Difference between revisions of "Reynierse On Type Dynamics"
(Created page with "James Reynierse has published a series of articles in the Journal of Psychology Type (publishing by APTi, the MBTI folks) starting in 2008. They are: * [http://www.capt.org/j...") |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
These articles generated a great deal of controversy in the MBTI type community (including Type Bulletic of Psychological Type articles by Nardi and Rowan pushing back on Reynierse) and opened to door for more empirical, non-type-dynamics based approaches. | These articles generated a great deal of controversy in the MBTI type community (including Type Bulletic of Psychological Type articles by Nardi and Rowan pushing back on Reynierse) and opened to door for more empirical, non-type-dynamics based approaches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | While the models of type dynamics are intellectually appealing, tend to have a pleasing symmetry, and can capture the subjective experience of being in conflict with oneself, they are not empirically validated. In fact, efforts to find empirical support for type dynamics have failed. In 2008, the Journal of Psychological Type, the journal of the official MBTI organization, published an article by James Reynierse called [http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf The Case against Type Dynamics]. Reynierse shows how the theory of type dynamics has failed to be proven, and how the things explained by type dynamics can be better explained as the additive effects one or more of the preferences. Reckful has an [http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-and-jungian-cognitive-functions/76350-understanding-tandem-processes.html#post2451371 good overview], and there are some older [http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-and-jungian-cognitive-functions/54300-reynierses-revised-type-theory.html threads] on the same topic. Note that something like the functions (such as Te) can work in a more empirical model by redefining them as the result of preference pairs (like T+J or E+T+J), but this only works top two "strongest functions". | ||
Latest revision as of 14:51, 25 March 2017
James Reynierse has published a series of articles in the Journal of Psychology Type (publishing by APTi, the MBTI folks) starting in 2008. They are:
- Preference Multidimensionality and the Fallacy of Type Dynamic: Part 1 (Oct 2008)
- Preference Multidimensionality and the Fallacy of Type Dynamics: Part 2 (Nov 2008)
- The Case Against Type Dynamics (Jan 2009)
- Toward an Empirically Sound and Radically Revised Type Theory (Mar 2012)
These articles generated a great deal of controversy in the MBTI type community (including Type Bulletic of Psychological Type articles by Nardi and Rowan pushing back on Reynierse) and opened to door for more empirical, non-type-dynamics based approaches.
While the models of type dynamics are intellectually appealing, tend to have a pleasing symmetry, and can capture the subjective experience of being in conflict with oneself, they are not empirically validated. In fact, efforts to find empirical support for type dynamics have failed. In 2008, the Journal of Psychological Type, the journal of the official MBTI organization, published an article by James Reynierse called The Case against Type Dynamics. Reynierse shows how the theory of type dynamics has failed to be proven, and how the things explained by type dynamics can be better explained as the additive effects one or more of the preferences. Reckful has an good overview, and there are some older threads on the same topic. Note that something like the functions (such as Te) can work in a more empirical model by redefining them as the result of preference pairs (like T+J or E+T+J), but this only works top two "strongest functions".