Secrets of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) seems to fall in and out of fashion but mostly remains a well-known, popular personality inventory. While some may think personality typing is no different from horoscopes or tea leaves, it is actually a robustly studied area of psychological science.

Psychology as a field has long suffered from the misconception that only hard sciences are “real.” Just as physics concerns the scientific study of matter, psychology is theoretical science of neurology. Hard sciences use quantitative methodology and empirical experimentation to test and replicate concrete phenomena (things that exist in physical, external reality). But theoretical psychology is not meant to be empirical. It concerns the theory of the abstract, conceptual, and unseen - things that can only be replicated in terms of their abstractions and don’t physically exist. Everything the mind does, and cognition itself, is an abstraction. Your personality, sense of self, identity, self-image, feelings, thoughts, and symbolic representations are all abstractions. We cannot argue that these things don’t exist just because they are not concretely extant. Psychology cannot be understood without accepting that humans exist in higher and lower orders of reality, the internal and external, and both are equally “real.”

Personality types are binaries in the matrix.

Personality typing is theoretical, creating a theory of how a personality works based on the potential interactions of identified variables. The NEO Personality Inventory has a wide body of research identifying the Big Five personality traits, operating from the perspective that all personalities are an output of the dynamic expression of each trait. The research was completed using linguistics, factor loading multiple facets under each trait until the spectrum of human personalities could be encapsulated in each variance - openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). These are all conceptual abstractions that we accept as valid ways to identify personality functioning. The idea that abstractions make something a pseudoscience would necessitate that all psychology be considered a pseudoscience; the mind itself is an abstraction of the brain. All psychology is based on theoretical and conceptual abstractions. That some forms of research-based psychology are considered valid but others would not be is not logically consistent.

The MBTI in particular has faced scrutiny due to its complicated genesis, by a mother-daughter pair in the 1920s with no psychological training at all. Neither were formally educated in the field as they completed their research attempting to operationalize Carl Jung’s formulation of Jungian archetypes. Validation of the MBTI has shown inconsistencies, compared to validated diagnostic tests like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), which diagnose and determine the severity of disordered personalities. But the popularity of the MBTI is no fluke; the research correctly identified conceptual constructs as trait categories but appeared to have mislabeled and inaccurately described what those trait constructs were and how they interacted. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter has corrected these errors, and it appears to be his formulation, not the framing of the original MBTI, that undergirds the popular MBTI test and interpretation site 16personalities.com. While the analysis in the formal MBTI manual appears to link perceptual modalities in misconstrued ways, the Keirsey Sorter identifies the correct grouping of perceptual functioning: Rationals (NT types), Idealists (NF types), Guardians (SJ types), and Artisans (SP types). These types are named Analysts, Diplomats, Sentinels, and Explores on the 16personalities site respectively.

Personality typing has always been an organization of multiple conflicting traits, bipolar binaries measured according to pole dominance. The original 4 temperaments/humors concerned the idea of personality being an excess or deprivation of 4 bodily fluids: blood (sanguine, or cheerful), phlegm (phlegmatic, or sluggish), yellow bile (choleric, or hot-tempered), and black bile (melancholic, or depressive). All modern day personality typing is the same and only varies based on what traits are being measured. MBTI measures 4 perceptual traits in dynamic interaction which must be understood as a whole. While it is normal to have preferences in what we selectively attend to in order to achieve consistency and coherence in our experiences, being biased on the extreme end of information processing bipolarities may end up privileging one pole while diminishing, distorting, or eliminating the other. While the results from 16personalities.com are accurate, the perceptual modalities themselves can be broken down in plain psychological constructs. Read on to see the specific way the MBTI is interpreted at Integrated Insight Counseling.

Introversion/Extraversion

Common understanding thinks of this binary using the traditional framing of either deriving energy from socializing or requiring solitude to re-energize. In terms of psychological constructs, the I/E binary refers to concrete external reality (extraverted) and internal, abstract reality (introverted). This approach emphasizes the necessity of integrating both inner and outer reality, and so the interpretation is one of balance. Who we present ourselves as on the outside should ideally match who we are on the inside; a 60/40 balance on this binary represents the ability to comfortably and flexibly travel between one’s inner and outer worlds. When a person presents one way externally that completely conflicts with who they are internally, they will see a lopsided balance on this binary. A person who is too dominant on the extraversion pole is likely to be hyper-attuned to what people think and expect of them at the expense of their own feelings and needs. A person with pole dominance of introversion may have difficulties adapting and adjusting to the normal social and external demands of reality. This scale is best balanced toward the middle, showing a preference but not a bias.

