May I have your, Myers-Briggs/Jung type, please?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Certainly God knows these different personality traits all need to be allowed to be nurtured in the gospel. But if the church leadership is of certain types, or the majority of followers are of certain type, it begins to create a culture of what the “norm” really is.

Ah, yes, but if God is the teacher, he has left the room for a while and some of our fellow students are in charge. While they may be the “most responsible,” they also may lack the empathy the actual Teacher would have.

Quote:

when I’m a part of the minority, the answer isn’t to tell me just to conform or change. This is who I am, and should be allowed to be this way in the church, and in fact, should help provide my strengths to the group…not be told to change.

Yes, but that’s also colored by these preferences. NFs value individuality and meaning and personal values. They want to make a difference for people. SJs want to uphold the institution. They value stability, conformity, hierarchy. To them, the idea that you should conform or change makes total sense – the institution is best served that way, and the institution will outlive us all. For an NF, that’s cold comfort. The institution is meaningless without personal meaning for you. See?

Quote:

I can think there might be some comparison to my feelings of personality (I’m born this way) vs someone else telling me to change (personality is a choice) and how that compares to the argument about SSA (born vs choice).

There is definitely an analogy here. Both simply lack empathy. But doesn’t the golden rule lack empathy? “Treat others as you would have them treat you?” That’s about the best most of humanity can do. Wouldn’t it be an even higher law to be able to treat others as they would like to be treated, not as we want to be treated?

Quote:

Can’t the organization accommodate all?

Yes, and it probably does about as well as any organization does at accomodating all. Individuals within any organization, though, have higher or lower skill at accomodating those who are different from them.

Quote:

Hawkgrrrl, do you use this in your profession on how organizations need to capitalize on strengths of each group to succeed? Can the church learn from that?

I only use this very marginally in my company actually. IMO, the best value is from being aware that 1) you have preferences, 2) other people have preferences that may differ or be the same, and 3) all preferences are equally valuable. But that’s just personal awareness. Institutionally, the way to improve using this is just through more and more people having personal awareness and awareness of others.

What they do with that awareness is a bit of a crapshoot. There are people who like to abuse this information. For example:

– using that knowledge to limit others or to give preference to some (e.g. for promotions or hiring). Some would say, for an analytical job, we can only hire an NT. For an HR position, we need an NF. For an administrative job, we have to have an SJ. While those may be of more interest to those types, that shouldn’t be limiting to people. It’s not fair to give preference to them based on their personality. Hiring should be based on skills and experience.

– assuming types like our own are better and more desirable; building groupthink in work teams. If you have a bias against a certain type, you might deliberately exclude them from the people you rely on or work most closely with. Some types really are grating to one another. But people should get over it.

– pigeonholing and marginalizing based on stereotypes rather than getting to know people. If that’s the only information you know about someone, it can color your perceptions of them going forward in negative ways.

– people wanting a pass for their behavior or impacts to others based on their type (e.g. I can’t be expected to be on time, attend to details, keep a level head, suffer fools, see the big picture, do a spreadsheet, etc. because of my type). I could tell a VERY funny story about this one, but I’m not sure it’s “mod-friendly.”

These things all happen without the awareness, but can be even worse with the awareness in some cases. On the whole, I think it’s most useful as it leads to emotional intelligence in individuals, learning more about ourselves and others and strategies to work better with other people by valuing what they contribute.

[Anonymous]

So, is it possible that some of us have switched types since we switched paradigms?

I feel like I’m different—although maybe I’m just not denying who I always was. I have no idea how this personality stuff works. Was I just repressing part of my true self or has my personality actually changed/shifted?

OR is this just a natural progression for my personality type?

Not sure if my question makes sense. I can elaborate if necessary.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Type should be innate (shouldn’t change over time) because it’s your preferred way of being. BUT, your knowledge of your preferences can certainly change. For example, you may feel you are expected to behave a certain way. There are cultural pressures to be a certain way. Here are a few:

The most common type in the US is ESTJ. When you look at that by individual preference, it means:

– it’s more common in the US to be told (esp. as a child) that you should make friends or be outgoing, don’t be shy, come out of your shell, get noticed. Being introverted is less valued by society. Introverts are often considered “awkward” or lacking confidence.

– it’s more common to be told in the US that attention to detail is important, that experience is more important than theory, and that the “devil is in the details” more than the big picture matters. We value concrete things more than concepts. In school, you are rewarded or punished based more on the details than on the big picture, until you get into higher education.

– it’s more common to be told in the US to man up, big boys/girls don’t cry, use your head, be logical than to be told that your feelings matter or that it’s what’s in your heart. However, and this is a big exception, girls are often told to follow their heart. Boys are told to use their head.

– In the US, it’s more common to be rewarded for closure, finishing a project, making a quick decision, etc., rather than putting things off while you explore the options (Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?). We are very impatient.

Similarly, your spouse, your job, your parents, your friends, etc., might all pressure you to be the way they want you to be. It can be confusing to know what your real preference are when you are constantly adapting to these pressures.

Interestingly, different countries have different preference patterns. For example:

India: ISFP is most common. Kids are told to speak when spoken to and not to hog the spotlight. Kids are told that art and spirituality is important. People make decisions based on their personal feelings and values. It is extraordinarily hard for people from India to directly say “no” to someone. This is part of the cultural bias.

Mexico: ESFP is most common. Fiesta and siesta. Pleasure for its own sake is valued, as well as relationships and fun. Getting things done is secondary to keeping options open and being flexible.

Those are just a couple of examples of cultural biases.

