- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Yeah, us rationals can take it or leave it. Usually, leave it. But just like in a marriage where we sometimes rise to our best in the most trying circumstances, parts of the church experience can lead to personal growth in ways that wandering off alone can never do. At least that’s my theory.
And my experience.
Quote:How much of one’s personality do you think is nature/nurture?
MBTI theory would say it’s all nature – one’s innate preferences. The evidence for that is that children often have differing types from their parents. The nurture part that comes into play is usually about adaptation. If your preferences are not what is rewarded, you tend to adapt to behavior that is rewarded. For example, how many American kids are told they have to be outgoing (even if they prefer not to be), keep their head out of the clouds (even if they find theory more appealing), use their heads (even if they prefer to follow their hearts), and all kinds of J things (stick to a plan, start early, meet deadlines, be decisive) even if they prefer to discover and explore. Likewise, kids raised in India are told a different set of socially acceptable norms (ISFP is most common type there).
If your parents’ MBTI differs from your own, you probably become good at adapting to their type.
hawkgrrrl wrote:…I’m a qualified instructor of MBTI and have posted a few times on this topic at Mormon Matters.
My key theory is that the church is best suited for SJ types (ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, ISFJ) which comprise 55% of the populace. ESTJ is the most common type in the US and there are strong cultural biases toward that type(by contrast, India’s most common is ISFP and England trends INTJ). Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the majority of the disaffected (based on NOM results) are NTs and NFs…I’ll post more on the theory and implications for religion later.
SilentDawning wrote:I’m INFJ — how does it explain why I have such a hard time staying fully active for my whole life. I’ve struggled with it three times, each time after something bad happened at Church…I need to read the rest of the thread above in case she already said it …if not….Hawkgrrl or anyone? Brown wrote:I feel like I am doomed too. INTP = Introverted thinker. I don’t really value social groups, rules or authority and I like to figure things out on my own logically.
What could the church possibly offer someone with a personality type like mine… If many of us here have personality types that are relatively rare then it sort of makes sense that the Church wouldn’t go out of its way to makes us feel overly welcome and comfortable but instead expects us to act more like everyone else. However, I’m not so sure that the LDS Church is really all that friendly and accommodating to the most common personality types either when you see the total number of inactive members. The number of active members (that attend Church at least once a month) is now supposedly possibly as low as 18% of the 14 million members they count and the number that have temple recommends are even fewer. So far, the Church’s answer to most differences of opinion has mostly been that this is just the way it is like Jeffrey R. Holland’s comment in conference that you don’t get to “have it your way.”
Personally, I think it often takes a significant amount of patience and conscious effort to put up with the Church’s heavy demands regardless of personality type especially if you start to doubt the supposed connection to God. Even if they want to continue preaching the same basic doctrines I still think it would help significantly if there wasn’t such a strong level of expectation that everyone absolutely needs to believe all these doctrines and conform to all these rules and policies and if not then they need to be “corrected.” That way, if someone wants to be more strict and zealous about it they still could without necessarily making all of these things a requirement for everyone. Another way to move toward becoming a kinder gentler church besides a top-down change (somewhat unlikely) would simply be for more members to stop listening to them quite as much and become the dreaded “cafeteria” Mormons without leaving entirely.
Quote:SilentDawning wrote:
I’m INFJ — how does it explain why I have such a hard time staying fully active for my whole life. I’ve struggled with it three times, each time after something bad happened at Church…I need to read the rest of the thread above in case she already said it …if not….Hawkgrrl or anyone?
What appeals to the NF about church is the opportunity to serve, to do good works, and to maintain harmony in personal relationships. The focus on family togetherness is also appealing. But NFs are more prone than other types to leave due to being offended.
Quote:Brown wrote:
I feel like I am doomed too. INTP = Introverted thinker. I don’t really value social groups, rules or authority and I like to figure things out on my own logically. What could the church possibly offer someone with a personality type like mine…
Mormonism is founded on a personal quest for wisdom, which is something very appealing to an NT, the chance to unlock the mysteries of life and the universe. Some LDS doctrines are particularly appealing for an NT mind, such as theosis, the physical nature of God, the temple mysteries, etc. The church is also interesting from a sociological standpoint. NTs are more prone to leave over reasons of logic.
Quote:If many of us here have personality types that are relatively rare then it sort of makes sense that the Church wouldn’t go out of its way to makes us feel overly welcome and comfortable but instead expects us to act more like everyone else.
Anyone of any type can live the standards of the church and can participate fully, and people of all types do. MBTI is most important in seeing how messages are delivered and what expectations people have, but knowing your own type can help you create your own experience to get what you need out of it.
