Type's Critics

Psychological type and type assessment tools have a legion of critics, which is good as it means people are taking the models seriously enough to argue about it.  From the National Science Foundation criticisms of the early 1990s to the Murphy (2005) review in The Cult of Personality and many other articles since, critics have more or less argued about the same issues identified below.

  

Let's establish that criticisms about psychological type are not the same as criticisms about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®--or other assessment tools such as the Golden Personality Profiler or Majors Personality Type Inventory.  Often critics of the assessment tools use objections to the theory as part of their problem with the tool along with numerous arguments about the nature of the items, reliability, and validity.  We need to keep in mind that the theory and measurement of the theory are two very different things and each deserves consideration.

  

Let's agree that reasonable arguments can be marshaled on all sides with reference to evidence regarding the theory or assessment tools.  It is highly unlikely that we are going to wake up one day and all of the key issues have been resolved.   Many researchers on a given side are absolutely convinced that their analysis of the data supersedes all previous efforts and they have "proven" their point.  In this pull and push of intellectual banter, some good ideas emerge and lead us to pause with what and why we do what we do with type and associated assessment tools that are outlined below.  My response to this is to recall the wisdom of my Cherokee grandmother: "Those with answers are enslaved; those with questions are free."  I am also reminded of Myers' wise counsel to Mary McCaulley that she had learned we should "focus perception on the world, and judgment on ourselves"--meaning be open to following the flow of knowledge and information and apply the insights to your own self-management.

As an observation from my 38 years of using psychological type and type tools, the published criticisms are more often about how psychological type or associated instruments are used.  When you read the critics carefully, it is apparent that they are talking about how an assessment was used that caused trouble rather than the assessment itself or how the theory was used rather than the value of the theory.  And as for the instruments such as the MBTI®, if you Google "MBTI criticism", you will find articles which generally criticize the instrument using pre-IRT revision information and using data from the 1985 manual.  Sometimes you need to read that criticism very carefully to see the data source.  So far in every group I've facilitated where someone brought in a published criticism, the article was based on pre-revision data.  The most recent articles do the same thing: the writer relies on the 1985 manual and completely by-passes the sophisticated analysis that uses IRT statistical methods to both select and weigh items for sorting.  And this is not to claim that this solves the empirical problems surrounding assessment tools or even the theory of psychological type.

In general, you will find the following objections:

Objection 1:  "The tool isn't scientifically sound."  Of course, a great deal depends on what one calls "science." This article is too brief to explore this arena but note that it is no small matter and this should prompt us to inquire about the nature of the "science" the individual is referring to.  This criticism is usually leveled at the MBTI®, though in recent years the other type tools have been getting the same treatment. In 1998 the MBTI® was revised using a powerful statistical methodology known in assessment, Item Response Theory (IRT).  Using a census sampling technique, the MBTI® tool was revised based on a national sample and analyzed with IRT methods.  To date, there are no other personality-related tools based on both a national sample and IRT statistics.  With IRT, biases related to race, age, gender, and education are reduced.  This reduces error and increases the instrument's reliability.  Other tools have used robust methods such as contrasting group analysis to enhance the stability of the tool.  

Claims that the tools are based on an outdated and esoteric methods by individuals without psychometric training simply don't hold any water.  A panel of Ph.D. specialists participated in the 1998 revision to insure the highest science standards in the application of IRT methods to the MBTI, and newer tools are developed by expert psychometricians and psychologists.  Now with over 10,000 published research studies, including brain mapping analyses, this criticism reveals more of a lack of thorough research on the part of the critic than a problem with the tools.

We-as type users-could benefit from the idea that there will never be enough data to convince a large number of research psychologists that type merits recognition as a viable theory.  Even though I could list catalogs of research about personality "variables" which any serious user of psychological type would easily recognize as a principle of type, those researchers almost immediately discount type as speaking to their data.  I'll never forget talking with EQ assessment researchers about their description of the "proven" eight processes of emotional intelligence based on decades of evidence and multiple scientific strategies and their negative reaction when I suggested they had provided evidence that Jung was right about four ways of perceiving and four ways of acting on information. Social science in the United States is somewhat programmed to discredit data or models that fall outside of the conventional schools of thought.  I would hope users of psychological type would be open to the evidence as genuine open research unfolds.  

