For those with an advanced interest in Myers-Briggs typology and Jungian theory, there was a free 45-minute live webinar on Tue 3rd Sept as part of the BAPT ‘In Conversation’ series.
BAPT is the British Association of Psychological Type, primarily for those who use the MBTI® or alternative instruments in commercial applications (coaching, leadership development, team building, etc.). There was a discussion between BAPT’s Richard Owen and myself about the differences between Myers-Briggs and Jungian theory, and the future of typology. The webinar can be viewed at https://myers.co/baptconversation
There is a popular misunderstanding that C.G. Jung approved of Isabel Briggs Myers’ work. However, he repeatedly objected to the popular interpretation of his book Psychological Types and research based on the MBTI® instrument. There was a rift between I.B. Myers and C.G. Jung which has been hidden for more than half a century from those who use Myers-Briggs typology (Myers, S. 2019).
The misunderstanding is largely due to a complimentary letter from Jung to Myers in 1950. However, Jung did not write it and it did not represent his opinion. It was written by his secretary who couched it in diplomatic language to conceal Jung’s disapproval.
I’m pleased to announce that Routledge have started production of my book, which will be released on November 12th, 2018. The book is a re-examination of Psychological Types, in view of Jung’s complaints that most readers misunderstood it. There has been a significant divergence between the central message of Psychological Types and its popular interpretation.
The book is going to be controversial, both for users of Myers-Briggs typology and Jungian theory, though for different reasons. It challenges many of the assumptions that have long been held by users of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and similar instruments. To communicate Jung’s ideas clearly, it simplifies them.
The list price of the book is £26.99 but there is a discount code you can use to reduce the price of advance orders by 20% to £21.59. You can find more details of the book, and how to order your advance copy with the discount, below.
What happens to morality when people work collaboratively in a large group?
I was prompted to do a little research on DPD and Amazon recently, following a repeated failure to deliver a parcel. For several years, there have been intermittent problems with deliveries to our home because the DPD satnav system contains an error for our rural location, which they seem unable to correct. Royal Mail and most other carriers can find us (except when snow blocks the roads). Amazon compound the problem by refusing to redirect all our parcels through Royal Mail as a default.
The question of morality arises because, when a driver can’t find us, or the depot can’t find a driver prepared to make the trip, DPD tell lies to hide the fact and shift the blame. For example, they say the customer was out (untrue), or the customer requested delivery on a later date (untrue). Amazon keep saying that they have spoken to DPD and promise delivery the next day, and they also sometimes tell lies to try and get rid of the problem. My problems paled into insignificance, however, when I discovered that a DPD driver had recently because of DPD’s policies: Continue reading
To invoke, or not to invoke, that is the question.
With a few exceptions, most UK Members of Parliament have accepted the result of the referendum in June. They will support the UK leaving the European Union. Article 50 is the next step. But does invoking article 50 really mean that we will be implementing the result of the referendum?
In my training consultant days, on team and management workshops, I used a communication exercise. It involved asking people to reflect (privately) on what they thought I meant by the word “speed”. People gave a myriad of answers. Driving fast. Distance divided by time. The film starring Sandra Bullock. Drugs. A place. The late Welsh footballer. Etc.
If the meaning attributed to a common word, such as ‘speed’, can be so diverse, how many meanings can there be for a phrase such as “article 50” or “Brexit” or “Leave” or “Remain”?