion, &c. - then I can't see that such an approach gives us anything sufficiently definite about them. 

I guess I've not really said much different to what you have here - i.e., that bottom-up seems preferable, that we need to find what you call the "commonness" within type that separates it from the other fifteen, but that it's not clear how to go about defining the relevant terms - but I would say the issue lies in trying to construct something that can properly be evaluated without using behaviour as the standard of definition (since that's clearly not what's intended, given behaviour is said to be a related by-product of having particular functions/preferences).


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> It definitely makes sense to me that the definitions should come first - that, in order to have a theory to begin with, we have to know what it is that's necessarily true of people who have a preference, and necessarily untrue of people without that preference. The problem, I guess, is that the very structure of the theory involves positing a unifying concept behind a given set of behaviours - that all of the behaviours stem from "thinking", say, or "introverted sensing" - but it's distinctly _not_ the claim that any given behaviour _must_ be present in a person with a particular type/preference/function. How, then, can we construct a meaningful definition of that unifying concept that is capable of being properly evaluated, if behaviour cannot be considered anything more than a potentially useful guide? Hard to say...
> 
> Of course, any theory we have must apply to the reality it seeks to describe, else it has no value as a personality theory, so what you've termed the "top-down" approach would make some sense - but, then again, the use of that is in spotting a trend and positing a unifying cause, which seems to me, broadly, to be what Jung did. If we already have those concepts - feeling, extraversion, &c. - then I can't see that such an approach gives us anything sufficiently definite about them.
> 
> I guess I've not really said much different to what you have here - i.e., that bottom-up seems preferable, that we need to find what you call the "commonness" within type that separates it from the other fifteen, but that it's not clear how to go about defining the relevant terms - but I would say the issue lies in trying to construct something that can properly be evaluated without using behaviour as the standard of definition (since that's clearly not what's intended, given behaviour is said to be a related by-product of having particular functions/preferences).


Appreciate your input. I'll see if I can't react to what you said and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong. I do have some definitions of the eight cognitive functions I tentatively wrote this morning so I need to go back and look at them.

One thing about behavior. Since behavior is hard to describe and not necessarily a result of probabilistic cognitive functions*, I'd be satisfied if, say we had an INTP, but his/her particular behavior came out as atypical INTP. I don't care about that. All I want is to identify INTP cognitive functions and see what can happen to a personality after that. If an INTP sometimes doesn't use Ti and we are fooled I don't care. I'm after typical INTP behavior. If the correlation between cognitive function favoritism and behavior is low, that's okay. All that's needed is the correlation be higher for the behaviors than the other fifteen.

You use the word "unifying." Not sure what this unifying idea is. What is unifying? Do you mean behavior in common? As I said earlier, INFJs each are quite different in some people's judgment. I don't want that. I do want to see how all INFJs are alike. Would a defined Ni and Fe in them do it? For an INFJ we have to be careful because they use Ti. This should be identified as different from an INTPs Ti and I think that can be done. Overall behavior is hard to identify. For example we'd have to discover an INFJs Ti is devoted to their Ni while an INTPs Ti rules supreme over every other function unless their own Fe or Si goes bad temporarily.

As you say, any good theory must apply to reality, but that theory must also describe the conditions where the theory works well and where it lets us down.

I'll get back later with some tentative cognitive function definitions (unless someone poses their own) and then we can either try to refine them or give up and say it's too hard to do.

*I'm thinking out loud and didn't say that very well. Put it this way: An INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe in standard MBTI theory. In reality an INTP in any single behavior situation can use or push ANY of the eight functions. For that reason one can't demand to see so called "typical" INTP behavior in any particular situation.


----------



## Jordgubb (Oct 5, 2013)

maust said:


> But it's a useful framework for me to better understand people.


I agree, MBTI helps me understand myself and others better.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Well duh, it's a test solely based on face validity and self-reports.
Of course it has flaws.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Appreciate your input. I'll see if I can't react to what you said and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong. I do have some definitions of the eight cognitive functions I tentatively wrote this morning so I need to go back and look at them.
> 
> One thing about behavior. Since behavior is hard to describe and not necessarily a result of probabilistic cognitive functions*, I'd be satisfied if, say we had an INTP, but his/her particular behavior came out as atypical INTP. I don't care about that. All I want is to identify INTP cognitive functions and see what can happen to a personality after that. If an INTP sometimes doesn't use Ti and we are fooled I don't care. I'm after typical INTP behavior. If the correlation between cognitive function favoritism and behavior is low, that's okay. All that's needed is the correlation be higher for the behaviors than the other fifteen.
> 
> ...


