The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®

The MBTI is a 'typology' originating with the swiss therapist Carl Jung and 'formalized' into it's current form in the 1950's by Katherine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers.

Studying the categorisations within the MBTI®, I have developed a cognitive-based map of the MBTI on the template. This map (fig 1) emerged from a comparative analysis of the contextual terms found in three structurally similar maps (binary trees) after three levels of dichotomous development. The other maps were of the set of number types used within the context of mathematics, the set of symbols derived within the context of the I Ching, and the set of symbols derived within Western Astrology. 'Behind' these mataphors are the whole/aspects categories of the template.

The MBTI on the template bottom-up to four levels

I

E

I

E

I

E

I

E

I

E

I

E

I

E

I

E

T4

NFP

NFJ

SFJ

STJ

NTP

NTJ

SFP

STP

T3

NF (identity seekers)

SJ (security seekers)

NT (solution seekers)

SP (sensation seekers)

T2

social (NF bias - contractive)

pragmatic (SP bias - expansive)

T1

The "Whole"

T0

Fig 1. The MBTI

The letters stand for:

N/S = intuitive/sensing (what_could_be vs what_is)
T/F = thinking/feeling
P/J = perceiving/judging
I/E = Introvert/Extravert

Keirsey(1984) has labelled these symbols (here found at level T3) with more 'meaningful' terms:

NFP - Advocates/Disciples
NFJ - Mentors
SFJ - Conservators
STJ - Monitors
NTP - Engineers
NTJ - Organizers
SFP - Players
STP - Operators

Which are extended into level T4 by the prefix of I or E, giving two 'flavours' for the basics types at T3.

Keirsey also makes the seeking classifications here assigned to level T2 above.

It is possible to go beyond four levels, and many users do, but the MBTI favours the above sixteen classifications.

What has been of benefit in creating the MBTI map is the use of the I Ching symbolism. In this system, each dichotomy is made-up of yin/yang which are drawn as either a broken lin (yin) or an unbroken line (yang). Thus at level T3 in fig 2 we have eight symbols that reflect the results of the different combinations of dichotomies (each level is the addition of another yin/yang dichotomy).

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| --  -- | ------ | --  -- | ------ | --  -- | ------ | --  -- | ------ |
| --  -- | --  -- | ------ | ------ | --  -- | --  -- | ------ | ------ |T3
| --  -- | --  -- | --  -- | --  -- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|      --  --     |     ------      |     --  --      |      ------     |T2
|      --  --     |     --  --      |     ------      |      ------     |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                                   |                                   |
|               --  --              |              ------               |T1
|              (contract)           |             (expand)              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
|                              (The Whole)                              |T0
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
         Fig. 2. The generation of I Ching trigrams bottom-up.

Using this system as a reference, it enables one to work backwards from level 3 and thus create the 'root' sources (T1) of level 3.

Using this methodology on the MBTI map, it suggests that the root 'types' of personality are identity seekers (NF bias) and sensation seekers (SP bias), and introduces 'hidden' dichotomies that replace those originally defined. For example, the combined SP categorisations and the combined NF categorisations at level T1 function as symbols for the dichotomy of fact-bias(SP)/ values-bias(NF). These symbols are carried forward into level T2, to which are added the time-based dichotomy of What_is/What_could_be. However, to avoid introducing 'new' symbols, we stick to the original MBTI symbols, thus allowing us to show the link to the template based on the overall 'meanings' given to the well-documented MBTI types.

The 'alternative' MBTI

Before getting into the 'nitty-gritty' of the types, here is a 'quick' MBTI test that may give the reader a rough idea of their view of their own current 'state'. What needs to be emphasised is this is not a replacement for the current commerically-available tests. This 'test' is what I call Q-test and can be used to give a rough interpretation of one's own states as well as one's interpretation of others; or even their interpretation of you! Since our persona is dynamic at the social end, so the result of the test is 'local'; it does not go beyond the moment.

The reason for these 'quick' results is that the test is based on answering only four questions. The point here is that the MBTI also only asks four questions, but it does that a number of times with the wording different for each question but the classification remaining the same. Thus a statically valid long-term result is supposidly gained; a 'refined' result, when compared to the more 'gross' Q-test.

Here is the Q-test

With classification in hand, here is a guide to the development of the persona.

The identity seeking and sensation seeking types (NF/SP)suggest that these types emerge resulting from the manner of gratification. NFs from favouring delayed gratification and SPs from favouring instant gratification. Thus NFs have developed an internal preference and an emphasis on trust and SPs an external preference and an emphasis on confidence. (Both aspects of early childhood, total trust and total confidence).

