Off topic - Meyers Briggs

[Don Salmon]

Hi folks:

I apologize if I'm jumping in with a somewhat (very?) off topic note.

Jack asked my Meyers Briggs type in a recent letter.  I think I'm an INFP (introverted, intuitive, feeling, perception) type.

If you have absolutely no interest in this topic, you should delete now as this will only get more boring.

I started my graduate work in psychology at West Georgia College in 1990, after 20 years as a professional musician in NYC. I had generally a very negative take in psychology since 1970, when I read 6 books of Freud and was absolutely appalled that someone that seemed to have no clue what humans were about was actually taken seriously (I thought Skinner was even worse - he was very popular at the time).

Even less than psych theories, i thought quite poorly of psych testing (funny - I've made my living doing psych testing the last 10 years - over 2000 disability interviews and several hundred evals of firefighters, dispatchers and law enforcement officers).

Well, Myers Briggs was very popular at WGC (it had been, by the way, a very ordinary psych program for most of the 20th century, until the faculty asked Abe Maslow to recommend someone to "change" the program, and they found Mike Arons, a Detroit-based Jewish philosophy student who did his doctoral work with Ricoeur at the Sorbonnes - I mention "Jewish" because MIke always made a big deal out of what a misfit he was in Carrollton, GA - it was true, by the way).  Mike immediately arranged for a new faculty to live together in a commune - which was a disaster - but he did end up making the program one of the premier phenomenologically oriented psych programs in the world - with people coming from China and South Africa and everywhere else to attend.

But I digress (I warned you).

So I thought, in my typically, Leo/Pitta dosha arrogant way, I could outsmart the Meyers Briggs.  I decided, after reading a description of the various types, that I was an INFP.  And I would prove the test was silly because I would answer in such a way as to get the opposite result. 

I did. it was easy. My first test scored me as a perfect ESTJ.  

Then I took the test, answering honestly - scored INFP.

Well, actually, I was almost half way in between introvert and extravert, and halfway between feeling and thinking. (which, given whatever meager powers of self awareness I have, is pretty accurate, I think).  I was more perception than judgment, which also seemed accurate.

Liz (my first wife) had a great laugh at the other score. I was completely off the charts with "intuition." Which doesnt' mean, by the way, that I'm necessary very intuitive.  What it meant for her is vindication that I was completely impractical and always somewhere up in the clouds (Jan has done a great deal in the past 20 years to help ground me; Liz, who is still friendly with both of us, often kids us saying, "Oh great, I prepared the groundwork and now Jan has finally gotten him at least half way put together).

So, I have no idea what relevance this has for any of you, and apologies again for coming out of nowhere.  But psych testing actually is quite interesting. Do  you know I can now, after more than a thousand IQ tests, ask about 5 or 6 questions and generlaly come within 10 points of estimating your IQ (that is, if your IQ is under 110 - I rarely test people with higher IQs so I don't have as much experience knowing which questions to ask to estimate the higher ones.

Ok, back to serious business:>))))))))))))))))))))

[Hakuin Suso]

Interesting, Don.

I can tell if a person's IQ is below average simply by asking if they're a politician.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Edwin Holloway]

Thanks so much for sharing all that, Don. It makes a space for me to share how my background is in psychology -- part of the source for my strong interest in CWO.

Edwin

--

[Don Salmon]

But can you tell how many points the IQ has dropped when an MIT physicist becomes a politician? (not that I have anyone in mind:>)  and what about their EQ (emotional quotient)?

Is it possible that George Bush has gotten smarter since he left office?

I suspect that Calvin Coolidge may have gotten smarter "in" office!   You may know he was known as "silent Cal", as he spoke very little.  At one rather fancy dinner party at the White House, a young woman who was seated next to him said, "I have a bet with my friend that I can get you to say more than two words." His reply: "You lose."

[Don Salmon]

(on a more serious note): Hi Edwin. Sorry, I missed that last letter. Maybe you could share with us a bit more about your psych background.  I personally haven't found my academic training much help in understanding CWO.  Though if I had a teacher like Ron when I was studying phenomenology, I'm sure it would have been dramatically different. Kaisa Puhakka joined our department when I was studying at West Georgia College (edging out parapsychologist William Roll - interesting story there!), and she had an interesting phenomenological take on Tarthang Tulku's work (she had studied with him briefly).  Looking at what Ron has written, I wish I had known about FMW's work back then, as it would have helped me enormously in my conversations with Kaisa.

