Do we really need to understand how, why or even whether, the MBTI® assessment is a type instrument rather than a trait instrument, or that Jungian psychological type is more than just a bundle  of traits? Does it really matter?  Is  there really that much of a difference?  Is it even worth talking about anymore?

I think the answer to this is a resounding YES!  “So what” you say?  Well, these differences may seem trivial to the novice reader, thus the title of this blog, but I can assure you, they are  not.  [Click  here to look at a really simple chart created by Danielle Poirier that  explains the differences.]

Let me highlight the differences between type and trait  from a personal story to see what you think:

In another life, I was part of a technology team that  did a day of MBTI team building.  The  entire team was at the table: the CIO and his deputy, my practice leader, and  my peers – all managers.  The first thing that the trainer did was to put our reported types on a type table (without the opportunity for self-selection).  The  entire team was in the upper left hand corner of the table, ISTJ, and my reported  type was ENFJ.  He walked us through our  “scores” (the graph that highlights preference clarity how confident we are of the results) and we were told to look at  the “scores” for E and I.  My preference clarity on the E-I dichotomy was Very Clear.  He said to the group, “Cindy is a strong, very extreme Extravert”.  The entire team laughed.  Then I heard the comments, “Cindy, is that why don’t stop talking?  Is that why you constantly blurt things out in  meetings?”  The trainer went on to  explain that he was a classic INTJ/P because he was sometimes “J” and sometimes  “P”.  I challenged him on this point and asked him if he could explain type dynamics to the team.  He didn’t know what I was talking about!  Then, he pointed to the obvious “elephant in  the room” – the team type table.  He  said, “Look at the types on the team.  Cindy, why are you even here at this firm and on this team?  You must not like your job very much.  I would imagine that it would be really hard  for you to produce technical documentation as an ENFJ.”  I will never forget those words.

Do I even have to highlight the obvious consequences  from that scenario?  What if the trainer had explained the nature of the dichotomies as  categories, explained to the team that people don’t behave in a certain way  because of their preferences and there are no good or bad types? Instead, I wonder what would have happened had he simply pointed out the gifts that someone with ENFJ preferences might bring to a primarily ISTJ team?

What happened at the session is a classic example of a practitioner not understanding the dynamic nature of type and treating type, and the components of type, as individual traits disconnected from the holistic system.  Implied in his presentation of type was the existence of strength of preference, cause and effect of type equating to specific behaviors (you can or cannot perform a task) and the “weaknesses” of being a particular way.  Negative stereotyping and misuse of type can damage people and their reputations.

Type experts have been writing about the differences between type and trait psychology for years in order to impart the importance of understanding the differences; to hit home the fact that the MBTI® assessment does not produce a set of standalone traits that can be quantitatively measured.  When examining types as defined within the Jung/Myers model, we are observing characteristics that are elements of a whole system, connected to theoretical underpinnings, which define the basic nature or quality of preferences.  When we observe people to figure out type, we look for characteristics that point to a preference.

One of the best explanations I have read comes from Naomi Quenk’s seminal article on the subject (Bulletin of Psychological Type,16:2, Spring, 1993) [Click here to read the full article].  Quenk says,  “The traits [type characteristics] involved are likely to be more or less related to each other since the underlying preference or  interaction of preferences will serve as the ‘glue’ that makes them cohere.”  In the type model there are no stand-alone traits.

In trait psychology, the number and kinds of traits that you have and the strength of those traits “add up” to who you are. Traits present themselves as  independent of a “main category”.  In type psychology, there are characteristics which develop as a result of habitual use of a preference that present as traits; these behavioral characteristics [traits] are expressions of type. Important to recognize is that there is no one characteristic present in everyone who shares a preference.  In other words, in type theory you cannot  say, “All people who prefer Extraversion are talkative”.

In trait theory, there is a “normal”, a “more than normal” and a “less than normal”.  Look at IQ for instance.  In trait terms, if you have the trait of Extraversion,  it implies you are strong in Extraversion and all of the behaviors that are normally associated with Extraversion – talking, socializing in general, being the life of the party –and  that you don’t have a lot of, or are weak in, the opposite thing, called “Introversion”.  In type terms, it means that you are born with being more comfortable in the outer world; it is where you get your energy and  how your energy naturally flows.

Myers’ created the Indicator to provide people with a doorway into what she considered to be a positive psychology; she wanted people to understand  and appreciate differences; she wanted to help people get along better  and come to understand themselves at a deeper level.  She wanted people to feel good about themselves, no matter their type.  In the Jung/Myers model, there is no normal type, therefore there are no “bad” types, worse types, abnormal types, weak or strong types (or preferences, attitudes, functions or function-attitudes).  There are appropriate ways of being in certain circumstances, and each type has associated gifts and blind spots.  All types are valuable.

