Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

crumpets -> Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/2/2015 10:12:10 PM)

We all know of the threads where people post their Myers-Briggs personality profile results, and, I think, IIRC, the predominant personality type here turns out to be an INTJ or an INFJ; but, I wonder a different, yet related question, from what has been posed in the past, AFAIK.

I ask only of the last type, i.e., the P or the J, and, even then, only about STRONGLY P or STRONGLY J personalities...

Is there a correlation with STRONGLY P personalities being switches?
Likewise, is there a correlation with STRONGLY J personalities not being switches?

That is, might we hypothesize that we could expect a strong J to be either a top or a bottom, more so than a switch?
The corollary to that statement, would be ... Might we expect a strong P to more likely be a switch than only a top or only a bottom?

I base that question on the fact that the last of the four character types is, essentially, a measure of the order in our lives, and, perhaps just as importantly, the amount of order we EXPECT in other people around us.

That is, a STRONG J typically prefers strict order, and, just as importantly, often expects others to conform to that J's particular brand of order, while a STRONG P typically is much more easy going, both about themselves, and how they expect others to act around them (e.g., with respect to strict protocol, hard limits, acceptable actions, etc.).

Hence the musing, which, I can't substantiate without more data (from you, the people)...

QUESTION:
If you are a STRONG Myers-Briggs J subtype, are you either a top or a bottom, but, not a D/s switch?
Likewise, if you are a STRONG Myers-Briggs P subtype, are you more likely to be a switch than a dedicated top or bottom?
[image]http://i58.tinypic.com/2gujq7d.jpg[/image]



seekingreality -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/2/2015 11:32:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

We all know of the threads where people post their Myers-Briggs personality profile results, and, I think, IIRC, the predominant personality type here turns out to be an INTJ or an INFJ; but, I wonder a different, yet related question, from what has been posed in the past, AFAIK.

I ask only of the last type, i.e., the P or the J, and, even then, only about STRONGLY P or STRONGLY J personalities...


Over the years, the Myers-Briggs test has been largely invalidated, and nowadays it is mostly seen as a fun party game rather than a worthwhile tool to accurately assess and categorize people.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 4:22:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Is there a correlation with STRONGLY P personalities being switches?
Likewise, is there a correlation with STRONGLY J personalities not being switches?

That is, might we hypothesize that we could expect a strong J to be either a top or a bottom, more so than a switch?
The corollary to that statement, would be ... Might we expect a strong P to more likely be a switch than only a top or only a bottom?

I base that question on the fact that the last of the four character types is, essentially, a measure of the order in our lives, and, perhaps just as importantly, the amount of order we EXPECT in other people around us.

That is, a STRONG J typically prefers strict order, and, just as importantly, often expects others to conform to that J's particular brand of order, while a STRONG P typically is much more easy going, both about themselves, and how they expect others to act around them (e.g., with respect to strict protocol, hard limits, acceptable actions, etc.).

Hence the musing, which, I can't substantiate without more data (from you, the people)...

QUESTION:
If you are a STRONG Myers-Briggs J subtype, are you either a top or a bottom, but, not a D/s switch?
Likewise, if you are a STRONG Myers-Briggs P subtype, are you more likely to be a switch than a dedicated top or bottom?

As seeking stated, it's more a party game than anything based in any truths.

I am a strong J type but not a top nor bottom and definitely not a switch.
My OH is a strong P type and she is very neutral, neither top, bottom or switch either.


I think you are either: 1) deluded; or 2) trying to make something out of nothing.

ETA: Conclusion?? There is no correlation whatsoever (that's why it was debunked).



ExiledTyrant -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 4:37:25 AM)

Wow! If you we can some how use this with phrenology we could really be on to something.



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 5:41:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingreality
Over the years, the Myers-Briggs test has been largely invalidated,


I'm unaware that the MB personality profile concept has been "largely invalidated".
Invalidated by whom?
Do you have any valid scientific evidence of that opinion?




crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 5:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
As seeking stated, it's more a party game than anything based in any truths.

Not in my circle of friends.
There will always be those who misunderstand and misuse statistics. For example, those who try to take the MB and contort it into a "relationship" success predictor, or those who equate it with (of all things) "horoscopes" or "phrenology".

