This will be a brief departure from my normal Catholic blog writing but I wanted to share my experience on a certain topic. Be warned, this will be quite a long post.
I was recently invited to do a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) workshop for the weekend. I will say that I went more out of obligation than of really wishing to attend as I already had some idea of the issues surrounding true Catholic spiritual growth (found by going towards Christ) and personality-profiling which normally believes that growth is acheived through reaching an equilibrium between contrasting traits. Below is my reflection on how I was "typed". I tried to go through each of the sentences/definitions of the alleged profile individually and critically so to avoid confirmation bias and any of the forer effects with dog these kind of things.
What is the MBTI?
Taken from the Report Form for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Copyright 1976 by Isable Briggs Mters, Copyright 1988 by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. All rights reserved.
"The MBTI reports your preferences on four scales. There are two opposite preferences on each scale. The four scales deal with where you like to focus your attention (Extrovert or Introvert), the way you like to look at things (Sensing or Intuition), the way you like to make decisions (Thinking or Feeling), and how you deal with the outer world (Judging or Perceiving)."
What did I "score"?
I won't go in to explain each category individually as it will take too long but the test gives you a supposed tendency; how much you would tend to choose one side over the other. Each of the types is the types/tendencies are then given an explanation which I will analyse in more detail below. My scores were as follows:
Extrovert 7 (small tendency), Sensing 25 (good tendency), Thinking 63 (incredibly high), Perceiving 39 (very high).
Extrovert (E) or Introvert (I) - 7 extrovert
This low score is described as a "little E". This means that I don't associate strongly with E and can shift quite easily in to I. With the dangers of confirmation-bias in mind I took a step back and several things became clear, As a "little E" I should feel a slight tendency to choose E over I. However, if I choose the "extovert" option 50% of the time and the "introvert" option 45% (in the arbitrary situations of the initial phase of the test) then I am actually neither E nor I and this I believe would bring in to question the further alleged explanatory nature of the system. Sometimes I'm an extrovert, sometimes I'm an introvert and my tendency depends on inmuerable factors and varies according to situations as shown. Therefore the advice given to an E really would only apply to me in 50% of situations say, and would in fact not apply to me in 45% of situations.
It is also clear that though I am apparently a "type" which is imbedded in to my nature, I have in fact changed. I was undoubtedly a strong introvert even as little as 8-10 years a go. However, I forced myself to become more extroverted by making a conscious choice to speak to others, make decisions without thinking so much etc.This swung me over to the extrovert side and in fact changed my initial sub-conscious reaction to situations (which is what the type tries to identify). So interestingly, it can be shown that conscious decisions can affect the sub-conscious after a long time. I believe this casts doubt on whether types exist at all if one can swing between different ones as I have.
Even without this conscious act of the will, studies have shown that as many as 50% of participants can change type within a period of as little as 5 weeks. The longer the period between tests is extended the higher percentage of changes there are. From this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2.
Sensing or Intuition - 25 sensing
I should have a strong tendency towards choosing the sensing option. However, upon going through the definitions one-by-one - thereby avoiding confirmation bias again - of what constitutes typical behavioural tendencies of an alleged sensing person I found that I was actually a mix with no discernible pattern. Sometimes I was a strong S such as with factual, literal, practical as opposed to imaginative at the expense of observant. Other times I was what is categorized as a tendency of an intuitive person; needing variety and valuing complex conversation as opposed to disliking change and wanting simple conversation. I also work best under inspiration as opposed to perspiration - sometimes apparently sinonomous with an intuitive person. Other times I could be either. For example, a sensate has a tendency to follow instructions, an intuitive forget. Sometimes I do one, and sometimes I do the other. It depends upon many things and I wouldn't say either could be used to type me.
Now, a fan of the MBTI may say that these particular profiles were badly written/explained. However, I had the chance to read through sections of several other books which were made available to use and they fell in to the same issue.
Again from this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2
I raised the concern with the person conducting the workshop that the, in my opinion, arbitrary distinctions between types weren't corresponding to how I actually am and she replied, "you must be a very messed up boy then". Not only is this very offensive it's also a ridiculous statement which I hope isn't shared by others when the evidence doesn't match there expectations. I have noticed this tendency in other fans of the system from personal friends to university lecturers that they tend to dismiss anomilies out of hand. Not that this has any baring on whether the system itself is useful of course, but it is quite telling that this could be a tendency.
The further issue with this jumping between sensing and intuition profiles is that the development which is then encouraged or offered will simply not be applicable. The only way around it would be to cherry-pick those advices which apply to me and reject those which don't, but then this of course undermines the whole idea of the existence of a "type" and this is what the system purports to predict and explain.
No comments:
Post a Comment