Quote:However, I’m not so sure that the LDS Church is really all that friendly and accommodating to the most common personality types either when you see the total number of inactive members.
It’s true that many people are inactive at one time or another. Different MBTI types leave for different reasons: SJs generally leave because they felt they didn’t belong or didn’t get “promoted” enough in the hierarchy, SPs leave because church is not fun or seems inflexible or they basically just don’t feel like it (leaving to sin), NFs leave if their values differ from the church’s or if they feel they can’t make a difference, NTs leave usually over logic reasons or if they find the hierarchical and rules focus too stifling to their mind – if there is a war on thinking, which is their reason to be there.
Quote:Another way to move toward becoming a kinder gentler church besides a top-down change (somewhat unlikely) would simply be for more members to stop listening to them quite as much and become the dreaded “cafeteria” Mormons without leaving entirely.
This is IMO what eventually happens to any church that gets large enough, and it is what happened to Catholicism as well. Yet, those so-called lukewarm Catholics would defend their religion (or their version of living it) to the death in a bar fight. And honestly, everyone is a cafeteria Mormon in both practice and belief because we understand in part and we all sin. I think the best way to understand his talk is that he is decrying not giving it your best effort, but for most members, we are dealing with other members (and some leaders) who have their crazy uber-orthodox interpretations of things that we think are not relevant to Jesus’ teachings or our lives.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Quote:Brown wrote:
What could the church possibly offer someone with a personality type like mine…
Mormonism is founded on a personal quest for wisdom, which is something very appealing to an NT, the chance to unlock the mysteries of life and the universe. Some LDS doctrines are particularly appealing for an NT mind, such as theosis, the physical nature of God, the temple mysteries, etc. The church is also interesting from a sociological standpoint. NTs are more prone to leave over reasons of logic.
I’d be interested in hearing the opinions of other rationals, but for myself, I have little hope in finding anything remotely interesting or stimulating, spiritually or otherwise, at church. What IdoI find a lot of is blandness and certainty. I can deal with one or the other, but not both. That’s probably unfair, but that’s how I tend to see things these days. Perhaps you mean the church in a larger sense. I do find many of the writings of Joseph Smith to be wonderfully interesting and fertile ground for deeper reflection, but I honestly think that those things would be frowned on in our correlated and shrink-wrapped little world.
Quote:Perhaps you mean the church in a larger sense. I do find many of the writings of Joseph Smith to be wonderfully interesting and fertile ground for deeper reflection, but I honestly think that those things would be frowned on in our correlated and shrink-wrapped little world.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I guess the question is which is real Mormonism? The current trend or the foundational concepts? To me, the foundation is more interesting. The current trend is only interesting from a sociological perspective. So, yes, I do think a lot of rationals struggle to find worth in the current setup.
I just realized I’m using the “nicknames” for the broader types somewhat loosely. For those unfamiliar, here they are:
SJ = guardian
SP = artist
NF = idealist
NT = rational
Quote:I have little hope in finding anything remotely interesting or stimulating, spiritually or otherwise, at church. What I do I find a lot of is blandness and certainty.
Quote:I guess the question is which is real Mormonism? The current trend or the foundational concepts?
I would add the following question for consideration – and I think it perhaps is even more fundamental than trend vs. foundation:
Quote:Which is “real Mormonism” – my ward or cwald’s branch (or brown’s congregation)?
It’s really, really easy to over-simplify “Mormonism” to what each of us experiences in our local units (or to what we perceive to be the outlook at the top) – but it simply isn’t limited to those experiences at the macro-level. Having said that, it absolutely IS that simple at the micro-emotional level.
Conversion and activity have at least three components: the theological / doctrinal, the organizational / structural and the social / communal. Whenever any one of those components is at fundamental variance and opposition to the primary personality of a member, the “balance” of that member gets out of whack – to the degree to which the variance / opposition exists. Thus, a member might have no problem whatsoever with the theology / core doctrines OR the social community of the Church where they live, but if the way the organization is administered conflicts with their basic organizational personality (authoritarian for a heterodox free thinker OR hands-off for an orthodox rule follower), that member might struggle emotionally even though only one component is at odds with their personality. Throw in another out-of-whack component, and the imbalance gets that much more complicated and difficult.
I believe that issue of balance is the central factor in short-term and long-term inactivity and with those who leave the Church – and I submit that FAR MORE members are working on that balancing act than most people realize. There are some people who might never have any issue with it, but I believe the VAST majority of active members make some kind of allowance on one front to remain active – that the VAST majority of members are ok in two of the three areas and simply don’t obsess over the one that is a bit (or a large degree) out of whack for them.
