myers-briggs personality types questionA word of warning: This post is primarily for Myers-Briggs and personality psychology geeks (of which I count myself one). If you’re new to personality types, this may or may not be interesting to you. Feel full permission to abort mission at any point.

When I first started learning about personality types and, in particular, Myers-Briggs approximately 20 years ago (+/- a couple of years), the most accessible work on the subject was a book called “Please Understand Me” by the late David Keirsey.

It was pretty revolutionary for me, and started me on a path of obsession that I haven’t quite been able to shake two decades later. Very quickly I realized that the information was powerful, but it was also relatively limited. It was GREAT for understanding the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types, and I mastered those types as best I could.

I entered a space I see a LOT of people enter: I became an ‘expert’ at knowing people’s type descriptions and fancied myself an expert at being able to label others. It was a warm, self-satisfied place which gave me a sense of mastery and may or may not have prevented me from creating true intimacy with others. I vetted them based on the boxes I put them in, all the while thinking how awesome I was.

(Not everyone who learns personality types does this. My own personality type has a tendency to run to arrogance in any cognitive mastery, and I’ve had no choice but to let life beat the condescending asshole out of me. I’m a little spongy and bruised, but a much better person for it.)

At a certain point I started to abandon Myers-Briggs, realizing that my relationship with it wasn’t entirely healthy and I might be better off not typing other people, but just accepting them as they present.

Then I ran into another Myers-Briggs enthusiast and learned cognitive functions, and the world of typology burst open for me again. I became obsessed again, learned everything I could, did my own “think tanking” around the subject and once again gained a certain level of true mastery. But this time I wasn’t as arrogant overall, and I didn’t use it as a weapon to yield or a shield to hide behind.

I read everything I could, and of course – like you probably have – I started joining Myers-Briggs communities where everyone was using shorthand to reference cognitive functions and I felt ‘at home’.

Except, I wasn’t at home. In fact, in the course of a year I realized I HATED online forums around Myers-Briggs. Now, admittedly, as an ENTP I was on a lot of NT sites, which happen to be filled with the kind of arrogance that make a bad name for all NTs. The NF forums were a much softer place, often filled with bunnies and rainbows, and the occasional bouts of forum drama. But in comparison to the NT forum-style drama, still much closer to bunnies than, say, Howitzers.

ANYWAY.

To back up a little, there was a major barrier of entry when I graduated from standard, simple MBTI dichotomies (I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P) and into the cognitive functions. It didn’t take a super long time to realize that Introverts who are iNtuitive aren’t necessarily using Introverted Intuition, but it was still a bit of a challenge.

Now, I LOVE personality psychology, so the small barrier of entry wasn’t going to hold me back. But that’s not something I see playing out for everyone. In fact, that barrier of entry can trip people up pretty hardcore. I know people who have read “Gifts Differing” by Isabel Briggs-Myers and STILL don’t understand that she was talking about cognitive functions. As in, totally missed it.

While on the forums (that I came to hate), it became really obvious to me that crossing that barrier of entry was a sort of exclusive little club. As in, they didn’t want the masses to understand cog funcs, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to stay exclusive in their knowledge. A knowledge, I suspect, that is weaponized more than it’s used as a tool for building up or a gift to give to the world.

So, when my previous business partner and I were talking about bringing this information to the masses we decided to just abandon that barrier of entry of confusion.

Why have someone say “Introvert Intuitives – they use Introverted Intuition, right?” and then have to respond with, “No, no, only if they’re Judgers, then they use Introverted Intuition. Otherwise they use Extraverted Intuition,” only to have them scratching their heads saying, “Huh?”

Why not just name them something else?

myers-briggs personality types questionHence, the 8 nicknames were born.

No more confusion, no more head scratching, no more barrier of entry. No more conversations around “That doesn’t make sense, I should be using Introverted Intuition, I’m an INFP!” You’re an INFP, you use Exploration. And the response is, “Oh, okay. Cool.”

