към началната страница psihologia.net
Сайт на преподаватели и възпитаници от специалност "Психология" в СУ
 
 Въпроси/ОтговориВъпроси/Отговори   ТърсенеТърсене   ПотребителиПотребители   Потребителски групиПотребителски групи   Регистрирайте сеРегистрирайте се 
 Профилпрофил   Влезте, за да видите съобщенията сиВлезте, за да видите съобщенията си   ВходВход   лични страници на възпитанициЛични страници

3. Measuring the Type.

 
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата
Предишната тема :: Следващата тема  
Автор Съобщение
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 13 Яну 2005 9:52:10    Заглавие: 3. Measuring the Type. Отговорете с цитат

SUBJECTIVITY OR OBJECTIVITY? TESTING JUNGIAN TYPES BEFORE SOCIONICS: GRAY-WHEELWRIGHT TEST, SINGER-LOOMIS INVENTORY, MBTI ETC.

Let us discuss today methods of determining the types in socionics, as well as in other directions of Jungian typology.

Jung himself detected types intuitively, this means, he was the only expert in their determining. Later some of his disciples learned to do it, but Jung anyway understood that his criteria of types must be subjective, and he did not publish any methodology of determining types.

In 1938 (?) Gray and Wheelwright proposed their first test determining Jungian types. You can find this test (in English) here:
http://www.gesher.org/Myers-Briggs/GW_Test.html
This test contained only three of the four scales (the scale rationality/irrationality, or judgment/perception, was missing). It is still used by some American psychologists.

Of course, this test was primitive from the viewpoint of today’s achievements of psychology. But it was – the first of its kind. Gray and Wheelwright started a longitude study of validity of their test.

For about 30 years they, and later their disciples Katherine Bradway and Wayne Detloff, performed testing of the same group of people in order to measure dynamics of their test results. They found that a big group of the respondents had slight deviations in their results: e.g. ENT (1st testing) … ENT (2nd testing)… INT (3rd testing) – testing was repeated after several years. Sometimes even 2 of the three criteria changed in time.

Did it mean that the type also changed? They could not answer this question. Their only tool of measuring types was the test, and they even did not offer their own type descriptions – instead, they referred to Jung's Psychological Types.

There were some other tests: the Singer-Loomis Inventory, which did not become popular, and the famous Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Isabel B. Myers was not a professional psychologist – she was a schoolteacher. Her mother was one of Jung’s disciples and thus learned about his system of types. The main background of her test was the idea that people are born different, and it is necessary to respect and develop these differences, instead of leveling them. Myers considered these inborn (!) differences as the key to future talents: the earlier these gifts are recognized, the earlier they begin to develop, thus providing this person with more opportunities in his/her career and self-realization. Interpersonal compatibility was not interesting to her, or at least, she did not see ways of its objective studying.

Unlike the Gray-Wheelwright Test, her test consisted of all 4 binary scales. However, she made something that became, on the one hand, a key to the fantastic success of her test in the future, but on the other, a reason of stagnation in its further development (you will not find much difference between MBTI-related articles written 10 years ago and nowadays). We do not remember any link to her test on the Internet, but most probably you will find it here (together with a lot of other information about Myers):
http://www.capt.org

So what did she do? She just tried to explain Jung's scales IN SIMPLE PLAIN WORDS.
(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 13 Яну 2005 16:08:57    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

The difference between the original Jung’s typology and the approach of Isabel Myers is not evident at once. She used the same 4 dichotomies, and she gave them similar definitions.

However, as we have already noticed, Jung did not consider all the 4 dichotomies equipotent (равносилни). He divided them into 2 groups: functions (T/F, S/N) and attitudes (E/I, Rat/Irrat). The first two manifested clearly and obviously in mental activity, in occupational success, etc. The second two described rather dynamics of the neural system, and thus represented something like “fine tuning” of types. In MBTT, all the 4 dichotomies are equipotent. We would describe it as comparing meters to liters and kilograms :)

Well, on the other hand, it is easy to criticize Myers based on the actual level of psychology. At that time her work was a significant progress, compared to Jung. Jung’s terms were too vague, allowed multiple interpretation. Myers proposed maybe simplified, but easily recognizable descriptions of the 4 dichotomies.

In addition, her approach was influenced by American cultural traditions. One of the dichotomies, Judgment/Perception, from this viewpoint is the most different from the original Jung’s approach.

Let us remind, Jung used TWO synonyms for the same dichotomy: rationality/irrationality and judgment/perception. Myers chose the second name, and described this dichotomy similarly to Jung’s ideas, but also added something new: in her interpretation, Judging types are decisive, self-disciplined, strong-willed, resolute, while Perceiving types are careless, unpunctual, somewhat infantile. This of course made her types somewhat different from the original Jung’s types.

