Personality Typing

[Lee]

Everywhere you look on this forum are references to the 16 personality types. People suggest all kinds of relationships between personality type x and characteristic y, we casually refer to 'that xxxx from work', or make sweeping generalisations about society using our shared model of personality typing.

I would like to know what people actually think of the whole idea of personality typing; what are the limitations? which typing model do you subscribe to? which typing model is superior? is it a worthwhile branch of psychology or pop-psychology psychobabble?

I do not necessarily want these particular questions answered, but I do want to see what other people think of it, because we all talk about it so much, yet sometimes I get the impression we are talking about quite different things.

[Wilde Mutton]

My opinion is that when listing characteristics, someone´s bound to have at least one of them. The probability with which certain character traits are grouped together in the same individual can be guessed at and through this guesswork one can come up with what would seem to be a valid description of a type. However, not all of the factors influencing the "memetic composition" of an individual are always taken into consideration or if once one has done that successfully one hasn´t examined the reasons behind the cluster in a systematic enough of a way, which would explain obvious faults in descriptions. Maybe that, or nothing of the sort.

[CoHo]

I would like to know what people actually think of the whole idea of personality typing; what are the limitations? which typing model do you subscribe to? which typing model is superior? is it a worthwhile branch of psychology or pop-psychology psychobabble?

I think it is an interesting concept but I remain very skeptical of mbti and typing people.

It isn't just how a person acts but how they go about processing data

[panda]

I'm a skeptic when it comes to personality typing. I disprefer the dogmatism and metaphysical assumptions that are inherent in systems such as Socionics and MBTI. I favor models that are empirically based, such as the Big Five. (http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/)

I'm not a fan of Jung, at all. He's interesting to read, but I think he makes myriad erroneous assumptions.

Skepdic has a decent entry on the MBTI. (http://skepdic.com/myersb.html)

[joft]

i think of it the same way I think of all categorization (and perception). the boundaries are arbitrary, but if they vaguely coincide with patterns in "reality" then they allow for the organism to navigate the world with better discrimination, and for that that reason they are naturally selected to be passed on either by genes or learning (as the capacity for learning is determined by genes it would make sense to dictate a selective bias toward learned behaviors that enhance survival). with the passing of time these categories become closer and closer to a perception of "reality" that has selective benefits, and maybe also closer to "reality" itself (although that may be arguably maladaptive).

with personality typing, I imagine there are a certain number of switches in the genes that form a brain and all human brains are mostly just different combinations of those switches, with a few mutations here and there. then it is a matter of how those switches affect each other, and behavior/personality, and the statistical spread of people with a correlation in certain key switches that have noticeable impact on behavior. common environmental factors may help file down some of the differences

[INTrPosr]

I'm a skeptic when it comes to personality typing. I disprefer the dogmatism and metaphysical assumptions that are inherent in systems such as Socionics and MBTI. I favor models that are empirically based, such as the Big Five. (http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/)
I'm a O41-C13-E48-A32-N11 Big Five!!

[Winterpark]

I'm a O47-C30-E7-A17-N66 Big Five!!

what different is this from SLOAN? (OCEAN, hahaha...)

[Xander]

I think it's less about the system you use and more about how you use it.
It would be pointless to look for a perfect system, I don't think it is possible.
I picked up the MBTI from my father and have found it quite usefull and accurate when dealing with people but the employing the theories seem alot more complex than just the sixteen types and the four different characteristics.
Something that amazes me is that people erroneously quote someones MBTI as some kind of complete description of them instead of its intended meaning as their base preferance and by that the method in which they first think.
I have seen the Enneagram stuff and whilst it got me bang on I don't know enough about it to really give it a fair score.

[philonightmare]

I would like to know what people actually think of the whole idea of personality typing; what are the limitations? which typing model do you subscribe to? which typing model is superior? is it a worthwhile branch of psychology or pop-psychology psychobabble?
Most of the personality tests the people on this forum seem to be using are the variety where self-reporting is the ultimate deciding variable. Many people seem to think that self-reporting is the most accurate way to measure long-standing strategies to approaching the world, especially for a typically quiet, introverted person whose opinions are not going to be as well known by others as an extroverts'. This then leads to the question of whether or not those people who know us best would say we are the personality we self-reportedly test as. This is where the limitation of these models comes in. Should one depend on what other's think of us, or should we simply go by what we think we are? What if we are delusional to some degree? Labeling ourselves with characteristics that in reality we don't have in as copius amounts as we thought? I think there are many biases that come into play, which account for why so many people seem to be mistyped. It is more socially acceptable for a male to be a T and a female an F, for example. It would then follow that a person who is self-reporting would unconciously attempt to test as whatever they either think they come across as, or what they think others expect them to be (there are exceptions of course, where a person has a very clear idea of who they are and what others perceive of them --though these insights are usually attained after much effort).

