# MBTI Form F: Data and Discussion



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

So I've recently come across a couple of published studies analyzing Form F of the MBTI, an older form of the official MBTI. These studies, as part of their analysis, include tables of the question content of Form F, along with the factor loadings associated with those questions.

For anyone who wants to investigate this stuff further, you can find copies of these articles on this page.

I am considering putting together a simple web app (such as on Google's AppEngine) using the Form F content and giving people the option to score it "traditionally" as well as based on factor weightings. It would take me some time to learn the ins and outs of the system, though, and I'm not sure how dedicated I'd be to it.

In any case, I thought I'd share it with the PerC community. Surely there are one or two people on here who might find it fascinating to know exactly how MBTI questions shake out in terms of their overlap between dimensions. The research definitely confirms that the questions intended to target the P/J dimension are mostly terrible. It seems to be difficult for the MBTI to phrase test items that target just the P/J dimension exclusively. Anywho, I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm going to present the "cleanest" and "dirtiest" test items on Form F, as determined by a 4 factor analysis. 

For each section, the items at the top of the list indicate the strongest correlation with the underlying dimension, and as you precede down the list in a section, the correlation gets weaker.

For the "dirty" items, I included any items which had a coefficient > .15 on any non-targeted dimension. The ordering pattern is still the same, however, even in the "dirty" lists. That is, items at the top of the list have stronger correlations with the underlying dimension than items at the bottom, independent of the "dirtiness" of each item.

I hope that's clear. If not, please ask me for clarification.

*CLEANEST I/E*
DI50 usually quite and reserved 
DI126 have lot to say to only some 
DI25 meeting strangers takes effort 
DI148 get introduced > intro others 
DI6 in grp rather talk to known-well people 
DI134 help others have fun at party 
DI19 sometimes bored at parties 
DI138 tell my interests only after time 
DI92 quiet > hearty 
DI95 write > speak 
DI58 have deep friends w/very few ppl 
DI41 one of last to hear goings on 
DI47 Embarrassed think about it days later 
DI129 not interested in follow fashion 

*CLEANEST N/S*
DN128 pref teach theory > fact 
DN107 create > make 
DN145 ingenious > practical 
DN88 concept > statement 
DN76 theory > certainty 
DN78 invent > build 
DN90 design > production 
DN17 enjoy odd/origial ways of writing 
DN70 higher praise=vision>common sense 
DN37 admire original>conventional ppl 
DN140 see possibilties > adjust to facts 
DN115 theory > experience 

*CLEANEST F/T*
DF86 touching > convincing 
DF103 compassion > foresight 
DF111 gentle > firm 
DF79 sympathize > analyze 
DF26 value sentiment > logic 
DF72 warm-hearted > firmminded 
DF89 soft > hard 
DF154 heart rule head > head rule heart 
DF100 devoted > determined 
DF4 more careful about feelings > rights 
DF81 blessings > benefits 
DF120 peacemaker > judge 
DF84 uncritical > critical 
DF158 worse to be unsympathetic > unreasonable 
DF91 forgive > tolerate 
DF133 worse to not have enough warmth 
DF147 work under kind > fair 
DF108 trustful > wary 

*CLEANEST P/J*
DP132 find details as go along a job 
DP55 prefer just going to planning trip 
DP1 following schedule cramps me 
DP27 prefer free to do what looks fun 
DP60 making weekend list not appealing 
DP13 prefer doing things at last minute 
DP151 in planned sits unpleas tb tied down 

*DIRTIEST I/E*
DI77 theater > party ---> Confounded with N, and with J

*DIRTIEST N/S*
DN102 ideas > facts ---> Confounded with F
DN73 imaginative > matter-of-fact ---> Confounded with F
DN11 invent ways of your own for doing things ---> Confounded with T
DN121 change > accept ---> Confounded with T
DN64 pref. analyzing unsolved problems ---> Confounded with T

