Over the last forty years the two primary threads in research on personality seem to be at odds, while proponents of each perspective claim “truth.” Trait oriented users and researchers are represented by the Big Five proponents and the process oriented perspective is reflected in Jung’s psychological type model.
Interestingly, many proponents of trait models “believe” their work is grounded in science, though they are often unwilling to tolerate much criticism about its limits and pragmatic utility. Proponents of psychological type are devoted to the proposition of type dynamics for which there is almost no empirical evidence and for the absence of evidence, they seem to care very little. At a number of levels for all camps, this situation is quite comical. Its potential practical outcomes, however, are less funny and potentially quite harmful.
Big Five proponents don’t seem to care about the genesis of the model which is no more scientific than the claim that psychological type was created by a quasi-scientist (Jung) and made practical by a housewife (Myers). Facts seem to be conveniently used, depending on whose writing the criticism. It is ironic that almost everyone in personality knows the roots of psychological type and the MBTI® tool while few realized the very shallow beginnings of the Big Five model. There is no doubt that there is significant weight of empirical evidence as currently reported supporting the existence of at least five measurable attributes (Extraverting, Openness, Affiliation, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Reactivity).
Without getting into all of the limits of this trait model, the primary point I want to make is that there are empirical data to support the five elements (and in some cases more elements of personality). Four of the five highly correlate with the typical four dimensions that are measured by proponents of psychological type (MBTI®, Majors PT, and Golden TP). In a real sense it can be said that both models—trait and type—essentially cover most of the same territory.
In fact, if you look at the collected data over thirty years on the MBTI®, there is pretty unambiguous evidence for the four scales, Extraverting/Introverting, Sensing/Intuiting, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving as measuring some elements of personality. Keep in mind that the primary reason for the four scales is to access a much bigger story—the use of a dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior set of processes proposed by Jung. For example, MBTI® type theory would suggest that an ESTJ has a dominant Extraverted Thinking, supported with an Auxiliary Introverted Sensing, followed with Introverted Intuiting, and Introverted Feeling.
In other words, the reason for the four scales of tools like the MBTI® is to tap into a system of use of psychological processes. The problem that type enthusiasts have is that there is very limited empirical evidence to support the proposition that these processes have a very specific, fixed structure. At the moment, there is no independent juried research reports that support the theory. And many of the users care less that any scientific evidence that is acceptable to the larger scientific community is missing: they believe the proposed type dynamic is so. In fact, as a general heuristic, I believe the model is very useful in organizing information about an individual’s self perceptions and understanding expressed behavior. If we move from thinking about “preferences” which are an internal self-reflection to demonstrated behavior patterns, which can be readily seen and explicated, then behaviorally related type patterns are quite predictable.
The parallels of the Big Five and typical type measurement tools diverge. While the assessment tools have statistical correlations as related to scales noted above, there is no underlying theory of the Big Five. The theory associated with psychological type is about the basic need for human beings to perceive and manage what they see or experience in life. In short, everything about the Big Five is the five scales and their subscales.
Other researchers in various fields of psychology have identified various processes at work within an individual’s psychology which map according to Jung’s hypotheses. In some cases, eight specific dimensions have been identified which are perfect parallels to Jung’s proposition of eight mental processes or mental resources used to help make sense of experience and make choices in life. Most notable in this regard is the work by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso with their model of emotional intelligence.
Jung proposed that eight processes or mental resources were actively in use to facilitate an understanding of daily life experience. He suggested that there was a primary process around which all other processes were in service.
Each of the mental functions can be understood in its basic form, which is usually simple, limited, and fragmented to its more complex form, which is very layered, inclusive, and wholistic. Take the suggested descriptors below as benchmarks:
Perceiving Processes or Mental Resources
Se: basic--scanning the environment, complex--artful use of talents
Si: basic--repeating a fact, complex--identifying subtle shifts and adjustments in information
Ne: basic--expressing multiple ideas, complex--facilitating discussions about long term horizons projected from multiple angles
Ni: basic--a hunch about a situation, complex--creating metaphors about underlying meaning and potential scenarios
Judging Processes or Mental Resources
Ti: basic--using a formulaic analysis on a situation, complex--creating a multi variate method to study and analyze factors and possible outcomes
Te: basic--giving a criticism, complex--creating a system for exploring and testing the validity of assumptions and working principles in a situation
Fi: basic--attachment to an object as valuable, complex--identifying all of the developmental and constructive ideals and elements in a situation
Fe: basic--inclusiveness of others, complex--using empathy to empower relationships and to build networks for improving commitment for action
We have Jung’s proposition of eight mental resources. There are multiple researchers that have presented various degrees of evidence that Jung’s propositions were reasonable. When developing the Pearman Personality Integrator®, my focus was on what has empirical support. These eight mental resources have been found to be reasonable from a number of perspectives, no “belief” required.
With the Pearman, individuals receive feedback on their use of the eight mental functions proposed by Jung and refined through additional research. Individuals get a report which covers the eight mental functions in terms of degrees of use and degrees of natural comfort with using the process at hand. This information allows for a rich exploration of what an individual believes is true about himself or herself and what he or she expresses in their daily life. Far beyond the parameters of this essay, there is a very important issue with the realization of how one see’s himself or herself and how he or she believes behavior is expressed that is very fruitful in terms of health and well-being.
The “what” of the Pearman is that eight mental resources are measured. The “so what” of the eight mental resources is that individuals get a full report of how the eight mental resources are used. This comprehensive look prompts an exploration of which mental processes are most attended to in perceiving experience and in making meaning of experience, and which are relatively less used. The ensuing “now what” is the realization that development involves leveraging particular strengths and exploring ways to appropriately enrich those processes that are ignored. In this way, individuals can integrate an understanding of their entire psychological system of perceiving and judging, and in so doing, have a comprehensive picture of how they operate and what they might flex to in order to enrich well being and personal effectiveness.
If you want to take the Pearman, let me know. I’ll do the interpretation free, if you’ll pay for the assessment. Let me know at pearman@teamtelligent.com.
You can read more about the PPI on my blog.
Comments
Post a Comment