The fact is there are people who strongly order their lives, and who strongly expect OTHERS to abide by their order.
And, the fact is there are people who are far more perceptive in that they don't order their lives and they don't expect people to abide by their order.
And, there are all kinds of people in between (which is why I was concentrating only on the STRONGLY J or STRONGLY P subtypes).

Those are facts which I doubt you'd disagree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I am a strong J type but not a top nor bottom and definitely not a switch.


Aha! I realize your answer is only a single datum, but, the fact you're not a switch is EXACTLY what would be expected from the nascent hypothesis!

I'm not sure what you meant by "you're not a top nor a bottom". If you're neither dominant nor submissive, then what are you?
(NOTE: I equate loosely the words top with dominant and bottom with submissive; but you may be using stricter definitions.)



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 6:32:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets


quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingreality
Over the years, the Myers-Briggs test has been largely invalidated,


I'm unaware that the MB personality profile concept has been "largely invalidated".
Invalidated by whom?
Do you have any valid scientific evidence of that opinion?



"Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies. Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology"
-and-
"However, neither the Myers–Briggs nor the Jungian models offer any scientific, experimental proof to support the existence, the sequence, the orientation, or the manifestation of these functions."
-and-
"The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers–Briggs advocates). It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny. Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak. A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn"
-and-
"For example, some researchers expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales, but found that scores on the individual subscales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the center of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type. This fails to support the concept of type: the norm is for people to lie near the middle of the subscale. "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers’ theory-based assumption of categorical “types” of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to “type” advocates to cite in defense of their position.""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator



GoddessManko -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 6:33:42 AM)

LOL Exiled!!! Too much, throwing a bit of pseudoscience in there? ;) The Jung personality quiz seems legit but this is with a very broad sort of self analyzing. I am sure I can see myself in any of the personalities with enough thought and insight.. This model is too simplistic and according to it I am both. I am INTJ according to Jung. When I read the definitions, some are more spot on than others.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 6:40:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I am a strong J type but not a top nor bottom and definitely not a switch.


Aha! I realize your answer is only a single datum, but, the fact you're not a switch is EXACTLY what would be expected from the nascent hypothesis!

I'm not sure what you meant by "you're not a top nor a bottom". If you're neither dominant nor submissive, then what are you?
(NOTE: I equate loosely the words top with dominant and bottom with submissive; but you may be using stricter definitions.)

Top/Bottom and Dom(me)/sub are different things to me.
The mere fact that you intermingle those terms shows me you do not think that same way that I do.

Your hypothesis was: "That is, might we hypothesize that we could expect a strong J to be either a top or a bottom, more so than a switch?"
I am neither top nor bottom and not a switch.
That alone debunks your hypothesis.

Theorize all you like - but it's not fact and neither does it fit the facts.



satanscharmer -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 6:53:37 AM)

I view the Myers-Briggs very much the same as horoscopes. Like freedomdwarf, I believe they are fun party games.
So I'll play.

I'm a very strong P-type. In no way am I a switch.



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 7:21:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer
I'm a very strong P-type. In no way am I a switch.


So, you don't have any premeditated order in your life, so to speak, yet, you're not switchy. That's an interesting datapoint, especially since, as a strong P subtype, you don't actually expect others to follow your convictions.
So, now we have two datapoints, one which supports the budding hypothesis, while the other does not.



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 7:30:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Top/Bottom and Dom(me)/sub are different things to me.
The mere fact that you intermingle those terms shows me you do not think that same way that I do.

Clearly we think differently.
To me, top is the same as dominant, and bottom is the same as submissive, and a switch can switch between the two.
We're both allowed our opinions, where neither is more accurate than the other.

However, it's the operative word of "switch", that matters for this conversation, since, the suggestion is that we may be more likely to find strongly perceptive people possibly more open to switching, while it may be that the strongly judgmental people, those who expect strong order in themselves and, particularly, in other people, may be less so inclined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Theorize all you like - but it's not fact and neither does it fit the facts.

Heh heh ... I'd hate to be in a brainstorming meeting with just you in the room and an empty whiteboard.
We're so different in how we approach things, I'd have to be super flexible, just to make it be productive.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 7:36:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Heh heh ... I'd hate to be in a brainstorming meeting with just you in the room and an empty whiteboard.
We're so different in how we approach things, I'd have to be super flexible, just to make it be productive.

