[nharkey]

The MBTI step II project is a dramatic change from the long-familiar MBTI form M that most of us are familiar with. First of all, it is 144 questions long versus 93 for the regular form.

Most important, each of the four preference scales are subdivided into five subscales or facets. In each individual facet, your score may be supporting your overall preference (in-preference) or going in the other direction (out of preference). For a single example, imagine that you scored overall as an N. Your facets would be Abstract, Imaginative, Conceptual, Theoretical, Original. Possibilities would include scoring strongly N in all five areas, or in 4, 3, 2, or even 1 area (if that one area were strongly in-preference and the rest were only slightly out of preference). Here is one possible way that this might happen. Suppose that you are full of ideas and score very highly on Imaginative and Original, but this applies mostly to tangible things--products or inventions that you might create. You might easily then be out-of-preference on Abstract, Conceptual and Theoretical. I really think that this is a big step forward-but here is the possible catch when comparing scores on various versions of older MBTI type tests:

1. They had to do a great deal of statistical analysis to identify the five facets for each scale, and the questions that belonged to each one, and that had not been done before.

2. Therefore, there is no reason to think that questions in the original MBTI form, or any replica of this were evenly divided into equal numbers of questions for these future facets, and, in fact the Manual admits that occasionally the preferences themselves differ between Step II and the regular M form.

3. So you are this physically creative person with divided facets and you take 2 or 3 forms of the original MBTI scales. Someone's scale has relatively few questions that tap general creativity and a lot of questions that tap abstract and theoretical thinking. Suddenly you are back to being a Sensor even if you answered every question absolutely without bias.

Overall I think that Step II is a big step forward (no pun intended) but it has interesting implications. For example, high clarity of preference has important information in that it tells you that you have strong preferences in all facets. Low clarity of preference does not since you could have low positive preference in all five facets or any mixture of these. Also, they are looking at scores very close to the midline as being in a midzone that is really neither preference, and this seems to me to be an admission that such scores are not meaningful, even though they don't openly say that.

Finally there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious.

[TheObserver]

1. MBTI tests don't tell you whether you are imaginative, creative, theoretical, etc. They ask you questions that are just a variation of "Are you imaginative?" You then answer in the affirmative or not. You don't "score" anything.

2. 143 questions? Why not a thousand? Maybe two thousand? How does a series of questions that are different variations of the same questions help determine type better? More questions does not mean more accuracy.

3. Breaking up the preference scales in five subscales or facets doesn't sound like an improvement. I don't think the types are defined by the subjects they are interested in but by their approach to it. An ISTP inventor and an INTP inventor may be indistinguishable when it comes to what they invent, but the thought process they used to create their inventions may vary. It is the cognitive process that is important to typing, not the end result.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by TheObserver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. MBTI tests don't tell you whether you are imaginative, creative, theoretical, etc. They ask you questions that are just a variation of "Are you imaginative?" You then answer in the affirmative or not. You don't "score" anything.

"Score" is just a use of a word in a way that you don't like; you aren't making a substantive point in that regard.

MBTI (and Keirsey and other variations of Jungian/MBTI tests) are different from most other personality tests in that it's the other tests (such as the "Big Five") that try to measure direct personality traits that basically ask what color of shirt do you usually wear, and then tell you that you're a red-shirt-wearing person. MBTI instead is trying to delve indirectly into cognitive traits, which is not the same thing as personality traits.

	2. 143 questions? Why not a thousand? Maybe two thousand? How does a series of questions that are different variations of the same questions help determine type better? More questions does not mean more accuracy.

So fewer questions wouldn't mean less accuracy? Why not one question?

(Question 1: What is your type?)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3. Breaking up the preference scales in five subscales or facets doesn't sound like an improvement. I don't think the types are defined by the subjects they are interested in but by their approach to it. An ISTP inventor and an INTP inventor may be indistinguishable when it comes to what they invent, but the thought process they used to create their inventions may vary. It is the cognitive process that is important to typing, not the end result.

Actually, the subscales do help, because each MBTI type tends to have particular "mixes" of the 5 subtypes. For instance, INTJs tend to score "S" on a couple of the N/S subscales. This doesn't mean that they aren't really N, so much as it helps to type those who are near the middle: if the subtype pattern is closer to the INTJ pattern than the ISTJ pattern, then the test giver can use that to correctly type the subject as INTJ, even though the raw aggregate of N/S answers slightly suggests ISTJ over INTJ.

Full disclosure: I've taken the test, given by my SO, who happens to be an MBTI certified practitioner. She'd know more about the intricacies, but I've a good over idea how the test works and how it refines the original MBTI approach.