What I meant by "unifying" was that any theory that begins with the actual experience of people (such as what Jung did) must involve examining an array of displayed behaviours, and supposing some common link between particular behaviours, tying them together - "unifying" the discrete parts by subsuming them within the one concept (be that thinking, or sensation, or whatever). So not "behaviour in common", but the common cause for the different behaviours - which, given the observational starting-point of the theory, is essentially what the idea of type stems from to begin with.

We need, I think, clarity as to what it even means to _have_ a function, or to _use_ a function - at present, all of these things seem to me quite vague. For instance, you say that "an INTP in any single behaviour situation can use or push ANY of the eight functions" - what exactly does that mean? What does the theory mean when it posits that a function is higher in the stack than another? What does it mean when it posits that a given function is not in the stack at all? What seems clear is that "function" and "behaviour" are conceptually distinct - to logically analyse is a common "by-product", if you will, of Ti, not Ti itself - which is why I mentioned that one of the key difficulties here will be defining the functions in a way that allows us to make meaningful evaluations without resorting to defining them in terms of their behavioural by-products. 

Furthermore, are there eight functions, or four? The very nature of the MBTI stack would suggest to me that there are just four - N, S, T and F - each of which are capable of being either introverted or extraverted (note, for instance, that the MBTI does not assign an attitude to the tertiary - the idea that INFJs have Ti, for instance, is something I've never seen in any official MBTI documents, where their stack is Ni-Fe-T-Se). Again, it falls to us to try and understand what exactly this is supposed to _mean_ - what is it to introvert a function? 

Putting aside what I mention above about INFJs not having Ti, your claim is that INTP Ti and INFJ Ti should be treated as distinct. I'm not convinced that's the right approach - the whole point of the function-stack is to say that the fundamental "building blocks" of personality are the same, and the use of "Ti" is, surely, intended to signify that the same thing is present. That's not to say this would result in the same behaviours occurring in both types, because the function and the behaviour are not equivalent - but, as seems to me to be the point of your inquiry, what we would expect is something true of all Ti types and not true of any non-Ti type.

I'm not sure if I'm being especially clear here - it doesn't feel as though I am, though it's difficult to assess - but the issue is with providing definitions that are more than just the associated behaviours, yet are still definitions pertinent to reality in some way, capable of being meaningfully evaluated. I'd be interested to see what tentative definitions you've produced - even if there's some issue with them (too removed from testable reality, or too tied up in behaviour, &c.), anything purporting to be a definition would presumably be useful at this juncture.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> What I meant by "unifying" was that any theory that begins with the actual experience of people (such as what Jung did) must involve examining an array of displayed behaviours, and supposing some common link between particular behaviours, tying them together - "unifying" the discrete parts by subsuming them within the one concept (be that thinking, or sensation, or whatever). So not "behaviour in common", but the common cause for the different behaviours - which, given the observational starting-point of the theory, is essentially what the idea of type stems from to begin with.
> 
> We need, I think, clarity as to what it even means to _have_ a function, or to _use_ a function - at present, all of these things seem to me quite vague. For instance, you say that "an INTP in any single behaviour situation can use or push ANY of the eight functions" - what exactly does that mean? What does the theory mean when it posits that a function is higher in the stack than another? What does it mean when it posits that a given function is not in the stack at all? What seems clear is that "function" and "behaviour" are conceptually distinct - to logically analyse is a common "by-product", if you will, of Ti, not Ti itself - which is why I mentioned that one of the key difficulties here will be defining the functions in a way that allows us to make meaningful evaluations without resorting to defining them in terms of their behavioural by-products.
> 
> ...


These are all good questions. I'd like to keep your post in mind as Questions to be addressed. 

I will start from a bottom up description and then whatever happens to that, we can return to the top down observations and perhaps cycle back and forth.
===================

Two things about the MBTI.

1. It is no better than what it is based on. That could be a few things. One is cognitive functions S N T F. These functions need definition. It is said feeling and thinking are judgmental functions while sensation and intuition are perceptive. What does that mean?

