Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00174)

According to Arthur Paul Patterson:
> Florida. The Myers-Briggs Type indicator should not stand alone as a tool
> but as a model or a metaphor for looking at typology. It is best understood
> from within the paradigm of Psychological Types by C.G. Jung and those who
> read that book first will have a better grounding than those who seek to
> place the model in a clinical perspective.
I read the Jung book years ago, too long to retain as much
perspective on the MBTI.
> understanding come out to INTP. I wonder if the fixedness, cardinal, and
> mutable aspects have an effect on all this. My earth is 3 fixed and my fire
> is cardinal, fixed and mutable.
She does go into this, but I haven't gotten there yet.
>
> I am not entirely convinced that you do not make evaluations based on the
> value of people and the effects any given course has on the human
> community (Feeling) in distinction to a more logical and sequential
> approach (Thinking). If you will allow a little type watching in public. :
It seems pretty typical of Thinking types to blunder into areas
where human communities are sensitive, and to offend those
collective sensitivities, then be totally surprised by the
vehement reaction. If I have seemed highly aware of the effect
of my research and writing on people, it is only AFTER the
fact. Before getting knocked up the side of the head a few
times, I was clueless.
> ENFP because the Test originally scored me as one ten years ago; low and
> behold, I am now an INTP (on the model superdupper model of the indicator)
> what is that about? I think it is about a change of life and a way of
> perceiving myself.
In my case (ISTJ to INTJ) my first test was taken when I was so
strongly identified with an administrative job that I answered
as I saw myself in a limited situation rather than my real
preferences. No more multi-jurisdictional financial
responsibilities, and poof! there goes the illusion of being an
S rather than an N.
 The theory is wonderful, who could argue with it, but
> the way it can be used is in my estimate frightening. I am speaking as one
> who has done workshops on Teaching and Type at inservices and Spirituality
> of Type to conferences of ministers.
>
> The best thing in my estimation is to hold the results loosely but to
> study the theory intensely and comprehensively. Too many reverse that
> stategy to the misuse of the the model. So to read Hamaker -Zondag and Jung
> and Myers-Briggs is more important than to work the statistics out or to
> rely to heavily on the test itself.
This is probably true as a general principle about any such
system.

Thanks, Arthur.