Meyers/Briggs says that perceivers try to make sense of the environment and Judgers try to control the environment.

An example was a group decided to build a bridge where there was more solid bedrock to be used as foundation but it required redirecting the river, Over the course of years the river rerouted itself back to it's original course and washed out the roadway.

It's hard to believe that this dichotomy is not relevant in today's politics but I guess they tested this out in their study.

I only know that, as a perceiver, it was very difficult to report to a judger when I knew he was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole because that's what he was ordered to do by someone else up the chain of command.

By looking at the graphs in the article, no, it doesn't predispose political affiliation. Still, it was interesting.

I'm supposed to be slightly more likely to be a republican.

All the "research" into has been done by the company who owns it - and the test itself was written by two people with absolutely no background in psychology. I can take the test myself to get whatever result I want from it, unlike the MMPI.

MBTI completely butchered what Jung meant with sensation and intuition, and so a lot of intelligent sensors, like myself, mistype as intuitives because MBTI equates intuition with liking abstraction and theory.

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Most of the research about psychological type has been conducted by others than the "owner". For example, see the bibliography of research at: http://www.capt.org/research/MBTI-bibliography-search.htm I believe there are some 15,000 studies referenced in the bibliography.

Yes, the MBTI can be faked. It doesn't have a "lie scale" such as with the MMPI (although a few attempts have been made to discover whether on not a lie scale may indeed be derived from MBTI scores. I'm not aware of any successful attempts.)

Yes, the original developers indeed were not academics and did not have formal training in psychology and test development. Subsequent revisions to the first research version of the indicator (1962), however, have been conducted by licensed psychologists.

and no amount of data will change yours.

Mmm, barbeque...

Big swings from Dem to Repub in one letter difference..

To quote: >"Consider the characteristics of Sensing and Intuition types. Sensing types routinely are characterized as practical, realistic, and concerned with the here-and-now. They trust experience and facts....Sensing associate with conservative leanings whereas clearer preferences for Intuition associate with a more liberal orientation.<

By this logic, NO conservative should be a climate-change denier because the FACTS and what is happening in the HERE AND NOW show that there is extreme and severe climate change. So how is it that, somehow, the liberals are following intuition rather than facts as they believe the facts and what's happening in the here and now?

You go on: <On the other hand, Intuiting types are characterized as imaginative, abstract, and concerned with the future. They trust hunches and possibilities.<
You mean, like conservatives have trusted their "hunches" that giving tax breaks to the rich would create more jobs? Like conservatives have trusted their "hunches" that Obama would take away their guns? Like conservatives have trusted their "hunches" that teaching abstinence is the way to keep kids from having sex? Or their hunch that legalizing gay marriage would ruin marriage? I look around and all I see are conservatives trusting their hunches and intuition about the future rather than relying on any facts or lessons from the past that prove them wrong.

>Now consider this definition of conservatism from David Horowitz "...conservatism an attitude about the lessons of the actual past. By contrast, the attention of progressives directed toward an imagined future."<
Bullshit. If progressives look to an imagined future why are we liberals now looking back to the Great Depression and FDR to point out what our country should be doing to save itself? Heck, why are we looking back to past taxation of the rich as compared to current in order to argue that things could be better? And if Conservatives look to the present rather than the future, why do they keep demanding more and more changes for the future based on what they imagine will happen rather then what they can see has already happened?

I'm sorry, but it looks to me that you can define yourself to victory depending on what you think "looking to the imagined future" means vs. looking at the factual past. I can see both conservatives and liberals doing both depending on what that factual present/past is and what that imagined, intuitive future is. Codifying in this way is ridiculous as it relies not on facts, but on how one defines one's terms. I'm afraid it really doesn't work.

I think if you read back through your post you'll see that you validate the notion of sensing types as being more conservative and thus adhering to the tried and true rather than the unproved "innovation" as Burke describes it.

In each of the policy areas you mention--global warming, having one's guns taken away, legalizing gay marriage and so on--the conservatives are attempting to maintain the status quo and adhere to the past (e.g., the constitution, the bible). Their reactions to various "hunches" are more reactions to the fears generated by the conservative talking machine. One might also see sensing types' "hunches" as manifestations of their inferior (or tertiary) N, which would be underdeveloped and thus childish, fearful, not fully developed.

As for the liberals looking back to FDRs Keynesian approach, my guess is that the liberals involved in this area are NTs and thus will look to the past as well as the future (just not here and now totally - S) for what works. I certainly haven't seen many conservatives look to the FDRs policies except to criticize them--a very reactionary stance that still finds difficulty in accepting those policies and not something from, say, traditional classical economics!