*DIRTIEST F/T*
DF122 agree>discuss ---> Confounded with S

*DIRTIEST P/J*
DP74 spontaneous > systematic ---> Confounded most of all with F, then N, then E
DP118 casual > systematic ---> Confounded with F
DP42 at best dealing with unexpected ---> Confounded most with N, then T, then E
DP94 impulse > decision ---> Confounded with F, then N
DP97 leisurely > punctual ---> Confounded with F, then N
DP109 easy-going > orderly ---> Confounded with F
DP20 hard to adapt to routine ---> Confounded with N, then T
DP99 changing > permanent ---> Confounded with N


*What this tells us:*

There's a lot of interesting things to dig through, but I wanted to point out a few key take-aways.

1. The absolute mess that is the MBTI's P/J dimension
Seriously. Look at how dirty that is. It's super dirty. It's painfully obvious that the MBTI folks hadn't yet found out how to separate P/J from the other dimensions by the time they made Form F. I don't know if it's been sorted out even now, but at least we can say with confidence about Form F: What a unholy mess!

2. The murky influence of F/T
It seems like the MBTI folks weren't prepared for how the F/T preference would influence responses on questions on other dimensions. Form F seems to be great for dividing people into NFP vs. STJ, but if your preferences are, say, SFJ or STP, or NT_ or NFJ, well... your scores are in for a wild ride. Perhaps this is unsurprising given Myer's own INFP prefrences. Perhaps this also explains a tiny fraction of the reason that the MBTI appeals more strongly to INFPs than it does to INFJs. Maybe not. But in any case, it's undeniable that the F/T dimension is like a ghostly monster, haunting the whole instrument.

3. Form F supports the notions that eNFPs are the most "LOLZ RANDOM" unpredictable and eNTPs are the consummate crisis handlers.
No comment from me on this one.

Alright. That's enough from me. Anything from the peanut gallery?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Did one of these form F things appear at the end of one of Kiersey's books?

My recall on the matter is slightly dim.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

default settings said:


> Did one of these form F things appear at the end of one of Kiersey's books?
> 
> My recall on the matter is slightly dim.


Keirsey has his own "temperament sorter". The latest version can be found here.

A brief perusal suggests to me that this his sorter is not Form F, but still based roughly on the same types of questions found in the MBTI. For example, Keirsey seems to have treated P as meaning "NP" and J as meaning "SJ" with a similar level of confound as in the official MBTI.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Teybo_, thanks for the analysis. Lines up with my intuitions about the dichotomies quite well. J/P has always given me trouble on the tests, and when I investigated by picking up a copy of both the MBTI Manual 3e and the Step II manual, the data they give to offer up some validity to the dichotomies you mentioned is definitely murky, as you put it.

My understanding thus far is that only the I/E dichotomy is really quite firmly established and not questioned that much. However, there is some confusion where a bit of the I end of the I/E dichotomy crosses over into the N end of the N/S dichotomy. Following that would be N/S, which has some problems that cause it to roll over into I as I said, as well as the T end of the T/F dichotomy, as well as the P end of the J/P dichotomy, and T/F itself having some poor distinctions between T and F, as well as with both sides of the J/P dichotomy.

And as you already mentioned, the J/P dichotomy is mostly a mess. It is the one dichotomy that people tend to score with the most uncertainty in, either slight or no preference being the most common results by far. Very few people score above moderate in either direction, with a substantial number scoring more in favorite of J than P, suggesting a slight cultural bias for J influencing the test-takers.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Abraxas

I/E is definitely the "cleanest" dimension, however, I don't see what you're saying about I/E and N/S. Where are you seeing I/E crossover into N/S? The "theater>party" item is literally the only item in which there is any "significant" I/E & N/S confound, and it's actually pretty in line with the S(p) "live in the moment" attitude. N(j)'s will tend to prefer the theater over the party, and S(p)'s will tend to prefer the party over the theater. 