Sorry if that all sounds a bit nebulous. I don't want to take up too much space here... anyway, thanks for mentioning that Edwin.

[Chuck Post]

I'm an INFP too.    I think   The women in my life have laughed at my self-assessment when it comes to the "F".   They are probably right.  Who else would log time on a site like this, but a "T"...?     

They also are surprised that I regard myself as an introvert.  I have earned my way in life as a salesman and a fund raiser.   But I measure 9:1 on the Briggs Myers as an introvert.   

Go figure.   Chuck

[Joseph Rowe]

Hi Chuck & Don --- I'd been lurking here, because I know little about Meyers-Briggs. I got curious and read a bit about it, then went  to this page http://psychology-tools.com/myers-briggs-type-indicator/   and took the test, which also showed me as INFP, with % 50-90-70-70 respectively. This is very different from how many people see me, especially in a context such as this forum. I suppose there must be longer and more sophisticated versions of this test, but I must say that I'm very skeptical as to what it really means. One thing all such tests fail to take into account is the important difference between a person who has engaged deeply in "work on oneself" and one who does not. The former type of person may have a much more complex constellation, due to having actually changed their personality (hopefully for the better). An example: in one question about valuing compassion over reason, I chose compassion because I have worked to develop that trait in myself, which was lacking when I was young. I might well have answered that, and other questions, in an opposite way when I was young. This suggests three things: 1) a refutation of the pretense of these tests to have a handle on some kind of stable, fixed, lifelong, psychic foundation; 2) a failure of these tests to detect a kind of multiplicity of personality; and consequently 3) the possibility (nay, likelihood in my case) that at a different time and in a different mood, such a multiple person will score a very different result.  In sum, I feel that Meyers-Briggs can be useful as a kind of rough, sepia-colored shapshot of a moment in time, but counter-productive and even harmful if it is used as a prop for solidifying a certain self-image.
Btw, I should add that for me, "work on oneself" does not mean some kind of willful self-improvement, some sort of split where superego "works" on ego. It means opening oneself to positive evolutionary change from higher forces which we can feel, assent to, and be guided by, but not understand.

[Joseph Rowe]

Oops, I slightly mis-spoke in my number 2) . Meyers-Briggs does detect (barely) this multiplicity with its percentages. What I mean is that such tests fail to describe this multiplicity. And the more we learn about the human psyche, the more its multiple nature becomes important. In the psychotherapeutic work I do (sometimes using hypnosis and GSR), the more I learn, the more I'm astounded by the extent of this multiplicity in people, emerging like the hidden part of an iceberg...

[Chuck Post]

JR, et. al.

You know, this site has potential for certain progress in self-actualization.   The conversation is insightful, and so many of us seem to be in at least similar states of awareness.   No surprise:  Franklin as engender-er of thought cum enlightenment.

Thanks all for sharing.   Chuck

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fm-w/-/EhxOwekfOt8J.

[William St. George]

I think these tests could be useful for high school age persons.  That's the time when it is the easiest to make changes and when any kind of moderately accurate assessment can be helpful.  There is some basis for regarding astrology as accurate as well.  However, none of these tests can possibly provide the kind of information, I believe, that people secretly hope they will.  Same is true for relationship compatibility tests.  But people do find them entertaining and at least people get the important idea that there are real differences between themselves and others. 

Everyone has dreamed of a test that will make him or her like the Shadow that knows what lurks in the hearts of men.  What an asset for a teacher, a parent, the police, etc.  But, alas, no such test can or will ever exist.  Not even the brain scans.  Perhaps the search for such a test is simply a sign of human sloth. 

Finally spiritually oriented people look forward to having siddhis.  Powers that will open all doors and reveal all secrets.  Hence, the warnings issued by gurus and masters. 

[Don Salmon]

HOW DO YOU MAKE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AND RESEARCH VALID?

INTRO: If you don't take the tests too seriously, they can be helpful.  As far as I'm aware of the research to date, there's very little quantitative validity for the Meyers Briggs. There is for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), which I administer, but that's not saying much.  In the practical day to day work of clinical psychology, you take what little tidbits are helpful, and discard the rest.

But that leads to a larger question:

ARE THE TESTS REALLY VALID? How valid are psychological tests altogether?  At a time when mainstream science hasn't a clue what to do about consciousness (as "philosopher of mind' expert Jerry Fodor put it, "we don't even have an idea how to have an idea how to study consciousness) how can psychology be put on a scientific footing?