I do not subscribe to a particular typing model because I see that there are errors with all of them (so far as how the results play out and application). I don't think any self-reporting model is going to be 100% accurate simply because we are not omniscient. If one is using these models with that in mind, I don't see anything wrong in seeking to understand and apply them in as minimal fashion possible. What I mean by minimum is to help one understand and improve on their social relations. That is the whole point of MBTI and Socionics, afaik. I can see how some personal insight will only be expected, however, for the most part, these models seem to be built with a group perspective in mind. If one is such and such personality type, they are said to have strengths in a certain area. If they can play to their strengths, such as getting a job in such areas where those strengths come most into play, then that would be an appropriate way of applying the model. It can also risk becoming too restrictive where only certain personality types will be seen to be experts in certain areas. Sure, there may be correlation between type and job distribution, however, without resorting to "exceptions," I think it fair to say that any type can take up any job so long as their mind is set on it. Where there is motivation, it becomes easier to tackle obstacles that would seem difficult to any type.

As to these models being worthwhile? I would not even consider them branches of psychology, to be honest. Sociology would make more sense. They are only as worthwhile as what one can gain from them. If you gain an ounce of self-respect or a sense of social acceptance (which, despite what most people here will think, is vital to our health as humans), upon discovering these models, then YES, they are worthwhile. If these models seemed to help you to understand where your troublesome teenager or wife is coming from, then yes, they are worthwhile. There is one thing wrong (I am sure there are more) with this. And one thing right (again, there are likely more) so far as I can see. The wrong is that attributing success solely to these models may not be accurate. There is a very likely possibility that the model itself didn't help you and your wife/child get out of that misunderstanding rut, or of yourself finally feeling accepted. It could be that the effort alone, or the journey toward self-discovery and acceptance was what gave you that ultimate feeling of success/satisfaction. The right is that of these models succeeding in getting people to seek to understand another viewpoint. That much is only a success so far as the student of the model is willing to remain open to understanding how the labels attached to these models is arbitrary and that they will not work 100% of the time. They are entirely based on generalizations and so cannot account for every individual.

[Wilde Mutton]

The question becomes if there in fact is anything that makes up a personality that isn´t affected by sociological factors. I am sorry for bringing up the whole "tabula rasa" -argument, but it is interesting to ponder just whence the substance that, for example, typecasts itself, comes from, and if it isn´t anything but the result of earlier typecasting (done in a different form). Does typecasting then make one more aware of the general quality of these previous character-moulding moments or does it create a whole new way of thinking where everything is simply seen from a new light? Are memories, too, made coherent by typecasting with the person one is after typecasting?

[April]

I'm a O47-C30-E7-A17-N66 Big Five!!

what different is this from SLOAN? (OCEAN, hahaha...)

Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism

There is no difference. SLOAN just gives a simple presentation of your results. Your scores would be equal to |R|LUEn (I believe. something like that at least!).

I'm taking Personality Psychology this semester, and I got to pick which subject I wanted to write three research papers on. I chose to do research on how well the facet and domain traits measured by the Big Five test can predict psychological disorders. You'd be surprised how accurate it is in doing so. I'd like to see the MBTI do that.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I think theres a severe limitation in the supposisition that personality is all defining. The more one observes a reliance on personality, the more one observes a relation to petty, vain and immature behavior traits - and vice versa, used as a rationalization for ones actions ("I'm just that way"); as well as an even stronger inclination to pass the blame further onto psychological disorders, to the point that one even perpetuates those disorder traits in the attempt to use a more effeciant scapegoat. I would suggest that at least half of psychological disorders treated with medication are in fact rooted elsewhere, and more much more basic then assumed.

I would say theres two aspects of social identity: personality and character. Personality would be responsive and would refer to the "lower self" and relate to the ego; charecter would be strategic, made in sacrifice to personality, and would represent the "higher self" and relate to purpose or spirituality.

MBTI is the most logically coherant and appliable model i've seen to date on personality, and the I Ching (or book of changes) is the most experentially accurate guide to character development. I've been thinking for some time, of perhaps creating a more diverse system, based on the I Ching and utilizing MBTI as sort of a more personal reference point.

As a rough example in mind, it would operate in the form of the user pinpointing an unclear situation (disruption, obstruction, waiting, withdrawl), relating it to a set number of most likely automatic reactions to the situation based on personality, and provide a solution more in tune with and specific to the users innate personality qualities - which I would suggest have as much to do with whats innate as it does with what one would like to be percieved as innate. Which in turn gives further clues with how they deal in response to problematic situations.

[Xander]

I think the biggest problem with typing personalities is that people misuse the information and state "I am an X".
Your type is but one facet of a diamond so complex as to be indescribable to any degree of certainty.
Each person, to my mind, posseses all facilities of personality. It is the interplay of their strength and implication which deefine the PREFERENCE of the person. Yet still this need only be a larger percentage preference than any other to be considered the dominant one. IT you do subscribe to the MBTI then there are only two general possibilities within each section and so it is a preference of >50%. What if there are more than two factors?
It could get to the stage where your preference is only 5% but there are twenty one possibles and so you are no showing much of a particular preference at all and yet it is still a preference.
As for the whole self testing thing have a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window