<p>Cur, Your wife means she is an introvert. I'm sure you've noticed she needs time and space to herself at the end of a busy day spent with many others!</p>
<p>
[quote]
the preference remains constant
[/quote]
</p>
<p>reflectivemom, I am no expert and a little late to the discussion here, but everything that I have read on the MBTI preferences is simply not this definitive.</p>
<p>In fact, I'm looking at my full MBTI report performed by CPP who owns the test and is licensed by the CAPT, and the report acknowledges variability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
personality-typing or learning styles inventories are tremendously helpful for career counselors in helping to guide people in their life decisions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Several years ago as part of continuing ed, I attended a semester long class on gifted education and assessment that included a taking and analyzing a number of IQ, personality and learning style tests. There was a good discussion of what exactly the measures assess and their relative weaknesses (the problem with scores in the middle). It was stressed that our tests results must be understood in the context of the gender, age, and learned experience. Further important personal qualities such as drive and motivation were not addressed. Test results can and do change, and Curmudgeon, your common sense is spot on. </p>
<p>There are a lot of problems with the Meyers-Briggs test, chief among them the overuse of absolute categorical types. The wikipedia article provides a decent overview of the theory, as well as the criticisms: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator.issues%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator.issues</a>.</p>
<p>But I think an important point that Calmom and reflectivemom alludes to is the importance of using a number of tests to improve correlation and predictive ability. No test based on self-reporting is perfect, and good career counseling offices use a number of resources to improve self-knowledge and exploration, from the MBTI, to the Strong Interest Inventory, COPS Interest Inventory, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and the Paragon Learning Style Inventory (PLSI), for example. </p>
<p>In addition, there are a number of books and guides on how to apply the results to choice of majors, academic settings, and career choices. A quick Google shows a number of them. Many of these are available at our kids’ college career centers, and they can be helpful to someone who is interested in this type of exploration. </p>
<p>Without getting into some 'fuzzy science' debate, I think understanding the issues is interesting. Though I still have questions—just like there are questions about the SAT. The hoagies gifted site is a pretty good resource: <a href="http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/personality_type.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/personality_type.htm</a>.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typically, a high school test is over a specific bit of info(chapters 1-5, test tomorrow). A past teacher explained to me years ago that is a great way to test a student's short term memory. She went on to say memorizing is much different than learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe this is part of the problem. I don't understand how some people seem to be like walking encyclopedias and dictionaries, literally. I don't even remember the pythagorean theorem or what it is used for, and quite frankly, I don't care. It's irrelevant now (graduated high school in 2001).</p>
<p>Calmom--do people have temperaments? Well, of course; we're not all the same. My issue, philosophically, is the creation of artificial categories, into which then every personality should fit. That, to me, is the pseudo-science to me; the categories are based on subjective observation. Even Jung cautioned against using his archetypes in a labeling kind of way, not to mention that though he had lovely things to say about how minds work, most psychology today is not Jungian.</p>
<p>It's my "temperament" (:)) to be against categorizing. Yes, I could tell you a story about my kids' personalities from knowing them for their whole lives. But my conclusions would come from observation of them as individuals, not as "types". "Typing" coagulates individual self. It's the mainstay of pop psychology, so I am not surprised that it's so popular--it is my observation that lots of folks like that kind of packaging.</p>
<p>I also imagine that typing shapes cognitive awareness--now that I know my "type", I can filter my apprehension of how I experience reality through its grid, and, lo and behold, it more and more explains me. That makes me feel good--I "get' myself. I can see the appeal of this, but to me, it's a shortcut that bypasses the whole messy, complicated, individual, gorgeous individuality of a human self.</p>
<p>I am coming late to this thread and haven't read all the (many!) pages of it. Despite this, I'd like to offer an explanation for high grades/low SATs: overthinking. Creative and/or extremely analytical thinkers tend to do worse on the SAT because they can see many right answers (or all wrong answers), particularly in the CR section. They handcuff themselves by staying too long on these perplexing questions instead of trusting themselves, thus limiting their time on the rest of the test. There's also a "the answer can't be this obvious" mentality with these types. The SATs require decisiveness and an ability to distill complex problems to a more black-and-white, multiple choice approach. Many students can do this, but some can't. It's not a failing but rather a specific kind of thinking.</p>
<p>Tutoring specific to these standardized tests can help, although there is a cheaper strategy. I suggest that you buy the answer key for your daughter's last test. It costs $16 (if I remember correctly.) If your daughter goes over the test and sees exactly why she got certain answer wrong -- and why she got others right -- she will then be able to "get" the test. For example, she may see that she overthought, or that she chose too hastily, or that she simply didn't choose the best answer.</p>
<p>I don't see it as packaging at all, Garland...not if people attempt to understand themselves or their children. I see it as common sense, so that people aren't forcing shy children into situations that cause them great or unnecessary stress, so that there isn't endless friction over things people cannot easily change. </p>
<p>Temperament is very real, which is why there are shyer vs. more outgoing people, and those more easily irritated vs more go-with-the-flow types, for example. We have all witnessed these differences. One can try to be more charismatic or someone who gets less annoyed by transitions, but the fact is that these are very much part of the very essence of who someone is. Complicated and messy yes, but not so much as trying to make yourself or your child into something or someone that they are not.</p>
<p>I pulled this from tokenadult's thread in the cafe on mind-set. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=352904%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=352904</a></p>
<p>How does this fit in with what we are talking about?