Objection 2: "The instrument stereotypes people."  A careful reading of the various manuals of type assessments and other official documents related to the tools, clearly suggests that the assessments are about preferences, tendencies, and potentials in development.  Usually any stereotyping is done by those who don't know how to use the instrument.  Isabel Myers eagerly noted that she called it an Indicator rather than a test, a measuring tool, or a categorizing device.  A description is not a prediction. All psychological tools can face this same criticism if not used appropriately. It is useful to point out to naysayers that the tool being used is providing a summary of an individual's votes and as such is identifying some personal baselines from which an individual can learn to flex.  The goal is to know the baseline and to learn where to flex to increase effectiveness.  Further, there is emerging evidence that behavioral patterns--"behavioral type" versus psychological type--may provide a more robust way of looking at how people respond and adapt to their environment.  Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt's suggestion that no one can make you feel a certain way without your consent is useful advice.

Objection 3: "People are more complex than four letters."  If by this critics mean a fixed, trait-like quality, competent users of psychological type and type assessments around the world would agree.  The model, articulated by Carl Jung, is simply that there are dimensions of perceiving information and acting on experience that affect how we adapt, learn, and grow throughout life.  Among these ways of perceiving and judging, we have a dominant psychological energy around which the others are organized.  It is often the proposition of a dominant and auxiliary process that leads to researchers and initial users of type objecting.  Yet, when you patiently invite an individual to look at how he or she deals with the world through extraverted energies and process experience through introverted-mind's eye-patterns, individuals readily confirm that this is how their mind works.  When I completed a study of the database from the Center for Creative Leadership, I randomly selected 150 of each of the sixteen types and analyzed all of the other data--observational, other tools, self-reports--that came with each group.  The significant differences between the types could reasonably be explained by the type dynamic hypothesis.  While this isn't full proof, it isn't unimportant.  

The instruments were designed to help individuals learn about typical ways of perceiving and judging information; furthermore, the theory suggests you are likely to be consistent over time.  Notice the words tendency, likely, and patterns rather than fixed, unchanged, or predictive as descriptors of use.  As indicated above, this is an attack on the theory based on a superficial understanding of the model and how to use it.  The instruments suggest and propose, while a careful interpretation uncovers and clarifies.

Objection 4: "Everybody has done it; there isn't anything new.  Everyone's been there and done that."  Millions have taken type tools and by many accounts have received pretty bad interpretations.  Regrettably, those who've had a bad experience are unlikely to be open to reviewing the information in the light of a proper and correct interpretation.  The main criteria associated with a bad interpretation is that the information shared was superficial, stereotypical, and a "fun and games" presentation.  Chances are many individuals have rarely been given the opportunity to go deeper than preferences into the dynamic and psychological mindsets of the type he or she confirmed.

A good interpretation would include these frames or perspectives.  The type assessments are designed to identify preferred approaches to taking in information and making decisions with a hope toward:   

• Exploring how we might use our preferences more effectively.
• Discovering how non-preferred psychological resources can be developed to enrich our life choices.
• Considering aspects of how our patterns in perception and judgment affect career choice, learning strategy, values orientation, problem-solving, and general orientation toward daily life.  In other words, link understanding of self based on the psychological type to whatever the goal of using it is.
• Increase greater awareness of the complexity of individuals and mutual and constructive understanding of differences.

 All of the type assessment tools published by major publishers include various subscales or facets to show the depth of the preferences and how we may have developed aspects of our non-preferred processes.  For example, those with an Introverted preference may have learned the importance of being expressive or those with an Extraverted preference may have learned the value of being more one-on-one in communication. These elements give a look at our preferences and various facets that reveal the personal variations within the type pattern.  This rich data source provides insight into greater elements of complexity of how we adapt and grow.

