Apologies

[narya]

I know that working extra hours is common for some lines of work - such as the legal field. In my current job, there is no money in the budget for overtime for engineers and no bonuses. People are told not to work late (since it is illegal, under our contract, to work us overtime without compensation). Yet what can I do? We are short 5 engineers and I work two job titles. I'm usually the last one to leave the building each night.

[axordil]

That's a classic catch-22.

[nerdanel]

I know that working extra hours is common for some lines of work - such as the legal field. In my current job, there is no money in the budget for overtime for engineers and no bonuses.

There is no such thing as overtime or bonuses for government attorneys. You work after hours because that's what it takes to represent your client(s) to the best of your ability, not because there is even the slightest hint of fair compensation (relative to your market value) for it. It is frustrating, and I really hope that we will see the public sector take steps to recruit and retain talent by paying people fairly - across all different fields. There are so many people who would have so much to contribute to the public sector, but have difficulty dealing with the 250-300 percent differentials in salary that we see in my field at the associate level, never mind the government attorney-partner differential, which is even more spectacular. (Many partner-level attorneys see pay increases x10 or x15 when they return to the private sector after a period of public service.) I can imagine that the same (at least x2 or x3) is true for scientific and technical fields, especially in the Bay Area where those skillsets are in such hot demand. I know that it is very demoralizing to feel that you're not being paid fairly for your hard work. More so, when you have to pick up the slack for positions that go unfilled for a long time - something that was also true in my last position, where we had to hold 4-5 attorney positions open for budgetary reasons.

In the meantime, though, I don't think that inadequate compensation can justify not working the hours necessary to deliver the best work product possible. I've certainly encountered this mindset from a few government attorneys - either "They're not paying me enough to work hard" or "I specifically left the private sector for the public sector because there was supposedly a better lifestyle here, so a better lifestyle I will have!" But what I've found is that the government attorneys who are top-notch, well-respected, and effective at delivering results work every bit as hard as their private sector counterparts, and sometimes much harder. For this reason, the oft-touted paradigm of the "lazy government employee, sucking at the public teat" is very upsetting to me - because it has been so far from true in my experience.

[Lalaith]

Oh, yeah. Y'all sure could rule lots of stuff, if you could just get yourselves organized.

Luckily, we "J"s aren't too worried.

Actually, I have elaborate organizational plans in place for many areas of my life. That part can be fun. It's the implementation that sucks. I have better things to do. And then, well, what if something better comes along? I want to leave those options open. Don't fence me in!


(Now please carry on with the bigger discussion. I was busy all day and couldn't participate. I just had to get my plug in there about Ps. )

[Passdagas the Brown]

In response to Nel's and PtG's comments, I feel the need to defend myself. My co-worker is a very volatile person who gets angry with people on a regular basis, including me. I see it as her personality, and let it slide. She originally asked me to help her with something that would take 4 hours to complete. As I worked on it, she came in repeatedly over the week and changed the scope, handing me new data and telling me to forget the old, and all the maps I'd prepared for the old data. By Thursday afternoon, I'd spent 20 hours on it and she again came in with changed data. I got angry, probably the first time in 8 years she's seen me angry. And said that meant I'd have to work on my day off to get it in. By the time I had to leave on Monday, it was clear I could not get all the new work done in time, so I told her. By email (she was not in the office). I put off paying a quarter million dollar contractor payment to work on her project, as well as several other commitments. I worked 30 hours on a project she said would only be 4 hours. Since I'm already over booked at work, and only get paid 36 hours per week at a lower than private sector wage, no matter how mangy hours I actually work, that's 30 hours of my own time that will have to be made up by working long days and weekends on the other work I postponed for hers. I don't feel like I owe her an apology. And I doubt if I will get one from her.

Thanks, narya. I didn't have that additional information available when offering my perspective. In the context you have described, you are certainly not in the wrong, and your co-worker should have apologized for extending the scope of work. Nonetheless, I've found that killing people with kindness almost always helps in the workplace, and taking the high road (i.e. apologizing anyway for not being able to complete the work, despite that not being entirely fair) usually leads to being appreciated as a colleague (and will help other colleagues see you as the responsible, professional party). And if the horrible coworker in question doesn't appreciate that, who cares? You'll look better in the eyes of others.

But again, that additional context changes my view of the situation significantly. Sounds like a nightmare person to deal with.

[Cerin]

Having read a bit more on various Myers-Briggs websites, I'm completely mystified as to where the second half of the personality equations come from. (I should be getting my hands on some books soon.)

I understand the four basic dichotomies, but as they are not additive (i.e., INTJ does not equal I + N + T + J), where do these personality portraits come from? It seems somewhat like a chemical equation. With chemical equations, we have a symbolic representation of what we're combining, and a symbolic representation of the results based on our scientific understanding of the behavior of molecules,and we can put a little of this and a little of that in a test tube and see what the physical manifestation of the equation actually is.

