Happily, the conceptual choices aren’t limited to Freud and Jung!

Yes, I was thinking that as soon as I posted that comment. And thank you for sharing your experienced knowledge.

Linda, could you expand on your comments about distinguishing types from traits?

I’ll try. Like I told salient, I’m not an expert by any sense of the word. That said, the term type refers to our inborn preferences in the way we prefer to use our cognitive functions. Trait refers to the behavior patterns that can be observed. You can study type by observing and analyzing behavior traits.

For instance, if a person is left-handed and prefers to use their left hand, you cannot know this before observing their behavior. If the person is skilled at also using their right hand and shows the public their right-handed skills only, then there’s no way for the observer to know their left-handed preference.

You can study traits by observing the behaviors that are caused by those traits. You can draw conclusions based on your observations.

Type requires self-reflection, self-analysis, and self-validation in conjunction with the observable behavior patterns (traits).

Traits can be measured, diagnosed, and possibly modified; but types are inborn and can only be sorted. Awareness is the main objective in studying type.

Those are just my thoughts based on what I’ve been reading and learning.

I think that Salient is on to something with his point about cognitive styles being more indicative than personality types.

I’m not sure what is meant by “style”? Salient, are cognitive styles different than cognitive preferences?

Can either of you suggest any sites for learning more about your comments on these issues?

There are many links I could post, but since I can only post one, here is one that sums up Jung’s type theory pretty well.

I’m having a great time following your discussions here. Can either of you suggest any sites for learning more about your comments on these issues? Reliable sites that amateur observers such as myself might be able to understand without too much effort?

Linda, could you expand on your comments about distinguishing types from traits?

Even in my ignorance, though, I think that Salient is on to something with his point about cognitive styles being more indicative than personality types.

Oh yes, and I meant to thank Adrian for responding to my question several days ago.

Happily, the conceptual choices aren’t limited to Freud and Jung! Freud’s description of defence mechanisms is useful, though. Most therapists are quite eclectic, and research indicates that experience rather than school-of-thought correlates with therapeutic outcome.

Yeah, SJs are probably more legalistic — interestingly I’ve had patients who range from homemakers through artists to PhDs, but no lawyers.

Justin: “If not the scientific method, then what’s the best way of discovering the “nitty gritty” of human psychology? How does that method separate truth from error?”

I meant the nitty gritty of human psychology as manifested in ‘psychiatric’ practice. I suppose that depends on what you mean by ‘scientific method’ and ‘truth’ — I merely meant that formal experimentation is not particularly applicable, in that experimental psychology provides information about generalized specifics. (You probably know what I mean — broad points in fine detail.) I’m not saying that experimental psychology is not fascinating in its own right, I’m merely speaking of its therapeutic utility.

As to ‘truth’, the point is process and understanding of the issues affecting each individual in their turn — therapeutic success suggests that the process has worked for whatever individual. Observation of process/outcome does approximate to generation and testing of hypotheses about mechanisms. It’s a huge topic — excuse me for not condensing it better.

Basically, Ns fare better than Ss in talk-therapies. I have observed (anecdotal, of course) that NTs are less likely to be religious and SFs more likely.

Makes sense. I agree. SJs also tend to be more legalistic, don’t you think?

I don’t find Jung useful in my practice.

Interesting. If I were a therapist, I definitely would lean that way more so than the Freudian concepts. I think becoming aware of our inborn preferences and learning who we really are underneath all the baggage could prove to be very effective in dealing with society’s pressure to be “normal” – the phantom standard that everyone chases, ending up feeling like there’s something wrong with us.

But then again, I have no psychological background, so I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m just thinking out loud.

Linda, please forgive me when I say this sounds like a rather naive view of corporate decision making

I’ll think about it! Actually, you are right. I usually don’t take the word of anyone at it’s face value. If I’m intrigued by anything, I try to find out for myself if it works. That’s why I attended the workshop to find out from the horse’s (MBTI people themselves) mouth what it’s all about. Nothing is without flaws, especially in psychology, but so far, I am of the opinion that it is a very good tool to be used for self-awareness and awareness of others.

As for hiring decisions, corporations would rather find an easy work-around for effective hiring practices than take the time, money and effort to provide the sort of training the hiring supervisors need to do their jobs right.