[Anonymous]

Thanks hawk! That helps explain a lot.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Hmmm. Type should be innate (shouldn’t change over time) because it’s your preferred way of being. BUT, your knowledge of your preferences can certainly change. For example, you may feel you are expected to behave a certain way. There are cultural pressures to be a certain way.

This is an interesting set of statements. It makes me think a lot (what type am I again…oh yeah…ENFJ) … is the LDS culture asking us to be more of a certain way, and no matter how much I try to pray for help or repent for not measuring up, am I just a certain way and won’t really ever change? Or am I mixing up personality with bahavior too much? Can I change my behaviors (be more obedient) even if I can’t really change my personality (big picture meaning seeker and people-person, and less of a rules person)?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 – I guess I would say that the gospel or teachings of Christ, or whatever you want to call it (the path to enlightenment . . .) should be applicable in one way or another to everyone, regardless of preferences.

This actually goes back to the old philosophical discussion – will everyone be identical (physically and in personality) in the CK? I tend to think that we will not, but mostly that’s because I find individuality more appealing than conformity. That would follow suit then that God has, for lack of a better word, a personality. Again, totally speculative and philosophical and probably ultimately irrelevant except in a “pass the bong” way.

But there would be some unique gifts and challenges of each temperament in a church setting:

SJs – Main gift is that they are great administrators and create traditions and structures that preserve the organization. Main challenge would be getting caught up in rules (defending the borders of the organization) or overreacting whenever they feel their security is threatened.

SPs – Main gift is bringing beauty and fun to the organization, providing a much needed breath of fresh air. Main challenge would be sticking to commitments, dependability, and dealing with boring or bureaucratic people, or just flaking when it ceases to be fun!

NFs – Main gift is that they are gifted at creating personal meaning and understanding people. They embody charity. Main challenge would be getting so caught up in personal causes that they lose sight of how to achieve those causes through the existing structure and people or overreacting when they find people to be too cold or corporate.

NTs – Main gifts are logic and intellectualism, providing needed questioning and adding vision to the “tasks” of the organization. Main challenge is dealing with authority where it is not accompanied by competence or being turned off by emotionalism or tradition for the sake of tradition. Also might be prone to feel they have outgrown the organization.

So, it’s possible for any type to fit in to any organization; there are just different stress points.

[Anonymous]

Hawkgrrl, can you just provide a link to your book on this, because all your information is fascinating…

[Anonymous]

the humanmetrics.com link scored me INTJ

Introverted 44

Intuitive 62

Thinking 38

Judging 33

similarminds.com

INTP

Introverted (I) 53.57% Extroverted (E) 46.43%

Intuitive (N) 58.82% Sensing (S) 41.18%

Thinking (T) 52.94% Feeling (F) 47.06%

Perceiving (P) 63.89% Judging (J) 36.11%

I need to read up more on this subject … Hawk’s information is very interesting

[Anonymous]

I was just going to start a thead on this. Good thing I searched first.

First of all, I have to say that giving credence to this kind of thing is completely uncharacteristic for me. I am aware of some of the objections to the meaningfulness of the MBTI, but I have to say that in this particular area I am a true believer. Kiersey’s book Please Understand Me II (aptly named) can provide hours of entertainment for my wife and me. Reading those profiles is almost spooky — they are that accurate, at least in our cases. I suspect that I have been saved from untold grief by this book. My wife (an Idealist) has a lot more patience with me than she otherwise might have as a direct result of reading it.

I’m a Rational, by the way (and proud of it). INTP. I sometimes think I use this as a crutch (i.e. a lame excuse) for being belligerent and difficult, but, hey, the shoe fits. Seriously, I wonder sometimes how much control I have over the way I see things. There is a real danger, for me, of the MBTI becoming a label.

[Anonymous]

Love this stuff

I have come out consistently as a either an INTP or an INFP. I tend towards the INFP I think. Probably pretty accurate actually.

However, I am embarrassed to admit that occasional some of these test kick me over into the ISFP category. 😮

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

However, I am embarrassed to admit that occasional some of these test kick me over into the ISFP category. 😮

I don’t think I would ever admit that.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, terrible isn’t it. Embarrassing. Especially after reading some of that stuff that Hawkgirl said about them.

I spent a couple of hours again tonight reading and testing – “reevaluating” (haven’t done this for a year or so)— and I even though I get close and would like to be an INTP (Rational Architect), just isn’t to be. I fit the INFP (Idealist Healer) best —- at least I do today.

I think this kind of thing explains A LOT of why one does and thinks and feels a certain way about church issues. I would hope some of the others on this site would bite on this one. I know there is an old list of folks – but most of them no longer visit the site – except for Brian, Heber and Tom. I would be interested in where some of the regulars fit in (MH, SD, Ray, Flower, Canada, The DA, Spock, Sam, Rix, HiJ, Eph, GB, George etc etc, I know I’m forgetting somebody – those I don’t know well yet and those who are new.)

Take the test boys. I mean, I would be VERY interested to see if The DA and Spock are anything BUT INTP? Very interested — and I think that if one uses this kind of information to help prepare and approach other LDS members who are in leadership positions and perhaps “less active”, it could be very valuable to the whole STAY LDS concept — similar to Fowlers stages of Faith.

[Anonymous]

Great idea, cwald. I’ll try to remember to take it again soon.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I fit the INFP (Idealist Healer) best —- at least I do today.

Me too, only every time I have ever tested. The idealist healer is a rare and special breed. Only 1% of the population if I remember right.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The idealist healer is a rare and special breed.

which tends to feel constrained within organized frameworks. It helps to know that.

[Author]

Posts