The viability of any tool or model is directly related to its appropriate use.  When you look at the questions that professionals are seeking to address in applying psychological type, the potential applications of the type and type related tools are numerous for individual development.  These applications extend beyond the purpose of this article, though it is important to note that how the model and tools are used affect judgments of them.  For example, when type tools are used for selection or promotion, none of which were designed for such purposes, the theory and tools get black eyes.

Objection #5: "Type is completely discredited.  The five factor model is the accepted framework for looking at personality."  The research psychologist in the field of personality would find this a strange statement in that the literature on personality is diverse and rich, and can hardly be said to be "settled" on the nature of or elements of personality.  The five factor model is popular and four of the five factors highly correlate with type preferences.  For example, studies show correlations of each five factor variables with type preferences as follows: Extroversion with E/I, Originality with S/N, Accommodation with T/F, and Conscientiousness with J/P.  The fifth factor, neuroticism or emotional reactivity, is not measured by type related tools.  These models begin with a very different set of assumptions from those of psychological type about personality. 

Of course, I'm more interested in a dialog between users of various personality models than I am in trying to spend energy proving one over the other-there is lots of evidence to go around.   I have no problem with the idea that we are all tapping into the same source of psychological reality and that our "takes" on that reality have different forms.  Fundamentally, though, type offers two things the other models do not: (a) differences are neither good nor bad and (b) a proposition about a system of psychological energies that explains how our external and internal worlds are so dynamic.  I have yet to find a single document from the other schools of personality outside of type that propose a equal value for the range of personality factors available to measure.  In the five factor model, it is clearly considered more healthy to be Extraverted, Original, Accommodating, and Conscientious, and not neurotic.   When this topic comes up I simply say, "OK there are different takes on the make-up of personality.  Would any of the following apply to you?

• Reflect on the details of an experience and imagine how things might play out in a scenario
• Think through the logic of a situation and ponder how the course of action aligns with one's values
• Quickly summarize an observation and identify an idea or possibility
• Express the rationale behind a situation and the values to be celebrated

If so, then type is a part of your reality because we've just discussed introverted sensing and introverted intuiting, introverted thinking and introverted feeling, extraverted sensing and extraverted intuiting, along with extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling."  Discredited?  Only to those who don't understand the theory and how it works.

Summary

While type tools are frequently purchased for development uses, it is likely that these are also the most under-utilized tools as is the theory on which they are based. I am fond of suggesting that psychological type is a 600 horsepower engine of understanding that is usually driven about 15 miles per hour. Too many facilitators, who can purchase but have not sought out training on the tool they use, provide a "drive by" introduction to the basic concepts and never really tap into the results in a way that promotes individual development and understanding of group behavior.  After ninety years (Jung first published in 1921) type continues to suggest that this reasonable way to understand differences enables us to both attribute appropriate intent of others' behavior and tap into our potential resources. It encourages us to ask questions about how we work with our talents and engage with others. In the hands of a knowledgeable and artful user the theory and instruments are like a Stradivarius.  Unfortunately, and for far too many learners, they tend to be played like a dime store violin.

We need to respond to the critics unapologetically that type theory continues to provide useful guidance for encouraging individual growth.  We need to feel comfortable with the idea that there are many "notions" of type that are unproven; yet, provide a useful heuristic.  We need to stay in touch with the research so we can answer questions with precision.  Keep in mind that some things have to be understood to be seen.

As to the assessment tools, point out that assessment tools published by reputable publishing houses are guided by the standards of educational and psychological tests applied to all assessments and type tools generally pass all the standards in flying colors.  For example, the standard to show test-retest reliability is very strong for the MBTI®, Golden, and Majors, and these compare favorably with other assessment tools for skills or personality measurement.  As such, we can only ask that the tools we use should be treated as fairly as other tools, recognizing their limitations and usefulness.