Despite the best efforts of type experts and theorists over the years, the message that the MBTI® is a type, not trait instrument, has not taken hold in the public domain.  Take some time to read an illuminating article by Master Practitioner Vicky Jo Varner about the new type community on the internet and the implications for the future of type:

From my perspective, it is alarming to look at  psychological type through the lens of trait psychology because we are, I believe, in danger of losing the beauty of type theory and the richness for elegant applications, as well as the opportunity it provides for entering the lifelong development process that Jung called individuation. We are in danger of trivializing the instrument from which Jung’s rich theory can be accessed.

There are so many reasons for this pervasive misunderstanding of the MBTI instrument and Jungian typology.  Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that the study of psychology itself is a disciplined field of study, of which, most people are unfamiliar.  Perhaps it is the deceivingly simplistic nature of the 4-letters of the MBTI type code that leads people to believe they understand the instrument and type, just by looking atit.  I doesn’t help that there are thousands of imitation “tests” on the internet.  The reasons for misunderstanding are many and complex, but what is certain is that among trainers and layman who talk about type as if types were traits, there is no understanding of the dynamic nature of Jung’s theory of typology upon which the MBTI was constructed.  The MBTI has become so popularized that the surface is replacing the depth; and even the popular understanding of the surface is wrought with error.

When we pull apart a type code to analyze the workings of the attitudes (E-I and J-P), functions (S,N,T ,F) or functions-in-attitude (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi), and the characteristics associated with them, we have to consider them as integral ingredients which interact or combine to make a whole system.  There are no stand-alone or independent traits within a type.  We cannot pull apart a system to determine percentage, strength, or weakness of any of the elements because in the Jung/Myers model, they don’t stand alone and cannot be independently measured.

As an ENFJ, I am not 90% feeling and 10% thinking.  I am not 80% extraverted feeling and 20%  introverted intuition.  The way  I experience life is that I am naturally, and always, concerned about how people feel about me, and about how they feel about other people involved in a situation; and when it comes to making a decision, I value and consider those feelings and let them guide me in the right direction; I just navigate my life that way.  I am acutely aware and naturally tuned into how my relationships and others’ relationships and the relationships within my groups or systems (family, work, teams I coach) are functioning; if they are not working I serve as a catalyst for healing and change.  That does not mean that I am not able to see things in a more objective way, although it may take me a bit longer to get there because it is not naturally how I see life.

Herein lies the major difference – we are quite simply born into our type; we are who we  are.   Our type lies within us and cannot be dissected from us.  Within the model, who we are and the complexity of our nature cant be boiled down to independent parts that somehow “add up” to make us so; it’s the other way around.  We have innately different ways in which we see the world; in the way we experience and live our lives; we have different drivers; value different things.  In the words of Jung himself, “We naturally tend to understand everything in terms of our own type.” We can’t break down how we experience theworld into percentages, strengths, skills, or whatever terms you want to use.

And here is the beauty of that.  We don’t have to work to gain more of those independent “parts” in order to make us whole. We already are – in potentia (the inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being) – whole.  Our work is to continually learn about who we are by opening our consciousness and becoming more aware of those parts of ourselves that we have kept in our unconscious – that we have disowned; this is Jungian individuation.  I find this perspective much more reassuring than a trait approach; it is easier to forgive myself and others when looking through this lens, for I know that we are all simply living from who we fundamentally are.

So, do we, “Just call the whole thing off”?  Do we stop trying to get the point across to the world that type should not be approached like trait psychology?  Is it just too hard, because those of us that know better seem to be swimming against the current tide of popular culture?  Do we stop our efforts to correct those that characterize Jungian typology as trait psychology? No! In the words of Danielle Poirier, “We don’t want to mistake one for the other [type psychology and trait psychology] but they do co-exist!”

To  extend my use of metaphor (ok, I may be stretching it too far…) “Better  call the calling off off”!  And just for fun, if you become frustrated when you hear someone saying something like, “I am a strong F and that is why I am so emotional”- or something else equally off-base, listen to Louis and Ella for inspiration!

This holiday season we saw the return of our troops from Iraq after 8 long years of war.  The cost: 4500 American deaths, 100,000 Iraqi deaths, 32,000 US injuries and according to some experts, a price tag of over $3 Trillion.  The end of our military stay in Iraq was a holiday gift for our country and untold numbers of families and troops who were reunited.  But there is no arguing that the price of war is great.  We honor those who defend our country as we are simultaneously distressed by the human sacrifice.

Isabel Myers and her mother Katharine Briggs experienced this distress following the US entry into World War II.  As students of human behavior, they were determined to do something to help people resolve conflict rather than fight each other.  They also sought to help women contribute to the war effort by doing work that was satisfying to them. 

Thus, the mother-daughter team set out on a journey to construct a “paper- and- pencil” assessment that would help people gain access to finding their psychological type as outlined by C.G. Jung.  They chose to work with Jungian personality theory because they thought it to be the best model for understanding human nature that they had come across.  In fact, Katharine Briggs, who had been creating her own model for understanding people, said of Jung’s psychological types, “this is it”; and she proceeded to throw away her work!