My answer is both sensation and intuition are immediate, right here and now, fixed ... like a photograph. They have no direction. Sensation is about how we perceive a particular event, like one of the five or six senses or a memory. Intuition is about perceiving a whole often taking the form of a pattern. Although there could be something wrong about these perceptions, the conscious mind sees them without judgment.

How are sensation and intuition different? Sensation is about something particular; intuition is about something general.

Thinking and feeling are not like a photograph. Instead they are like a movie. They always have a direction. Thinking is about order and is directed toward getting that order right. There is more than one step, making it like a movie. Feeling is about value or what is important. It also moves and is directed from the lesser important to the greater, also like a movie. Both are judgmental as choice is made. The choice is the direction of the movement. Thinking chooses one order over another. Feeling chooses one value over another. They are judgments. 

How are thinking and feeling different? Thinking is about arrangement; feeling is about favoring one thing over another. Some details are required here. What order are we talking about? An example of order is left to right; cause effect; another is categorization. A stew is in the pot. The pot encloses the stew. What favoring are we talking about? I love to read means I favor reading as opposing to something less than reading.


2. These four functions are experienced in the brain. What makes them "cognitive" or conscious as opposed to unconscious? They are conscious if they are adequately focused so each can be placed in an immediate environment. Think of holding a ball in the hand. If you are aware of the ball as well as a lesser awareness of the hand, one is conscious of the ball. Both are required. Pure awareness of the ball wouldn't do it as a ball alone has no meaning without context. Awareness has a center which we call "consciousness" which fades into a periphery. 

Examples as useful.
My reason for looking at examples is, provided they are simple examples, there is nothing so crisp and clear as an example as opposed to fussy generalized uncertain theory. Examples prove nothing but we could use induction to gather more examples for a theory. We have to start somewhere. It's okay to start with examples provided they are directed toward the theory.

I choose as tentative examples:

1. Vanilla and chocolate ice cream. These are sensual, but polarized. No compromise in flavor is available. 
2. Two political parties, one leaning to favor the rich; the other the poor. These are social and political. Though polarized, compromise is possible.

I don't know if these are usable. I just picked them with intuition.

Next I'd like to explain "stack" and whether there are eight or four functions ... unless the above needs refining.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I just want to shed a little light on the problem. You may have heard the Eskimos have dozens of names for "snow", a rumor some believe is false. Or that the English language is pretty good at describing things but Latin or Greek is better. Anyway, true or not, the MBTI is like that. The MBTI may be good at identifying many distinct personality types but do poorly under some circumstances. 

When we consider what personality types are, they may not be as rigid or consistent or reliable as a concept as a stone is. Come to think of it even what a stone is is called into question when we encounter a pebble or a boulder or ... yipes, a grain of sand.

What I'm trying to say is the MBTI is a fuzzy template that is laid on top of a fuzzy concept. We can't expect precision and that imprecision is built-in. We can still try improve the template and we can still try to define what it is we are laying the template on. As with all fuzzy things, there are examples or experiences which exist on the fuzzy boundaries which don't fit ... as with a "stone."


----------



## lNTJ (Sep 13, 2015)

I believe there are grey areas. It's not binary...you aren't either an extrovert or introvert. You can be both. Strength of these preferences needs to be assessed in a new theory.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