At the next level of development we find the emergence of two 'new' types, the security seekers (SJ) from the NFs. And the solution seekers (NT) from the SPs.

Consideration of the characteristics of these types suggests that their emergence stems from the development of fear.

The SJs emphasize the forming of groups steming from the need to distinguish 'them' from 'us'. Thus there is the forming of barriers as a form of defence stemming from a lack of trust and a realization of self.

The NTs emphasize the mapping of all possible problems (as well as their solutions) and thus the development of a guide enabling the avoidance of, or the overcoming of, problems. This too, I suggest, is a forming of barriers as a form of defence stemming from a lack of confidence and a realization of others.

Considering the NFs suggested favouring of delayed gratification, there is the suggestion of a need for trust. The emergence of the SJs suggest acts of betrayal to such a degree that all trust is gone; one requires protection.

Considering the SPs suggested favouring of instant gratification, there is the suggestion of a need for confidence (going out to seek sensations). The emergence of the NTs suggest acts of denial/failure to such a degree that all self-confidence is gone; one requires aids in that maps etc., can help as supports.

At this level of development we are faced with sets of 'black/white' dichotomies - those of trust/distrust and confidence/unconfidence.

At the next level these black/white points of view are 'mellowed', for here we find the emergence of four more types.

From the NFs (which continue as NFP) emerges the NFJ. This type emerges from inbetween the trust/distrust. It is a type that has lost a degree of trust but still has some connectivity with NF. It has built a partial wall as a defence but left a gap, or gateway, and thus favours a continued relationship at one point with all else at a slight distance.

From the SJs (which continue as SFJ) emerges the STJ. This type is closer to distrust than the overall SJs. It has developed no sense of trust to the extent that it favours the use of umpires, auditors, and formal contracts. This type does not even trust themselves but have externalized it to the degree of trust being imposed from without rather than something generated from within; they have given-up trust and take-on the roles of 'managers'.

From the SPs (which continue as STP) emerges the SFP. This type emerges from inbetween the confidence/unconfidence. It is a type that is confident and yet reflective; it has lost a degree of confidence (no longer absolute) and thus still maintains some of the air of the SP. It can thus create sensations from within and thus becomes 'sensational', emerging as artists and entertainers.

From the NTs (which continue as NTJ) emerges the NTP. Here the degree of lack of confidence is so extreme that all sensation is derived from within with the creation of an inner world. Although presentable to the outside, and often found to be extremely usable, these creations can be of extreme complexity or of a personalized form to the degree of being incomprehensable. The purpose of these creations is to generate a sense of confidence from without (through praise) as well as being something to cling to.

Using the concept of emergence, the above 'types' emerge from social interaction and are points of stability; they are generic personality types that serve as attractors, with the 'negatives' that led to their emergences being consciously forgotten and thus the possible development of a degree of positive output (NTs for Science, SJs for social management and development). Within this context, the classifications serve little use in determining individual differences but they do serve as the base contexts from which individual biases emerge, and one point of consideration is the use of these basic 'types' as feedback. Thus, for example, one can have a context of NFJ in which one of the eight types could function. This would give a possible 64 different types (8 x 8) which should be closer to individual preferences. To go beyond this, one starts to enter into the world of chaos where individual differences are so varied as to be entering the world of pure subjectivity and we find the emergence in varied degrees and contexts of all of the possible 'states'.

However, in all contextually-based systems, the initial conditions will set the tone/colour of all that follows and so the variations we see in these typologies can be traced-back to a sense of trust and a sense of confidence. These seems to form the basis for social personalites as well as psychological personalites. BUT, these results are linked to the process of dichotomous analysis and are therefore valid only within that context; the "meanings" we get come from the resonance of the template. It is wholes and their aspects, no matter how 'abstract' we get.

I end with the following quote from Anthony Wallace:

"...The hypothesis, which we shall call the "2^6 rule", is, then, that irrespective of race, culture, or evolutionary level, culturally institutionalized folk taxonomies will not contain more than 2^6 entities and consequently will not require more than six orthogonally related binary dimensions for the definitions of all of the terms. ...In the area of cultural semantics, we are suggesting that a somewhat similar principle applies...the evolution of cultural complexity is limited, in so far as folk taxonomies are concerned, by the two-to-the-sixth-power rule. ...What is limited is the complexity of the taxonomies which are components of the various cultural sub-systems" (Wallace 1961)

Wallace,A.F.C.,(1961) "On Being Just Complicated Enough" Proc. of N.A.S. 47 (1961): 458-464


Press backspace to return to previous page or Go to homepage