Reconceptualization

At times I worry that we are so caught up in our past that it is difficult to truly engage in dialogue to create a more complete and comprehensive model for the future. Lessons from Jung and others need to be incorporated into the journey forward but not relived as the journey, which at times it feels we are stuck in. A number of the followers of this blog have suggested we need to talk about our assumptions about both type and the way to research type. Let's list all of the assumptions that need to be tested.

Cultural variations

What are effective ways to sort through cultural pressures and tacit expectations that affect type or are influenced by type, assuming type is a real psychological factor?

Barnum Effect

Have we all been fooled by type tables? We organize people by categories and ask them to talk about their experience and then point out how this proves type? Isn't this a kind of circus act in which we create an expectation and then reinforce it without really testing it? How can we "tease" out what is real in these kinds of activities?

Eight or Four Is Enough

Some argue that psychological type is about four functions that are manifest in two psychological attitudes (e.g. Sening that is Extraversion and Sensing that is Introversion) while others argue that their are eight functions (e.g. Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Sensing, etc.). How do we measure this and does it make a difference?

A Rose By Any Other Name

Are the "poles" presented in various measurements of psychological type truly quantumly different? Is introversion just very low extraversion? Is the quantum difference present with some preferences and not with others? Would we say that Sensing is just very low Intuiting? Are the three functions--energy, perception, and judgment--so very different that we need to reconceputlaize how these are presented and studied?

Swing Low Sweet...

What do "low" scores really mean on measures of psychological type? What do "high scores really mean? Forget the manuals of these tools for a moment as the publilshers have a vested interest in their assumptions. How can we "test" the meaning of scores in a productive way? Have you seen patterns and differences given the scoring extremes on the tool you use?

Research question: Is psychological type the same as personality type?

Some would argue that a confusion has emerged between psychological type and personality models. Some thinkers point out that psychological type is about psychologcal processes that do not necessarily have correlates in behavior while others point out that personality is about the consistency of behavior across situations. How do we explore this question? Is there a unified perspective that bridges them both?

Type: Preferences, Behaviors, Systems

Researchers have to become clear about the nature of what they are researching and with what tools. What are the the tools (MBTI, Golden Personality Type Profiler, Majors Personality Type Indicator, Psychological Type Indicator, etc.) really measuring? What arguments can be made that these tools are doing more than four global qualities and suggesting a psychological system is at work?

Research Question: Measure What?

Personality type tools usually report a four letter code indicating that an individual feels certain preferences are--if we may be so bold--preferences that are not necessarily evident in behavior. What do these tools actually measure? Four independent scales, a proposed "dynamic,"and indicator of a system?

Recent researchers say no such thing

For nearly a decade researchers Harker and Reynierse have presented various statistical analyses that type dynamics is nothing more than a belief system of the scientifically blind followers of personality type. If you've read their research, what do you think of their methods? What do you think about their approach to analyzing type data? What is the counter perspective to their analytical view?

Is it either or?

Are type and continuum mutually exclusive? A favorite physical analogy for type is handedness… yet, while it’s relatively easy to sort people as right or left handed, there are several scales that measure the degree of handedness, whichever its direction. One could agrue that the correlational studies suggest that a continuum exists. Other tools that use a Likert scale certain produce evidence of a continuum and concurrent development of type related processes. What does the evidence suggest in your view?

Does everyone have a type?

Does everyone have a type? Jung doesn't seem to always be so sure that the answer is yes. the way persoanlity type tools get used, it appears most users feel the answer is yes. Waht does the evidence suggest?

What did Jung really mean?

What are the salient points of Jung's view of personality type that are debatable today? The 1,000s of studies on the "preferences" (E,I,S,N,T,F) seem to leave little to argue about regarding the basic qualities of these processes....or are these mental processes? If you listed the issues that are worthy of debate, what would those be?

Is type "hard-wired"?

Is type "hard-wired"? This phrase might perhaps be too concrete, given current knowledge. The brain is quite fluid and genes switch on and off at particular times. Should we arrive at a view of nature/nurture that arrives at the position of type preferences within that, particularly as not everyone is a type.

What is your view and what evidence would you rely on to support your perspective on this question?

Call For Papers

Psychological type proposes that patterns in the way individuals perceive and judge experience can be understood and reasonably identified. A variety of tools have been used to explore the preferences and patterns that are predicted by the theory.

After fifty years of research, hundreds of books and articles on psychological type, the professional community is asking for new evidence supporting the most complex aspect of the theory. In addition to preferences, the theory proposes that there are dynamic relationships among the processes, and development in the uses of these processes can enrich human experience.

The purpose of this research Forum is to take up the question of the empirical evidence of the dynamics of the types and the efficacy of type development. Researchers and Writers are invited to prepare papers to take up the question: Is there sound evidence for the validity of type theory, especially type dynamics and type development?

Qualitative and quantitative research is invited. Researchers who may use a variety of tools are invited to participate in this forum. Psychometrically sound tools and complex research methods are required for papers to receive consideration.

Direct questions to Roger Pearman, 336-774-0330, or pearman@qualifying.org.

Submissions to c/o Roger Pearman, Pearman@qualifying.org
250 Executive Park Blvd, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Pearman@qualifying.org