"And if Conservatives look to the present rather than the future, why do they keep demanding more and more changes for the future based on what they imagine will happen rather then what they can see has already happened?" Again, I say this posture is reactionary conservatism. The "changes" desired by this conservativism is to make the future like the past.

I'm a progressive liberal, and I'm fine with any facts we've got on the difference between how my brain works vs. that of a conservative. But I'm not going to define myself to victory with terms that can be adjusted to however I--or you or anyone else wishes. You can't erase the fact that conservatives ARE imagining a future loss of their freedoms when they say, "we'll lose our guns!" or freedom of religion--and yes, they want to keep the status quo--but how is that different from liberals who don't want invasive checks at airports because they imagine a lost of privacy....and want to keep the status quo instead? Or argue against a war by pointing back to Vietnam?

And why is it an attempt to go back to a status quo when we're talking about freedom from taxation argued by the founding fathers, rather than holding onto Eisenhower tax rates for the rich? You say conservatives don't look to the future, but trickle-down economics sure was a futuristic fantasy and had nothing to do with anything in the past. And we liberals, pointing to the *fact* that trickle-down in the past didn't work, are, by the definition of "sensing," using sensing and not intuition when we argue against it.

You can't change the definition of "sensing" when liberals use it so that it stays only a conservative trait just because you want it to be a conservative trait. No more than you can change the definition of "intuitive" when conservatives use it so that it stays a liberal trait because you want it to be ONLY a liberal trait. Which is why this is not only nonsense, but offensive nonsense. If we are the smarter side, then we shouldn't be giving into this non-factual, non-scientific, make-it-up-and-change-it-to-suit-yourself method of defining sides.

I didn't know that I had stated that sensing is only a conservative trait and that intuition is only a liberal trait. I do know, however, that this set of preferences is the only set of MBTI preferences that consistently correlate with the liberal-conservative dimension of political orientation. (Although things get more complicated when lib-con is looked at in two dimensions: social and economic. T-F tends to correlate here with Ts being more conservative economically). The same results hold for the Five-Factor Model on the Openness factor with Openness correlating with Liberal orientations.

Further, I did not know I had stated the correlations were perfect linear relationships (r=1.0). Had I done that, then I think I could understand your point as that would be, again, making an oversimplified case about political orientation and personality (and neurological dynamics).

Also, I think I did state that conservatives look to the future or imagine the future. However, I was trying to make a point that I think is consistent throughout conservative thought from Burke's Reflections on the Revolution to Kirk's The Conservative Mind--and that is that conservatives look to any changes from the present to the future (again, "innovation" in Burke's terms) with a critical eye. The conservative approach to change (which implies the future) is one of "prudence":

Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

This quote -- to me -- reflects a sensing (and SJ in particular) view of change--one that reflects "type bias" to a degree. And, because intuition (and Ne in particular) incarnates as change (the experimentation of progressivism), then the sensing function and political ideas that emerge from such a psychological orientation are likely to view such change with suspicion. To the extent that the conservative and liberal (or sensing and intuition) orientations emerge into something approaching a psychological polarity, then each side is likely to engage in all manner of shadow dynamics with respect to the opposing "other." My interest is in studying the role of the mental functions in this political process and the extent to which these mental functions are a part of what often is called the "culture wars." Within the context of this research, I don't think I am changing the definitions of sensing and intuition as Jungian mental functions. Rather, I am trying to situate them within the context of political dynamics.

As Jung stated, and as the MBTI materials promote, all people have all functions. The hierarchy and development of such functions differ, of course, from person to person. Thus, all people -- liberal and conservative, democrat and republican--use all functions at some time. And, one of the more interesting cases here is that Newt Gingrich probably is an ENTP. His "big idea" (N) approach to governing combined with his promotion of reactionary change (Ne) that will involve a future (!) that reflects some reincarnation of a Jeffersonian agrarian democracy past just shows that psychological type plays a role in political dynamics, although not always in perfectly predictable way, to say the least.

And, we've yet to consider neuroticism!

don't deal in facts and live in la-la land. It's absurd.

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a self-report instrument, like the MBTI, but has validity scales, unlike the MBTI.

to be a Democrat---by a good amount. 49% likely.

I knew I was a natural.

http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html

But...."they are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well"? How do I survive here?

This is a most difficult type to be---introvert/extravert/introvert/extravert. People have a real problem figuring that one out. It confuses me too.