She understood it, too. And she proposed a hypothesis: her dichotomy Judgment/Perception was not the same as Jung’s Rationality/Irrationality! She guessed that Rational = EJ + IP, Irrational = EP + IJ.
In fact, such a hypothesis was much controversial and resulted in misunderstanding and confusion. Myers herself wrote that her hypothesis somewhat contradicts to empirical data. In her book Gifts Differing (1968) she wrote that the criterion J/P sometimes does not work for introverted types.

So why could not she return to the original Jung’s interpretation of Rationality/Irrationality? We think, maybe because her typology would become more abstract, would lose its “American taste” and thus would not become so popular in the US.
(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 13 Яну 2005 21:55:39    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

According to Myers, the type is the result according to her test. At least it was so when she was alive. According to the actual rules of CAPT (Center for Application of Psychological Type, www.capt.org ), which owns the copyright for MBTI, this is not enough. First, you need to pass the MBTI test, then you need to be interviewed by a advisor, which confirms or corrects the test results. This is important. The test result obviously reflects certain personality traits, but it can also reflect certain social stereotypes, "masks".

The Myers-Briggs typology appeared in 1956, but it remained not widely known until 1984, when David W. Keirsey, a well-known American psychologist, published his Please Understand Me (with Marilyn Bates). This popular bestseller made MBTT really popular. However, instead of the long Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which included approximately 150 questions, Keirsey proposed his own shorter test of 72 questions, the so-called Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTT).

The terminology of Keirsey’s book exactly matched the MBTT terminology. He gave just the same definitions as Myers did. Except for one detail: his test gave somewhat different results for the same people. Not always, but often at least one of the four dichotomies mismatched in both tests (e.g., certain John Smith could be ESFJ, according to MBTI, and ESFP, according to KTT). For this reason, later Keirsey proclaimed that his typology was “not the same as MBTI”. Here is what his son wrote to me:
There is a difference between the Myers-Briggs material and Keirsey Temperament, although we know that many don't see or understand the differences. Mixing the two is not to my father's liking. To my father, he does not want to assist, or seem to assist, in promoting any material that he does not believe presents an accurate picture of temperament, which Myers-Briggs material and its derivatives have problems in this regard.

Under “temperaments" Keirsey understood the groups NT (Rationals), NF (Idealists), SP (Artisans), SJ (Guardians), which he identified with Hippocrates’ temperaments. We read his books, but we failed to find any valid proofs of correlation between these groups and classical temperaments – Keirsey simply declared it!

This again raised the questions, whether Jungian (or Myers-Briggs) types are “objective”, or they represent something like social stereotypes?
(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 14 Яну 2005 0:42:05    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

“OBJECTIVE" PARAMETERS OF TYPES: TIEGERS IN THE US, AUGUSTA IN THE FORMER USSR

If the Myers-Briggs were “objective”, then they were possible to identify by any other way, without tests. Objectivity means independence from the personal factor, i.e. two different researchers should obtain the same result under equal circumstances if they use the same approach and have the same object of research. The type should have some objective parameters.

Both Myers and Keirsey, as well as some other famous adherents of MBTT (e.g. Kroeger and Thuesen) in their books used similar approach: they simply described the 4 dichotomies, then gave a test, and then described the resulting 16 types. They did not give any valid methodology of determining types without tests.

So, when we visit different sites dedicated to the Myers-Briggs typology, or Keirsey typology, we will find there long lists of celebrities distributed by types… in different ways! Adherents of MBTI could not agree even about the types of American presidents!

Such disagreement makes sense, since we remember that MBTT methodology relies primarily upon tests. How can we test a celebrity? Even when they come to MBTI consultants or analysts, they rather prefer to keep their results in secret.

The situation changed at the end of 1990s, due to the spouses Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger. They contributed a lot to MBTT. In their books, they developed a methodology of determining types without tests – by observation, interviewing etc. They also performed some more interesting experiments. However, today we are not going to discuss their methodology, nor its bugs. You can visit their site:
http://www.personalitytype.com

Now let us come back to socionics and Augusta. Last time we mentioned her name three days ago!
(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Kalin Yanev



Регистриран на: 31 Мар 2003
Мнения: 1197
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ Докторанти ]
[ новини ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2002 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 14 Яну 2005 11:07:55    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

What type of school teacher was I. Mayers? It's amazing a not professional to develop a psychometric tool, isn't it. Can u tell more about the test itself: what exactly was the way of constructing MBTI - Isabel Mayers and her mother did their interpretation of the dichotomies and translate their concepts in items or maybe they did some factor analysis? U have mentioned correlations with other test methods. If the test is used by CAPT i guess it should have also good indicators as test-retest reliability, inner reliability? Is MBTI used in Russia?
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла Посетете сайта на потребителя
Цвете Герге



Регистриран на: 12 Юли 2004
Мнения: 108
Местожителство: Sofiq
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 14 Яну 2005 17:06:10    Заглавие: Hi, Kalin! Отговорете с цитат

Калин Янев написа:
What type of school teacher was I. Mayers?


