Advertisement
Anyone else usually score very close to equal balance between INTJ and ENTJ, or with Introversion-Extroversion scale scores split exactly evenly between the two?
BTW, not finding an already-existing ENTJ tribe I've now established a new "ENTJ" Forum tribe at tribes.tribe.net/entjforum
posted by:
|
Anchorage
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 11:37 AMThe scores do not measure the strength of preference -- the score measures the degree of *clarity* you have about which dimension fits you.
A score close to equal simply means you aren't yet clear about which dimension you prefer, that's all. A preference is there -- you just don't know yourself or the model well enough to clearly say which dimension reflects you yet.
FYI -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 12:05 PM
>The scores do not measure the strength of preference -- the score measures the degree of *clarity* you have about which dimension fits you.
A score close to equal simply means you aren't yet clear about which dimension you prefer, that's all.<
Interesting. Is there a site or source you'd recommend with more information on this aspect?
>A preference is there -- you just don't know yourself or the model well enough to clearly say which dimension reflects you yet.<
It is not possible the preference _is_ close to the balance point between I and E, if one had enough clarity or understanding of the model to know this? -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 12:50 PM>The scores do not measure the strength of preference -- the score measures the degree of *clarity* you have about which dimension fits you.
A score close to equal simply means you aren't yet clear about which dimension you prefer, that's all.<
Interesting. Is there a site or source you'd recommend with more information on this aspect?
*** Every MBTI practitioner has been taught this. I've known it for so long that I don't even know where to find it. My husband might know? Try www.INTJ.org -- he may have a resource posted there....?
>A preference is there -- you just don't know yourself or the model well enough to clearly say which dimension reflects you yet.<
It is not possible the preference _is_ close to the balance point between I and E, if one had enough clarity or understanding of the model to know this?
*** This keeps coming up, and I appreciate why -- but the *indicator* cannot measure what it is not designed to measure, regardless of how enticing that data seems. :-(
*** The instrument is not designed to measure strength of a preference or strength of a function -- technically that can't even be done. (How can anyone "measure" how Sensing they are, or even how much they use it, as if it were a finite item? It's illogical.) IThe assessment is not rocket science -- it merely reflects how clear the preference is.
*** (Ironically, of course, someone can be reeeeeallly "clear" about their preference and still end up with the wrong letter. We're measuring self-awareness against an arcane mental model, after all. =8-O)
*** Dr. John Beebe tells us there's no such thing as an introvert or extravert -- we are simply introverted or extraverted depending on what cognitive process we are using. Ergo, if you personally feel that you are well developed in both, it may simply be that you are a healthy, balanced person. I recommend you celebrate. :-) -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 19, 2009 - 6:57 PM*** The instrument is not designed to measure strength of a preference or strength of a function -- technically that can't even be done. (How can anyone "measure" how Sensing they are, or even how much they use it, as if it were a finite item? It's illogical.) IThe assessment is not rocket science -- it merely reflects how clear the preference is. ***
Just because a test method for it hasn't been set up or shared yet does not mean it cannot be done. it just means no one has thought of (or presented) a plausible way to do it yet.
I'm sure years ago, certain people may have said similar things about Carl Jung's theories... then one day the MBTI appeared... (not perfect, but a construct that seems to plausibly do what it set out to do with a reasonable amount of success, and has even served as a stepping stone in the evolution of Type).
But that's just me. I believe one has to be shrewd and creative when measuring some thing worthwhile. Otherwise, what's the point? We'd just all quit and go home. No point in making progress. It just can't be done.
Where there is a will, there is a way. -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 19, 2009 - 8:59 PMWyatt,
it doesn't make any sense.
If we agree with Dr. John Beebe that Jung intended the eight functions to be forms of consciousness, how can we possibly "measure" how "conscious" we are?
"Gee, Wyatt, I'm 37% more conscious with my introverted Thinking than you are.... but I see you've really got me beat 2 to 1 on my introverted iNtuiting. That's okay, I'll make up for it with my 14% more extraverted Sensing -- after all, I'm older than you and more likely to develop it."
Puh-leeze.
-Vicky Jo :-P -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Wed, May 20, 2009 - 9:59 AM
>...Jung intended the eight functions to be forms of consciousness...<
Interesting.
Perhaps someone would be willing to comment on a (possibly very naive) question I've been wondering about relative to the "functions" in these instruments and that which they attempt to measure or describe: is there a function (or axis or test, if I have the terminology wrong) which measures or describes how open or closed a person is to new or different experience?
The reason I have been wondering about this is it seems to me like there is a profound, vast, fundamental difference between so many people I know well (such as family members I have observed my entire life) and folks around me here in Alaska, this being a relative openness to considering new ideas, foods, experiences, emotions, and so on or a relative closedness to same. Sometimes this trait or axis seems almost biologically hardwired and inborn --as one person in a family will be completely the opposite of everyone else on this score seemingly from day one onward-- and in other (most, I suspect) cases it seems like a product of environmental influences.