From that point forward Isabel Myers worked tirelessly to create an instrument that would point us to an understanding of our psychological type.  She gave us a great gift by bucking the prevailing notion in psychology that we are all somehow mere deviations from “normal” (I am pretty sure this notion still exists!).  The Indicator and her later publication of Gifts Differing, continues to point us in that direction.

So, how might the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator translate to the possibility of world peace?  Stay with me for a moment…

It boils down to what Jung called “projection”.  Projection is a part of the human condition, and something of which we are mostly unaware.  It occurs when we take the qualities in ourselves that we have disowned and are unconscious of (our shadow) and “assign” them to another person.  In the case of negative projection – what we embody, but want to suppress – we attribute to others; we move whatever is causing us the problem outward, instead of looking inward to bring it to light.  Unconsciously, we experience cognitive dissonance (the feeling of uncomfortable tension from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time); unable to resolve the internal issue, we blame, reject, judge, degrade, accuse, or otherwise malign the “other” in the situation.

Let’s take a simple example.  The other day, I asked my husband what he may have learned from understanding typology and living with someone that is his opposite in many ways.  He stated, “I have learned that some people are really not being rude, or discounting me or my opinion when they interrupt me; they are Extraverts; it’s their way of adding to the conversation.  I used to think they were not only rude, but arrogant and self-promoting – they thought their ideas were the best so they would just steamroll right over me.”  

I hear similar projections at the beginning of each and every workshop I facilitate.  Sensing types think intuitive types are “out there”, flighty, a bit nutty or unrealistic.  Intuitive types see sensing types as uncreative, slow, and boring.  Thinking types describe feeling types as being too emotional, too invested in people, wishy-washy, insincere, and “touchy-feely”, and feeling types see thinking types as cold, harsh, tough, and unfeeling.  Danielle Poirier, in her blog Typology, Seismology [Click here] said that her projections around the Judging preference were especially problematic and, “… the one imposing the deadline is, of course…the evil warlord, the despot, the fascist.”!  

So you see, in Myers-Briggs/Jungian terminology, we project negative words, thoughts and images onto anyone who presents an opposite preference; anyone with whom we are not naturally comfortable.  The process they are using conflicts with our identity – or with who we think we are and simultaneously with whom we think (mistakenly) the other person is.  We experience the function that the person is using as “negative” and define the person as so; it’s easier than having to wrestle with that inside of ourselves!  When we experience someone with the same preferences as we have, we tend to affirm them; when someone’s preferences are opposite to ours, we project.

That is because if you aren’t comfortable with a preference or a function, are not skilled in its use, and it primarily lies in your unconscious world, to use it feels as if you, yourself were being [put in all of those negative words] – it would be foreign to your identity and expressed with very little skill and discomfort – like writing with your non-preferred hand; think of how that would look and feel!

So, where were we, world peace?

You can see how these negative projections, even when not expressed outwardly, can be fostered and fester, and cause dislike, hate, and even be said to contain evil – toward the individual who has been the “object” of the projection.  The implications on an individual level are interpersonal conflict – wrought with misunderstanding, judgments and missed opportunity for people to come together – friends, family, spouses, children, teams, groups, Boards of Directors, political leaders, etc. etc.….

I have not found evidence to back this, but I believe that Isabel, as a student of Jung, understood what Jung said of the implications of projection when we move beyond inter-personal relationships to the collective. 

“It is in the nature of political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself, by foisting it off on somebody else.” (Jung, The Undiscovered Self, p. 55).

In other words, at the collective level, projection leads to war.

Here is where Myers-Briggs Type within the context of Jungian psychology comes into play…(finally!).  It takes self-awareness or self-knowledge for each of us to remove our projections from others thus reversing the process.  Without that awareness, we don’t stand much chance of resolving differences or changing our negative thoughts about others; our conflicts remain unresolved, even if they appear to be resolved on the outside – those thoughts we have of the other surface again from time to time.  Understanding our type and how others are different from us fosters conflict resolution.  As Myers said in Gifts Differing (pg. 115),

“Disagreement suddenly becomes less irritating when Smith recognizes that it would hardly be normal for Jones to agree.  Jones starts from a different point of view and proceeds in a different direction…it is not from being willfully contrary, but from simply being a different type.”

Is it realistic to think that a tool such as the Myers-Briggs can lead to world peace?

Jung said that it may take hundreds and hundreds of years for man to come to the realization, on a collective level, that it is he who is the problem.  Yet we must move the psychic consciousness of the collective forward, one person at a time, or our fate as humanity will be sealed.  The MBTI and psychological type are tools that we can use to foster love toward our fellow man; our friends, family, spouses, children, teams, groups, Boards of Directors, political leaders, etc. etc.…As Jung said, “…nothing promotes understanding and rapprochement [his emphasis] more than the mutual withdrawal of projections….where love stops, power begins, and violence and terror.”   

