Jim Reynierse writes:
Hi John. By way of introduction I am a management consultant with an emphasis on the integration of strategic and organizational issues. My background is originally that of an experimental psychologist (Ph.D.
Michigan State University), originally as an academic, but since 1974 as a
practitioner in the business world. I have worked with the MBTI and type
for about 25 years, initially as a practitioner but increasingly as a
researcher and writer interested in the science behind personality and the
MBTI. I met Walter Geldart in April when I presented a paper at a CAPT
conference on "Leadership and the MBTI" and he introduced me to this
website. I was attracted to your paper since I have published several
papers on the MBTI and the Five Factor Model (FFM), aka "The Big Five."
I have two observations/questions. First, why limit yourself to the 12
pairs formed by the SN, TF, and JP preferences? The four MBTI preferences
combine to form 24 Pairs -- usually ignored in MBTI circles. In
particular, why did you exclude the EI combinations? One can surely argue
that the EI preference is fundamentally Jungian and a conventional part of
type theory (whereas JP is non-Jungian and at best plays a benign role in
type dynamics) so there would be some justification to limit the
combinations to those formed by EI, SN, and TF. But that is another
issue.
Second, the FFM equivalents of the MBTI are simple and well established.
FFM Extraversion (E) is associated with MBTI E-I; FFM Openness to
Experience (O) is associated with MBTI S-N (not NFP); FFM Agreeableness
(A) is associated with MBTI T-F (not FP); FFM Conscientiousness (C) is
associated with MBTI J-P; and FFM Neuroticism (N), or Emotional Stability,
is associated with MBTI Comfort-Discomfort (C-D), i.e., the
Comfort-Discomfort scale in the Type Differentiation Indicator. Not only
McCrae & Costa, but also Johnson (1995), Johnson & Saunders (1990), and
Tischler (1994) demonstrate that the factor structure of the MBTI conforms
to the FFM. Nevertheless, showing a circumplex structure for the MBTI is
interesting and instructive although I would have preferred a more
empirical basis for this.
On a personal note, how does someone in engineering get interested in the
MBTI and the FFM? FYI, I have two papers on the MBTI and the FFM "in
press" in the Journal of Psychological Type entitled "The combination of
preferences and the formation of MBTI types" and "Waiting for Godot, the
search for the Holy Grail, and the futility of obtaining meaningful whole
type effects" (the latter with my colleague and frequent MBTI research
collaborator, John Harker). Each addresses issues related to the MBTI
Pairs and the significance of type interactions. I'll be happy to send
you pre-publication copies if you are interested. - Jim R.
John Gonsowksi writes:
Hi Jim. It's nice to come across an MBTI researcher who has also worked with the FFM. Here are some comments on your observations/questions...
Re. your first question about limiting my research to only 12 pairs,
etc. -- The EI scale was just as valid for me as the other MBTI scales as
far as mapping to circumplexes. It's just that the "known" circumplexes I
used for my first three circumplexes turned out to be independent of the
EI scale. In other words, changes in the EI scale do not bias an
individual towards any of the four endpoint descriptors of the first three
circumplexes. I did (like you) dislike the idea of the EI scale being
left out so I did make three additional circumplexes (shown superimposed
on each other in figure 4) that use the EI scale. I am not aware of any
"known" circumplexes that match these and the PRF scores I used for my
paper do not deal with hybrid traits using the EI scale. In this case, I
just displayed the figure 4 circumplex without any scores and without any
collaboration from "known" circumplexes. The Jungian primary does in fact
achieve some J/P differentiation (a Jungian IF is really an IFP and Jung
never distinguished between an INFP and an ISFP). In this area I'm kind
of in the Keirsey camp where EI is the least interesting scale and the
others are equally interesting.
Re. your second question about the FFM equivalents of the MBTI etc. -- I
am aware of the MBTI scale correlations done by Costa & McCrae (1989) for
the FFM traits other than Neuroticism. I don't disagree that these single
MBTI scales were the only scales that had high correlations with their
respective NEO-PI, FFM scales. Obviously a high correlation does not mean
perfect correlation and the other MBTI scales did not have zero
correlation. But worse than this to me was the thought that some NEO-PI
scores could be made from subtraits that from an MBTI point of view
canceled each other out. For example the NEO-PI might create neuroticism
from SJish and NFish subtraits. Mathematically correlating the MBTI to
this could be hampered by the S and N factors in these subtraits canceling
each other out. My mapping was done by matching occupations and facets
typically associated with FFM types to occupations and facets typically
associated with MBTI types. This avoids the problem of subtraits
canceling each other out as well as the problem that FFM subtraits in the
NEO-PI may not match those found in the MBTI. Take FFM Openness (O) for
example, the most criticized (and weakest dimension) scale within the FFM.