And you'd have to have something a little more concrete than a debunked theory to argue with.


As for your Top=Dominant and Bottom=submissive PoV, have you never heard of a bottom being the D and the /s being ordered to Top the D??
Whilst we differ, I think your ideology is too simplistic. YMMV of course.



needlesandpins -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 8:26:12 AM)

my name is needles, I am a switch, not even a switch by the standards of what some others call themselves a switch, and I have no idea what a 'p' type is, or this whats-it you're talking about.

I am just what I am, and I don't give a stuff about anything else, party piece, or not.

needles



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:12:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
I am INTJ according to Jung.


We're only looking at the last identifier, which is how you prefer to order your world around you.
- There are those who are strongly ordered, and they expect others to follow suit (i.e., a strong J),
- And there are those who are loosely ordered, and who do not expect others to follow suit (i.e., a strong P).
- And then, there are all types of people, in between.

This thread is specifically opened to ask a single question of those who are STRONGLY J or STRONGLY P.

The nascent hypothesis, which is only the barest whim of a hunch at the moment, is that the stronger the P the more likely to be a switch.

I know that I'm a very strong P, and I can switch at will quite easily, so it fits, for me, but that's only one datum.
This thread is merely asking for more data from the STRONG Js and Ps out there.
You know who you are.



DesFIP -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:25:01 AM)

T/b and d/s are not at all the same.

I'm a J but I dislike strict order. I like a laid back relationship.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:26:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
....This thread is specifically opened to ask a single question of those who are STRONGLY J or STRONGLY P.

The nascent hypothesis, which is only the barest whim of a hunch at the moment, is that the stronger the P the more likely to be a switch.

And we have proven your hypothesis to be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
I know that I'm a very strong P, and I can switch at will quite easily, so it fits, for me, but that's only one datum.
This thread is merely asking for more data from the STRONG Js and Ps out there.
You know who you are.

And some of us have answered you.
If it fits you.... great.
But don't try to project that ONE datum to fit everyone, or even half of us, because you'd be wrong.


And that is what we are trying to tell you.
The basis of your hypothesis is flawed and faulty.



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:35:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins
I have no idea what a 'p' type is, or this whats-it you're talking about.
I am just what I am, and I don't give a stuff about anything else, party piece, or not.


If you sit on a crowded airplane, after having packed and weighed your luggage days before, and printed all your boarding passes exactly 24 hours ahead of time and checked in and packed the luggage properly taking no chances with so many ounces in so many plastic bags, and parked in your same old spot at the airport, and got there more than early and had all your paperwork available, and then you followed instructions at all times at the airport and as you walk down the aisle of the crowded plane and you start thinking about what other people are doing, wishing the person in front of you hadn't dragged their suitcase sideways slapping at everyone's elbows, and after sitting down at your pre-selected seat you began wishing that some guy three rows from you didn't have crying kids, and that the lady next to you hogged your armrest and that the flight attendants weren't nice enough to you and that the pilot didn't sound very authoritative and ... and ... and ... and ... and ...

Then you're more than likely a strong J.

If, however, you packed moments before you left and didn't even check about weight or size limits, paid for the tickets online when you got around to it, didn't bother to print the boarding passes until it was just about the right time to do so, figured the rules were guidelines anyway on the packing of toiletries so you took some chances that they'd be confiscated at security, didn't even remember where you parked, got there when you needed to, but no earlier, stuffed most of your paperwork in your pockets or in your backpack, didn't bother to wait in the long curvy lanes since nobody was there so you cut under the dividers separating the lanes, and you put your carryon on the escalator even though there is a sign with a big X on it telling you not to do that, and you didn't bother fitting the carryon to the square metal grid before security, figuring they'll just gate check it if it fails, and, as you walk down the aisle of the crowded plane, you patiently accept that the people in front of you appear to be bumbling idiots who keep making you stop, but you don't even mind, as they extricate their luggage in front of you every step of the way, and sat down in the middle seat, even though you were assigned the aisle seat because someone was already sitting in your seat, and you don't even notice the crying kids or smile at them patronizingly if you do, and as you notice the large lady next to you needs more room, you graciously don't complain that she has hogged the shared armrest, and you always have a nice flight, no matter what the flight is, and hardly noticed the flight attendants or what the pilot sounded like, and ... and ... and ... and....