Intuitive/Observant

Intuition is knowing and understanding. This binary measures cognitive functioning in terms of how a person interprets reality: concretely or abstractly. Pole dominance toward observant (S) refers to more concrete, literal, sensate thinkers. A bias of (S) shows a preference to observing reality and garnering understanding by interaction of the 5 senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting). The cognitive preference is one of processing concrete data. Intuitive thinking (N) is not a preference per se but a higher level of abstraction from concrete observation. Concrete thinking concerns primary representations and identifications which are real or felt in the body. Abstract thinking concerns secondary symbolic representations and metarepresentations, speaking to the internalization of multidimensional processing and conceptual thinking. Not only is information taken in via the senses, but is interwoven with unseen, internal abstract representations and symbols resulting in complex, layered processing. A person balanced more on the (N) pole is likely to primarily use abstract processing, which is a more advanced form of cognition that subsumes the (S); an (N) will also have an (S) but an (S) bias does not guarantee the presence of formal operations. Concrete cognition is innate to all humans, but abstract intuitive processing is not and must be acquired across the life cycle. This binary can reasonably be linked to the ability to mentalize, to create representations of the mind of the self and others in order to understand the intentionality behind behavior. While concrete thinking allows us to observe the “how” of something happening, intuitive thinking allows us to also understand the “why.” Our therapeutic approach works to build, strengthen, and increase abstract thinking skills to increase perceptual internal awareness and promote more efficient information processing.

Thinking/Feeling

On the surface level, this binary measures how much a person is biased toward rational thinking or emotional knowing to determine their preferences, choices, and actions. But it also speaks to a moral proclivity. Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development trace the cognitive progression of moral functioning from conventional to post-conventional morality. Many people progress only to the level of conventional morality, where they follow the rules in order to avoid punishment or social shunning. Post-conventional morality, where a person follows their own moral code even when it conflicts with established consensus or even the legal standard, is very rare. Only a minority of individuals transcend their personal integrity and principles to the level of post-conventional morality. Pole dominance of (T) indicates a more conventional sense of morality - being more likely to follow the rules and solve moral dilemmas based on what societal edict dictates. A dominance of (F) indicates one who tends to honor their own personal moral code even when it conflicts with societal mores, showing a strong adherence to one’s own personally defined metric of what “feels right.” A more balanced 60/40 expression suggests a person is more flexible on which strategy is applied depending on the context of the situation.

Judging/Prospecting

“Judging” in the Myers-Briggs does not mean to be judgmental, and it also does not refer to the judgments a person makes in their choices and behavior. Binaries are defined by their bipolarity, just as in is defined by out and light is defined by dark; (J) is defined by the conceptual context of (P). Pole dominance toward (P) refers to one who vigilantly scans the environment for external cues and clues from others in order to select for the best and most appropriate interpretation. This is also a form of concrete information processing, “prospecting” and sifting through what can be observed as a strategy to figure out the correct way to respond to the demands of the situation. This can also be considered “parts,” or bottom-up thinking, showing a preference for the idiosyncratic unrelated to its larger context. Cognition works by adding up the parts hoping to calculate to the whole. Depending on how complex the parts are, this may never be possible. (J) pole dominance indicates top-down thinking, the ability to perceive the whole first and then zoom in and out and deconstructing and reconstructing its parts.

Similar to N/S, this binary also examines preferences toward more concrete or abstract thinking abilities and again the (J) would subsume the (P). The ability to take apart concepts and constructs, identifying and mentally manipulating the parts to see how they fit in the whole, correlates to metacognitive thought, the ability to think about our thinking. Just as mentalization is needed to understand the mind, metacognition is necessary to understand one’s thought processes, using symbol formation to couple and decouple mental objects from physical reality. This may also be considered the transition from Freud’s “perceptual identity” of diffuse, insubstantial and interchangeable perceptions which are freely substituted for each other (symbol is the same as object) into “thought identity” of objects which exist with enduring constancy and are distinctly defined and differentiated. Pole dominance toward (P) would likely result in inefficient and disorganized information processing which lacks a consistent route to normative understanding. If one has to add up all the parts every time, they are more likely to make mistakes and errors.

While high (J)s can do both - see the whole picture, plus manipulate its parts - (P)s will struggle or be unable to see the whole in its relative context. A (J) indicates a higher likelihood of a consistently accurate strategy of interpretation and convictions - someone who is likely to get it right most of the time. Being balanced more toward (P) increases the possibility of fearing social situations and difficulty with decision making for uncertainly around correct selection. A Prospecting bias is cognitively taxing, causes unnecessary stress, and contributes to weak central coherence.

