Showing posts with label mbti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mbti. Show all posts

Oct 5, 2011

Critique of MBTI Research Paper on Climate Scientists' Types

I was recently sent a link to a paper titled "Personality type differences between Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public: implications for effective communication".


This is a great example of a pseudoscience trying desperately to make itself socially and academically relevant. Behind all the academic language and references is a trivial observation: climate change researchers are, on average, more intelligent and academically-minded than the general public.

Let us scrap the MBTT for a moment and propose a new typology. In this new system people will record the number of hours a week they spend communicating with scientists and academics either through reading scientific papers and texts, writing such texts themselves, or verbally communicating with scientists.

Next, we divide the results into 16 intervals roughly as follows:

  1. 20-100 hrs
  2. 15-20
  3. 10-15
  4. 5-10
  5. 2-5
  6. 1.5-2
  7. 1.2-1.5
  8. 1.0-1.2
  9. 0.8-1.0
  10. 0.6-0.8
  11. 0.5-0.6
  12. 0.4-0.5
  13. 0.3-0.4
  14. 0.2-0.3
  15. 0.1-0.2
  16. 0-0.1

Now, we identify traits common to people of the same or similar type. It turns out, those who spend a lot of time doing, reading, or talking about science have many traits in common. They think differently than those who spend just a few minutes a week encountering science.

Next, we give climate researchers and the general public a single-question questionnaire and discover — lo and behold! — that their types are quite different from those of the general public. As we think about this discovery, it occurs to us that these two groups might experience difficulty communicating with each other. Given that "climate change messaging" and "failure to communicate the science to the public" are hot topics in the climate change policy community, we now feel we have found the answer to this problem: it's because the types of climate researchers tend to be different from those of the public at large.

Our recommendation at the end of our triumphant research paper is that climate researchers need to study our typology to better understand how they are different from the public. They need to learn how people think who do not spend more than a few minutes a week reading, writing, or talking science.

Mar 13, 2007

Socionics and Careers

I'll start off this topic with a question: Which of the following would provide the greatest assistance when making a career choice?

a) a socionic type test
b) the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory
c) the Keirsey Temperament Sorter
d) a career preference test

I hope you chose d) ! That is correct. Of these, the socionics test would be least useful, and the MBTI and Keirsey test somewhere in between. Why is that?

The career preference test will give you results specifically related to careers, based on questions about various work activities. The socionics test will have neither of these. Keirsey and the MBTI are more predictive of career choices because, compared to Jung's "original typology," the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey typologies have over time become more closely associated with professional behavior and professions (especially in Keirsey's case) than was true in Jung's time (essentially, I'm claiming their type distributions and type definitions have drifted). This is probably due to the high demand in the U.S. for all kinds of business applications (the U.S. has a extraverted logic dominant culture).

Socionic type, in comparison, has less relation to profession. Why this is the case has been discussed indirectly in my article "Socionics and Evolution" in the "Group Strategies" section. Each profession consists not only of individual specialists who are performing work unique to the profession, but also all sorts of auxiliary functions, as well as complex relationships between all people and work functions involved. When we think of a profession like "physicist," we usually think of someone who looks like this. However, what about all the physicists who do this? In almost every profession there are different roles that require different capabilities. In each industry (such as the medical industry, or the film industry) the range of roles is yet greater.

The irony of career counseling is that most of today's careers really aren't that different. Most people don't become "physicists" or "teachers" or "artists." Most people end up doing some sort of office work. Where is the career preference test that gives you a realistic answer: "you are best suited for general administration work that involves sitting at a computer, creating and editing Word and Excel documents, writing several dozen e-mails a day, and attending the occasional meeting or luncheon. Some kind of auxiliary skill - such as legal knowledge, programming abilities, or tax expertise - may prove worthwhile." It seems that there is a discrepancy between what we are "best suited for" and what we actually end up doing. This is because the economy exists to produce goods and services, and not to ensure the self-realization of all participants :)

So, if socionic type is not very predictive (or not predictive enough) of profession, can it be used in career counseling at all? Probably not, in my opinion. It would be better to use traditional instruments such as career preference tests, and then talk to an experienced and talented counselor who can recognize your strengths, interests, and preferences and help you to formulate them.

However, socionics could be useful after one has chosen one's profession and is trying to find one's niche within the field - assuming that one is essentially satisfied with one's choice of profession. For example, one-on-one counseling with an experienced socionist could be useful for artists and actors who are trying to find their "voice," or for managers and other professionals who are trying to develop the work style that works best for them. For such cases, I can't think of anything more insightful than socionics.

