What Did Isabel Do?
Insights into the MBTI
Peter Geyer - Warrnambool, Australia
When I first started working with Isabel, I would so often think:
"oh, this is probably something she probably did out of her head, or from
the theory,"
and then I would find there were thousands and thousands of cases and data
behind it.
So I don't underestimate her any more.
–Mary McCaulley (1977)
Introduction
Isabel Myers once said, in her quiet and clear way, that she didn't
mind intuitives changing what she did with the MBTI, but that sometimes she
wished they'd ask her why she did it before they went and changed it. In
essence, this seems to me to be a plea for understanding in all senses of the
term. If you don't understand what something is, then how can you use it,
irrespective of type preference? It may be important to know what you're
changing, before you change it.
Some 22 years after her death, it seems that this issue is still
relevant, both inside and outside the type community. Inside, it seems
essential for a better presentation of type principles; outside, as
explanations of Isabel's purpose and method to an often skeptical public,
particularly in academia and the profession of psychology.
Facts, of course, aren't the daily bread of intuitives, but it can
be a type development issue in terms of finding facts to support the vision,
much as the auxiliary function supports the dominant and the other functions
operate best in their service. Neither Isabel Myers nor C.G.Jung preferred
sensing, but both of them were interested in facts in their work and used the
term often.
Some of the things Isabel did, are of course on the public record:
for example in Frances Saunders' biography Katharine and Isabel (1991) and the
MBTI Manual [Third Edition] (1998) and in articles in various places, including
the Journal of Psychological Type, the APT Bulletin, particularly in articles
by Mary McCaulley, who worked with Isabel for the last 10 years of her life.
Naturally, Gifts Differing is also a key reference of record.
My source materials for this paper, however, are more obscure
materials. Some of these – older manuals and papers written by Isabel
– have also been used to provide data for the recent MBTI Manual in
particular. But there are audio tapes of formal and informal discussions
involving Isabel that also been consulted. In that sense, this is more an
ethnographic study than anything else.
In writing about what Isabel did, I have in mind her method and
purpose, as well as principles by which she operated, in the context of her
life experience. This life commenced in an unusual, untypical family, even
given the time. The labels "middle–class" and "highly
educated" are only part of the story.
In terms of achievement, Isabel felt she was never told there wasn't
anything she couldn't do and being educated primarily at home, she had learned
that "it was altogether unnecessary to take a course in anything"
because "it's all in the books, and pretty much it was."
So the task of developing the MBTI was undertaken in that frame of
mind.
A Test (?) and some questions.
For Isabel Myers, the MBTI isn't a test. She said:
"It isn't testing anything. A test wants to see if you can do
something, and it isn't at all that".
On that basis, it's clear that she considered from the start that
Indicator scores don't have anything to do with skill.
Also, from the start, "there was never any attempt to measure
in the strict sense": the intention was to sort. This, together with
Isabel's aim of expressing normal psychology rather than pathology, had
consequences for the development of questions. She makes comments about the
one–sided nature of Jung's descriptions and the necessity to develop
normal descriptions for her work.
All the MBTI questions were original, an unusual occurrence in the
world of psychological instruments. In particular, because there were
instruments available that had questions concerning extraversion/introversion,
it would seem natural to start there.
But these questions presumed that introversion and neuroticism were
closely related, so they couldn't be used. There were also no other questions
out there that could be found relating to the other preferences (Isabel and her
mother were unaware of the Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Survey, developed at
Stanford University in California at about the same time).
The key references, apart from the type watching engaged in over two
decades were Jung's Psychological Types (Katharine Briggs studied this
intensely, reflecting on it a page or sometimes a few words at a time) and J.H.
van der Hoop's Conscious Orientation, which had appeared in English in 1939.
The J–P scale arose because "Mother had spotted the
spontaneous types as a kind in themselves [in her earlier research – EPs
in MBTI terminology]. It made it possible to see J–P. So we added that.
Jung did speak of judging extraverts, but not whether introverts got into it
too...doesn't mean he didn't know it."
A forced–choice format followed not only from the theory, but
also because other methods were inadequate. Yes–No and True–False
weren't used because you "needed testimony towards one pole of the
preference or the other, not by default." In any case, "some people
say "yes", "yes", "yes" , others "no",
"no", "no". I knew about that; so there aren't any
questions like that." Isabel doesn't make any comment about Likert scales
in the material researched.
Questions were made up by Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs, with at
least one contribution from Isabel's husband Clarence (Chief):
When you finish a job requiring tools or special equipment,
does
putting things back where they belong strike you as:
(A) fun, or
(B) a necessary chore,
(C) something that can be done later
This is Question 97 on Form C, 186 on Form J and 124 on Form K.
Starting from T–F (the common difference between the Myers and
Briggs adult males and females, who were all Is and Ns), the questions were
tested on family, then friends ("we were a couple of introverts; didn't
know too many people") on the basis of a particular preference (e.g. E),
not whole type. Isabel makes it clear that the questions for the first Forms
(0, A B, B– C) which covers the commencement of the project in the summer
of 1942 and the copyrighting and availability of Form C in 1943/4 were tested
first on the family, then this group (the criterion group of MBTI Manuals).