Psychological type scares some people because it proposes something quite radical: individual differences can be understood and embraced without judgment.  We owe it to ourselves and to the next generation to stay the course in promoting research, asking questions, and responding to the foes of such inquiry wherever they emerge.

Thanks,

Roger

pearman@teamtelligent.com

Type Agility

As you think about development, it is typical to consider that an increase in skill represents a significant learning.  Certainly learning skills is a part of developing new capabilities and is an "adding" to what you may have already learned.  Another more complex perspective on development is a change in mindset.  Rather than an adding to--which is expanding the horizontal skill range--a change in mindset which accommodates the current state of affairs and incorporates what is required to deal effectively in a complex and somewhat more ambiguous situation is a movement vertically in awareness and capability.

From a type perspective, this proposition works like this: an INFP who learns the skills to critically analyze has certainly added to his or her skill tool box and we can even say has accessed some aspects of "Thinking".  For the INFP to develop his or her conscious awareness of how the dominant function, Introverted Feeling, accesses and uses Thinking, and further, how the range of perception (Sensing/Intuiting) and judgement (Thinking/Feeling) function within his or her own type, is a mindset transformation.  The movement from adding a skill to become more inclusive of seeing oneself operating within a system of psychological energies is profound.

An aspect often ignored by writings of development--especially type development--is the role of psychological agility in growth.  To be psychologically--and by extension type--agile means that you are able to both assess the demands of the current situation and adjust your perspective and behavior to satisfactorily respond to the situation, AND you learn from the situation and your response to it for future circumstances. To be agile, you have to know your capabilities, to learn from experience, and apply what is required to be effective.

One of the barriers to type development includes looking at your type in an atomistic fashion.  If you only understand your type as E,N,F,P or I,S,T,J as if the letters were disjointed and disconnected, then you are likely to miss the richness of understanding how these psychological functions operate in different psychological worlds of extraversion and introversion.  Another barrier is to assume that your perceptions or your judgments are somehow complete.  If you behave as though you know what there is to know, you will miss other essential data points. If you believe your analysis is complete or decision well-founded, then you are unlikely to consider alternative explanations or principles.  In both instances, your opportunity to see another perspective, and perhaps find a better answer to current challenges, is foreclosed.  By definition, development means learning in a fluid way where the layers of processes and dynamics become clearer so that actions become more complete and satisfactory.

In a recent activity where everyone agreed to share their type and to engage in type sharing, I had each member of the team share with other members of the team the type each team member experienced.  In other words, everyone received type feedback--"I experience you as an ENTP for these reasons in your behavior."  The goal was to get on the table all of the perspectives of how people experience each other, what they see in each other, and how they respond to each other from the lens of type.  This was literally a mind blowing experience.  The ISTJ who was experienced as ESFJ (always attentive to the specific, pragmatic details and needs of team members) and the ENFP who was seen as ISTP (quiet, picking on specific issues and principles) opened conversations about their assumptions and how these affect perspectives and behaviors.  As these patterns were discussed, each team member explored their natural type, their nurtured type, and now their type brand.  This is so say, they became more fully aware of their type energies and type perspectives.

Catching Up

OK.  It has been some time since I put thoughts here.  I've been in recovery.  After quadruple heart surgery one year ago, I have been getting back into the swing of things and had to decide to let some things simply wait.

And I'm glad that I've had time to reflect and think about what is truly important.  My kids and friends reminded me that sharing the insights about type development would be important to do for those who really care about such topics as I've been pretty focused on this issue for some time.

As I shared earlier, development is best viewed int he context of what we know about development in general.  I feel that Susanne Cook-Greuter's work "Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace" says a great deal about how to frame and consider psychological development and I think that Robert Keagn is on to some profound principles--especially in In Over Our Heads: Managing The Demands of Modern Life.  On the shoulders of these brilliant thinkers we can peer into the world of type development with a greater respect for the psychological system at work.

Peter Geyer recently reminded me of a line from Jung's work, Psychology and Alchemy, in which he wrote: "If we think about psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego, and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it.  The inferior function, on the other had is unconscious, and for that reason is projected into a non-ego.  It too has an auxiliary function."