All of the personality theories we discuss on PerC are flawed, but even if there are major issues, they're still worth studying if they offer some insight, I.E. if, despite their flaws, they're tapping into some truth about human nature. The MBTI certainly fits that description. The four pairs of preferences do seem to capture something fundamental about the differences between people, but I think T/F and J/P in particular need work. I'm not a big fan of the functions, although the Fi/Fe divide seems like it's on to something, and I think Lenore Thomson has some interesting insights. I don't see any reason to prefer the Harold Grant stack (I/E/I/E for introverts and E/I/E/I for extraverts) over the idea that, say, the dom and aux are the same attitude. It seems pretty clear to me that they don't correlate with the preferences as they're supposed to (I + N + T + J = Ni > Te > Fi > Se; I + N + T + P = Ti > Ne > Si > Fe), and there are so many different interpretations of the functions and no easy way to objectively verify which, if any, is objectively correct, assuming objective correctness makes sense in this context. So I take what's useful/insightful and leave the rest, and hope that in the meantime the theorists will improve the system.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> All of the personality theories we discuss on PerC are flawed, but even if there are major issues, they're still worth studying if they offer some insight, I.E. if, despite their flaws, they're tapping into some truth about human nature. The MBTI certainly fits that description. The four pairs of preferences do seem to capture something fundamental about the differences between people, but I think T/F and J/P in particular need work. I'm not a big fan of the functions, although the Fi/Fe divide seems like it's on to something, and I think Lenore Thomson has some interesting insights. I don't see any reason to prefer the Harold Grant stack (I/E/I/E for introverts and E/I/E/I for extraverts) over the idea that, say, the dom and aux are the same attitude. *It seems pretty clear to me that they don't correlate with the preferences as they're supposed to (I + N + T + J = Ni > Te > Fi > Se; I + N + T + P = Ti > Ne > Si > Fe), and there are so many different interpretations of the functions and no easy way to objectively verify* which, if any, is objectively correct, assuming objective correctness makes sense in this context. So I take what's useful/insightful and leave the rest, and hope that in the meantime the theorists will improve the system.


To me the question is not is the MBTI flawed, but* how* is it flawed. The I/E divide is supposed to stand for introvert/ extrovert. I don't find those terms easy to define and prefer inside world and outside world. That seems to have a much sharper division. Inside means goings on with components inside one mind; Outside refers to goings on with components in the outside world. One can't do both at exactly the same time but one needs both.

In my case I (I claim INTPness) deal with thinking inside my mind (Ti). What is the immediate dependency for that? Unconscious Ni is my guess. that makes me different from an Ni person who connects things to an Ni conscious pattern. Inside I am interested in thinking logic and order and reject consciousness of any given inside (Ni) pattern. Instead I deliberately scan patterns in the outside world. That, for me, makes Ni different from Ne. I refuse Ni because I want multiple outside patterns for thinking input. To do that on the inside interferes with logic. Order and logic is what I'm after not contradictory patterns.

I can see what I just said falls short and raises questions. For example, does Ni entertain multiple patterns or just one? It seems absolutely necessary to separate conscious goings on from unconscious ones. It's the best I can do for now.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

lNTJ said:


> I believe there are grey areas. It's not binary...you aren't either an extrovert or introvert. You can be both. Strength of these preferences needs to be assessed in a new theory.


This could be a matter of language. One does have both introverted functions and extroverted functions. My understanding is I/E overall personality refers to the state of one's lead function. One could ask, does the lead function change or do other functions just take over temporarily?


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

I think there are some major flaws to it. I realize it is only a theory of cognitive processes, but it is pretty weak. I am beginning to prefer socionics because it has greater depth (even with the stupid body and face descriptions). I prefer the idea that there is no structure at all. They project depending on where they fall in the stack, and there is no structure. 

For example my order (I think function tests are not meaningless and go beyond rating development): Ne-Ti-Te-Ni - Fi - Fe - Se – Si

-Leading (most reliable and effective, but can be dominating)…Ne= remarkable ability to generate interpretations of ideas, follow possibilities, and spread an atmosphere of change. http://bit.ly/1RcG6it 
-Auxiliary (supports the 1st function, but can be over protective)… Ti=helpful by quickly analyzing how to improve even complex systems. http://bit.ly/1Cct7pS 
-Relief (playful and energizing, but can get us off course)… Te=enjoy practical diagrams and data overviews, and grow up to appreciate tome management and emotional control. http://bit.ly/1HEnSQq
-Aspirational (may make us look immature, but provides a bridge to the subconscious mind)… Ni= may be drawn to fulfill a dream of the future but focus on only the here and now, sudden insights come out of nowhere. http://bit.ly/1IC60GK
-Opposing (shows up as stubbornness, but can provide depth)…Fi= insist on certain values and ignore other people’s reaction. http://bit.ly/1eulctn 
-Critical Parent (critical inner voice, discouraging, but can inspire us with wisdom)…Fe= criticize group values and rebel against them. http://bit.ly/1KG7G1W 
-Deceiving (rebellious, producing double binds, but may provide comic relief)…Se= misread reality and take impulsive action under stress. http://bit.ly/1JGkfMi 
-Devilish (most disruptive, but can lead to most growth)…Si= extremes of ignoring the past or getting stuck in it. http://bit.ly/1KG6pbe


----------