[quote]
Social psychologist Peter Salovey, ’80, MA ’80, dean of Yale College and a pioneer in the field of emotional intelligence, says Dweck’s ideas have helped him think through a controversy in his field. Echoing an older debate about the malleability of general intelligence, some scholars say emotional intelligence is largely inborn, while others, like Salovey, see it as a set of skills that can be taught and learned. “People say to me all the time, ‘I’m not a people person,’ or ‘I’m not good at managing my emotions,’” unaware that they’re expressing a fixed mind-set, Salovey says. </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>Stanford psychology professor James Gross has begun extending Dweck’s work to emotions. In a recent study, Gross and his colleagues followed a group of Stanford undergrads as they made the transition to college life. Those with a fixed mind-set about emotions were less able to manage theirs, and by the end of freshman year, they’d shown poorer social and emotional adjustment than their growth-minded counterparts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm pulling a post of mine from over on that thread to over here, too.
LOL. ;) Maybe we just went to different shrinks? Only mine were more colorful and used smaller words.</p>
<p>Allmusic--I guess I'm not being too clear here. I started by saying that of course all people have temperaments. I'd like to think that we can recognize who's shy, who's outgoing, etc etc without a test, and without a defined category. Once we place the grid over personality, we constrict who people are. It replaces individual observation with arbitrary categories.</p>
<p>I'm not denying individual temperament, I'm questioning a made-up taxonomy masquerading as science.</p>
<p>And Cur, I would add that while some people can manufacture more "people sense", this is as inborn trait as anything else. My brother is phenomenally charismatic...people flock to him wherever we are. He could literally sell a bridge....if one needed to be sold. :D</p>
<p>One could try like the dickens to be this way, but you either are...or you aren't. No amount of practice, no theorizing, no reading, can make someone have natural charisma, or excellent people skills. They are just innate, like a number of other talents.</p>
<p>"In fact, I'm looking at my full MBTI report performed by CPP who owns the test and is licensed by the CAPT, and the report acknowledges variability."</p>
<p>Most experts and researchers believe that the variability is the result of, for lack of a better description, "falsifying type". This term has come to be used as a descriptor for those who, due to environment, upbringing, immaturity, or a myriad of emotional/physical issues are not capable of defining their "true type". It isn't done consciously - simply many/some people "internalize" the values of their parents, superiors, friends, majority, etc. and/or are not willing/able to examine themselves independently at a given time. </p>
<p>This happens with some "types" more than others - especially types that value hierarchy, respect authority and tradition, etc. and those that value harmony and want to "please others". It also influences people who, as calmom mentioned, have a temperament that is different from most in their gender, career path, etc. </p>
<p>Sadly, it also happens when the consultant/counselor working with the client does not have the expertise or willingness to delve into these issue and help the person discover his/her "true type". Taking the test is really just a starting point, some people need months or even years to ponder these issues before coming to their "true type" - in the meantime, these individuals have a "working type" which may vary with time.</p>
<p>However, with more and more studies correlating brain centers with different types, it has become more accepted that one's "true type" is there from birth. However, if a person built for "sprinting" only sees/trains for distance running, I doubt they will ever look like a sprinter. And, a person who is taught that "their way of perceiving/deciding" is silly, stupid, or selfish will probably not see themselves that way.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>Garland wrote, "I started by saying that of course all people have temperaments. I'd like to think that we can recognize who's shy, who's outgoing, etc etc without a test, and without a defined category. Once we place the grid over personality, we constrict who people are. It replaces individual observation with arbitrary categories."</p>
<p>Actually, it works the opposite. And, from my point of view, your way is much more harmful. According to you, as stated in your quote, you (the observer) are the one judging who's shy, who's outgoing - based on their behavior. Personality theory, helps one look inside themselves and helps them understand whether they are energized by being out in the world with others or whether they draw their energy from private time to reflect. No one else can make this decision for them. And, "testing" involves lots of example, situations, conditions, etc. for them to peruse to decide which they "need". </p>