One person at a time…

This blog was written by Danielle Poirier, Type  Expert and Author of the Magnificent 16 www.magnificent16.com who has agreed to be a regular guest blogger.  Enjoy!____________________________________________________________________________________________

By Danielle Poirier

For some people, learning about psychological type is one of those everyday banal experiences that never overflows into their day-to-day life, like a feel good public service  announcement that one forgets as soon as the program is back on. 

For others, it is an earth shattering experience – a first time occurrence of a positive self-image, or a breach carved into a closed, intolerant mind – that changes one’s perception forever.

My experience was of the latter category: it opened up onto a world of purpose and meaning whilst closing the door on a feeling of not belonging to the human race.  It was a life-changing event that triggered others in rapid fire succession: it ended a harmful pattern of self-destructive behaviour, brought me back to school and provided me with a career.  It was thirty years ago and my professional life is fully invested in learning and teaching about type and depth psychology.

You would think that after investing as much time, resources, creativity and knowledge into understanding, appreciating and honouring typological differences, they would no longer pose a problem in my life.  My heart and mind should, would and could open gleefully to all our individual gifts differing and I would be someone who happily co-exists with everyone else.  Especially if you consider that I am, after all, a feeling type. 

Yet it just isn’t so.  I’m envious of some differences, irritated by others, and even get caught in the perception of perceiving normal differences as evil.  Closure, for example, is something I sometimes see as suffocating, life threatening and evil.  Yes, closure. Closure interrupts the limitless horizon of possibilities I like to have before me and clogs it with unbearable deadlines looming as big as 100 storey buildings 10 feet away from where I am.  No more horizon.  It leaves me feeling claustrophobic and gasping for much needed air. 

It doesn’t matter that you spend your last breath explaining TJ and FP, (or Te and Fi, or JP, or, or, or… whatever version you use of the theory) it doesn’t change the experience of the difference.

The person reminding me of the deadline is of course the evil warlord, the despot, the fascist.  Why don’t they understand that this deadline is entirely expendable, self-imposed and negotiable?  Don’t they see the sacrifices made to meet a deadline? (Feel free to spit that last word out, it feels good). 

The reason type is a problem is in the nature of the beast: each pole of a dichotomy is necessarily incompatible with the other.  You need to talk it out?  My inner bubble has just been invaded, I can no longer be alone with my inner experience.  I need to reflect on it?  Your need to hash it out there in the open has just been eviscerated.  You need to connect?  She needs to remain detached.  See, by being true to ourselves we necessarily do what interrupts, interferes or irritates the other. 

What is complementary is necessarily incompatible with the other. 

So the inescapable truth is: typological differences are a major source of problems. Yes, yes!  Of course we are all beautiful and gifted and complementary and, and and… 

AND these differences are also difficult to live with, constant reminders of each others’ inconsistencies, fallibilities and shortcomings.  Your needs and desires and vision will necessarily be at odds with mine, eventually. 

Nine chapters, three hundred and twenty-nine pages; that’s how much time and effort Jung put into describing the problem of type in the history of thought, poetry, philosophy, aesthetics and human character.  Over and over again he tells us: type is a problem.  See how we cannot agree, throughout history, on what things are.  See how type essentially shapes our world view to the inescapable exclusion of another’s. 

Underneath all those chapters lies the instigation of his research and rumination: “See how Freud, Adler and I just could not agree on what we were finding”.  

And such is the path that leads to my conclusion, the title of this first guest blog on mbtitoday.org: typology is as complex, fascinating, life-saving as seismology, yet just like seismology it changes little in how things unfold.  We cannot stop earthquakes.  Seismic waves will happen, the earth will open up and swallow the living, survivors will survive and move on.  We understand what happened yet are powerless to keep it from happening.  We learn to live with it.  

Such is the unfolding of human diversity.  We cannot avoid the incompatibility of our world views.  Seismic clashes of perception, ideas, beliefs, conclusions, needs, objectives are inevitable; they are all part of our magnificent humanity.   

So typology, like seismology, does not exist to “fix” the problem, but to bring it, the problem, into our awareness.  To keep our eyes, ears, mind and heart open to the first tremors, to measure their significance and to step back a little.  To move away from the problem if we can, if the danger is real. 

Typology warns us that major shifts in the underlying structure of our world view is forthcoming, our perceptions and our judgements will be challenged, our self-image will evolve with each authentic encounter with others, for they carry the world views we forsook so that we may carry our own. 

And yet, we will survive. Transformed by the experience, yes.  But we survive, we grow, we learn.  And somehow, we become better. 

That’s my lesson: closure may be difficult, challenging, exasperating, but it is needed.  I may have avoided this one, dear editor Cindy – it was due for November 15 – but I won’t be able to avoid them all.  Eventually, my knees will bend and I shall surrender to the unavoidable deadline, and to her needs above my own.