With Myers Briggs, what is the mechanism that leads from the letter combinations to a conceptual notion of personality type? Is it simply based on observations of people? 'I have observed 36 people that identify as INTJ and I've observed these tendencies'? Or is there some type of theorizing going on, and if so, what are the elements used in that theorizing? Is there a set of psychological principles of behavior analogous to the periodic table? If so, how could there be any notion of how various tendencies would combine and manifest if they are not simply additive? (i.e., GDSB = Grumpy, Dopey, Sleepy, Bashful = a person who is to some degree Grumpy, Dopey, Sleepy and Bashful v. GDSB = a person with a strong sense of duty who is extremely loyal to friends but has difficulty expressing emotion).

(Not necessarily expecting answers, but hoping putting the questions out there will allow me to get on with my day).


edit grammar

[yovargas]

I've never seen the answers to those questions explained explicitly but I do have some thoughts on them.....that I don't feel like typing out cuz it would take too long. Maybe later....

[Cerin]

I have often felt that way. Hopefully, the mood will come upon you at some point.

[anthriel]

As to narya's story... narya, your note did sound like you were frustrated. Which it seems you had right to be. But what really puzzles me is that someone would look at that email and conclude that you needed to learn to apologize better. In other words, I didn't think you were trying to apologize. What did you have to apologize for? It did look like a slightly irritated status update, at least to me.

What happened to you feels a little patronizing, from wayyyy over here. I'm surprised you calmed down after a few hours. I would still be angry.




Elen ((hugs)) It's nice to know there are people out there who feel the way I do!

[narya]

I've pretty much stayed out of the MB discussion because the test doesn't fit me well - I'm both a thinker and a feeler, an intuit and a sensor. Though I used to be more clearly judging, I am slowly drifting towards perceiving, or at least I tolerate it more. These articles resonate for me:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3947014

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brai ... scientific

http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Article ... p/mbti.pdf

It's been a loooong time since I read Jung, but if I recall, he said something about how we should all try to develop our shadow side. In which case we should all be working on the IE spectrum, the TF spectrum, etc, rather than staying in one "type" and pigeonholing others in one type each.

And I'd like to apologize in advance for starting a firestorm.

[Cerin]

These articles seem to be criticizing the test while showing a lack of understanding of the underlying theory. Observing that the test (to apply the theory to individuals) is inadequate doesn't impugn the validity of the theory (which is what interests me at the moment). It just means, it's not easy to find a mechanism that accurately applies the theory to individuals (which does impugn the usefulness of the theory).

Each of the articles you linked makes inaccurate statements, such as ' . . . and my score means that I'm more introverted than extraverted, intuiting than sensing, thinking than feeling, and judging than perceiving.' I guess that's what most people come away understanding from cursory examination of the MB construct (just as I did), but that isn't what the score means. It's something basic the score indicates, which leads to further examination of rather complex concepts.

According to what I've been reading, we actually all are schizophrenic, in that our core type is not what the world sees. Rather, we show different faces to the world, of that core identity. (This idea particularly interests me, because it explains why I act so differently when out in the world - which I have always absolutely hated about myself - and why I find interacting on a messageboard so satisfying: It eliminates all the complicating factors of societal interaction and allows the pure self of individuals to encounter one another, imo).

The second author states, 'For example, in the category of extrovert v introvert, you're either one or the other; there is no middle ground.' This shows he has no comprehension of the theory, whatsoever. The theory is absolutely unambiguous about the fact that we all practice extraversion and introversion, intuition and sensing, thinking and feeling, and judging and perceiving, and that, in fact, we do manifest different degrees of these tendencies throughout life. I'm willing to accede that the test may suck as an attempt to apply the theory to individuals (the test I took had me ISFJ, which description was as unlike me as could be). I agree that if the test is so unreliable, it shouldn't be used by businesses.

In which case we should all be working on the IE spectrum, the TF spectrum, etc, rather than staying in one "type" and pigeonholing others in one type each.

The pigeonholing we see people doing demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the theory, which posits that we do all work through all the spectrums. It's purpose is not, putting people into categories, but rather, giving an understanding of how the workings of our minds manifest in the world. But I agree, pigeonholing does seem to be the idea people have settled on when they encounter MB as a curiosity (particularly people who are put off by the notion of being put in a category).

[yovargas]

It's a common misconception - people hear "You are a T" and think the test is telling them they don't know how to use their feelings (or vice versa). But it's much more akin to saying "You're left-handed" - that doesn't mean you don't use your right hand for all sorts of things and in fact, doesn't exclude the fact that you may actually favor the right hand for certain things.

[axordil]

Once I figured out the M-B dualities were sliding scales and not binary either/ors I became more comfortable with the test. To some extent I think it works better at defining populations than individuals, and there's always the issue of whether any test can accurately detect when someone is sandbagging for a particular result. I know I can tweak my own results fairly easily.

As for core types versus what the world sees...as time goes by I become less and less convinced that we are more than than sum of our masks, including the one we wear when we look in the mirror.

[Cerin]

I think a big cause of the misconceptions about the letter groups is the way they're written. It gives the totally wrong idea. This is how I would write them, within the limitations of a computer keyboard, to give a better hint of what they're meant to represent:




I / NT / e - j



I and E are directional -- how are your thought processes motivated and directed.