The most commonly mentioned outcome from this research is the
discovery that the questions that worked were psychologically opposite rather
than logically opposite. "The trick was to make the introvert answer look
good to the introverts and the extravert answer to the extraverts."
But perhaps just as interesting is that Isabel found that the best
questions for the "extremes" i.e. those who scored most clearly on
the Indicator, weren't the best questions for those who were less clear.
"It was very important not to judge the value of questions on how they
worked for extreme groups [those who scored at the poles of a
preference]." And since "the people near the center were the people
that mattered to me", so the best questions are those designed to
discriminate in the middle
This is another example of how the nature of the MBTI is quite
different in terms of type and purpose of questions. One might expect with a
conventional inventory, that the "extreme" questions were the ones
that matter, and that seems to make sense if you were wanting to consider
amounts and you can "let yourself go in the middle". But because the
MBTI isn't about amounts, then it's the discrimination factor that's most
important.
Isabel also said that "It doesn't matter whether the answer is
true in the objective sense." i.e. whether what the person prefers to do
they have actually done.
With regard to the "trivial" nature of the questions,
"the point of it is that they are such simple, unthreatening, everyday,
unloaded questions that they get a good result" even though they're
"not important in themselves."
More questions were developed for the MBTI when ETS became involved.
This time, Isabel said, "Mother didn't have much to do with it". Word
pairs were developed to reduce subjective responses. It seems "one
ENTJ" had been the stimulus for gaining a solution to the problem and
Isabel responded by eliminating the situation from the question and leaving the
words that were the intended focus to choose from.
Isabel also considered that the word pairs could give some insight
into slight preferences, particularly in a counselling situation particularly
with respect to ideal self-real self issues. The second edition of the MBTI
Manual elaborates on these ideas, while the third edition tends to discourage
the practice. My personal view is that the appropriate and intelligent use of
word pair scores can enhance many feedback sessions, providing the person
giving feedback is a ware of the nuances the information may give.
Validation of the Indicator
An important point to note is that Isabel validated the Indicator in
the first place on "adult successful professional men and women:
professional men and then their wives, with college degrees". The reason
for this was that she wanted people who had presumed control over and
development of preferences and that meant adults of some years rather than
nominal adults of 18, 21 or so.
This was quite different to contemporary and even current practice,
where a lot of psychological research is conducted on undergraduate students,
as well as high school students. In type terms, of course, this is hardly an
appropriate sample as youth and type distribution are key variables here. One
would expect more relevant results from people in their 30s upwards.
When working with Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the late
1950s, Isabel was requested to validate the Indicator down to various High
School levels, which she achieved with some difficulty. Some comments on this
process make interesting reading regarding the standardisation at the time and
some ideas Isabel had on how people would get to take the MBTI:
" [The MBTI] was standardised on people taking
it for the first time and taking it in a classroom period and taking it under
instructions to go on right straight through and get it done.
Also it was standardised on people who had no knowledge whatsoever on type to
begin with. It seems to me that after you had taken the Indicator and have
feedback on it and know what your type is supposed to be and how the
description of that and other types that you can't look at the questions as
impersonally ever again as you did the first time.
The test-retest reliability does not seem to me as good a kind of reliability
to use. In the Manual (1962) I only used split half and that has been
criticised but the split–half is a report on the situation as of the
moment when the thing was taken.
'You know there is a saying that you can't step into the same river twice and I
feel that it is a little that way with the Type Indicator. So the test-retest
is affected by things that may not have changed your type in the least, but may
have changed your reaction to the taking of it. Whereas split–half is all
of the moment in your pristine innocence when you haven't been corrupted by
been told about your type and we have had some interesting things on that
split-half."
As well as being another argument for MBTI scores meaning nothing,
it's interesting the change in situation today. Many people complete the MBTI
several times, and it's worth noting Isabel's comments in that context.
Particularly with the MBTI Step II, a result that reflects that person's
preferences may be more probable by giving specific instructions.
It certainly makes more logical the current set–up whereby
test–retest reliability for the MBTI is related to the preference result,
not the score (as theory would expect) but also the difficulty in getting
people to complete the Indicator as they understand themselves, as opposed to
familiarity with the questions.
Type Dynamics, Development and Balance.
Isabel didn't know whether Jung committed himself to type being
inborn, "but I'm convinced it is. If preferences are not inborn, where is
the thing to be frustrated about?" Similarly, she also used the example of
"going against the grain" presuming there must be a grain to start
with.
With regard to the dynamics of type theory, Isabel preferred to
speak plainly, as she did on other topics:
"You're likely to run into people who think all
four of these ["The two kinds of perception and the two kinds of
judgement"] should be equally developed processes....that might not be a
good idea.
If they were all of equal strength you would have no basic
stable direction to your life because the four processes all have different
goals. Your direction would shift moment to moment, day to day.
You can't really have a continuing direction for your life
until your best liked, most trusted, most preferred kind of perception and your
best trusted most liked and most preferred kind of judgement have agreed on
what is to be desired."