Speaking of the I/E dimension, the fact that it is the cleanest dimension tells us a lot about some of the myths that function-oriented people like to spread, such as the claim that IJ's are "secretly P-like" and "more like EP's than EJ's" and IP's are "secretly J-like" and "more like EJ's than EP's". There is really no interaction between I/E and P/J (the two items I posted above for I/E and P/J actually have coeffecients just under .15), so that can't possibly be the case.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Teybo said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> I/E is definitely the "cleanest" dimension, however, I don't see what you're saying about I/E and N/S. Where are you seeing I/E crossover into N/S? The "theater>party" item is literally the only item in which there is any "significant" I/E & N/S confound, and it's actually pretty in line with the S(p) "live in the moment" attitude. N(j)'s will tend to prefer the theater over the party, and S(p)'s will tend to prefer the party over the theater.
> 
> Speaking of the I/E dimension, the fact that it is the cleanest dimension tells us a lot about some of the myths that function-oriented people like to spread, such as the claim that IJ's are "secretly P-like" and "more like EP's than EJ's" and IP's are "secretly J-like" and "more like EJ's than EP's". There is really no interaction between I/E and P/J (the two items I posted above for I/E and P/J actually have coeffecients just under .15), so that can't possibly be the case.


You have the manual right? I forget the page number. It's in the chapter on validity and research.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I've got the Step II Manual Supplement, but that's it in terms of "official" MBTI documentation.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Teybo said:


> I've got the Step II Manual Supplement, but that's it in terms of "official" MBTI documentation.


Actually, I'm skimming the manual and I'm not finding the reference I was thinking of. My memory is shit, so I might've been thinking of an article I read or something. Oh well.

I can't back up what I said, so I'll go ahead and redact it for the benefit of the doubt. It was just something I vaguely recall, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Actually, I'm skimming the manual and I'm not finding the reference I was thinking of. My memory is shit, so I might've been thinking of an article I read or something. Oh well.
> 
> I can't back up what I said, so I'll go ahead and redact it for the benefit of the doubt. It was just something I vaguely recall, but I could be wrong.


Are you perhaps remembering that Jung, in Psychological Types, seemed to mix up introversion with intuition and extraversion with sensation?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Teybo said:


> Are you perhaps remembering that Jung, in Psychological Types, seemed to mix up introversion with intuition and extraversion with sensation?


I don't think that was it, this thing I read had numbers and shit in it, lol.

But that would make sense too, Jung did seem to mix everything up really (that's intuition for you). Who even knows what he really meant, right? The man was practically a wizard. Read his Liber Novus if you can get a pirated copy or something. No wonder his family didn't want it published for the longest time. It's like the mad ravings of a lunatic on acid.

I mean, I love the guy, but really. Lol.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Teybo said:


> Are you perhaps remembering that Jung, in Psychological Types, seemed to mix up introversion with intuition and extraversion with sensation?


I don't think those are necessarily incoherent.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@LiquidLight

I'm not following. What do you mean?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes P and J has always seemed like an add-on to me. Se or Ne in the forefront of your awareness doesn't exactly speak to your self management strategies (in the big picture) and what you want from life. The interpretations people have, or anecdotal examples of what is P and what J is, doesn't always line up with what is going on as a process.

I know an introverted J or two who are less decisive than me. The right decision is just so life and death to them. When you are Ne dom it just is, and you don't know what it's like to be inside an awareness that doesn't have it. Some things you just know more from how you contrast to other people than from answering a question on a test. How can a test measure why, it really measures what, correct?

In a group of girly girls, I will be the one who has a list - where to go and what to see; I don't want to miss out because of gossip distractions, - for example.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Personally, I prefer the Big 5 take on it.

There's just one thing - extraversion. Low extraversion _just is_ introversion. In a sense, everyone is an extravert, but some are more extraverted than others. No need for terms like "introvert" and "ambivert" - there's just degrees of extraversion and that's it.

