Back in those Myers Briggs days...

Note to my readers: The link to the Myers Briggs information, which I provided in the heading, is not an endorsement. I merely added the link in case anyone was not familiar with the concept.

When I was seeking entrance to the convent, during the 1970s, and attending endless 'workshops' and the like then and during my convent time, in certain circles one would think the Myers Briggs tests provided insight of a level normally achieved only at Mount Sinai or in a confrontation with the Risen Christ. Younger readers should be aware that, though all of us were as 'relevant' as it gets in those days, it was an era which preceded the current culture of the self help aisle. Educated people (and nuns were in that category) all had some exposure to Freud and Jung (I have no fondness for psychology, but overall it is an area with which some familiarity was necessary). Though I personally think Jung was a Gnostic, the books I have from the 1950s, when priests and religious somehow thought the miserable, atheistic Freud was something of a god, make Jung's insights seem close to refreshing. At least a cross, room, or tale of martyrdom on Saint Catherine's wheel could be seen as something other than a symbol for sexual organs.

As I've said in the past, one problem today with speaking of that era is that many common ideas, to which one was exposed in talks with religious, articles in little known magazines, books written by resigned priests, and 'enlightened' presentations at gatherings where major superiors preached on the religious life as obsolete (and somehow opposed to the 'universal call to holiness,' an idea which caused controversies from the earliest Christian centuries but was widely believed to have been hatched afresh c. 1971), can only be either memories or anecdotal. The documents, such as existed, were not 'official' and are long gone. "Official documents" never treated of much of what was on people's minds. I doubt anyone would find links to such missives as were common then - they'd seem so dated as to be quaint.

One major change, not only in religious life but especially affecting those in such communicites, actually had a very positive element. I may laugh at the unwise extremes to which my generation went in being 'open,' but it was an improvement over 'polite conversation' and excessive formality such as we witnessed in childhood, where people could talk all afternoon and say nothing about themselves. Religious were taught a certain reserve, and this had a valuable element, but it could be taken to extremes. The silence, refraining from speaking of oneself even in the most 'normal' situations (for example, one could not comment on a book because it meant one had read it), 'custody of the senses' (fine in church, but outside easily confused for everything from shyness to arrogance to flirting), and the rule that one never complained (even if one's appendix burst in the classroom) even to one's Sisters, made for great artificiality. I know this was not universal, but can say that, in the community in which I lived, though were were not terribly strict about silence it meant little, because we could not say anything that had any substance or revealed anything about oneself.

All of a sudden, the trend was to share one's personal feelings, failings, unhappiness, and so forth indiscriminately, supposedly to build a bridge rather than a wall between oneself and others. Going from silence to such a stance was a problem, the more because those who previously were not to speak of themselves at all had no way to have learnt moderation and prudence. (...of course, at this age I can see that moderation and prudence are hardly surplus commodities... just login to any Internet group for examples.) As well, religious congregations tended to be focussed entirely on the needs and 'ways' of the community. Individual traits, ideas, even talents (unless the community had dire need of that last), were unimportant. In fact, it was not unusual (and certainly was true in the noviceship I witnessed) for candidates to be stripped of any sense of personal worth and self confidence. (One could not even wash lettuce leaves without being told one did it all wrong.) I saw a strong tendency to seek to reduce adult candidates to the level of small children, as if this would cause 'trust' (ahem!) and dependence and therefore foster obedience.

This long prelude leads me to the Myers Briggs trend. Such tests were common in religious communities and inter-community gatherings. I well remember one gathering I attended where everyone wore a name tag, with one's MBTI profile (mine is INFP, BTW) under one's name.

I shall admit that I found review of the profiling interesting in one sense. Though each of us is very different from one another, I had not realised that a huge percentage of people prefer ways that I find oppressive and stifling. For example, far more people are of a personality type which likes rigid, imposed structure. The 'introverts' such as myself, whose source of energy is ideas, are forever misunderstood by the 'extroverts' (source of energy in social interaction), who think we could be as wonderful as they are if we only put our minds to it.

Before proceeding, I'll add that one major problem with MBTI was that the terms used in the profiling have a totally different meaning than they do in the vernacular. Introverts are not shy - judgers are not judgemental.

It had always irritated me when I saw intelligent people convinced that they could accomplish nothing unless they had to be constantly accountable to some authority (or, more so, a group.) I saw this as either a capitalist gimmick (manufactured need to place money in the authority's pocket) or a way of controlling. When I saw how many people, especially those in fields such as education, actually needed that 'group motivation,' it at least led to some understanding.

But the 'down side' was that classifications such as this could lead to people's being 'boxed.' As well, even if INFPs are only 1% of the population, we do exist - the majority does not rule. It is not that the majority being of other classifications means we need to be fixed.

Personality testing and the like did grow much out of hand, but it is somewhat understandable. When one was taught that one's personality had to be wiped out for one to be open to Christ, it could give a weird impression that who were are as individuals is not valuable in the divine scheme.

Enough for today... but, overall and not only in relation to MBTI, I would caution others to never assume that statistics prove anything in human relations. That 85% of people thought this or that does not mean that the other 15% are less valuable or need to be changed.