That would be an unethical use of the instrument. Not only that, anyone who has a basic knowledge of how the test works would be able to make the results come out any way they want. If I knew that they were using it for hiring, I would know exactly how to answer the questions on the test, depending on the job description. Not a good idea on the part of the employer.

I think that there is more linkage between our cognitive style (than our personality type) with faith/lack of faith. There also seems to be a linkage between cognitive style and capacity to heal psychologically (a vast topic, not relevant here). Basically, Ns fare better than Ss in talk-therapies. I have observed (anecdotal, of course) that NTs are less likely to be religious and SFs more likely. (I don’t find Jung useful in my practice.)

I don’t equate spirituality with religiosity, even though the two can coincide. “Spirituality” covers such a range of behaviors and attitudes that it says rather little. Even “religiosity” covers a multitude of sins. I don’t think that your question can be answered easily, because of the problems with defining the two groups.

MBTI is widely used in the corporate world for organizational development and marketing. Why would companies spend so much money training their employees in the instrument if it is not proven to be somewhat reliable?

Linda, please forgive me when I say this sounds like a rather naive view of corporate decision making Have you seen the tv ads for Enzyte, the “Male Enhancement!” product? Enzyte is currently being prosecuted for fraud, yet they continue to run ads that essentially claim: “Could we make these sorts of offers if our product didn’t work?”

Yes, they can and they do.

Corporations make and use all sorts of products and services that do *not* do anything they are claimed to do. As for hiring decisions, corporations would rather find an easy work-around for effective hiring practices than take the time, money and effort to provide the sort of training the hiring supervisors need to do their jobs right. Whether the work-around is effective at its task is largely immaterial.

My experience with these sorts of things is that some jurisdictions make it legally problematic to use the MBTI (and other popular tests) for hiring purposes because they can be so easily misused. The federal American With Disabilities Act also places limits on such pre-employment testing (though they can be used after an offer to hire has been made if they are not used to revoke the decision). Most of the enterprises (private sector, government, and academic) with which I have been associated have made such tests “verboten” for hiring.

This is not to say that the tests are not useful for corporate development purposes once staff have been hired. There are all sorts of “effectiveness training” programs out there. But to a great extent, supervisors and staff will often report positive results for *any* corporate motivation or training program they are exposed to, sometimes to simply “get along” with management or because “it’s better than nothing.”

Perhaps you could explain the difference between type and trait, and define “cognitive preference”?

I hope I can explain it well enough… this is what I have learned:

Firstly, traits are universal. We all possess personality traits, which differ only in the amount possessed and can be measured. Tests measuring amounts of trait produce a normal distribution (on a bell curve). Extreme scores are important for discrimination, and too much or too little is often diagnostic. Traits cause behavior.

Type, on the other hand, is made up of inborn preferences (Jung). The test involves sorting into categories, where the mid-point separating the categories is important for discrimination. This is the reason for the forced-choice questions. It does not produce a normal distribution (S-curve). Scores show confidence in the sorting process. Behavior is an expression of type. It is Jung’s theory that just as we are born with our physical preferences (right or left-handed), we are born with cognitive prefrences as well when it comes to perception and judgment.

We can talk traits without type but cannot talk type without traits.

Now, I have my own theory regarding nature vs. nurture. You’ve just inspired me to think it out. Come and think with me on my blog if you’d like.

Oh, no need to worry about squelching my enthusiasm

Of course, experimental psychology is limited by ethical and methodological issues (e.g., you mentioned the problem of self-report). Every science has these types of limitations. Through the self-correcting process of scientific inquiry, we become better at eliminating these errors and generating real truth about how the mind works. If not the scientific method, then what’s the best way of discovering the “nitty gritty” of human psychology? How does that method separate truth from error?

Linda,

I do agree with you that MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) does not “measure” personality traits or behaviors. It is merely an instrument to sort our cognitive preferences to one side or the other. I think most people are confused as to the difference between type and trait.

Count me among the confused. Perhaps you could explain the difference between type and trait, and define “cognitive preference”? I don’t understand how they’re distinct from one another. If you did this in a previous post and I missed it, I apologise.