[reckful]

@nharkey --

Does any aspect of the design/scoring/whatever of the Step II MBTI reflect an acknowledgment that T/F and male/female may be somewhat tangled together?

As I noted in another thread:

Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The MBTI Manual is full of ponder-worthy statistics of various kinds, including a table that lists correlations of the eight MBTI preferences with self-descriptions and rater-descriptions from something called the "Adjective Check List (ACL) (Gough and Heilbrun, 1983)" and the "California Q-Sort (Block, 1978)." And one thing that makes this table interesting (to me) is that, unlike lots of MBTI-related data, these lists are broken out by sex. And here's the relevant part for purposes of this discussion: If you compare the male and female lists associated with I, E, N, S, J and P, they're all very similar. Not identical, but with lots of overlap. By striking contrast, if you compare the male Ts and the female Ts, and the male Fs and the female Fs, there's almost no overlap at all.

[nharkey]

It is certainly true that T/F is not independent of gender. As I recall, the majority of males are T while females are about 25% T. Unless I am missing something, though, I don't see that as a problem. It tells us there are gender differences, which I fully believe.

[reckful]

The correlation between T/F and male/female isn't really the issue. Notwithstanding that correlation, the MBTI purports to tell us that some men are F's and some women are T's, and the issue I was getting at is more, are male T's different from female T's, and male F's different from female F's — in T/F-related respects — in ways, and to a degree, that, e.g., male introverts aren't different from female introverts, male N's aren't different from female N's, etc.?

If that was true, that might lead one to expect that the F-related aspects of the profile descriptions in an MBTI Step II report for, e.g., a male ENFP might differ somewhat from the corresponding descriptions in a female ENFP report.

I don't have a cite, but vaguely recall reading about at least one MBTI test (and I don't know if it was one of the official ones or not) where one or more of the T/F items got scored differently depending on whether the test-taker was male or female.

[TheObserver]

Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

MBTI (and Keirsey and other variations of Jungian/MBTI tests) are different from most other personality tests in that it's the other tests (such as the "Big Five") that try to measure direct personality traits that basically ask what color of shirt do you usually wear, and then tell you that you're a red-shirt-wearing person. MBTI instead is trying to delve indirectly into cognitive traits, which is not the same thing as personality traits. So fewer questions wouldn't mean less accuracy? Why not one question? (Question 1: What is your type?) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My point was that more questions does not necessarily mean more accuracy. My post was a response to the OP and not meant to be taken out of context. I hope you had fun playing with yourself.

[nharkey]

Aha, saw what you meant the second time around. And started thinking that information on male/female scores on the individual facets might help. Sure enough, there is a little information on that in the Step II manual.

The five facets for Thinking/Feeling are Logical-Empathetic, Reasonable-Compassionate, Questioning-Accomodating, Critical-Accepting and Tough-Tender. On four out of five the mean scores for men and women are in opposite directions. That is women's scores go on the side of empathy, compassionate, accepting and tender, while men's go to the opposite pole, while both male and female scores go toward accommodating. On accommodating, however, women are significantly more accommodating. All of these differences are significant. This doesn't answer your question in terms of individual items, but it is some information!

[Reizu]

Originally Posted by TheObserver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. MBTI tests don't tell you whether you are imaginative, creative, theoretical, etc. They ask you questions that are just a variation of "Are you imaginative?" You then answer in the affirmative or not. You don't "score" anything. 2. 143 questions? Why not a thousand? Maybe two thousand? How does a series of questions that are different variations of the same questions help determine type better? More questions does not mean more accuracy. 3. Breaking up the preference scales in five subscales or facets doesn't sound like an improvement. I don't think the types are defined by the subjects they are interested in but by their approach to it. An ISTP inventor and an INTP inventor may be indistinguishable when it comes to what they invent, but the thought process they used to create their inventions may vary. It is the cognitive process that is important to typing, not the end result.

I think you're making assumptions about what the test is going to be like. 144 questions doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be repeating the same ones. Maybe you should wait for the test to come out and take it before you criticize it for things that may not even be a problem.

[Faiora]

This thread is a little old now I suppose, but I thought I'd throw my pennies in the pile, as it were:

I took the MBTI Step II questionnaire last week, and have had consultations with my local MBTI "Master Practitioner" this week, so the subject is fresh in my mind.

One thing that should be noted: An MBTI Step I evaluation is actually incorporated into the Step II test, and you are given Step I results that are not directly based on the Step II preference outcomes.

