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