I. Mayers graduated from Swarthmore College with a bachelor's degree in political science. More information: http://www.capt.org/The_MBTI_Instrument/Isabel%20Myers.cfm
Or 'The Story: Isabel B. Myers' by Gordon E. Jeffries


Best regards,
Cvete Gerge
_________________
Психиатърът е ум и сърце.
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 16 Яну 2005 10:30:27    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Kalin, we can reply shortly to your questions.
MBTI is used in Russia. For the first time it was mentioned in Russian in 1984, in a book translated from English: Б.Шнейдерман, Психология программирования, М.: «Радио и связь», 1984. This book contained only a short description of the 4 scales, but did not contain the test itself and descriptions of the 16 types.
Later our famous psychologist, Academician Yuliya B. Gippenreyter, developed an adapted version of MBTI, which is now used by several psychological organizations in Russia.
Several books dedicated to Myers-Briggs and Keirsey typology have been translated into Russian:

Авила А. Найди свою любовь! Типы людей и их совместимость. – М: Астрель, 2004, мягкая обложка, 304 стр. - Alexander Avila. Love Types. 1999.
Каммероу Дж.М., Баргер Н.Д., Кирби Л.К. Ваш психологический тип и стиль работы. – Пер. с англ. А.Багрянцевой.- М.: Изд-во Института Психотерапии, 2001. – 224 с. - Jean M. Kummerow, Nancy D. Barger, Linda K. Kirby. Work Types. Warner Books, A Time Warner Co., 1997.
Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. Типы людей. – М.: Персей – Вече – АСТ. – 1995. – 544 с. - Otto Kroeger, Janet Thuesen. Type Talk.
Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. Типы людей и бизнес. – М.: Персей – Вече – АСТ. – 1995. – 560 с. - Otto Kroeger, Janet Thuesen. Type Talk.
Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. Шестнадцать дорог любви. – М.: Персей – Вече – АСТ. – 1995. – 430 с. - Otto Kroeger, Janet Thuesen. 16 Ways to Love Your Lover.
Ливер Б.Л. Обучение всего класса. – М.: Новая школа, 1995. - Betty lou Leaver. Teaching the Whole Class.
Тайгер П., Баррон-Тайгер Б. Читать человека как книгу. – М.: АСТ, 2000. - 288 с. - Paul Tieger, Barbara Barron-Tieger.
Тигер П.Д., Баррон-Тигер Б. Делай то, для чего ты рождён. – М.: Армада, 1996. – 491 с. (the translation of this book was really awful! We wonder if readers understood what the authors really meant).
Фрид Дж., Бирнбаум Д. Чтение личности. – М.: ЭКСМО-Пресс, 2002. – 288 с.
Хеджес П. Анализ характера, или типология по Майерс-Бриггс. - М.: Изд-во Эксмо, 2003. - 320 с. -- Patricia Hedges. Understanding your personality. With Myers-Briggs and more. 1993.
Хеджес П., Коэн Д. Тайны характера. - М.: Изд-во ЭКСМО, 2004. - 512 с., ил.


And some others too. As for the Keirsey test, there was a not really good story with it. Keirsey granted the right for its usage in Russia to a Russian psychologist Konstantin Pavlov. The latter misused Keirsey’s authorization and published, together with two other people, “his” book, which, in fact, was a plagiated version of D.Keirsey’s fundamental work: Keirsey D., Bates M. Please Understand Me.

Several years ago we corresponded with D.Keirsey’s son. As a result, he granted us the right to create an adapted Ukrainian version of his test, which he later placed at his site:
http://www.keirsey.com/Ukrainian.html

We will later consider both advantages and lacks of the tests used in Jungian typology.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Покажи мнения от преди:   
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата Часовете са според зоната GMT + 2 Часа
Страница 1 от 1

 
Идете на:  
Не Можете да пускате нови теми
Можете да отговаряте на темите
Не Можете да променяте съобщенията си
Не Можете да изтривате съобщенията си
Не Можете да гласувате в анкети


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Форумът е адаптиран от: Калин Янев и Иван Янкулов