Thus, accessibility is born.

Second, why do we call it the Genius System?

As a Myers-Briggs enthusiast, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but a lot of people think they “know” Myers-Briggs.

“Oh, yeah, I had to take that personality test for my work one time. I’m an EPTF.”

If you say, “Yeah, that’s not how it works,” they already think they ‘know’ and their input mechanisms close down.

Just to be clear, I think personality psychology is one of the things that will save the world. Seriously. SAVE. THE. WORLD. There are a lot of people who are born leaders, born problem-solvers, born change agents who cloister themselves off from the world and lick the wounds called, “I’m not okay, I’m not good enough, nobody understands me.”

I think this is unconscionable, and it’s my mission to do everything possible to light these people up. To reverse the damage of “I’m not okay,” and reprogram the message, “I’m AMAZING and the world needs me.”

World hunger, war, pollution… all the biggies could be the focus of our attention if we weren’t focused on our personal wounds. If we’re happy, healthy, and coming from a place of psychological and emotional abundance, we can give back in a big way. And I personally believe understanding one’s personality type is a quick, leveraged first step in going, “Someone understands me? I’m actually part of a group of people like me? This isn’t ‘bad’, ‘wrong’ or ‘broken’, it’s just wiring?” And then BAM. The salve is on the wound, and the first steps toward solving major problems is taken. bitqt

If we can get people to re-evaluate their assumptions about a system that is becoming too easy to dismiss, if we can remove the barrier of entry to understanding something that could be a Game Changer for themselves and, potentially, the world, then we’ll call it Dr. Scholl’s Miracle Hair Ointment and Personality Salve.

Instead, of course, our marketing experience tells us to call it Genius Styles. Sometimes we call the cognitive functions ‘pillars’, sometimes ‘lenses’. It kind of depends upon the audience and what makes sense at the time. People like it, it makes them feel cool and special (our goal) and bonus: it’s true. Your primary and secondary cognitive functions ARE your genius, if you choose to development them, and so we have no problem stating them as such.

SO.

For you Myers-Briggs geeks (like me) that see something that feels amiss – you’re right. It IS amiss. But not to hornswaggle. To educate, to elucidate and, hopefully, to increase happiness for everyone who comes across the information.

Thanks for the question, Alexander! It was a GOOD one. 🙂

-Antonia

Want to learn more?

Discover Your Personal Genius

free-personality-test-myers-briggs-300x72

We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…

24 comments

  • Antonia Dodge
    • Antonia Dodge
    • October 6, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    John.

    I think it’s clear you have something you very much want to say and this is a platform you’ve decided it’s important to say it on. I’m trying to figure out your thinking while you 1) attempt to discredit the System of Choice of this website; and 2) inform me that I’ve mistyped myself (in said discredited system) because I’m emotionally repressed and adolescently rebellious. But whatever the reason, it’s not having the desired effect of me saying, “Holy shit! You’re right! I’ve seen the light and I’ve been wrong this entire time. Please guide me.” In reality, your comment alone indicates that your familiarity with Myers-Briggs is pretty limited. They’re not true dichotomies, but gradients, which is not difficult to see that if you have mastery over the concepts.

    I think you’re sincere, but you’re using vinegar where honey would be a far more effective approach.

    A

  • Antonia Dodge
    • Antonia Dodge
    • October 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    I pretty much agree with everything you say. There’s a cost of specialization involved here (accessibility v. accuracy), and we’ve chosen accessibility… in the beginning. We teach courses on a number of subjects, and the reference material invariably references Jung. I tell pretty much all of my students to read “Gifts Differing,” “Personality Types: An Owner’s Manual” (by Lenore Thompson Bentz) and Dario Nardi’s book on Neuroscience. I teach a course called “Profiler Training” which becomes VERY detailed oriented and extremely accurate about Jungian’s functions (I am Ti, after all) and is available for anyone who wants to do a deep dive.