I agree totally with Hawk that knowing yourself and your inclinations / tendencies / personality / etc. helps tremendously in finding a way to structure a position anywhere on the spectrum of reasonably comfortable allowance and co-existence to full, active involvement – whatever level of participation works in the moment. I think everyone does it to some degree, as I said above – but the ones who struggle the most are the ones whose “imbalance” is in either their core, central area or in more than one area.
Some people really can ride a unicycle just fine; others need the extra wheel a bike provides; still others need a tricycle. Some simply need to ride a bike but create unique training wheels that will stabilize their own bike.
Yeah, I think that is all good Ray and Hawk. The church is different in different places.
Maybe what is not being said, is it almost appears to me, from my experience and perspective, that the church is made up of 85% guardians, and it looks like they are much more tolerant and willing to accept the SPs (artist) than us NFs and NTs. True? It’s almost like they see SPs as folks who “do believe” or “could believe” and could be converted and saved, whereas, NTs and NFs are/have become a huge threat to the organization because we have had testimonies and have “evolved” away from the mainstream church.
Also, it’s easy for church members to “categorize” and define why SPs leave or have lost their testimonies – “sin and want to have fun.” But for NT and NFs — it becomes much more complicated AND it really cuts to the core of religion and spirituality. Seriously, in my branch, which is goofy I admit, they would rather deal with SPs anyday over NFs and NTs. I mean, we see it all the time — the church leaders ARE TRYING to put us in the same box as the SP’s — which is absolutely ludicrous, because their perscriptions for fixes that may work for SPs (pray harder and follow the prophet etc) are just not going to work for us.
SFs don’t want, and for the most part, will not admit or even acknowledge that NTs and NFs have any kind of legitimate complaints and concerns — it’s all about not being faithful enough to follow the rules so we try to find ways to justify our sin. Hence – why my family thinks I’m a satanic gay person.
So what I am saying – is yes, we need to find strategies to work with the guardian leadership. But it’s not all in our hands at this time. I don’t know if we are wanted by the local leadership? Like John Dehlin said over at NOM, if the prophets would come out and just point blank say that “we (unorthodox/NOMs/Stayldsers/NFs/NTs) are welcome” and have place in the church and will not be second tier members, than it can work for me. If that doesn’t happen…..?????
So yes, I think that we need to find ways to find value in the church — but I’m not convince that the SFs are going to chase most folks away because we are a threat to many.
I think that’s pretty insightful. Guardians probably dohave an easier time knowing what to do with artisans, or at least are more comfortable placing them in their worldview, than with NT/NFs, who tend to frighten or upset them. I agree, cwald – but the message you want to hear is being said from “the top” more often now than it was a decade or more ago. I know that’s small comfort when you want to hear it more often, and I know it’s frustrating when the members at the local level aren’t accepting and acting on it, but it is being said more often now than it used to be. Could it be even more blunt? Absolutely. Could it be said more often? Absolutely. Am I glad it’s being said more often than it used to be – in quite clear terms sometimes? Absolutely.
There is a REAL, STRONG irony when it’s the more “orthodox, traditional” members who are ignoring what the prophets and apostles are saying.Old-Timer wrote:I agree, cwald – but the message you want to hear is being said from “the top” more often now than it was a decade or more ago. I know that’s small comfort when you want to hear it more often, and I know it’s frustrating when the members at the local level aren’t accepting and acting on it, but it is being said more often now than it used to be.
Could it be even more blunt? Absolutely. Could it be said more often? Absolutely. Am I glad it’s being said more often than it used to be – in quite clear terms sometimes? Absolutely.
There is a REAL, STRONG irony when it’s the more “orthodox, traditional” members who are ignoring what the prophets and apostles are saying.I see the irony a good deal. In fact it’s one of the reasons I decided to go back to church. I am now refusing to let the orthodox traditionals push me out, because apparently, listening to most of the GA/Prophets is what I have been doing all along, even though I am a sinner and a liberal
I am ESTP! I took two of the mini tests (the yes/no and the sliding scale one). I took the second one because I don’t necessarily like how I have seen the ESTP described (unscrupulous, flakey, pleasure seekers, and jack-mormons), but the results were the same. I feel a need to “put a positive spin on this” maybe that is my internal Artisan/Promoter.
I am good at speaking and interacting with others. I remember in HS, I would always work with this girl that would do much of the paper portion of the project as long as she didn’t have to do hardly any of the presentation.
I feel that I am very good at resumes, interviews, etc. I am good at “selling myself” and presenting. I have written several published business articles and sometimes imagine what it would be like to write a book or direct a movie.
When writing a paper or article, I prefer to collect, summarize, and/or expound the work of others rather than create something from scratch. In my management style, I see myself as a facilitator tying the labors of others together and making it cohesive.