A while back I recall reading an article by a figure skater (I can’t recall the details of the story or the publication) who was constantly drilled by her coach to practice her basic jumps – over and over and over again.  At first, she felt as if she was being held back through this repetition as she was already advanced; why did she have to do the simple things repeatedly? The article ends with her epiphany that contant practice of the basics made her advanced routines that much better and propelled her forward.

I saw a similar theme while watching Grey’s Anatomy a couple of weeks ago; Christina Yang, a gifted 5th year sugical resident with unfaltering self-confidence was pressed by her mentor, Teddy Altman, to perform basic surgical procedures and  she was then questioned by Teddy her throughout the procedures;  “Why are you using that tool? Why did you select that size? Why are you making the cut there? Christina finally objects “Why you doing this to me? You are wasting my gift.”  Toward the end of the episode, she finally sees the light when in the the middle of one of these procedures, she forgets what comes next and is guided by the surgical nurse, much to her dismay. 

These stories remind me of what I learned in piano lessons as a kid; its all about “technique”; how you hold your hands, strike the keys, press the pedal.  In ballet it was posture, core strength, and length, pulling your abdomen in and tilting your pelvis forward, pulling your shoulders down, lengthening your arms, curving your fingers just so and “spotting” while you turn.  Each week in my Yoga practice, I am reminded and re-reminded that I need to re-learn, alter and improve upon my breathing and my form.  In Pilates, I need to learn and re-learn to pull in from the core, lengthen my spine and get the correct breathing sequence before I move on to advanced exercises.

I can’t help but think of how this relates to learning about and teaching psychological type.  As I see it, the fundamentals of psychological type are clearly stated by Daryl Sharp in one sentence from his book, Personality Types, Jung’s Model of Psychology. 

“Jung’s model is concerned with the movement of psychic energy and  the way in which one habitually or preferentially orients oneself to the world.”

Sharp indictes that fundamentally type is about the movement of our psychic energy – our life force, or  ’libido’ as Jung called it.  I have learned to talk about this energy force or process as one that alternates and flows rythmically between the cycle of contraction (introversion) and the cycle of expansion (extraversion) like a heartbeat (I know that Jung said this somewhere!).   As our energy moves outward, we focus on the objective world, or “objects” that are outside of us.  These objects can be verified by others, so the process is “objective”.  When our energy pulls us inward toward ourselves, our focus is on self as the “subject”.  Jung called the introverted attitude, “subjective”‘ because we are the only ones that can really know what is inside of ourselves.  When we are extraverting we are concerned with what is happening in the environment; when we are introverting, we are concerned with what is happening inside of ourselves.  We are either pulled more toward our extraverted or our introvered world; it is there that we will likely spend more time.  However, none of us can ignore the pull that we have for balance towards the other world.  Our habitual preference is indicated by Myers’ first dichotomy on the Indicator.

The second basic premise of psychological type in Sharp’s statement is that type provides our orientation to the world.  This is not to be confused with Myers’ J-P dichotomy, as she uses the same language for how we live our life in the outer world.  What I believe Sharp is speaking of here is Jung’s notion that our personality crystallizes around one of the functions (S, N, T or F) in either one or the other attitude (E or I).  These  are what have become known as the mental processes (or functions-in-attitude).  Even though we all engage in using all of the functions, Jung indicated that one function will guide our way.  He called it the “superior” function and Myers’ named it the “dominant” function.  I was at a workshop this weekend wherein renowned type expert Danielle Poirier( http://mbtitoday.org/applications-of-type/ - scroll down to the Magnificent 16) said that 80% of your conscious personality is your dominant function.  It determines how we adjust to, learn about and live our lives; and it is what accounts for the differences between people – we are oriented by different functions.   It is the foundation of  who and how we are in the world; in fact Jung said the 8 mental functions represented 8 different psychological types.  Jung thought of psychological type as his compass to guide him through life http://mbtitoday.org/carl-jung-psychological-type/. 

Quite often, I re-read portions of the MBTI Manual, Introduction to Type and books on Jungian psychology in general.  Each time I read and re-read these texts, I see the fundamentals of psychological type in a different and deeper way; I pick up new words to use in my introductory sessions, or think up new creative ways of explaining the theory.  Kind of like the stories I opened with – a slight adjustment through deeper understanding enables me to become just a little bit better at facilitating and teaching type.  It also becomes easier for me to clarify for my participants the dynamic nature of type – how the eight mental functions are active processes that we engage in, and how the 16 types are 16 different dynamic systems of interacting processes.  Type is a system of energy and balance – between extraversion and introversion and perceiving and judging.  And, this is a complex theory to learn and to teach; our job as practitioners is to take the complex and make it simple so that people can understand – but not so simple as to dilute the message – something that takes practice and re-grounding in the theory, to achieve. 