Openness includes some leadership traits not usually associated with MBTI
N. I believe Katherine Downing Myers, at least, isn't in favor of the
comfort-discomfort scale matching with FFM neuroticism. I'm actually not
in favor of working with comfort-discomfort at all (the word comfort I do
use as a descriptor for FX which fits between FJ helping and FP
harmonizing)...
Re. your personal note... My family and Church were into the Keirsey book
and I got really into Jung on religion debate bulletin boards. I
discovered the FFM when my wife was doing research for a paper she did for
her Education Masters. She was looking at the MBTI vs. some learning
style tests. I noticed that the journals had much more on the FFM than
the MBTI so I started to learn about the FFM by "converting" it to the
MBTI traits I already knew. Yes, I would like to read your papers. Just
like with the FFM, I always like reading new ideas to see how it matches
with ideas I've already come across. The formation of MBTI types from the
individual factors is directly in my area of interest and the paper on
descriptors will definitely interest me. I have some tables of Keirseyish
descriptors (along with some tables of math, physics and spiritual
parallels related to my circumplexes) and I will be checking to see if the
Enneagram and the MBTI would like them in some form for a future issue as
a follow on to my current paper (my methodology for creating these
descriptors may be more over the edge than leading edge so I may just
stick to online debate with these for a while). - John G.
Hi Jim, those papers you sent me are quite interesting. I've never
directly thought about whether traits are due more to 2,3 or 4 factor
interactions. For circumplexes it looks like the axis traits are more due
to Pair interactions with some slight triad affects. Those triad affects
created some asymmetry which bothered me somewhat so I find it rather
surprising to learn that MBTI folks lean so much towards whole type
effects that don't build on the natural symmetry of the MBTI. One could,
I suppose, have symmetrical whole type effects but that would not be
nearly as interesting as the build up of symmetry beginning with Pair
interactions. One would think there would be much more attention paid to
exploring the symmetry of the MBTI.
Keirsey writes for the general public and his forte is more observational
than theoretical or empirical, so I can understand why he sticks to his
four Pairs (though he also gives nice whole type descriptions which
indirectly hint at effects from other Pairs). Though Keirsey is much
looser theoretically and much less empirical than you, he does agree with
you in areas like the J-P scale definition and the use of positive
descriptors as well as the desire to be "humours" based that you mention.
I am also a tad empirically challenged but this is partially due to my job
not giving me the resources to do this. I did talk with a grad student at
Northwestern about him helping me with some empirical data but my paper
was a bit too different from his previous work and he didn't see himself
having time any time soon.
I really liked your regression analysis done against individual
descriptive items. It would be interesting to see the individual
questions of the MBTI and NEO-PI correlated; that would really be a lot of
data. If you ever want to do anything empirical (or theoretical) related
to my circumplexes feel free to do so. As for the actual descriptor
mappings you did (and referenced) I was happy to see that they mostly fit
with ones I use and hopefully the mappings you have in progress will fit
well too. There were a couple of surprises. Logical for J instead of T
being one -- but I could see a J wanting to be considered logical even
when using a caring/sympathizing instead of a cold hard Mr. Spock type
logic. You do have exact/methodical/straight forward/idea oriented for T
which sounds like a user of logic to me.
Organized for SJs instead of TJs, was another small surprise but again
SJs may like to be organized but TJs do more directing of the environment
to create order. I had this same sort of problem with specific uses of a
word when trying to decide if the J/P scale was related to my axis
descriptor change. It was tempting to link the flexible P with change but
since Js can force change if things aren't the way they want them, the J/P
scale ended up neutral with respect to change.
Your name sounded familiar to me and after checking the CAPT web site I
realized it was because you have quite a few entries in CAPT's library of
references for the Journal of Psychological Type. Being well known,
hopefully your papers will help shift research more into lower order
interactions. You have a nice way of being critical without sounding
offensive (as evidenced by being on speaking terms with both McCrae and
McCaulley). I would assume this comes in handy as a consultant as well.
You are correct about IBM being a progressive company but even without
reading that organizational change paper you sent me I would have
preferred you to our current consultants based on your MBTI research
papers. Our current consultants (for our Endicott site only) have us using
the OCI. The OCI essentially gives positive descriptors to what would be
Ns on the MBTI and gives negative descriptors to Ss. Now here in the West
at least we could probably use more N like behavior simply because there
are more Ss than Ns but like you I don't like the idea of making it a good
vs. bad kind of thing.
Thanks again for all your great information. - John G.
Jim Reynierse writes -
Hi John. Thanks for your kind comments regarding my research papers. You have a better understanding of what I am doing and of critical MBTI/type issues than most of the well-known theorist-researchers working in the
area. You have it exactly right when you refer to the "symmetry of type
beginning with the Pair interactions." My colleague and fellow researcher
John Harker and I have frequently discussed these relationships in terms
of the "natural symmetry of type."