ALAN WALLACE'S SUGGESTION: Alan Wallace suggests, following William James, that we include (a) neurological information about the brain and body; (b) psychological tests; and (c) first person observation, or introspection.

THE PROBLEM: The problem with this is, if you only have perception and conceptualization, for (c), you're going to end up with the same limited understanding as in the rest of science.

ADD INTUITION: The solution?  You need to find a way to integrate (a) physical and neurological information; and (b) introspection, but both have to be "informed" by an integrated way of knowing involving perception, conceptualization and interoception (sp?) or intuition.

INTUITION MAKES FOR A TRUE PHENOMENOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY: In phenomenological terms, that means using quantitative and qualitative research, but unlike the phenomenological psychology I studied, which makes use of, at best, imaginative conceptual frameworks, you begin to have a science which uses intuition/interoception to study the brain, the mind, relationships, etc.  (which means, to WAY oversimplify, that for virtually every object of study, "you" would "see" it as it "really" is - as a "form" or "appearing" of the Infinite).  This would lead to a profoundly different understanding of statistics, research methodology, the workings of the brain and the mind, and many other things as well. 

And if you created tests out of that way of knowing, you might begin to have real, valuable psychological tests.  I hope Alan Wallace starts to take this into account in his contemplative observatory. I haven't seen it yet in his writing. 

[Joseph Rowe]

Hi Don --- In answer to your question: I do GSR using a special meter with large cylindrical electrodes that monitor as much as possible of the palms and fingers of each hand. I've tried several standard research meters with more convenient finger electrodes, etc, But these failed to capture a certain kind of subtle response of a sudden rise in skin conductivity. This palm-response turns out to be a very impressive and useful indicator of strong, often unconscious "charges" of feeling and/or emotion associated with the client's words,  charges that may go unnoticed in dialogue otherwise, unless one is an exceptionally gifted listener. I think this kind of GSR monitoring originated in Scientology, but I'm not sure. In any case, I learned it from the late Bill Marlow, who was an apostate ex-scientologist, who was disgusted with Scientology's manipulative use of this fascinating therapeutic tool. I have developed it into my own eclectic method over the last 20 years. The meter I use was made by a group of dissident ex-scientologists in Australia. When I finally get around to setting up my blog, I'll post detailed information about my approach, which I call Somatofeedback. A well-known GSR therapist whose work seems to resemble mine is Hank Levin, who sells something called the Clarity Meter (which I can't vouch for, having never used it, though I know and like Hank, who also happens to be a fellow oud-player.) If you want to know more, perhaps e-mail me, cause this is getting way off-topic...  all the best, Joseph

[Chuck Post]

Hi all;

A professor-friend of mine likes to say, "Socrates murdered Mythos".   By which I assume he means what Don/others are getting at.  The human need for the intuitive.  That which cannot be metered.

When Greek emphasis on logic (Logos) came along, spreading up through Europe , etc., followed by the Enlightenment, we got further and further away from the mythic-magic part of our psyches.   Logos "murdered" Mythos.    This is at least related to Franklin's introception.

But it seems to me Mythos, another way of knowing, as hinted through art, poetry, gods, is truly a part of us, and cannot be denied forever.   Thus, the out-bursting of the 60's and other mythic-recovery acts.

Of course, societies must have myths.   Thus, Paul Bunyan, Casey-at-the-Bat, and John F. Kennedy as he never was.

Chuck

[Don Salmon]

(technical stuff about the FMW egroup)

 Hi folks:

I don't know why it seems to be harder with this egroup format than with some others I'm part of - but for some reason I have to make an extra effort with FMW group posts to see whether someone has written to the group as a whole or to me alone.  

I wrote that note to Joseph asking what GSR was as an individual note - Joseph, I often make the same mistake, thinking something written to me was written to the whole group, then respond with "reply to all".   

I just wrote one of the individuals in the group and wrote at the top (not to the whole group) - or something like that, I don't recall, sorry. 

I'm not sure what to suggest other than take a quick look at the top left where gmail (if that's what you have) tells you if it's just to you or the whole group.  A number of other groups I'm part of have a fairly large indication on the subject line that the letter is going to the group as a whole.

Anyway, just to forestall any further confusion, I thought i'd mention this.  

Some really nice posts recently. Thanks all!