All of the fundamentals of type are spelled out in Myers’ text, Gifts Differing.  Myers’ text is so full of fundamental information, that my copy is highlighted and “dog earred” to death!  Whenever I have what I think to be a brilliant insight, I pull out Gifts Differing and I see that the so called “brilliant” idea is there in black and white; Myers  apparently knew the importance of understanding the fundamentals!

There is much buzz today about the MBTI® Step III™.  Charles Martin, V.P. of Research and Development for CAPT, and a trainer for the assessment, recently published a womderful article about the MBTI® Step III™ in the new APTi e-Bulletin: http://bit.ly/pQQX5W . Step III™ was featured in a 90 minute conference session at the APTi 2011 International Conference, presented by Allen Hammer, lead researcher, co-author and trainer and Sondra Von Sant, a Step III™  trainer,  type expert and author.  Training courses for the Step III ™ are given by CAPT, see:  http://www.CAPT.org/training-workshops/MBTI-Training-Step3.htm .  There is even a Linked-In  Group for MBTI® Step III™ Certified Practitioners.

There are only a few hundred Certified MBTI® Step III™ practitioners for this relatively new Form of the MBTI®, but interest in the assessement is growing; there is good reason for this.  Step III™ is the culmination of Isabel Myers’ work; it provides us with a snapshot in time of how we are effectively or ineffectively using our perception and judgment.  Created for use in coaching and counseling, this Form of the MBTI® instrument moves beyone the Step I™ Form M (an indicator of one’s basic MBTI® Type) and Step II™ Form Q (how we express different facets of type) to understanding how people have developed in their type.

The construction of the assessment is more complex than the other Forms.  It took the Step III™ team (Allen Hammer, Wayne Mitchell and Naomi Quenk – Katharine stated that she and Peter Myers believed these three to be the only ones who could complete the task) years to put the instrument together; they were building on Myers’original work from her archives – literally 66 long boxes filled with data and 5 X 8 index cards and complex handwritten, sometimes indecipherable, algorithims.  The researchers call their herculean effort a “reconstruction”. (Interesting to note that it took a team of people and a complex computer program to complete wwhat one woman was doing, and by hand!)  A new complex scoring method with Rules that trigger Report Statments and Development Suggestions was created; the scoring methodology leads to results that are highly individualized.  The authors introduced Myers’ “Sufficiency Scales” of Confidence, Stamina and Compensatory Strain.

As Katharine recently told me the story of the MBTI® Step III™, she was filled with pride at what the researchers have accomplished.  Katharine stated that she was pleased with the seemingly insurmountable undertaking which required close coordination and support between CPP, CAPT and the MBTI® Trust.  So pleased was she that she wanted to “ring bells and shout out to the world” that Myers’ work was now complete.  Katharine explained that Isabel had died with this major piece of her work unfinished.

According to Katharine, Myers’ main interest was investigating what blocked people from moving through Jungian Individuation http://mbtitoday.org/the-5-levels-of-understanding/#level-five.  The purpose of Step III™ , which she began to research in the early years, was to explore where an individual might be blocked in the sound development of perception and judgment.  Isabel thought that if people became aware of how they were blocked, they could develop and become more effective in their type, therefore creating their own happiness.  Katharine quoted Isabel, almost verbatim,  from  Gifts Differing:

“…the understanding of type can make your perceptions clearer, your judgments sounder, and your life closer to your heart’s desire”,  and “…you will be more effective and satisfied in the world by improving your use of perception and judgment.”

True to the tradition of the MBTI®, Isabel was concerned that if she unveiled her plans to create a type development instrument too early, it would be taken out of the context of normal development.  Katharine emphasized that Isabel wanted the world to become used to the positive instrument that the MBTI® assessment was becoming, before introducing an instrument for development.  Isabel did not trust the world of psychologists who tended to look at what was “wrong” with people rather than what was right.  Step III™  was to be used to help people in their normal development, not in any way to evaluate individual pathology.  For these reasons, Isabel’s work on the Step III™  remained very private; only a few people, including Katharine, were able to see what she was doing.

Within the first five years of the development of Step III™ , Katharine used an early form of the instrument with 150 high school seniors in her role as a Certified School Psychologist with the Career Center that she had developed at the Sherwood High School in Sandy Springs, Maryland.  Prior to adminstering the instrument, Katharine had been concerned about two particular students.  The Step III™  results (that were then hand scored)  highlighted type development issues with these two students in particular!  She was able to use the information to help them both, in more specific ways than she would have been able to without the instrument’s results (at the time, there was no Report for people to view).

I recently took the Step III™  and I had the benefit of having Allen Hammer as my interpreter.  I found that the Report Statements pinpointed with specificity some of the issues that were blocking my energy to move forward in my business.  I highlighted with Allen the statments that “jumped out” at me, which led to a very meaningful discussion about how I might be able to re-frame my thought process to help me become “unstuck”.  The Statements on my Step III™  Report had more meaning and were much deeper than my Step I or II Reports.  The benefit of this instrument to me, as it will no doubt be for your clients, is that it provides a real-time snapshot of specific issues relevant to current circumstances.  I am hoping that in a year, I will see different Statements on my Report. Individuation is a never-ending process!