Assertive/Turbulent

This scale is not part of the original MBTI, and the conceptualization of this binary differs on the Keirsey Sorter and 16personalities. It would be a good idea to read through the explanations for each on the website in addition to our brief summary, because this scale layers three levels in a complex way. The first is described in the Keirsey sorter as either expressive or attentive, which can be taken in the context of thinking and feeling - a person who is more outward and external, and a person who is more thinking and internal. This again changes the context of the meanings of introverted and extraverted. Every expressive type is Extraverted, a person who is actively changing their environment. Every attentive type is Introverted, a person who, in this context, passively reacts to the environment.

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory binaries of personality functioning.

Active/passive is one of the three core defining binaries of personality as defined in the MCMI. In the Millon, personality spectrums are viewed much as we view them at our practice, with an emphasis on threes: two extremes and one ambivalent middle. The three binaries measured in the MCMI (active/passive, pleasure/pain, and self/other) are measured in scales, with two extreme ends considered maladaptive functioning and coping, and adaptive coping to be near the one ambivalent, or integrated, middle. Active personalities modify the environment whereas passive personalities accommodate it.

Assertive/Turbulent is also a measure of being directive or informative - another measure of proactive and reactive, respectively. This part is a little tricky because it requires an inversion to understand how the layers interact. Directive types are all thinking types regardless of their passive or active orientation with the exception of NFJ types - so they are all thinking-judging types with one pair that is inverted. Informative types are all feeling types regardless of passive or active orientation with the exception of NTP types. This means they are all feeling-perceiving types with one inversion, SFJ. We take this to mean NTPs are the inverse of NFJs and are similar personality types regardless of the directive/informative designation, as well as STPs and SFJs being equivalent in their cognitive functioning similarly.

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter

We interpret these inversions as personality types with a more dimensional level of cognitive functioning; that these two inverted pairs are pairs that have integrated the traits from the other pole as well as their dominant pole. This means that NFJ and NTP types both are equally rational and idealist - both highly diplomatic and strategic - and that SFJ and STP types are equally guardian and artisan - both highly logistical and tactical. Since (J) types subsume the cognition of (P) types, and (N) types subsume the level of cognitive development of (S) types, ENFJ, INFJ, ENTP, and INTP would represent the most integrative, advanced cognition. Diplomacy is a more highly advanced cooperative style than logistics; strategy is a more thoroughly calculated plan than tactics. These 4 personality types, then, would appear to have integrated all sides of the four binaries and merely have a personal preference for which to utilize although they are proficient in every realm. These types are the most likely to have successfully achieved full ego integration. ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTP, and ISTP types would be more advanced of the literal, concrete thinkers whereas the other 8 personality types may represent more immature cognitive development which must grow into higher abstractions of integration. For example, a person may consistently test as INTJ at one phase in their life and later consistently receive the result of ENFJ - the flip side of the binary.

16personalities uses different framing, the poles understood in terms of social adaptation. (A) types require less external validation and feedback. Both the introverted and extraverted varieties are confident and socially deft but have a different preference for socializing. Introverted (A)s are termed Confident Individualism and extraverted (A)s are termed People Mastery, reflective of the preferred expression of their social skills. This may reflect not only a person’s comfort level interacting with others, but the security of their attachment strategy. (A)s know that they can be loved for who they are and for no other reason; they don’t have to earn it, and they don’t have to change who they are in order to attach to others. On the other hand, (T)s may be more likely to have an insecure attachment style, continually working to understand how to successfully attach and perpetually seeking the appropriate ways of being. The introverted (T) is termed Social Engagement, which essentially refers to people pleasing. The more extreme (T), Constant Improvement, could be expected to be someone who is very, very hard on themselves and may have been taught, in attachment contexts, that nothing is ever good enough. (T)s require a lot of external feedback and approval, and are likely to change who they are and how they present externally in order to try to achieve the best reaction from others. (T)s are likely to suffer a lot of cognitive disorganization and identity diffusion, the degree of which is more extreme the higher the percentage. As before, (A) subsumes (T), integrating both sides of the inner/outer, external/internal binary and merely express their personality in terms of a personal preference socially.

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter allows us to view personality types in a multidimensional, multifaceted way, as all types of personalities are necessary for a functional, cooperative society. A greater understanding of what the binaries represent psychologically is only part of the equation - it’s about the dynamic interaction of all the dimensions together, some which may cancel out, amplify, emphasize, or diminish a trait that appears to show dominance. To have your scales on the Myers-Briggs binaries interpreted, book a session with us today!