Program Development History
This program is based upon characteristics identified by Carl G. Jung and the Myers-Briggs organization in modified form. They did get the elements correct as existing but did not understand the correct relationships completely. The changes made here may not be the final word in this area but does offer improvements. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® has some severe problems in that the same individuals being tested and then re-tested later will agree with their original first assessment on being retested only about 75% of the time. The evaluation instrument and the instructions for using the instrument appear to be where their problem lies.
There were eight elements were paired up E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P, and described as being opposites are as follows:
Source of Energy
E – Extraversion – External of the individual such as other living things including persons and physical objects.
I – Introversion – Internal of the individual including the world of thoughts and ideas. (though it is recognized that persons with this preference still must live in the world of persons and physical objects in order to survive)
Perception – Taking in New Information
S – Sensing – Perceived through our senses – applies to all
N – iNtuition
Judging – Arriving at a Decision
T – Thinking – Using logic to come to a conclusion including noticed non-verbal cues
F – Feeling
Preference for Perception or Judging
J – Judging (preference for T or F activities)
P – Perceiving (preference for S activities with or without N)
Eight elements were discussed –
First, the terms, Extraversion or Extroversion and Introversion, are not used on this site, except here, as named because they sound too much like the common English words “extroversion” or its more personal form “extrovert”. The same problem existing with “introversion” and “introvert” in the opposite direction (shy and or unresponsive). This blurring of meanings arises out of the fact that many “extraverts” (psychological term) are also “extroverts” within the common definition but not enough to stand the scrutiny of close examination. When I see “E”, I think “exterior world” and “I” as “interior world”. From a genetics standpoint, “E” is dominant and “I” is recessive with “E”s outnumbering “I”s three to one (as with all dominant and recessive pairs). These two are “opposites” only in the sense that a gene choice between one or the other is involved. “Complementary” better describes the relationship between this pair.
The problem with “S” and “N” is that logic appears to have been ignored in the original analysis and we now know more about the population percentages for “N”. Everyone learns through their five senses. And, from numeric analysis, only about 25% of the population has the so-called “N” characteristic and it is about spotting relationships between both things and ideas or concepts and not necessarily new learning. From a genetics point of view, “S” is a stand alone gene with all possessing this gene. “N” is the recessive part of a dominant and recessive pair with the dominant element not described by either Jung or Myers and Briggs. “N” or iNtuition was defined as “indirect perception by way of the unconscious, incorporating ideas or associations that the unconscious tacks on coming from the outside.” (Gifts Differing, Briggs Myers 1980 page 2). All perception begins with the senses. As new information is being received by the “intuitive” individual, their mind or brain immediately starts looking for a place to store and link the information to related data and these individuals are indirectly (subconsciously) sensitive to that search. Sometimes, a question or thought comes into the conscious that would help the brain in its storage and linkage process. The questions and observations are not from without the person but from within. If I were to rename this element within the Myers-Briggs framework, I would call it “sensing plus”. These two are not a true pair and, therefore, cannot be opposites.
As relates “T” and “F”, if they both arrive at the same conclusion, then the same process (logic) is at work. The distinguishing characteristic is that “F” based decisions cannot be immediately explained. What is most likely occurring is that “F” based decisions include both logic and more sensed non-verbal data perceived by the mind at both conscious and unconscious levels and this non-verbal data is being used but this extra data is beyond immediate recall. (Many intelligent “F” individuals will wait to express their “F” based decision until they have come up with a logical explanation to back their expressed conclusion.) “F” or Feeling, as a judging process, was defined as “ The other (way of judging) is by feeling, that is by appreciation-equally reasonable in its fashion-bestowing things a personal, subjective value.” The previous sentence, in same book, concerning thinking indicates that it is “a logical process, aimed at an impersonal finding.” (both from Gifts Differing, Briggs Myers 1980 page 3) I would suggest that all judging processes for both “T” and “F” individuals begin with the same thought streams of verbal and non-verbal information available and given no other information but facts devoid of any sensual or prior contact side information, both would reach the same conclusion. However, in the world of people and things, in many given situations, there is much additional information available from the realms of non-verbal information including verbal presentation (inflection, cadence, tone, etc.), body language and prior experience. When this additional information is used sub-consciously, all or most of the decision process is not “remembered”. Were I to rename this characteristic, I would call it “thinking plus”. From a genetics point of view, males are “T” dominant and females are “F” dominant. This pair is a pair of opposites only in the sense that there is an either or the other choice involved. This element of differing dominants for each sex introduces sex formally as a type component.
