Analysis of MBTI type patterns in college scholars

College Student Journal, Dec, 2003 by Wendy A. Folger, Hugo E. Kanitz, Ann E. Knudsen, Sherene McHenry

Discussion

Few educators would conclude that a 5-year sample of the best and the brightest would yield such results. Over 50% of the individual scholars assessed devalued the decision-making function Thinking. Are we observing Whole Type development? Are the 53 over represented Feeling types engaged in some form of emotional intelligence? Is the collective unconscious at work here? The suggestion is made that this is an area of promise. These findings raise a variety of concerns about learning styles and cognitive mapping.

Conclusion

By assessing scholars using the MBTI, it may be possible to come to some agreement on learning theory. This study needs to be replicated. Better yet, a longitudinal study of the developing child and the mature adult is a possible research direction. Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs and Shellady (2001) studied critical thinking as both an attitude and a skill. Future educators were found to lack interest in critical thinking and were uncomfortable with such a tendency. One can only generalize that Thinking, as measured by the MBTI, constitutes critical thinking. Nevertheless, 57% of the gifted and talented Centralis Scholars had Thinking as a lowered level of consciousness. Jungian theory postulates that when one draws upon this unconscious, "The most different approach possible is likely to be the least familiar, most undeveloped, and unused aspects of the personality, which we now recognize as the inferior (and often the tertiary function as well)" (Quenk, 1993, p. 49).

To speculate that a high percentage of academically talented individuals bypass logic in their decision-making is truly controversial. Even more controversial is the notion that the success of these scholars is predicated upon Goleman's (1995) contention that emotional intelligence can matter more than IQ.

Table 1.

Distribution of MBTI Types for Centralis Scholars N=93

Sensing     Types      Intuitive    Types

With        With       With         With
Thinking    Feeling    Feeling      Thinking

ISTJ        ISFJ       INFJ         INTJ        J I
                                                U N
N= 1        N= 7       N= 5         N= 6        D T
%= 1.08     %=7.53     %= 5.38      %= 6.45     G R
I= 0.12     I=1.06     I= 1.21      I= 1.14     E O

ISTP        ISFP       INFP (#)     INTP (#)    P V
                                                E E
N= 2        N= 1       N= 13        N= 11       R R
%= 2.15     %=1.08     %=13.98      %=11.83     C T
I= 0.63     I=0.26     I=1.96       I=2.31      E S

ESTP        ESFP       ENFP         ENTP        P E
                                                T X
N= 1        N= 4       N= 11        N= 5        I T
%= 1.08     %=4.30     %=11.83      %= 5.38     V R
I= 0.31     I=0.87     I=1.10       I= 0.90     E O

ESTJ        ESFJ       ENFJ         ENTJ        J V
                                                U E
N= 7        N= 9       N= 3         N= 7        D R
%= 7.53     %=9.68     %= 3.23      %= 7.53     G T
I= 0.83     I=1.30     I= 0.59      I= 1.13     E S

      N     %        I

E     47    50.54    0.94
I     46    49.46    1.07
S     32    34.41    0.71 (#)
N     61    65.59    1.28 (#)
T     40    43.01    0.89
F     53    56.99    1.11
J     45    48.39    0.88
P     48    51.61    1.15
IJ    19    20.43    0.78
IP    27    29.03    1.46 (")
EP    21    22.58    0.90
EJ    26    27.96    0.98
ST    11    11.83    0.47 (#)
SF    21    22.58    0.95
NF    32    34.41    1.24
NT    29    31.18    1.33
SJ    24    25.81    0.79
SP     8     8.06    0.54 (")
NP    40    43.01    1.48 (#)
NJ    21    22.58    1.02
TJ    21    22.58    0.74
TP    19    20.43    1.14
FP    29    31.18    1.15
FJ    24    25.81    1.05
IN    35    37.63    1.68 *
EN    26    27.96    0.97
IS    11    11.83    0.50 (#)
ES    21    22.58    0.91

Notes concerning symbols followine the selection ratios:

(") implies significance at the .05 level (Chi-square>3.8)

(#) implies significance at the .01 level (Chi-square>6.6)

* implies significance at the .001 level (Chi-square>10.8)

% percent of total choosing this group who fall into this

I self-selection index: ratio of percent of type in group to percent in
sample.

Base population used in calculating selection ratios: Form F, Base
total N=28356. Source MBTI Type Table, Center for Applications of
Psychological Type

References

Artress, L. (1995). Walking a sacred path. New York: Riverhead Books.

Baron, R. (1998). What type am I? New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc..

Central Michigan University (2000a). Applying for Scholarships and Financial Aid [Brochure]. Mount Pleasant, MI: Author.

Central Michigan University (2000b). Scholarships for Michigan's Top Students [Brochure]. Mount Pleasant, MI: Author.

Bly, R. (1988). A little book on the human shadow. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Eick, A. E. (1988). Personality traits of those students selected for gifted and talented programs. Unpublished master's paper, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Grande, J. G., Myers, I. B. (1987). The selection ration type table PC program. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Eigenberger, M. E., Sealander, K. A., Jacobs, J. A., & Shellady, S. M. (2001). Disposition toward thinking critically: A comparison of pre-service teachers and other university students.. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 109-122.