The non–preferred functions are accordingly "useful
servants for the preferred"...."You need to use [the preferences]
like carpenter's tools.: you need to know what you can and can't do with the
tools and when to lay one down and pick up the other."
Isabel also commented on the transcendent function as expressed by
Jungians who viewed it as
" something that supersedes the type. I don't
see it like that, I see it as the ability to go over to the other side....Not a
very common thing. He thought only a few persons get that far."
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to present something of how
Isabel Myers thought about the MBTI: what she presumed, what she found out and
how she expressed this in her own words. As a plain speaker, Isabel also seems
to me to be one of the best persons to explain her work to people at any level,
even 22 years after she ceased to work on the Indicator and others, by
necessity put their own interpretation on her foundations.
Whatever valuable discoveries or claims have been made, whether in
type theory or the MBTI itself, and in the broader scientific understanding of
personality, it's increasingly importamt to understand what C.G.Jung and Isabel
Myers thought of their own idea, in their own historical and cultural context
and connect to that in a meaningful way, even if it is to refute the idea. Only
then can we work out whether type is a chimera, or something real.
Notes:
1. All quotes in parentheses (unless otherwise stated) are from
audio tapes featuring Isabel Myers located in the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial
Library at CAPT in Gainesville Florida, USA, copies of which are in the
author's possession. The quotes are as transcribed by the author. The purpose
of this paper has been to present something of how Isabel Myers thought about
the MBTI: what she presumed, what she found out and how she expressed this in
her own words. As a plain speaker, Isabel also seems to me to be one of the
best persons to explain her work to people at any level, even 22 years after
she ceased to work on the Indicator and others, by necessity put their own
interpretation on her foundations.
2. Aspects of this paper were first presented at a meeting of the
Victorian Region of AusAPT Region, 30 October, 2001 Type Tales from A to Q: The
development of MBTI Forms over time.
3. This paper was first presented at the 6th Biennial AusAPT
Conference, Manly NSW Australia September 2002.
References
Harrison G. Gough, Studies of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator in a
personality Assessment Research Institute Paper presented at the Fourth
Biennial Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Conference, Stanford University, Ca. USA
July 1, 1981
J.H. van der Hoop, Conscious Orientation: A study of Personality Types in
relation to neurosis and psychosis Kegan Paul Trench, Trubner and Co.
1939
C.G.Jung, Psychological Types or the Psychology of Individuation Pantheon[1923]1962
A.R.Laney, Occupational Implications of the Jungian Personality
Function–Types as Identified by the Briggs–Myers Type Indicator
(MA Thesis: George Washington University) June 1949
Isabel Briggs Myers, Construction of The Type Indicator: Forms Zero to F
(und.)
Isabel Briggs Myers, Validation of the Four Dichotomies which Underlie Function
Type by the Briggs–Myers Type Indicator (und.)
Isabel Briggs Myers, Some Findings with Regard to Type and Manual for
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Form E Preliminary edition Privately
Published 1958
Isabel Briggs Myers, Manual: The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (1962)
Consulting Psychologists Press (und.)
Isabel Briggs Myers, Inferences as to the dichotomous nature of Jung's types
from the shape of regressions of dependent variables upon Myers–Briggs
Type Indicator scores a paper read at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association St Louis Missouri September, 1962
Isabel Briggs Myers, Introduction to Type (Privately Published 1970
Isabel Briggs Myers, Consequences of Psychological Type Manuscript#10
20 November 1970
Isabel Briggs Myers, Reflections on the History of the Type Indicator Transcript
of a presentation to a graduate psychology course in Personality University of
Florida 1971
Isabel Briggs Myers, Various audio tapes of discussions and presentations–
Hist.etc.MB7 (und.); 4/77 (1977); 11.7.72 (1972)
Isabel Briggs Myers, Gifts Differing:10th Anniversary Edition [w.Peter
B.Myers] CPP 1990
Isabel Myers et al. MBTI Manual (3rd Edition) CPP 1998
Isabel Myers and Mary McCaulley, MBTI Manual (2nd Edition) CPP 1985 Mary
McCaulley:
Interview by Peter Geyer (unpublished) June 1996 Interpreting Scores on the MBTI
Audio tape of presentation at APT IV: Stanford University 1981
Takeshi Ohsawa MBTI Experiences in Japan Paper presented at the first
National Conference on the Uses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Including
introductory comments by Gordon Lawrence and Isabel Myers) October 15 1975 The
report on Japanese Translation and examination of MBTI Unpublished Paper 1968
David Saunders, Preliminary Discussion of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
Unpublished ETS Research Memorandum January 1958
Frances Saunders Katharine and Isabel, Mother's Light, Daughter's Journey
CPP 1991
Laurence J. Stricker and John Ros A Description and Evaluation of the
Myers–Briggs Type Indicators Unpublished ETS Research Bulletin
March 1962
|
|
Photograph courtesy of Jamie Johnston, CAPT Library.
PETER GEYER (INTP) is a
consultant, researcher and writer in the field of C G Jung's theory of
psychological types. He conducts MBTI Accreditation programs and
presents internationally on a regular basis.
Peter is a life member of AusAPT and a professional affiliate of the Australian
Psychological Society.
|
|