For an example of the latter situation: we send our kids to public schools, take our kids to all sorts of new movies, read and discuss new books, listen to and sing new songs, accept invitations of all kinds whether to a neighbor's backyard BBQ get-together or dancing with exotic foreigners at Burning Man. By sharp contrast, a family down the lane from us home-school their enormous batch of kids specifically to restrict the ideas and interactions they have, they do not listen to or sing any song which is not composed of bible verses, watch only movies which have been vetted by their church and had parts voiced-over or cut out if unacceptable, very seldom accept invitations to neighbor's BBQs (and never to ours), and are outraged that we take our kids to Burning Man. Clearly, while both families in this example are attempting to guide their kids toward rewarding lives, one is doing it by inculcating a sense of receptivity and openness to the new and different whereas the other is reinforcing a (in their opinion) tried-and-true narrow formula for success which requires being closed and shunning exposure to much which is different or new. Likely as not my kids will end up being ex-military Republican stockbrokers who attend conservative right-wing orthodox churches and their kids will be PPPs (Polyamorous Pinko Peaceniks) out partying all hours of the night with intriguing strangers to new music at Burning Man, given how successful the average parent of whatever stripe is at producing kids to turn out "just so," but either way the environmental influence is clear.
Where-ever this basic difference comes from (inborn, environmentally conditioned, a combo of the two) it sure seems like fundamental divide between people whether they are open and eagerly embracing new and different experiences, their emotions, and so on or are just the opposite. Is this one of the Jungian functions or is there some other useful explanation or measure of the axis I am attempting to describe? This cannot just be Introversion versus Extroversion, of that I am sure, because 50% of the time when I take the tests I come out just a point or two toward "I" and the other 50% (of course) a point or two toward "E" --if not right between the two when the instrument is built that way-- and yet absolutely 100% of the time I am way over on the "open to new experiences, feeling feelings, exploring different concepts, etc" end of this so it has to be part of a qualitatively different axis than I-E.
I've thought maybe the Political Compass instrument indirectly measures this by accident, but is describing more the associational outcomes of falling to one side or the other of this divide rather than describing the dynamic itself which _causes_ the divide. That is, an inclination to being a Progressive or a Conservative, a Leftist or Right-wing, etc, stems from this other, deeper, basic function and is not one and the same with it. Here is a link to that instrument, if you are unfamiliar with it: www.politicalcompass.org/
Comment would be genuinely appreciated as I know next to nothing about the Myers-Briggs and similar instruments except to recognize they are measuring _something_ real quite consistently. I'd like to learn more about that which I perceive as a "Openness-Closedness" function or axis.
-
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Wed, May 20, 2009 - 11:30 PMThere's no simple answer to your question. I would say we are "open" or "closed" to things depending on what our preferences are. After all, our "preferences" by definition imply our biases.
With my INFJ preferences, I am "open" to new ideas, "connecting" with others, and "learning new definitions." I am resistant to, but nevertheless aspire to, and am inspired by, physical experiences. I am NOT open to "brainstorming" that never seems to end, people being "selfish," submitting to a firm schedule, or talking incessantly about the past.
We are "open" to whatever matches our preferences, and "closed" to that which does not.
By the way, notice the "negativity" I emanate toward what I am closed to. Another person would describe those same functions -- I am caricaturing functions here -- in a positive way if they matched that person's preferences.
For instance, let's talk about introverted Feeling. I deliberately employed the word "selfish" -- which is a negative perception of introverted Feeling. That's because I prefer extraverted Feeling (I have INFJ preferences). In contrast, people who don't prefer extraverted Feeling sometimes label us "codependent," or "clingy," perhaps "histrionic" or even "manipulative." Wow.
Now if they prefer introverted Feeling, they will experience that process as positive, and (unlike me) be glowing about it. In fact, here's what someone who prefers introverted Feeling has written about the process:
>>[they are] good at making choices
that are in harmony with what they care about and what they think is most
important about life. They know what they like and they know how to motivate
themselves (as opposed to needing to be motivated by others). They are also
quite good at juggling conflicting beliefs and understanding how to prioritize
those beliefs so that they can live with life's paradoxes without the feeling
that they're making too many compromises. Furthermore, they continually
evaluate what they think is worthwhile and important, are loyal to what they
think is important, and stick up for what they believe is important even at the
cost of being considered unpopular. That are also quite good at defending the
ideas and concerns that people they care about see as being important, which
makes them great advocates for justice.<<
In her eyes, this is the best process ever! :-)
Thus the value of understanding type: one man's feast is another man's poison. Without knowing type, I call her selfish; she calls me codependent. Nobody's "right"; nobody's "wrong" -- or else we're both, both. :-D
The point is that we are "open" to whatever processes match our preferences, and "closed" to those that don't. There is an innate resistance, even allergic reaction, to experiencing a form of consciousness we don't naturally prefer. It isn't logical, but it's the weird way we're all wired.