I don't like the Jungian idea of introversion at all honestly. Sure, I test introverted, but philosophically I don't like it. He's involving the mind-body problem in his typology and trying to justify it with speculations about the survival mechanism of life-forms in evolutionary systems (which is obviously just a nod he's giving to the immensely influential in his time Mr. Darwin), and he even admits this when he talks about the problem of trying to analyze introversion versus extraversion in a purely conceptual sense, saying that you can't even really do them justice in reality because the introvert will always perceive as extraverted things that are not really extraverted, and vica versa, and that you can't ever really directly observe introversion because it isn't something outwardly visible in a person. In my opinion, he should've steered clear of that subjective nonsense as much as possible.

The truth, and frankly I don't expect everyone to understand that I'm correct because I doubt everyone here has read Liber Novus, is that Jung was just making a lot of stuff up off the top of his head. He actually has an argument with himself in the first chapter of his Red Book where he justifies doing this using a lot of circular reasoning based on his spiritual beliefs. Keep in mind, he wrote the Red Book well into his adult life, after he was already well-established in his career, not as some kid with a head full of questions. When he said in Psychological Types that he based his theory on observations he made of people in his clinical studies and work, that was true, but really he just twisted the facts to suit his wild speculations, which have their foundation in his inner explorations of concepts such as the "Spirit of the Time" and "Spirit of the Deep" that he talks about extensively in Liber Novus. Just look on the back of it, where he is quoted from it as saying "this was the numinous beginning of all my work." I mean hell, he even admits that "I can give no reason for just these four functions, except that they appeared obvious and non-reducible in my observations."

We've got computers and stuff now. Psychology isn't magic and metaphors anymore.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Old Intern

I'm inclined not to view P/J as an "add-on", since the Five Factor Model shows that personality can be described by an independent factor that roughly mirrors P/J (the "Conscientiousness" factor). My take on this data is that Myers designed her questions to be better NP vs. SJ sorters than P vs. J, and in fact, really, it looks like her P vs. J questions are really more NFP vs STJ.

Again, I don't find this surprising, given that she was an INFP married to an ISTJ. Those differences would have been extremely noticeable to her. But they are not necessarily at the heart of the P/J dimension at its core.

The MBTI Step II has facets or "sub scales" of each dichotomy. Of the 5 P/J scale facets, all of them but one have a fair amount of confounding with N/S (and sometimes confounding with F/T). The facet that seems to be the "cleanest" P/J facet is Emergent vs. Methodical, and I strongly believe that's really what's at the heart of P vs. J.

Look at the "Cleanest" P/J items from Form F. They all really tie back into the idea of Emergent vs. Methodical. J types have a gut level tug toward treating structure as important, as something to pay attention to, while P types are less inclined to see it as having much value.

Your I_J friend who is indecisive seems to be indecisive because he or she is placing a great deal of importance on their decision. I would imagine that when you are indecisive, as a P type, it's probably less because you've got some heavy anxiety about the importance of your decision, and more because you are more inclined to feel like a decision doesn't necessarily need to be made just yet or because making a decision is challenging when you see your options as all relatively equal (until enacted). What do you think?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

The amount of resonance for, and the longevity of interest, and using and re-writing about functions says something though. Sooo, I like functions. I've also thought there should be a systematized way of using functions while viewing i/e as more of a sliding scale.

I get introverted functions, I know my kind of thinking is different and less directly results oriented than some. I know when I see Te in other people, or when someone uses Ti, there is a sense that this person speaks my language, agreeing or not.

*@Teybo* have you noticed that some people or writings, books, test, etc. will substitute the word compliant for Conscientiousness? I have no need to be blameless, not the same as a problem with making up my mind.

This gets back to the problem of what I said about what VS why
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/psychogenic.htm
*Psychogenic needs*, one person needs achievement, and this can require quality standards, but someone else needs to be blameless. <This form of Conscientiousness can sometimes piss me off.