Then, you're more than likely a strong P.

Of course, there is EVERY permutation and combination in between, which is why this thread is specifically about very STRONG Js and Ps (such as the concocted scenario above tries to exemplify).

Strong Js tend to order their lives, they treat rules as rules, and they expect others to follow suit.
Strong Ps tend to be much looser with the rules (rules are merely guidelines) and they don't care what other people do.

I'm a strong P. I've run into very many strong J's. Half my family are strong Js, the other half are strong to weak Ps.
I didn't look up the percentage in the population, but, very few people are STRONG Js.

When you see someone say they are INTJ, that's only a very small part of the equation, and, almost everyone tries to base their conclusion on the fact they're a J, but they don't realize (or don't bother to delve into) the fact that there are weak Js and strong Js and everything in between.

A strong J would be someone like Steve Jobs, or at least the Steve Jobs that I know about. There's his way, and the highway. He almost certainly wouldn't understand doing it any other way than his way, and he likely couldn't suffer anyone who did anything differently than his way. STrong Js are problematic when they're in positions of power, simply because they can't fathom that there is another way of doing things which is just as good, or better. They can't fathom that rules are merely guidelines. They get upset when things aren't organized. They actually care about deadlines, and figure that something should be done because it was due, not when it is actually needed.

Nobody famous who is a strong P comes immediately to mind. Maybe Mother Teresa? I don't know. Maybe Gandhi? Whom do we know that is an open-minded easy-going famous person? They would be someone who breaks the rules all the time (simply because rules aren't rules to strong P personalities). They would often be late to affairs (again, simply because a schedule is merely a suggested time of arriving). They most often would be creative (because they don't follow the same old same old), and they're often very easy going (they like anyone and everyone, no matter what their moral or social views may be).

Given all that, do you feel you are more ordered (J) or more freestyle (P) in your personality?



crumpets -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:48:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
I am INTJ according to Jung. When I read the definitions, some are more spot on than others.


I have been in multiple MB analysis situations because my department funded these studies at our company, and I have NEVER, and i repeat NEVER EVER seen, for free, the type of what you call 'definitions' available on the web, that you get, when you get a professional analysis by degreed professionals.

I must repeat this statement. What you get on the web isn't even close to the type definitions, mainly because every INTJ gets a single description on the web. No wonder "some" are spot on more so than others.

EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON THE STRENGTH OF EACH FACTOR!

What I have seen are INTJ descriptions broken down into, for example,
- strong I, strong N, strong T, strong J
- strong I, strong N, strong T, medium J
- strong I, strong N, strong T, weak J
- strong I, strong N, medium T, strong J
- strong I, strong N, weak T, strong J
- strong I, medium N, strong T, strong J
- strong I, weak N, strong T, strong J
- medium I, strong N, strong T, strong J
- weak I, strong N, strong T, strong J
- strong I, strong N, medium T, medium J
- strong I, strong N, medium T, weak J
- strong I, medium N, medium T, strong J
- strong I, medium N, weak T, strong J
- medium I, medium N, strong T, strong J
- medium I, weak N, strong T, strong J
... and so on...

I forget how descriptions are given for each, but you can see that just saying "INTJ" is nearly meaningless, without, at the very least, saying strong I, weak N, strong T, weak J.

In fact, a strong I, weak N, strong T, weak J, could just as well score as a strong I, weak S, strong T, weak P, since the weak scores can easily change (depending on their value and how you answer the test questions, of which there are hundreds upon hundreds with permutations and combinations thrown in so as to weed out inconsistent results).

That's why this thread is focused only on the STRONG Js, or Ps, when asking for data input.



needlesandpins -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/3/2015 9:57:48 AM)

I feel like I am me, and that lot is a load of nonsense. I'm a switch. that's it. How I react to things on any given day all depends on my mood. mostly I like being on time for things. mostly I'm accommodating, but get me on the wrong day, and I'm none of those things.

as a switch I don't scene. with my last playmate, also a switch like myself, I may start of in a dominating position, but by the time we were half way through I'd realise that he had taken full control. it would happen like that all the time. we both said that within any situation we could feel both dominant, and submissive all at once. it's just the way we were. It's just the way I am. I get that it can be very different for other people, but that's because we are not the same, and there is no formula to work us out.

needles



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02