the limited scope of Myers-Briggs Personality testing (MBTI)

[jaltfeld]

I strongly encourage people to time-limit their identity statements like the above "I am an ISTF."

Better phrasing might include "Recently I was measured as an 'ISTF'." Or "Several years ago I received an 'ISTF' measurement on the Myers-Briggs, and don't know if I'd be the same or different today. Etc.

I believe that taking on such identity statements is one causal element of what leads either to inflexible behavior, or to difficulty with change, OR to diminished self-awareness during & after personality changes occur -- i.e., personality change may still occur, but one's accuracy with self-knowledge deteriorates, holding on to old "test scores" as current indicators, when they may not be valid anymore as time goes by.

I have taken the Myers-Briggs test six times, and gotten six very different readings. The Myers-Briggs test is, IMHO, a reading of your present-tense-only behavioral traits along ONLY four metaprograms. The four they chose to measure are:

Introvert <--> Extrovert
iNtuitive <--> Sensing
Thinking <--> Feeling
Perceiving <--> Judging

I suggest to ALL of you that if you can effectively try on a different map/model of the world -- inclusive of the unique beliefs & values & outcomes of those different models -- then you WILL get different readings.

Also as you grow, learn, & change in life, subsequent Myers-Briggs tests may very well produce different readings from prior readings. It is only a snapshot of the present moment in the present context, and given that in NLP we teach & measure a lot more than four metaprograms, I personally think the Myers-Briggs test is an impoverished measurement
producing certainly useful information which is still less useful than acquiring EVEN MORE information would be.

When meeting people anew, rather than knowing their Myers-Briggs score, I'd much rather know the present-tense answers to where they are on these metaprogram scales (not to mention many others that are also useful):

Towards <--> Away-from
Proactive <--> Reactive
High Chunk Thinker <--> Low Chunk Thinker (Engineer or Visionary)
Chunk Up? <--> Chunk Down? <--> Chunk Lateral (tendency)
Procedures <--> Options
Self (Internal Reference) <--> Others (External Reference)
Difference <--> Sameness <--> Sameness w/ Diff <--> Diff w/ Sameness
Visual <--> Auditory <--> Kino (Primary sensory system)
Introvert <--> Extrovert
Sorts by People <--> Sorts by Things
Abundance <--> Scarcity
Towards Necessity <--> Towards Possibility (Away-from Necessity)
Direct Communication <--> Indirect Communication

Now I can identify some of these nonverbally just by observing people's behavior. Others require some time listening to how they speak. Or some time conversing with them & cataloguing their responses.

The hardest thing to do initially when learning how to elicit peoples' metaprograms-- was learning how to DISCARD these measurements as less-than-accurate, in any other context other than the one in which they had been elicited, or even in the same context if a lot of time had gone by since they'd been elicited. In other words, I'd initially hoped to rely on the information in every other context, or for "too long" into the future. But eventually one gets good enough at doing this quickly & easily, and the desire to 'save time/effort' and rely on old information becomes less relevant & attractive.

[MogvGB]

IOnterestingly it has been many years since I have had markedly different results to Myers Briggs testing -these days I routinely score between 49-51 in each category plunking firmly in the 'it depends' basket. How very NLPy.

Meta programs are a much more fun and flexible way of sticking lables on folks in specific contexts - and far more useful for me to work with in myself.

Being labelled 'Introvert' can be a limitation (oh well that's my lable, nothing I can do about it): mapping out a spectrum between introvert and extrovert, and gaining comfort and familiarity all along it's length, and most fun of all finding the crucial flip point and setting up easy access to it - now that is somethign I can use!

[mdebusk]

I strongly encourage people to time-limit their identity statements like the above "I am an ISTF."

How about if I say, "Every time I've taken the test, the result is INFP." That's what happens with me. I seem to be a poster child for that particular one. Especially the "I" part.

[mdebusk]

Being labelled 'Introvert' can be a limitation

Only if you believe the lies.

http://www.amazon.com/Introvert-Power-Inner-Hidden-Strength/dp/1402211171/

[jaltfeld]

Mike Debusk writes:

How about if I say, "Every time I've taken the test, the result is INFP." That's what happens with me. I seem to be a poster child for that particular one. Especially the "I" part.

Well, therein lies the distinction. I recommend not saying "I'm an [whatever]," because it CAN, with some people, force people to develop restrictive behavior habits as opposed to reflect their existing natural habits.

By virtue of your saying "Every time I've taken the test," your behavior is showing a willingness not to judge your entire future based on one test taken at one time. You're obviously open to other results emerging. And that's about embracing flexibility (or even the possibility of flexibility!).

Some people make it especially hard for them to embrace change in the future, by regularly uttering "identity-level" (I'm an XXXX) statements about their personality type. Then whole areas of behavior become harder to enable. "Oh, I'm not extroverted, so, I don't want to go to that party."

[mdebusk]

By virtue of your saying "Every time I've taken the test," your behavior is showing a willingness not to judge your entire future based on one test taken at one time. You're obviously open to other results emerging. And that's about embracing flexibility (or even the possibility of flexibility!).

I'll admit to calling myself "INFP." I realize at the same time that it's possible to change.

I still don't go to parties.

[jaltfeld]

Ha! And now we come to outcomes. Would you even want to go to parties? Because if you wouldn't, then it ain't an issue for you, right? LOL!

[mdebusk]

Ha! And now we come to outcomes. Would you even want to go to parties?

Wouldn't I want to if I were extraverted?

[jaltfeld]

Cheeky, cheeky, cheeky.

I think I can enjoy both mindsets, as you know. I enjoy being around people whether with large groups, or small. Just as I also like my personal/alone time. What's funny to me about this discussion is that deep extroverts always think introverts secretly want to be extroverts, but I know that's not the case with many "true" introverts. I do know it's the case with SOME introverts, so... it's not an entirely unheard-of scenario for an introvert to want to go to parties, but choose not to, for any number of reasons. Could be a simple case of conflicting values, or... the-grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side-of-the-fence syndrome...

[mdebusk]

I think I can enjoy both mindsets, as you know. I enjoy being around people whether with large groups, or small. Just as I also like my personal/alone time.

I cannot recall ever enjoying time with crowds. I define "group" differently from "crowd," and I handle groups just fine.

Going to the movies, a concert, a Bluegrass festival, a Bandler training, and so on, no problem. That's a "group" for me. Everyone is doing the same thing, more or less.

Going to a party, or a touristy place, or a shopping mall at Christmas? Forget it. I feel the need to invest most of my energy in scanning, evaluating, threat assessment, and so on. It's so much work evaluating the body language, facial expressions, voice tones, and other para-communication from all those individuals. It wears me out. If I chunk up, people bump into me, or I into them.

The thing is, though, I like myself the way I am. I don't consider introversion to be a limitation. I gain energy from being alone. If one of the pair is limiting, I'd say it's extraversion, which requires the cooperation of other people. I remember when someone dear to me -- a textbook extravert -- went to a movie by herself. When she told me about it, her tone sounded shell-shocked: "I'll never do that again," she declared.

What's funny to me about this discussion is that deep extroverts always think introverts secretly want to be extroverts, but I know that's not the case with many "true" introverts. I do know it's the case with SOME introverts

We're taught in our culture that extraversion is normal and introversion is abnormal. (Now we know that isn't the case; recent research shows that introverts are a statistically significant majority.)