I get the emergent or methodical, though sometimes a methodical tactic is just less bother in a specific situation. So it is a tactic more than a function sometimes? And sometimes what looks like J, and may well be, is actually about looking for a guarantee. ?

I value methodical when I'm hoping for someone else to delegate my method to, when I have to dooo the methodical - torture.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

If I'm not deciding, taking action, it's because something isn't good enough yet. And the improvement isn't about being blameless, or safe, or fitting in. The improvement is something I'm going to have to get my hands dirty about and try a few things, test a few things, the right thing doesn't exist yet or I can't define it. Somebody in authority who has a definition of the right way to do this is just not good enough because I have this NE itch that believes it can be better?

and Ti wants everything to work together after the bigger questions or the itch has been scratched.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

on j/p:

you'd first have to determine whether or not there are different forms of "j-behavior". if one dominates with a Je-function, and the other a Pi-function, and this leads to a broad category of "j-tendencies", could there not be a further distinction between the two, as each would likely have different motivations overall? 

is the behavior due to the combination of Je+Pi/Pi+Je? if so, ok, but how do we know that all people follow that schematic in the first place? or does the behavior occur because of a Pi-function that is close to consciousness, which allows or inclines one to seek a state of subjective "orderliness" in the outer world that mimics what is "right" to their own view? 

it just seems like the j/p spectrum is trying to cross too many boundaries before fully exploring the nature of the similarity that even allows them to be grouped together in the first place. it's like they look to behavior--which could come about from anything--and then try to find statistical backing in order to move forward... it's a design that won't really let you know if you're right or wrong, because it never harkens back to test the initial foundation the entire study is resting on (or least, from what i can see). 

what is it that causes this behavior? if it can be loosely grouped together between types of differing lead functions (perception vs judging & e/i) based on a preference for "closure", what is it that allows each of these varying groups to reach something that is similar? i think the process itself is more important than the end result, because the exterior can be (potentially) misleading. 

just my 2 cents.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

closure is a good word. ..... but..... My ESFP dad likes to take action on things, he likes closure without planning. (Se dom)

I think. . . . .just give up on defining or looking for J. In a function test, or the thing you see in someone that you agree is Ne or Se leading the way, these people are adapters. They prefer that security be found in transcendent forms of competance and not in having a perfect situation. ? Well that might not quite work, cause you could say that about ENTJ?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> I get the emergent or methodical, though sometimes a methodical tactic is just less bother in a specific situation. So it is a tactic more than a function sometimes? And sometimes what looks like J, and may well be, is actually about looking for a guarantee. ?
> 
> I value methodical when I'm hoping for someone else to delegate my method to, when I have to dooo the methodical - torture.


You're valuation of "methodic strategies" isn't really intrinsic, it's more of a means to an end. You don't place value in being methodical *per se*. What really gets you going is the actual emergence of structure, the process of seeing that structure emerge, rather than the methodical adherence to a structure. Just like an introvert can sometimes seem extraverted when it's convenient, a P can sometimes seem like a J when it's convenient (and vice versa), but we're talking about gut level temperamental tendencies, and on that frequency I'd say that the Emergent vs. Methodical paradigm describes what we're talking about very well.

@Donovan

I get a bit annoyed when people say "well, we just need to explore this further and collect more data" whenever data is presented that casts doubt on mainstream type dynamics and function models. We have literally decades of data showing that the P/J (or "Conscientiousness") is independent from the introversion/extraversion personality dimension. The data I presented above is consistent with this, and this lack of interaction between I/E and P/J contradicts the theory that there are different categories of "J behavior" based on whether you are an extravert ("Je dom") or introvert ("Pi dom").

I've never bought the argument that what we are measuring is some "surface level" phenomenon that is only about "observed behavior" but not about something happening "behind the scenes" that reflects a deeper "cognitive process". No one has ever offered up sound reasoning as to why that would be the case, and usually this argument is made by people clinging to a model with no evidence to support it, which, frankly, is pretty unflattering to the argument.


----------