<p>By the way, extraversion and introversion, according to Jungian theory, is very different from outgoing, shy. You would be surprised to know how many "outgoing" introverts and "shy" extraverts there are! And, as a result of "erroneous" labeling put themselves in the wrong environments each day and suffer as a result!</p>
<p>All I can say is you have a very misguided view of personalty type. Do your children and yourself a favor and learn more about it. It is not a process of "labels" it is a process of learning about yourself and others - no more, no less.</p>
<p>I would never presume to "judge" a personality of another (well, maybe I know a little about my kids, but that's about it.)</p>
<p>Look, you subscribe to a belief system that I don't. No big deal. I probably subscribe to some that you don't, but i don't think it means that you are deficient in some way.</p>
<p>Cur, </p>
<p>I also saw tokenadult's post and found it funny that tokenadult is so against the "concept" of personalty typing and the MBTI - but posts links to books like "Mindset" which other psychology professors, according to their reviews, believe should be catagorized "self help/feel good" or "pop psychology". They find the book trite and overly long - all that needs to be said is said in the first chapter - an academic saying "Try your best"; "Believe and all things become possible"; or "Caint never Could". </p>
<p>But, I guess if it repeats the message you believe and the author has the right initials and is affiliated with a prestigious institution, all the better!</p>
<p>And, who doesn't believe that hard work gets you farther than no work? However, some of us, on this list, believe that there is something called talent or natural ability that comes into the equation. </p>
<p>We all recognize that a runner, built for speed, with the latest training, diet, oxygenation, shoes, etc. will probably win against one without the body style. A 7'7" well trained committed basketball player will probably outperform the same commitment in a 6'1" body! But, for some reason, some posters do not want to recognize that there are some who have the same natural "advantage" when it comes to academics, musical ability, or even social awareness and making friends!</p>
<p>Garland wrote: "I would never presume to "judge" a personality of another (well, maybe I know a little about my kids, but that's about it.)"</p>
<p>And, you might be surprised at how little you really do know!</p>
<p>"Look, you subscribe to a belief system that I don't. No big deal. I probably subscribe to some that you don't, but i don't think it means that you are deficient in some way."</p>
<p>It just seems curious to me that you spent so much time "bashing" that of which you know/understand so little.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most experts and researchers believe that the variability is the result of, for lack of a better description, "falsifying type".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughts reflectivemom. I view the MBTI as a tool for self-exploration. The report makes clear that individuals use all 16 preferences, but they have a pattern of preferences. The explanation for variability on the report is the score ranges in the middle. For example, your preference subscores range from very clear, clear, mod, slight. A "very clear" means that you choose the preference consistently and a "slight" means that your choices were more evenly divided. I am a very clear NT. But my E and J scores are mod and slight. The report offers that score ranges in the middle may result in type differences.</p>
<p>You're right RM. I'm an idiot. </p>
<p>At least, for wasting anymore time in this discussion. Way too much hostility here.</p>
<p>The PhD psychologist discussing our results also spoke about gender differences and age in expressing preferences. We use different preferences in middle life for example. She also talked about the role of learned behavior and how that results in preference difference.</p>
<p>I guess the point I'm making is that the test report itself does not use such definitive language. In fact it says, "every person is too complicated to be completely explained by a few questions, no matter how good the questions."</p>
<p>I have not read all of these replies - wow you sure got a response! I hope this is not too much of a repeat.</p>
<p>I would have an educational neuro-psych evaluation done asap if you can afford it. It is a luxury as most insurance will not cover it, but what a valuable tool it can be. Find someone who works in the methodology of Mel Levine (author - check out his books on Amazon especially A Mind At A Time). If your discover a legitimate LD or performance disability which has yet to be discovered you can get accomodations and retake the test (submitting scores with an explanation). If, for example, you child has a slower processing speed she could be self-accomodating for schoolwork but would be unable to accomplish that on a timed test. This does not mean she is less capable - there are speedboat brains and QE2 brains (Einstein and Edison probably fell into the latter category). If she has a QE2 brain the test will not show her ability unless she has more time.</p>
<p>Also, is that a 4.05 w?</p>