What are you to make to this?  If Greuter is right that she has "outlined one possible path from the unconscious, undifferentiatedsymbiosis of the newborn to the conscious experience of embeddedness in the universe ofmature adults, that is from prerational to metarational and from preverbal ignorance (= not
knowing) to beginning postsymbolic wisdom. Much freedom is gained when people realize the
essential inter-connectedness of all phenomena and the constructed aspects of boundaries,
objects, our self-identities and our stories about life and nature. Much suffering is alleviated
when the automatic habits of mind and heart are unlearned and uncoupled from memory (what
was) and desires (what ought to be) and replaced by mindful, non-evaluative attention to what is
- now."  (BOLD, Underline, Italics are mine).

And if Kegan is right that our primary task is "not to be had" by our psychologies and that what is required is a mindfulness that allows us to dance with our past, our unconscious personages, and to live fully in the present, he (Kegan) and she (Greuter) are pointing to the same truth.  Jung is suggesting that there is an architecture to it all and the more we recognize that the structure serves the self (mind), the better off we will be.

I am fond of sharing that Myers suggested we would be better off if we "focused perception on the world and judgment on ourselves."  And I think she is hinting at the same profound insight.  Being mindful, open to the present and allowing yourself to experience life as it is, will lead to more satisfying choices.  Because of psychological type, we know that there are at least four lenses for seeing and four lenses for making sense of experience and the question is whether we will be wise enough to learn, activate, and attend to them in our lives.

Development--Take 3

And I do have many thoughts about the development equation and type which are informed by my coaching and consulting practice, and the development research that gives us a pretty good picture of the challenges or issues adult development entails.  Some may say it is "my type" and in the spirit of sharing biases, I am highly skeptical of formulas and neatly symmetrical models when it comes to understanding the human experience. 

This means that principles, guiding rules of thumb, trends, and working propositions govern my thinking.  The difference between nomothetic (population studies) and idiographic (study of individual experience) makes the point for me--what may be true of a million people is not necessarily true of the human being sitting in front of me.  This is one of the reasons that Step II of the MBTI or Subscales of the Golden or Majors assessments are so attractive--you get at some of the differences within the type, largely a by-product of individual experience.

I've found that for each type we can sort development into three general buckets across three kinds of changes.  The buckets are the agile, typical, and frozen.  Agile types are those who learn both how to use their type processes and quickly integrate the new learning into how they operate in the world.  Typical types are what gets described in most booklets about type.  Frozen types are those whose typology is a caricature of the type--a rigid form of type expression where learning is really difficult and the individual generally has his or her nose just about the waterline.

The three kinds of changes I see are horizontal, vertical, and integral.  Horizontal is when the individual adds a new skill--say a Feeling type begins to employ de Bono's logical models as an expression of Thinking qualities.  Vertical is when the individual shifts a point of view or embraces a paradigm that is inclusive of old and new information such that a qualitative choice about behavior exists that didn't before. This is the kind of shift that goes from practicing empathetic-like listening to experiencing empathy and all it means in an interaction. Integral is when a shift occurs that changes the whole way an individual operates in the world.  Integral is related to becoming more whole, complete, and fully integrated.  And you might find this shocking--a frozen type who believes he or she "has arrived" and is "whole" sees the world with such profound negativity that the energy of anyone near the person is completely sapped. Metaphorically, this is like engaging with a vampire. 

Of course, the bucket analogy is a way of organizing complex information and removes subtleties which are always present. Nonetheless, several important reminders emerge from this kind of thinking.

First, adding skills helps us use various type related processes and is a way to explore how to do something from your perspective at the moment.  Second, if you've added skills and you've noticed that there continues to be that feeling that there is a gap between how you operate now and how you want to operate in the world, the change that is required is more than adding skills.  Important work on the assumptions, biases, frames of reference that you use to make sense of things needs review and adjustment.  Type is a system of psychological energies which is dynamic and influx.  Learning how to be more conscious of that system requires work but the pay off is rich.  Finally, type is connected to the whole of who you are.  There is no escaping that if you are open to experience and willing to learn, the whole system shifts and your way of adapting and being in the world through your type is more satisfying.