With the last pair, “J” and “P”, are a working pair and an adequate level of perceiving is required before judging can proceed. Half the population appears to be content to keep learning or experiencing more. From a genetics point of view, this characteristic pair appears to be controlled by a gene switch that is inheritable.
A full “dichotomy of opposites” does not exist with the last three pairs and the first pair may be argued to be more complementary than opposite. The MBTI® 16 type descriptions appear to be accurate but incomplete and the early research is needed to underpin this present research. However, the MBTI terminology is not necessary for new learners to know.
MBTI Testing Problems
The individual elements exist but the pairings of E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P were seen as dichotomies of opposites which led to poor test design.
A major failure involves using poorly designed testing instructions involving “complete the form as you are feeling now”. Since this element is not discussed in either the first (1985) or second (1998) editions of Manual, it appears to have assumed that we are in MBTI mode all, or almost, all of the time. From personal experiences, we know how we behave normally changes when we are in uneven power situations such as either boss or employee, parent or child, teacher or learner, etc. and most of us change while we are playing or visiting with relatives and old friends. Our actions also change greatly when we are under extreme tension. The best picture that can be drawn is to describe what is seen by MBTI type is us in our primary work mode and not involving play. The major test failure in this area is that no attempt is made to create the same testing point of view. In the development phases, Isabel Briggs Myers went to many educational institutions and obtained permission to query all or part of their student bodies with many queries given under the auspices of classroom teachers as an add on duty. The climate in the classroom was that of “let’s get this done” so I can work on my own lesson plan. This created the work mode atmosphere for the individual subject students. This work mode was not created on any retesting with an either “answer how you feel now” instruction or no instruction for re-testing. Consequently, differences in results appeared in large numbers.
Last, the original indicator included a number of items that could be read as concerning play activities leading to inconsistent replies.
The early “first query” results, mostly answered in classrooms, were published and were used in my analysis of results. Also, Isabel Briggs Myers and those working with her were very good at observing behavior by type and their descriptions by type were very good.
Amiable, Analytical, Expressive, and Driver
The following personality typing instrument (this program) is also based in part on information found in the book, “Personal Styles and Effective Performance” by David W. Merrill and Roger H. Reid (1981 Tracom Corporation, Chilton Book Company) using relationships observed by this author. The social style program devised by this group divides populations into four groups or quadrants designated as Amiable, Analytical, Driver and Expressive. The relationships observed include specific types include certain MBTI types belonging into certain quadrants. Information involving analysis by quadrant were published and strategies for interactions with others were developed by quadrant. This group realized that there more than four personality types and they sub-divided each quadrant into four types of equal populations each or sixteen types total for the same type count as the Myers-Briggs. Each of Merrill’s sub-quadrants held 6.25% of the general population. Next, Merrill and associates, designed a evaluation instrument to get their results. However, they had a problem. They could not come up with an evaluation instrument that the individual involved could give them the results that they needed. So they came up with a workaround which involved asking close associates to complete an adjective checklist applicable to person being evaluated and they got the results they were wanting to get. No detailed information has been published on their sixteen types so no analysis has been made in a match up with Myers-Briggs types. But it is unlikely that there will be a close match because of the wide variance in population sizes by type between the two programs. Merrill’s population size is 6.25% for each type while Myers-Briggs population sizes range from 1.5% to 14.0% for males and females combined. What does appear to work is the Merrill labels applied to Myers-Briggs types for the four MBTI types found in each Merrill Quadrant.
Before splitting any of the quadrants into sixteen types, Merrill and fellow researchers knew that there was 25% of the population in each of the four quadrants designated by Amiable, Analytical, Driver, and Expressive. They knew that 25% of the population was in each very asking, mostly asking, mostly telling, or very telling. And, they knew that 50% of the population was seen as controlled and a like number emoting. These number tests are met within the MBTI arrangements found with the xxFJ types being Amiables, the xxTP types being Analytical, the xxTJ types being Drivers, and the xxFP types being Expressives. This confirmed the quadrant totals. I next found the sub-quadrant arrangement that met the 25% in each of the four asking to telling categories. And, since two quadrants (Analytical and Driver) were in the controlled category, the other two quadrants (Amiable and Expressive) had to be in the emoting category, thus meeting the controlled versus emoting requirement.
What is My Psychological Type 