![\"MBTI](\"http:\/\/www.becomewhoyouare.net\/images\/MBTI_RGB_new_updated_version_.jpg\" "\\"MBTI")
MBTI logo<\/p><\/div>\n
The main difference between MBTI1 and MBTI2 is this: whereas the step one profile (something like INTJ) breaks personality down into four binary division, giving 16 ‘Types’ of personality, MBTI step 2 breaks each of the four divisions into five subscales. That gives a total of twenty measures of personality… That’s a massive increase in how specific the MBTI profile can be!<\/p>\n
So then, here goes with a whistle-stop MBTI-comparison! \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
Let’s start by looking at the cons… to my mind they tend to be more logistic than conceptual but that could be just me! \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
- \n
- it’s more expensive – that’s not to be sneezed at if you’ve got a group, to be honest and it’s not something your MBTI practitioner can do anything about<\/li>\n
- \u00a0it takes longer to debrief – there’s so much more information it can take quite a while for people to get their brains around it: because of this extra information, it’s worth seriously considering one-to-one debriefs of the MBTI profile<\/li>\n
- \u00a0the mathematical details of exactly<\/em> how it’s constructed aren’t public – the beauty of MBTI 1 is that the principles are very easily understood but the statistics behind step 2 aren’t made public<\/li>\n
- it’s probably best done with an MBTI step 1 to explain all the principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To be honest the last point is just an attempt to reduce the costs – you don’t have to do it with an MBTI1 at all – it’s just cheaper to do a group introduction. Actually, having said that, a group MBTI session has all kinds of advantages in terms of the exercises and group interactions that can be explored, so perhaps a group MBTI1 is the best option.<\/p>\n
I should probably confess something here, too, at risk of sounding horribly conceited: on my training sessions to qualify as an MBTI2 practitioner we discussed the statistical issues behind it – and frankly I was the only one in my group interested (and probably one of only a few in the country to be able to understand it… a PhD which relies on statistical analysis does funny things to a man for the rest of his life! \ud83d\ude42\u00a0 )<\/p>\n
Okay, now for a brief idea about the pros…<\/p>\n
- \n
- more information – more information – more information! \u00a0Did you get that there’s more information?<\/li>\n
- it takes more account of the inevitable “yes but” responses that people have because it more easily\u00a0allows (compared to the MBTI1 process) for things like “I’m generally E but…”<\/li>\n
- it begins to account (quite strongly in fact) for situational issues and – in a lot of circumstances – behavioural ones too. One of the big weaknesses of MBTI1 is that it’s a bit crude (you’re E or<\/strong> I, for example) whereas MBTI2 can recognise that for example you are “Generally E but will behave as an I when…”<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nI have to admit, as an MBTI practitioner, I love this extra flexibility. Personally, I find there’s so much information in the MBTI2 that the best way to explore it with clients is to ‘do an MBTI1’ first so that the principles are firmly fixed and then to go on to look at the MBTI2 results in the context of those principles – otherwise it can all be a bit overwhelming.<\/div>\nOkay – speaking of overwhelming, that’ll do. Next time I’ll work through one of the five sets of subscales so you can see exactly what I’m talking about… it’s all a bit abstract at the moment (and I duly apologies to all S-preferences out there! \ud83d\ude42 \u00a0)<\/div>\n
- it’s probably best done with an MBTI step 1 to explain all the principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n