My task in future blogs is to give more examples for the sake of learning from others to move us forward.  And one nagging issue is the relationship between health--emotional, mental, moral, behavioral, physical--and developmental correlates.

Let me know if this interests you.

Roger 

Development continued

There are a couple of dimensions of development from a type perspective that merit some reflection. At the most profound level, type development is about full and clear perceptions and sound and discerning judgment. But getting there isn't necessarily about adding skills to the backpack. You can't quite say, "I am an Intuitive so I'll engage in Sensing focused activities and thereby increase the range of my perceptions." while there is virtue in testing out the opposite (as I explored in a previous post), I don't want us to confuse that with a development solution. In fact, I suspect it is more difficult than engaging in opposite-like activities. The tension inherent in the opposites of our typeology is the source of potential development. Imagine a rubber band being pulled by the pointing fingers of both hands. The energy in the rubber band grows as the two fingers are pulled in larger distances apart. In a sense, we need to come to grips with the opposites of our own nature to discover the energy needed to work with these opposites, as essential as they are. Our first step toward type development may well be the recognition of our tensions among our competing sources of perception and judgment. Second is to seek the wisdom of the opposite in any given situation. Third, to create an internal space to understand these competing forces within your own psychology and engage in a kind of dialog about how to use this energy to enhance perceptions and judgments. More to come. Stay tuned.

More Skills Is Not Enough----What is type development?

Myers indicated that good type development required conditions for developing one's preferred perceiving (S,N) and judging (T,F) processes and preferred attitude (E or I).  Further, each type has a preferred dominant process aided with an auxiliary that keeps you "in balance" which needs identification.

Being clear about your preferences and what you do not prefer, followed with knowledge of appropriate use, sets the stage for learning how to use your type for effectively.  For example, Thinking is for analysis and Feeling is for identifying what is of value to you. This conscious awareness of appropriate use facilitates a greater confidence in oneself.  Finally, Myers further noted that specific experiences can create barriers to development.

Jung focused on the development of the unique self in his exploration of differentiation of which type is a part.  You will not find instruction from Jung on type development; in fact, I suspect he would have found the idea somewhat odd--why develop just a part of a more organic whole?

If  you step back and look at a larger picture of the nature of development, we know that experience is the most effective teacher.  Further, testing new insights and experiencing appropriate support are essential for development to occur.  There is a predictable sequence to learning new behaviors.  At first there is the realization that a behavior needs to change or adjust.  Then there is the effort to learn the new form of the behavior which may hav many fits and strats. Eventually, when you learn how to use the refined behavior, you realize that you are operating at a higher level of effectiveness.

So we have a couple of somewhat disconnected ideas floating around:
(1) type development requires clarity about one's type and how it works
(2) using one's type preferences effectively strengthens the type
(3) type is connected to a larger psychology within each person and changes as the organic self changes
(4) development requires learning and learning is hard work

A number of years ago I collected some data and analyzed some research about hobbies of the types and discovered that there were a good many ISTJ and ISFJ women who like hobbies like knitting, weaving, and the like.  So, I wanted to test the assumption that doing activities like those who are drawn to it naturally whould have a beneficial effect.  The class was astonishing--participants would show me yarn that appeared to me to be exactly the same and they could talk for 20 minutes on how different the two yarns are.  Each class was a wave upon wave of awareness of that I do not pay attention to and just how much energy it requries from me to do what these other folks in the classs did as easy as breathing.

I learned to weave.  My family learned to not be home on Tuesday nights when I returned from class because, as my daughter said, "you really are different when you come home from that class Dad."  I've sense tested this notion of stretching to do something not typical of me and then explored what I learned.  There is no way I will ever be as talented at identifying yarn qualities and weaving as the members of my class were naturally inclined to do.  I could do it but it brought no joy.