For more information about the MBTI® Step III™ and how to become a Certified Practitioner, go to: http://www.capt.org/assessment-mbti-step3/step3-about.htm

I have a clear preference for Extraversion.  Most people that know me would never mistake me for having a preference for Introversion; I am expressive and easy to get to know.  I am open and direct with my feelings and thoughts – people know where I stand on most issues.  I can be wildly enthusiastic and energetic about what I love, one of those things being type; so much so that once I was “reprimanded” on a performance review for “having too much enthusiasm about that thing called the MBTI.”  I was even asked once by a co-worker if I had “taken something” before work!  I dont shy away from being the center of attention (most would say that is an understatement) and my husband had a running joke with people around the time of our wedding that we had to keep expanding the guest list to accomodate my ever growing number of newly acquired friends, like the checkout woman from the supermarket, for instance.  I truly get my energy from being in, and interacting with, the world outside of myself.

You can imagine my difficulty early in my career with understanding repeated personal experiences that do not fall within the category of my extraverted preference.  For instance, looking back at Spring break in college, I recall that the thought of going to Ft. Lauderdale with a large froup of friends made me shiver – spending an entire week with a gaggle of girls, sleeping in the same quarters? Sharing a bathroom? Partying until all hours?  A nightmare in the making!  I ended up going, because it seemed like the “in” thing to do, but I was never so relieved as when Great Aunt Verna, living in Florida in her retirement years, picked me up for an early bird dinner at a local restaurant where we enjoyed prime rib, quiet conversation and a gin and tonic.

When  I started my consulting practice in 2001, it astounded me (and those that know me) that the thought of going to networking events – where I don’t know anyone – and chatting about the weather and business and the economy and what I do for a living, left me cold.  I retreat from those events, not because I don’t want to sell my services, but because I find it uncomfortable to keep up the small talk.  I don’t like to join committees, Boards, or other community groups and events.  I shy away from neighborhood block parties and garage sales, and find that at larger social gatherings, I like to talk one-on-one with people I know rather than work the room making small talk with people I don’t.  I am certain of my preference for Extraversion, so how do these experiences and many others like them fit with my type which is ENFJ?

The MBTI® Step II™ had some answers for me.  The Step II™ Interpretive Report, generated through the Form Q, cannot provide all of the answers about the individuality of type, but it can provide you and your clients with insights about the different expressions of type.  Isabel Myers researched 20 different Facets of type, 5 for each of the 4 MBTI® Dichotomies.  The Step II™ is the result of that research and provides information about the expression of type through each of these Facets.  MBTI® Facets can either be in-preference  (congruent with your preference on a particular Dichotomy) or out-of-preference (in the opposite direction from your preference). 

On the E-I Dichotomy, The Facet of Gregarious-Intimate provides information about the depth and breadth of our relationships; I scored as an “Intimate ENFJ”.  This means that I express this Facet of my preference for Extraversion in an introverted way.  I prefer one-on-one interactions or small groups, and in large groups I seek out people I know for conversation and spend the rest of the time just listening.  It also means I prefer to share my innermost thoughts and feelings with people that are important to me.  These results are confirming.

When I review and think about my Interpretive Report it reminds me of some of the basic, yet hard to remember, key tenents of the model of Psychological Type:

• That type does not put us in a box;
• That the characteristics and Facets associated with each particular Dichotomy will not fit every person of a particular type;
• That the old addage, “every man is like every other man and like no other man” applies to one’s type (for me, I am like every other ENFJ and like no other ENJF); and
• That an understanding of our opposite will lead us to appreciate and embrace those differences in others.

In the context of self-awareness and growth, the MBTI® Step II™ Interpretive Report provided me with a doorway into listening more closely to my need for Introversion; to become more conscious and aware of how it feels for me when I am in a large group and prefer to be more silent when I am uncomfortable.  If I pay attention to those times when I am feeling like retreating from the group, it reminds me that I need to keep working to accept and become more comfortable with the introverted part of myself, embracing a bigger picture of who I am.  

…and I don’t mean “Type language,” as in changing your communication style to flex to your opposite preference. What I mean is, let’s all get “on the same page” when we are talking about MBTI® Type to clients, to people who are not acquainted with the theory, or even when we post on social networking sites. What do I mean? And why is this so important anyway?

There is no denying the power of language. We seldom stop to think about that. Language is what sets us apart from other animals and is obviously a vital part of our existence. There is a whole science built around language and its rules which includes phonology, morphology, the structure of words, syntax, the combination of words into sentences, semantics, lexicon, etc. As we learn a language, its rules are internalized; linguists call the knowing of a language and its rules “competence,” which is different from “performance.” We can know the rules and choose to speak accordingly, or not.

