Myers-Briggs Test

Due to the maddening speed of change of our times, we routinely forget good works of knowledge. Myers-Briggs psychology method which was later expanded by David Keirsey is one of those. This method has its roots in Jungian psychology; most people interested in this topic probably know about the rift between Freud and Jung, even if they might not remember the reason. Here it is: Freud thought individuality, personality did not matter, Jung thought that it did. Behavioral psychology has its roots in Freudian view, personality research has its roots in Jungian view [1]. Pay attention to how behavioral economists keep talking about “herd mentality” originating from their tendency is to see people only driven by their most basic desires, feelings.

Anyway, let us continue: After Jung died, his work remained almost forgetten until 50s. During 50s/60s Isabel Myers-Briggs dusted off the method, refined it, and made it applicable using clear-cut categories [2]. David Kearsey took where MB left off, and later published his book Please Understand Me II. We will talk about Kearsey simply because he is the last in line of these researchers.

Kearsey talks about 16 specific characters, and 4 broad categories these characters belong. Artisans, Guardians, Rationals, Idealists. If these broad types sound familiar, that’s normal because they are. Such categorization of human character go all the way back to Aristotle and Plato. What MB method also did in addition was creating 16 subgroups, and most importantly, creating a personality test that worked. Here is one such test:

Take It

http://similarminds.com/jung_word.html

We probably will talk more about this method in the future, it integrates nicely in our current profiling approach. But for now know this: This is one more nail in the coffin for “massification” of society, one-size-fits-all approaches especially in the subject of education. Once you understand how for example SJs are different from NTs (this will make sense when you read Kearsey), then teaching everyone using the same method will look even more barbaric – which is unfortunately an appropiate label for our education system.

Beyond policy issues, methods such as Kearsey’s are / should be indispensible to provide help to people to cope with their day-to-day lives. New tech made the world more individualized, but at the same time faster, more turbulent and chaotic as well. This maddening world constantly highlights differences between all of us, just by the sheer amount of different circumstances it throws at us constantly.

There is no way of stopping technology and the changes it causes in the society, so we need to learn to cope with them.

–

[1] Clotaire Rapaille’s culture code method is a Jungian approach. Rapaille does talk about “the reptilian”, base desires similar to Freud, but he has levels where the base is distinctly seperate from codes of the culture, and the intellect. In a way, Rapaille talks about “personalities for big groups”.

[2] It is interesting that research into personality resurfaced during 60s; we believe it did because the zeitgeist of the times required it. 1956 is the year when # of white collar workers exceeded blue collar workers for the first time (in US, later gradually in the world), and what followed is, as they say, history. Demands for more freedom, individuals asserting themselves in greater frequency, women, student, minority movements are only few examples, all starting with the new production method started to tilt the balance in favor of the individuals.