I could learn the skill but that wasn't enough.  I developed a new kind of appreciation for the art of weaving and the depth of richness of Introverted Sensing.  But that appreciation does not translate into more competence with introverted sensing.

I think we could put all of the type functions on a continuum from:

>>unconscious, unaccessible>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>natually talented use

We would fall anywhere on the line depending on our life experience, preferences, and curent challenges as related to each of the eight functions such as Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Sensing, etc.  Hopefully, what we prefer is more talented use and what we least prefer is more likely out of our awareness.

From the example I shared above, I moved my Introverted Sensing a bit further down the path of greater comfort to use but I have no desire to move up the continuum--I'm prettty functional at the moment. 

We can add more skills to our preferred and least preferred processes but that doesn't mean we are necesssarily developing our type.  Psychological type needs us to not only develop a greater awareness and use of our type functions but also (a) more effective at perceiving and judging functions and (b) agile access and deployment of our type functions (consciously and adaptively).

More to come on this as I've just started and I'm out of time for today.

Perception and Judgment

As I've read over the last couple of entries, I am prompted to think about Isabel Myer's comment to Mary McCaulley that we should use perception on the world and judgment on ourselves.  There is a good deal of wisdom in that observation when it comes to human relationships and perhaps even in all matters.  Daily I am reminded that things are not what they seem and only after a great deal of questioning and exploration do I find there are layers of information and insight I need to consider before I get to making decisions about the situation at hand.

Jung noted that perceiving was irrational and by that I think he meant that it is always "on" and isn't under any direct control.  We don't go around saying "My sensing perceptions informs me that..." or "My intutiion informs me that..." Yet, this is precisely what our perceiving processes do.  While it is easy to quickly differentiate the notion that sensing is concrete and sensory, and that intuiting is abstract and mysterious, I suspect that the truth is more complex.  As I suggested in an earlier blog, we are better off seeing this as a metaphor for complex perceptions and are about how we attend to information.  The most practical idea is that type gives us four pretty strong hints about the kind of information we might dig out: (1) Reliable, specific data, (2) Precise, in-the-present data, (3) Linked or patterned information, and (4) possibilities and scenarios given what is presenting itself.

Judging processes--and this one many folks have trouble with as related to Feeling--are rational, as Jung noted, because they use predictable methods and criteria which can be established as relevant. I've read alot of opinions about Thinking and Feeling and it seems to me that most of the characterizations of Feeling judgment are of immature or poorly developed Feeling.  My hunch is that these differences are so psychologically polarized that it takes a considerable effort to hold both ideas as equally valid--and it seems that most people can't do it.  Just about everyone gets that Thinking is about the energy that drives a logical, analytical, critical approach to decisions.  What is almost never questioned is whether the logical or critique are competently used or even appropriate to the situation at hand. 

I plan to write a good deal more about Feeling in the future.  We have a more difficult time coming to recognize, accept, and own how Feeling works within the psyche.  It is the judgment process that tells us what is meaninful and interrelated in a situation.  Much is made of emotions and Feeling, which is misguided.  If you want to see emotions, challenge the competence of a Thinking type.  I think emotions get tagged with Feeling because as a general rule the Feeling process takes into account the wisdom of emotions while Thinking processes do not.  

Emotions are our internal markers for what is meaninful and in what way it is at a gut level.  If you are angry, it is usually because you feel a violation of some sort as occurred--someone broke an arrangement, got in the way of reaching a goal, etc.  But anger is the marker and only when you own the emotion are you able to use it productively.  And this is true whether you are a Thinking or Feeling type.

As perceiving provides four useful clues, judging processes provide four more: (1) What is the underlfying model, principle, or framework for the decision?, (2) What are the critical and analytical considerations verified by others?, (3) What are the relational and human connective tissue in this decision?, (4) How will values and ideals be realized in this decision?

Some thoughts for today.  I'll be interesting when people start checking this blog out what their reactions are to these suggestions.