I am a little puzzled about where I might have classified "Logical"
as being J-related. In our early work with the preferences "Logical" was
a clear "T" item with some "I" relatedness. In "The Combination of
Preferences and the Formation of MBTI Types" paper (in press) I include
"Logical" as an IT Pair effect based on that earlier work. Our more recent
work shows that it is a strong "T" item.
Regarding change in organizations: It takes courage for an executive to
initiate and then achieve real, meaningful change. My prescriptive
comments work when the chief guy -- the CEO for a unit, i.e., whoever is
the executive in charge -- first believes, then gets the team on board,
then allows employees downstream to participate and play a role, then
takes TIMELY ACTION on their suggestions, and throughout, reinforces the
values CONSISTENTLY and FREQUENTLY. Most executives can't afford to take
the risks. It is much easier to follow "the established way of doing
things around here."
If you think it has merit, send a copy of my paper entitled "Ten
Commandments for CEOs Seeking Organizational Change" to your top
executive (locally). Keep in mind these are executive management issues
(not HR issues). The top guy has to make it happen. He/she has to
believe and then has to make it a priority. Change usually doesn't occur
simply because no one makes a big deal of the implemented solutions. - Jim R.
John Gonsowski writes:
Jim, it was the Winter '96 short paper of yours in the Bulletin of Psychological Type where you have a table listing Logical under J Factors. You did have Logical/Analytical listed under the I Factors, maybe the J listing instead of T was a typo, as the Bulletin of Psychological Type is
a relatively informal periodical. One change I should make to what I said
earlier is that what I called asymmetry resulting from a Triad effect
should be asymmetry resulting from multiple Pair effects (makes sense
since Pairs are the only things on my circumplexes). The question becomes
whether the asymmetry is just due to the axes I used or whether it
represents something fundamental. To me at this point it's like the
uncertainty principle made a choice that us humans are now stuck with, but
this gets into the rather wierd aspects of the Enneagram. - John G.
Jim Reynierse writes -
Hi John. Re. the Bulletin of Psychological Type article, The "Logical"
factor did not hold up as we increased the size of our sample. The
definitive study was published in the Journal of Psychological Type
(Harker, Reynierse & Komisin, 1998), Vol. 45, 5-20. The J dimension ended
up with 6 factors -- Scheduled/Structured, Likes Tried Methods,
Responsible/Reliable, Analytical, Reserved, & Perfectionist (in order of
their factor variance). Scheduled/Structured accounted for 29.25% of the
variance. The other factors added 6.17 to 2.5% variance respectively).
You were on target regarding the symmetry of type effect. This
symmetry occurs at all levels. Multiple pair effects are part of the
symmetry. The symmetry reflects the dichotomous nature of type and begins
with the preferences. Throughout it can be conceptualized by the K to the
N (I can't show superscripts with my e-mail) counting rule from
probability theory. We find that there are 152 basic type forms in the
architecture of type and which are reflective of this symmetry. Just try
it. For the preferences, K to the N = 2 to the 1st power; for the 6 2-way
interactions it is 2 to the 2nd power; for the 4 3-way interactions it is
2 to the 3rd power, and for the 1 4-way interaction it is 2 to the 4th
power. That gives you 2 + 2 + 2 + 2, etc. for a total of 80 forms. We
also find augmenting and mitigating effects throughout, i.e., K to the Nth
power becomes K to the 5th power. If you view the preferences from the
perspective of the FFM, E, N, F, & J are augmenting forms and I, S, T, & P
are their mitigating counterparts with 1 (rather than 2) to the 1st power
describing the preferences -- thus 76 basic type forms which are doubled
(augmenting/mitigating forms) for a total of 152 basic type forms. All of
this is detailed more completely in a paper (with John Harker) that is
currently under review.
The architecture of type reflects a basic symmetry throughout. That is
the advantage of type and dichotomous preferences compared to a
trait-based FFM. - Jim R.
John Gonsowski writes -
I like your comment about symmetry starting with the preferences. The
asymmetry in the circumplexes comes straight from the preferences too. You
have two of the preference scales nicely symmetrically orthogonal to each
other and then the symmetry is messed up by a third preference scale
having its two preferences biased towards opposite points on the
circumplex. It's like you mentioned in at least one of the papers you sent
me, there is some "overlapping" of the preferences. I tried a little to
see if I could find axes that make the third preference have a bias
towards a different point and that doesn't seem possible.
When I used a totally different set of 12 descriptors for the
circumplex axes, the bias ends up the same. The axes names for the
other personality tests from which I got the circumplexes also produce the
same bias. Looks like its the preference names chosen by Myers, not the
axes chosen by me that cause the bias. But as you suggest with your
reference to "humours", the preferences are a model of actual human
processing so any asymmetry or overlap of the preference effects is
fundamentally part of us humans. As you also suggest, type theory has the
advantage of being a model with some rules instead of just a bunch of
buckets to throw words into. - John G.
Front Page