S/N and T/F are the processes.

P and J were apparently tacked on by the Ms. Briggs as they sought to develop a tool to make Jung's theories accessible to individuals. I suppose they could be called characteristics? They have no place in the conceptual diagrams that attempt to represent the interactions of the thought processes (S/N, T/F) as they manifest along the motivational/directional currents (IE).

Here is a slightly longer-hand notation for the complex pattern of mental functions that we usually see represented by INTJ:

Ni, Te, Fi, Se, Ne, Ti, Fe, Si


Gives a less pigeonhole-y impression, doesn't it?


edit

It seems to me that the three basic distinctions of the Jung theory -- between outer world and inner world motivation, between subjective and objective thought process, and between intuitive and observational information processing are valid and potentially very useful in a person understanding why they interact with the world as they do. I'm hoping, as I read more, to learn the basis for the (seemingly gigantic) leap to the letter type portraits.

[Lalaith]

As is typical for an INTP, I looked at the big picture first (the basic types) and then broke it apart into pieces from there to make it all make sense. I am still learning new things about it, which I love. Like I've said repeatedly, it doesn't explain everything, and I know that people act in all sorts of unpredictable ways, including myself. I also act against my type because I have learned that some of those natural traits are either weaknesses or are perceived as weaknesses by others, and it makes sense for me to try to not act in a way that is my natural inclination under certain circumstances. However, knowing my natural inclination helps me understand why certain activities and actions leave me drained, stressed, and frustrated. (Oh, I've had 3 big meetings this week, spent a fun night with friends, had to lead a group of 25 women for homeschool co-op, led a hike for others? Um, yeah, that's why I'm grumpy and want to stay in bed all day today. :doh1: )

Anyway, I'm not sure if you're on Pinterest, but I think this link will work regardless. I have lots of information pinned to my Psychology & Relationships board. http://www.pinterest.com/marybeth_19/ps ... tionships/ Most of them are infographics and will be useful (possibly) in and of themselves. Some are actual links to websites that should prove useful. And some are just funny, amusing, or wryly true. The board is heavily skewed towards INTPs, though I typically post INTJ stuff as well (since there is a lot of cross-relevance), and ESFJ (my husband and younger daughter), ISFJ (my best friend), and ISFP (my older daughter).

As you said above, there are the Ti Ne Si Fe (INTP) designations. I am not very familiar with those still; I always have to look them up.

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/234398355580367246/

[Cerin]

Thanks, Lalaith.

I do have a few books on hand now, and trust one of them will provide an explanation of how the Jung functions led to the type portraits.

[narya]

Yov, I like your handedness analogy. It is similar to how we use our brains on many levels. I might lead with my heart and have a very right brained or feeling reaction in my Crisis Line phone work, giving the person the benefit of the doubt and being OK with no immediate solution to their problem. I might look like an ENFP. But at my engineering job, I'd be all left brained analytical and thinking when designing a concrete retaining wall, happily alone in my cubie, like an ISTJ. In reality, I'm a synthesis somewhere in between, just as we use both left and right brain to think, and often use both left and right sides of our bodies playing sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

It's been a while since I quoted Pratchett. From Thief of Time.

The bag of soggy tissue behind the eyes worked away independently of its owner. It took in information from the senses, and checked them against memory, and presented options. Sometimes the hidden parts of it even fought for control of the
mouth! Humans weren’t individuals, they were, each one, a committee!

Some of the other members of the committee were dark and red and entirely uncivilized. They had joined the brain before civilization; some of them had got aboard even before humanity. And the bit that did the joined-up thinking had to fight, in the darkness of the brain, to get the casting vote!

And that's the problem with categorizing people. Not only are the much too diverse to fit into 16 categories, each individual is highly variable, although usually within a pretty consistent range.

What's been helpful to me was considering whether, in this specific interaction, I need to appeal to a person's logic or emotions to get them on my side.

[Lalaith]

That's a great quote, even if I disagree with you.

I do think there's value in classifying people, and I do think they fit rather well into 16 categories. But, then again, I'm quite all right with those boundaries being rather loose. Mentally, I don't put people into rooms with closed doors. "You are an INTP, and there you shall stay!" I think of it more as one big house, rather open floor plan. There are four rooms, but there are no doors between the rooms. Within the 4 rooms, the people are gathered into 4 clusters, but of course they can wander around freely. They just don't tend to very often because they like the people in their cluster. If I'm looking for a particular person, I know there's a good likelihood that person is with her group of friends. I might be surprised to find her elsewhere, but no big deal. I'll quickly readjust to wherever she's hanging out. (And that's where the type of assessment you mentioned comes in handy. Is this person acting as I thought she would be? Or did this person wander off to a new group of friends and is acting "weird" because of it? )

That's a lame analogy, but it's entirely too early on a Saturday morning. And I'm not even halfway through my cuppa.

[yovargas]

In that house, some people prefer to hang out in the kitchen, others by the TV, others in the study, and others feel good by the pool.