    However, I want the information to be accessible to anyone, even if they have no interest in going down that rabbit’s hole. They shouldn’t have to become an armchair professor to get the benefit of the wisdom of the system. So I try to make our programs available at all levels of interest.

    And yes – part of it IS a commercial move. This is a purpose/mission-driven business for me, but it is a business. I’ve made peace with that.

    Thanks for the dialog. I think it was something that needed to be addressed and I just haven’t yet. :)

  • Alexander Korf
    • Alexander Korf
    • October 6, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up. I also agree with the challenge people face when going from MBTI to Jung’s cognitive functions to actually understand the inner workings. But I feel ambiguous about the chosen path. Sure, renaming the cognitive functions will help shorten the transition time at first to clear things up. Your example of an INxx not necessarily having to be dominant Ni makes a strong case. There is however a catch to this all; multiple words or definitions for the same content creates a new ‘universe’ and brings about the danger of separation from Jung articles on other sources.

    This ‘could’ be a commercial motive. This is meant merely speculative and in a generalising way, not to judge you. My gut feelings tells me your motivation is most likely authentic, but it is something I have seen happen across the interwebs. Too many consultancy companies have re-coined the temperaments to uniquely sell their products, but as an effect leading people astray from the core: Jung’s Cognitive Functions.

    I would like to share my solution from MBTI to Jung by this diagram I developed: http://farikogaming.com/photo/fariko-quadrant-2 It has the advantage of quickly showing the dominant and secondary cognitive functions in relation to their respective MBTI. Feel free to use it in parallel with the Genius system.

    Another aspect of the nicknames is that they are a bit narrow. I am not saying the nicknames are wrong; they also could be named differently.
    For example, I could make a case to name Ne creativity, Ni deductive reasoning, Ti reductive reasoning. Now the point here is not the exact choice of nicknames, but the mere fact that someone could interpret the cognitive functions in many different ways. This can cause ambiguity in the use of terms and causes another separation. But, I again see the advantage of making the learning curve a bit easier for people starting to learn about Jung’s cognitive functions.

    A similar aspect occurs when you translate Beebe’s model to a car with four people. Again, it helps ease the understanding of the way the first 4 cognitive functions work in a person, but also separates it from Beebe’s model which has a greater level of detail. I must state that I am not sure that you don’t refer to Beebe’s model in relation to the car example, so I could be wrong with my suggestion. If so, my apologies. :)

    All in all; yes, from a teaching/learning point of view I like the way you make the cognitive functions more accessible. From a scientific point of view it would not be my choice to walk that path and in a way separate myself from the original.

    To conclude “Just to be clear, I think personality psychology is one of the things that will save the world. Seriously. SAVE. THE. WORLD.” really resonated with me being an ENFP. From all the ENTP’s I have met YOU are the first to place MBTI in favour of other people. :)

  • john danzer
    • john danzer
    • October 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    The MBTI is a very flawed system.
    The various cognitive functions are presented as dichotomous when they aren’t.
    The forced dichotomies of the mbti inventory set up an either/or situation.
    Each should be viewed as individual scales and arranged in a rank order to create a profile.
    That would allow 24 general types based on the permutations of the four scales.
    By the way Antonia you are really a natural ENFP or ENFJ based on your somatotype. There is a difference between a person’s natural style emerging from their constitution and their adaptive style. Everyone adapts to some degree but some adapt an opposite style. You have adapted to an ENTP style which is not a maladatpation because it is a personality that is fairly close. It may be that you have adapted to a ENTP style because of the need to get your message out. Going from an ENFP to an ENTP means you are suppressing the feeling function and amplifying the thinking function.
    In most cases this results from an unsatisfied need for emotional fulfillment which gives rise to a compensatory preference for thinking. Insistence on thinking implies a proud and rebellious demand for independence often seen in adolescents who want to break free from family and parental apron-strings.

    You might want to consider the explanatory power of somatotype. It has the capacity to unravel a lot of problems with paper and pencil type inventories. It’s NOT phrenology.

Leave a comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.