Dec 17, 2006

Type Identification in Socionics

In socionics, results of written tests are not considered an authoritative assessment of type. In fact, since the field is decentralized and do-it-yourself, there is no single recognized instrument for determining socionic type. In contrast, in Myers-Briggs typology the MBTI test enjoys a relative monopoly and thus has, at least, the "feeling" of authority.

By turning the typing process into a dichotomy-based written test, test authors have eliminated subjective factors. However, at the same time, test accuracy is based on the assumption that test-takers 1) understand what exactly is meant by each question, and 2) have accurate self-knowledge. If this is not the case, there is no one around to help address the situation.

The problem of self-knowledge

The question of accurate self-knowledge is a complex one that involves philosophy, linguistics, and physiology. The words and formulates we use only contain shreds of the truth and are always subject to incorrect interpretation. What do we mean when we say, for example, "I am an outgoing person"? At best this is a generalization based on a comparison to a specific set of people in specific situations that the listener has no knowledge of. In saying "I am an outgoing person," the person may actually mean something slightly different:

  • I am a sufficiently outgoing person
  • I am proud of being more outgoing than I used to be
  • I am more outgoing than most of my friends
  • Many people in different situations have told me I was outgoing
  • I am always so obviously outgoing that there is no question of my outgoingness

The same problems exist for nearly every other question.

Self-typing and professional typing assistance

In socionics, self-identification is the responsibility of each individual. Since socionics assumes the existence of functions of the psyche, and these functions have not been proven scientifically to be a physical reality, there is always a bit of uncertainty regarding type diagnostics. There is always the chance of misinterpretation. This is the case for other branches of Jungian typology as well - not just socionics.

Socionics' advantage is that it postulates the existence of stable interaction patterns between types that potentially serve as tests of accurate type diagnosis. However, this requires some knowledge about the person's interaction with others, as well as the probable types of these people.

There are quite a few socionists (mainly in the Russian-speaking world) who can offer qualified typing services and substantiate their conclusions. In addition, some "hobbyists" are sufficiently experienced to offer real help. I would suggest a couple criteria for deciding to listen to someone's type diagnosis or turn to a professional's services:

  • the person is able to make accurate observations about you as a person without using socionics terminology
  • the person can substantiate their opinion using an understanding of the socionic functions, aspects, and model that seems to be consistent with classic socionic theory

The only potential disadvantage in relying on professional socionists is that some people begin to accept their chosen socionist's typings without personal mental effort and questioning. This spoils both the socionist as well as his followers; if he is not careful, the socionist begins to believe in his own infallibility since those around him accept his typings unequivocally. To avoid these sect-like phenomena, do your own thinking and try to learn from experienced socionists rather than to simply align your own thinking with theirs.

Dec 16, 2006

Which Are Better - Functions or Dichotomies?

When newcomers to Jungian psychological types take the MBTI - the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - they are given a "type" that consists of one of the poles of four different dichotomies: (extraversion vs. introversion, sensing vs. intuition, thinking vs. feeling, and judging vs. perceiving). Each of the four letters in the type name reflects a pole of each dichotomy - for example, the type "ISTJ" or "ENFP."

Often the test-taker is also shown his location on a scale of each dichotomy, e.g.
"extraversion 56%, introversion 44%"
The greater the difference between the two poles of the dichotomy, the higher the probability that the dichotomy in question was accurately diagnosed.

The result of this approach is that people get used to thinking that they are "a little bit of both," that they "used to be more sensing than they are now," that they are "sometimes one, sometimes the other," etc.

All of this is foreign to the concept of psychological types introduced by Carl Jung.

Jung spoke not of dichotomies but of functions. He described four functions, each of which comes in an extraverted and an introverted variety. Each person has a dominant function that dominates his or her personality and being. In addition, he postulated the existence of the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions.

Jung did not think of the individual as moving left or right along the scale of a dichotomy during their lives; instead, he talked about the possibility of developing functions' strength, while maintaining that their natural order did not change.

Myers' and Briggs' switch in emphasis from functions to dichotomies made testing more straightforward (more easily quantifiable), but significantly diluted the strength of Jung's original ideas. Dichotomies are easier to measure, but they effectually ignore the main concepts of the typology (which is fine, of course, but it freezes the development of typology theory itself).