In academics, I tend to stay a little after class to overhear the teacher/student discussions or to talk to the teacher myself. In classes where our assignments where only identified by ID numbers and not by name I felt that my grading was lower than I was accustomed to. The implication being that the development of the teacher/student relationship might influence the teacher to grade in my favor if they knew which assignment was mine. Perhaps an extension of this is that I usually do much better on essay questions than I think and worse on multiple choice (this might have to do with my communication ability coupled with the subjectivity of grading).
I am rather social and derive much of my fulfillment at church from the social/communal element. I make a point to go to as many church events as I can, bear my testimony, participate, as a form of integration with the community. I see conference as an interruption to this as I don’t get to interact with others. I dislike feeding the missionaries or going on splits with them because I would rather dedicate limited resources to interacting with less transient elements of the ward (i.e. the missionaries always leave so even if we become great friends, they will soon be gone- investment wasted). I recognize that there are community standards that I must adhere to (or at least appear to adhere to) in order to be accepted into the group.
When serving as the ward mission leader for a far flung ward, I proposed a series of smaller get togethers to be held at member homes and to invite those members that live in the same town or nearby (the ward encompassed many towns). Perhaps this was derived from my personal preference and fulfillment in those environments.
There other things such as my aversion to confrontation and a rather zealous sense of frugality – I’m not sure how those elements might fit in. [hawkgrrrl?]
Anyway, FWIW, that is part of what makes me tick and how I find fulfillment in the church through my personal “dark glass.”
hawkgrrrl wrote:MBTI theory would say it’s all nature – one’s innate preferences. The evidence for that is that children often have differing types from their parents. The nurture part that comes into play is usually about adaptation. If your preferences are not what is rewarded, you tend to adapt to behavior that is rewarded. For example, how many American kids are told they have to be outgoing (even if they prefer not to be), keep their head out of the clouds (even if they find theory more appealing), use their heads (even if they prefer to follow their hearts), and all kinds of J things (stick to a plan, start early, meet deadlines, be decisive) even if they prefer to discover and explore. Likewise, kids raised in India are told a different set of socially acceptable norms (ISFP is most common type there).
So if I am reading this correctly, one’s “type” at any given time would be a combination of the innate/inborn preferences and adaptation to the environment (familial, cultural, etc.) and changes over time could be seen as either improvements in adaptation or a return to innate preferences. Does this sound correct?
My psychology 101 professor said that one’s personality is derived 50% from birth and 50% from one’s peer group. Does it sound like he is referencing and perhaps generalizing MBTI?
Quote:So if I am reading this correctly, one’s “type” at any given time would be a combination of the innate/inborn preferences and adaptation to the environment (familial, cultural, etc.) and changes over time could be seen as either improvements in adaptation or a return to innate preferences. Does this sound correct?
No, type is only the innate preferences. Adaptation does not change your innate preferences, but it may cloud your self-perception and contribute to a false reading of your type, or it may cause you to act differently than you would prefer. For example, you may prefer to be an artist, but your parents may refuse to pay for art school, feeling that only business is an acceptable alternative. So you prefer art, but for practical reasons, you pursue a career in business. You may prefer to make decisions based on your feelings and values, but your boss may require that you explain your decisions in terms of pros & cons. So you adapt. One’s adaptations can lead to higher skill in a non-preference, but again, you prefer what you prefer.
Quote:My psychology 101 professor said that one’s personality is derived 50% from birth and 50% from one’s peer group. Does it sound like he is referencing and perhaps generalizing MBTI?
MBTI is only one aspect of personality: one’s preferences. Personality is much larger than MBTI. There are only 16 MBTI types, but an infinitely greater pool of personality traits. Personality is also influenced by experience, adaptation, etc. You prefer what you prefer, but (as the Rolling Stones sang) you can’t always get what you want.
Hawkgrrrl, It appears you have expertise in these tests, and so I’m asking you for some advice:
I took one of this tests today and the final report indicated that my type is:
PSYCO
Now, I’m not quite sure of what all these letters mean yet, but want concerns me was the flashing red box that indicated that I should call the given number ASAP.
Does everyone get that flashing box? I’m always leery of internet adds and such. Should I just ignore the message or do you think I should call??
timpanogos wrote:Hawkgrrrl,
It appears you have expertise in these tests, and so I’m asking you for some advice:
I took one of this tests today and the final report indicated that my type is:
PSYCO
Now, I’m not quite sure of what all these letters mean yet, but want concerns me was the flashing red box that indicated that I should call the given number ASAP.
Does everyone get that flashing box? I’m always leery of internet adds and such. Should I just ignore the message or do you think I should call??
What?
I think it was a joke. 😆 I hope it was a joke.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.