People who have that caring for other people (F) intuition as to what they are going through (N) and are willing to put their foot to defend them. (J) That's you, and its actually your type that makes the left work. I am grateful for your type. I am different from you in that I approach things intellectually and coldy without regard to how things should be, only how they are. (TP) I can produce an accurate systemic model, but its people with heart like you who push things through to make a difference, which I have felt.

edit: oops, I just said an unscientific thing: According to Wikipedia your personality type is the rarest. Yet as the archetypal Dem, maybe you are exemplary of more general traits I perceive.

Actually, it is correct that INFJ is the rarest---therefore the most misunderstood. But we feel in our gut what is right and wrong, and we don't waiver....we can be a pain in the ass.

It really does take all kinds to make everything work. You cannot just go on emotion, but also need the people who can calculate, the ones who can devise plans, the ones who will follow through. It takes all of us to make it come together. I am glad we are not all alike!

years ago, and it has helped me a great deal to be able to understand myself and to explain why I have felt misunderstood and "different" throughout my life.

I'm a little surprised at people who say these personalty types aren't real. I can type just about anyone within a very short time of knowing them, and I'm right almost every time. I also know a guy who does the hiring for a state agency. He types potential employees during their interview and uses their personality type as part of his decision-making process. He is very good at hiring and creating a harmonious work environment, and I think a lot of it has to do with his interest in personality types.

here, but duh, we have the highest possibility of being Democrats, so this should not seem unusual.

It does help to know something about yourself and your personality. I don't care if some people think this is junk science, it has been helpful to me----and that is all that matters.

-- being the category with the smallest numbers doesn't help that though.

The one thing in that link I was provided by napoleon_in_rags was unnerving if you didn't read it. But I can relate to it. The comments about our gut feelings being very important and usually right is definitely me. I just don't understand why people don't give my gut the respect it deserves.

We should rule----too bad we just don't really want to. At least I don't, I want to be the one behind the ruler.

but I'm getting better at it now finally--& also just accepting being misunderstood and working around it. My best friends are OK with the duality. But anyone who tries to take advantage of what they think is my pushover personality will find themselves given the exit quickly. INFJs know when they are right about people & are very tolerant, but on the other hand they rarely trust people who shouldn't be trusted.

"Rule the World" --OK a little overstated LOL --let's just say our principles should be more valued...and the world would be a better place.

And the highest amount of independents.


My type:
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

MBTI gets a lot of flak (in some cases rightly so, because it is so often misused) - but I actually like it as a way to better understand where people are coming from - so use as a tool for understanding and better collaboration.

Of course, in all situations I've seen it used in the work setting, it was misused - to divide and separate, rather than play to everyone's strengths.

In general, I expected to see more "Fs" amongst Dems - the empathy thing. The results just go to prove how complex it all is - trying to match politics with attributes and preferences of behavior...

I think he and Michael Savage are actually the same person, or at least twins sons of different mothers.

the other. It bears out in real life as well. Sometimes being around lots of people and public speaking is energizing, sometimes it is draining.

I do well with groups and speaking but I need my down time too

They are probably using the BS ignorant stereotypes of Sensors that have nothing to do with Carl Jung's original descriptions.

According to Jung S vs, N just means going by one's senses vs. going by one's gut. Jung typed himself as an ISTP.

The MBTI also defines S as perception via the senses and N as perception via the unconscious (or hunches, inspirations). I just don't see the disagreement between Jung and MBTI (although Myers' descriptions try to neutralize some of Jung's biases in Psychological Types). I'd appreciate more info as to where you see the incompatibility.

Jung typed himself as an NT: See video a bottom of the page. Start around 8:20.

He says he's a Introverted Thinking type and that he was an empirically-minded person who was not in tune with his Intuition until his mid-life crisis following his break with Freud.

There is a lot of good stuff under the Analytical Psychology subforum of this message board, look for posts by the poster Yukawa. I'm TaylorS there.

http://www.personalitynation.com/forum.php

An interesting quote from Jung stated on that site back in March: "As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious." The quote is from "Analytical Psychology"...a collection of Jung's talks.

So, S or N? A question with which to riddle further my friends.

"Sensing types routinely are characterized as practical, realistic, and concerned with the here-and-now. They trust experience and facts"



Epic Fail!

and that tends to make them try to control their environment.

It doesn't matter what the data says - they want a certain outcome.

Are you an NP?

Which is why I find it ironic that NTPs tend to be overrepresented in the "independent" category. (Which MrScorpio in post 39 below seems to understand).

Not a surprise, having read the definition.

is when I can feel myself getting stressed, is to try and pick out the Shadow aspects of my personality that come to the forefront, and see if I can harness the positive aspects of my Shadow to my own ends heehee.

I'm INFJ if I recall correctly. That's heavily Dem.