And yes, extraversion does have a lot to do with it -- those who prefer extraversion generally are more open to experience in general than those who do not. Those of us who do not prefer extraversion often feel like we're "defending" ourselves against the world encroaching on us -- even when they enjoy "connecting" with others as I do!
How does this inform your thinking? Please let me know.
-Vicky Jo :-)
PS: 104 friends on Tribe might provide a clue around your overall preference for introversion/extraversion. Just remember, even the most robust of these instruments (the official one) is at most 70% correct on a good day according to its own manual. Those freebie online quizzes are nothing but junk -- everyday I encounter more and more people who are mis-typed by them. Sigh. -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Fri, May 22, 2009 - 2:09 PMI think this is one of my favorite posts I've read on here in a long time. It's very rich. Those descriptions of experiences and feelings provide much insight beyond what they merely say in words.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 3:29 PMentj.tribe.net/
And contrary to the newspeak that Vicky uses (clarity my a**), all tests count your answers and from that compute your position in the 4 dimensional space.
As for you not knowing which dimension suits you more, LOL, that is exactly what the test measures: how much you prefer one over the other at the particular time you took the test. If you take the test again, under different circumstances/mood/etc. or different test, your responses will vary and you will get a different result. If you keep on doing that you will get a distribution of your responses, which will tell you a lot more than a single value. -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 6:14 PMI'm an MBTI Master Practitioner -- the highest designation currently available. I have twelve years' of experience in the field. I am friendly with Isabel Myers' son and daughter-in-law (they are the current co-guardians of the MBTI tool). I am a card-carrying member of the APT (Association of Psychological Type). I have presented at APT conferences in Australia, Baltimore, and will be presenting this summer in Houston. I have had articles published in the APT's journal, both on the topic of relationships last November and this month in the Australian journal on the topic of introverted-looking extraverts. Tomorrow I will teach the fourth segment of my webinar on appreciating the cognitive processes on behalf of Interstrength Associates, whose owner has 30 year's experience in this field and was a student of Dr. David Keirsey.
Feel free to believe whichever source you wish (although you may wish to investigate their experience and credentials first), and have yourself a fabulous day. :-) -
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 6:05 AM
Well, 'yal certainly outrank me in this area, the bunch of youse -and I do appreciate the more well-informed perspective. I've just taken one or another of the various versions available (traditional Myers-Briggs, Keirsey-Bates, online Quizilla hoo-ha, etc) every few years out of curiosity for the last few decades. Every single time the result turns out either INTJ or ENTJ depending on the version of the instrument and perhaps --apparently-- to some degree the mood I am in while taking the test that day.
Thanks, also, for the link to the existing ENTJ tribe. I did search that term in the tribes catagory before initiating the ENTJ Forum, but nothing came up; tribe's search system may have been having difficulties at that time. I'll post a note in the new ENTJ Forum tribe redirecting anyone who wanders in there over to the existing main ENTJ tribe.
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Fri, September 11, 2009 - 6:07 PMI call this Powned (although I still don't know what the P stands for) ;p
-
-
-
Re: INTJ - ENTJ
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 2:14 AM"The scores do not measure the strength of preference -- the score measures the degree of *clarity* you have about which dimension fits you.
A score close to equal simply means you aren't yet clear about which dimension you prefer, that's all. A preference is there -- you just don't know yourself or the model well enough to clearly say which dimension reflects you yet. "
I don't want to offend vicky but I was reading through the site and saw that some your posts, especially this one, kind of contradicts some of the aspects of the system, or does not seem to effectively communicate some aspects.
Isn't our ultimate goal to grow into a balanced individual without preferences? XXXX is supposedly the "perfect personality" (or like jesus of some sort)
But the way you explain it makes it seem like we can never break free from the letters we were given, that we have a distinct preference and that's the way it's always going to be. But people are dynamic and not static beings, and they say as we grow older it becomes harder to type us because of personal growth and balance. (and I'm sure you already know this, but seemed to fail to take into account when posting)
(Hypothetically)Let's just assume your statement "A score close to equal simply means you aren't yet clear about which dimension you prefer, that's all. The scores do not measure the strength of preference -- the score measures the degree of *clarity* you have about which dimension fits you."
is TRUE.
Well then while assuming this is true for this particular test, is it not possible to create or find a test which does measure the strength of preference? and (assuming you answered yes) is it not possible to score rather evenly in preference of functions? The way you come across is that strength of preference doesn't exist.
" A preference is there -- you just don't know yourself or the model well enough to clearly say which dimension reflects you yet. "
This statement implies that a test resulting in very minor preferences is the cause of the test taker not knowing themselves or the model well enough. BUT from a different perspective couldn't it also possibly indicate a balanced individual merely not making extreme choices on the test?