So, while I am an INTJ, I had some very high S values for "Practical" and "Realistic," which were things not apparent from a Step I evaluation alone. The main proof (if you'd call it that) that I'm an INTJ rather than an ISTJ is that I am not at all traditional in my mindset, and prefer to do things "my own way" instead of the way they're "supposed to be done." Sorry for all the quotation marks >.>

Also, I had one facet out of type in the J/P category - "Pressure Prompted." But as the practitioner pointed out, very astutely, this is probably because of my line of work. I don't work in a theoretical/abstract concepts environment, and for more "practical" work, I find waiting to the last minute makes things more exciting to deal with. When I'm working on something I like, I actually prefer to do it immediately, in a structured way. So, facet results can skew each other and that's something to look out for.

You can't do a free test because even a practitioner doesn't administer this test. You do a test online, but the results are not instant. I do not know why this is.

At my consultation, I was shown some interesting statistics regarding facet preferences for INTJ's. For example, on the T/F Critical vs. Accepting facet, INTJ's are, on average, dead centre. It is not uncommon at all for this facet to be out-of-preference (I'm actually so far IN-preference on this one that I'm out of the normal INTJ range!).

Now to respond to one of the earlier comments:

Originally Posted by TheObserver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. MBTI tests don't tell you whether you are imaginative, creative, theoretical, etc. They ask you questions that are just a variation of "Are you imaginative?" You then answer in the affirmative or not. You don't "score" anything. 2. 143 questions? Why not a thousand? Maybe two thousand? How does a series of questions that are different variations of the same questions help determine type better? More questions does not mean more accuracy. 3. Breaking up the preference scales in five subscales or facets doesn't sound like an improvement. I don't think the types are defined by the subjects they are interested in but by their approach to it. An ISTP inventor and an INTP inventor may be indistinguishable when it comes to what they invent, but the thought process they used to create their inventions may vary. It is the cognitive process that is important to typing, not the end result.

1. The MBTI Step II test is about half the regular sort of questions, and half word associations (e.g. Which word do you prefer: Fair or Sincere?). You're absolutely right that it's just asking you what the answer is, in a sense... you could just as easily say you're "scoring" yourself.

2. Connotation can be so different that asking the same question using different words can help confirm a result. Personally, I don't like the concept of (and things I associate with) the word "intellectual," and this might have skewed my results if there hadn't been other similar options. Also, each question may address more than one facet, and the number of questions helps to balance (and of course confirm) results.

If you asked just one question for each facet, you might have a problem. For instance, asking "Do you prefer to spend time by yourself or with people" MIGHT show most people's I/E preference (I don't know), but for a good quantity of people it wouldn't - people who have specific reasons they're afraid of being by themselves, or afraid of people, might answer against their "type."

3. The five facets are something I've found helpful already. They have nothing to do with subjects you're interested in - rather, what it is that drives you to take the approach you take. For instance, for my S/N preference, I am more "S" than "N" in some ways, by being more practical than conceptual, and more realistic than imaginative. I'm driven by practical applications for my knowledge (and efficiency), rather than resourcefulness and novelty.

With that said, I have some strong, classic "N" traits: I'm more theoretical than experiential (I prefer to work with hypotheses and theories, and don't really like hands-on/empirical stuff), and I'm more original that traditional (I would rather NOT stick with the tried-and-true, especially if I have a potentially better idea).

Some of this might be due to functional preference interactions - "imaginative" might tend to apply more often to a "P" preference more than to a "J" preference - but looking at the statistical data helps to show where this is and isn't the case.

Anyway, I've had a good experience with the Type II, and the out-of-preference results have been somewhat illuminating. Also illuminating were the two "midzone" facet results I got, which I won't get into.

Switching from N to S, or T to F thinking when a situation requires it can be a major stress point for an INTJ, myself included (in fact, switching between S/N and T/F type thinking should be difficult for every type). However, out-of-preference facets can make this easier. The facet results help show you in what way you most easily can "switch" to think more like another type... so when I'm talking to someone very traditional-minded (guardian types), my best bet may be to switch to an "S" mode of thinking via my practical/realistic facets. This way I'm still very much in character, but it eases the transition and lets me communicate well with someone, even if I disagree with their way of thinking. Guardian types generally understand practicality, and this can help them transition away from "this is the way we always do it" thinking as well.

I've been babbling too much now, judging by the shortened height of the comment box scroll bar. Let me know if I can provide more info on my experience. I'd definitely recommend paying for the test if you have specific stress points you'd like to overcome, or specific types of people you need to communicate with. :P

[nharkey]

Hi Faiora,

Thanks for your post. It is really informative and should be helpful to others with scores they are unsure about. An important thing to be learned from the Step II experience is that a preference score that is near the midline on step I is probably telling you that you have some out of facet scores that you can't see on Step I.

Nancy Harkey