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex body of knowledge, let’s look at the language surrounding Type in a similar vein. As we learn about Type, the language rules become clearer – we are learning to speak a new language. I know that if I am not careful, I can fall into “MBTI speak” and alienate those that I want to reach.

Having its own lexicon, we need to make sure that we are truly “competent” – that we know the rules of the language. Many of these language rules are implied within the MBTI Ethical Guidelines. Years ago, in conjunction with creating the first MBTI Qualifying program, Katharine Myers created an entire document dedicated to MBTI language rules (click on this PDF file). These rules may seem complex, but much of using correct Type language is based on two simple principles that we should know as Type practitioners:

• The MBTI is not a trait instrument and does not tell us how much or how little of a preference we “have” or “do not have” and
• MBTI Type is dynamic, more than the sum of its parts; it is the interaction of the 4 letters of the type code that provide us with the richness of type.

So, let’s move from “competence” to practical application – or as the linguists say, to “performance.” When you speak about type, simply consider:

Could what I am saying incorrectly imply that Type is a trait instrument or a static, rigid model? If so, what would be more accurate to say?

Let’s look at some examples:

• “He is a/an [E/I/S/N/T/F]” – Using the letters of the Type Code by themselves may incorrectly imply: (1) that the letters themselves are static and do not interact within a type and (2) that a person does not have any of the opposite preference. Instead, change the language to use the full word, such as “He has a preference for Extraversion,” or “He prefers Extraversion to Introversion,” or even “He has ESTJ preferences.”
• “She is a/an [Sensor/Intuitive/Feeler/Thinker]”– Using a preference in this way may incorrectly imply that the person does not use or have the opposite preference at his or her disposal. Instead, change the language to “She is a [Sensing, Intuitive, Feeling, Thinking] Type” or “She has a preference for Feeling.”
• “My friend is an [off- the-chart/strong/extreme/ raging] Thinking Type.” These adjectives imply an associated amount of thinking that a person has and therefore, incorrectly imply that he or she may not have, or only have a little bit of, Feeling.
• “I am a J and my husband is a P so I am always on time and he is always late.” There is a lot wrong with this statement, and that is the subject for another blog! Suffice it to say that there is no cause and effect with regard to type, and there is no research to support this statement.

Language that portrays type as static, or as a trait instrument, is the root of so much stereotyping and misinformation about Type. This includes comments such as “Type puts you in a box” and questions like “How can I be a [fill-in type] when I do all of these things?” Our language has the power to leave people with a less than enthusiastic view of the model. It is up to us as practitioners to change our language; to convert our “competence” and understanding of the model into thoughtful “performance,” as we do when we are using our native language in our professional writing and speaking. It is only when we all begin “on the same page” that we can truly portray the power and meaning behind the MBTI and Jungian psychological type.

By Katharine D. Myers
Director Emeritus, MBTI Trust, Inc.

It is with great joy that we are releasing the “new” mbtitoday.org! In collaboration with the Editor, Cindy Stengel Paris, and the design professionals at Smallfuel.com, we have created what we believe to be a powerful, accurate, in-depth site which maintains the integrity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. Cindy has re-created my voice and Natalie Hipp at Smallfuel worked hard to keep the look and feel of the original site. We believe this site to be “one of a kind” in its ability to serve as an in- depth on-line resource and repository for those interested in exploring and learning about the breadth and depth of the MBTI and Jungian psychological type.

This site was created as an extension of my life’s work which has been to carry on Isabel Myers’ mission and her work. My relationship with Isabel started with a Valentine I received in eighth grade from her son Peter Myers. His parents, Chief and Isabel, included their children’s friends in many of their activities and I was often included, which began my life long relationship with Isabel. Peter and I eventually married, and Isabel willed the copyrights to Peter and me as the two she most trusted to follow her mission and work. Working with Peter, I believe we have served her well. I cherish the years I had with her.

As a part of this site, I share with you my own contribution, The 5 Levels of Understanding™. My knowledge of type has led me into a deeper journey, which is the path toward individuation given to us by C.G. Jung. MBTI type is the doorway into the deeper levels of Jungian psychology, and the journey toward wholeness which we present here. This journey toward wholeness has served me well and in my 84th year, it has brought me a great deal of satisfaction and peace.

If you are not interested in exploring Jungian psychology at a deeper level, you will nevertheless find something here that may hold your interest with regard to the MBTI and psychological type. We have included many references and links for you to explore, and PDF files of important and relevant articles that have been written by various type experts over the years. Starting next month, we will be creating monthly blog posts on topics related to the content in the site. We hope that you will follow us on this journey of looking at type as a path for growth and development, and that you will feel free to comment and contribute as you wish.

Please provide us with your input on what you would like to know about and discuss, and we will be sure to take it under advisement.

As an end note, we would like to dedicate this site to our dear friend and advisor, John Reddish, who lost his battle with cancer on December 9, 2010. John was the impetus behind our new release, and continued to advise and guide us until he could no longer do so.