Asperger's Syndrome and Psychological Type

Post Reply New Topic

For the past couple of years I've been studying the relationship between Asperger's Syndrome and Carl Jung's concept of psychological type. I wrote a paper on this topic which was recently published in the Journal of Psychological Type. If you would like a copy of this paper, write me a private message with your email address and I'll send you a PDF.

For those who would prefer to download a copy, the paper is available from the publisher, <[email protected]>. It's in the December, 2006, issue. The Journal, which is published quarterly, contains one article per issue. Subscription for a year, plus access to many past Journal articles, is $35.

geezer

I rate VERY strongly in the I/N/T areas but borderline between P and J. I score slightly more towards INTJ but I find INTP is a better descriptor of me as a person.

Me too - In terms of the J versus P, its best to be close to the middle. Being too far 'P' means you wont make a decision, being too far on the J means you'll make a decision too quickly OR wont take in new information

I guess in some cases you may want to be in the middle with all 4 but I'm having a tough time proving why (My uncle suggested it), especially for the T trait

The idea that the type preferences associated with the Myers-Briggs types are traits is a common misconception. There is a world of difference between traits and preferences. For most (non-Jungian) psychologists, the dominant paradigm is a deviance model.

"The deviance model is concerned with a social collective deviancy which shows how people differ from a reference group, be it successful mathematicians, businessmen, adolescents or schizophrenics. Its focus is on adaptation to the world and failures at such adaptation. For example, it is bad to be too dependent; however, if you are not dependent at all, that is also bad. Thus a person should be close to the mean and any deviations from the mean are regarded as signs of pathology, or indications of limited adaptation." (Quenk, 1984, p. 15)

As Quenk points out, non-Jungian psychologists and psychiatrists tend to see behavior on a bell-shaped curve. Only the mean represents true normalcy, and evidence of pathology can be found in almost everyone.

From the perspective of psychological type, the functions are polar opposites. They are sorting categories something like pregnancy: 'One is either pregnant or not' (Lawrence, 1993, p. 35). As polar opposites, the preferences reported on the MBTI® are mutually exclusive and inherently unmeasurable. 'Quantitative interpretation of MBTI results as an indication that a respondent has 'more' or 'less' of a preference is… the most pervasive source of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the MBTI' (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, and Hammer, 1998, p. 121). Still, the Jungian perspective is not widely accepted:

"The Trait Theory of Personality is the dominant one in contemporary psychology. The person is conceived of as consisting of a bundle of traits; some are stronger, some weaker; some closely associated or correlated with other traits, some having no connection to other traits." (Quenk, 1984, p. 15)

In contrast to type theory, seemingly opposite personality traits can coexist in the same person. A person can show both introverted and extraverted traits, for instance. Traits can be measured in terms of "more" or "less," indicating the degree of skill, balance, or maturity that a person has achieved in the development or use of the given trait, and a trait may be compared with the social mean to show the individual’s normality or deviation from it. Myers (2002) gives a particularly detailed and persuasive discussion of the differences between psychological traits and Jungian type preferences.

The numerical scores associated with the MBTI reflect preferences, not traits. The higher the score, the clearer the preference is to the individual concerned. The usual interpretation of a low score is that the individual doesn't know themself well enough to know their preference.

I always get either INTP or INTJ, the former more often.

Interesting. I'm very much an INFJ.

I took a personality quiz a few months ago and got ESFJ. ESFJ pretty much describes me perfectly.

I'm an INFJ too. From what I remember of other posts about types, there seems to be a lot of INT_ s here.

Geezer, I was very interested to read in your article about the Asperger trait 'relentless reading', I have not read about that before. That's me, the relentless reader!

Are you also interested in Jungian archetypes? I've been reading a lot about them. I am wondering if and how Asperger's might fit in with them. Persephone comes to mind here, especially in regards to meltdowns - which I think could be called a temporary 'disappearance' and also the 'spacing out' aspect of AS.

ISTJ, leaning INTJ from time to time.

Starr,

Did you notice that "relentless reading" is only a trait of AS if there is somebody around you who thinks that's a bad thing to do? Jungians accept reading -- a LOT of reading -- as a natural preference of the iNtuitive types, Introverted iNtuitives in particular.

As far as Jung's archetypes, I don't know a whole lot about them. Maybe you should do the definitive study of AS and Jungian archetypes.

It's supper time in my part of the world now, so I'll see you guys tomorrow.

g

ISTJ. Once in a long while, in one of my more whimsical moods, I've scored as INTJ.

Very much introverted, even more thinking and mostly judging. It depends what I'm doing whether or not I am S or N. I tend to have a decent intution, though I never trust it or make decisions based on it. Doing that seems too whimsical for me to trust.

HEY! WHOA!! STOP!! ! CEASE AND DESIST!! !!

Would it be too much to ask most of you to go back and read the fourth post in this thread? The one that says that MIXED TYPED DO NOT EXIST???

You CANNOT prefer one type today and another tomorrow.

You CANNOT lean this way one time and another way the next time,

and

the middle is definitely NOT a good place to be.

Most, if not all, of these MISunderstandings come from unauthorized web sites that offer more MISinformation than they do information, more confusion than they do enlightenment. PLEASE! If you're not willing to put forth the effort to understand what Jung actually said, then at least give up the idea that you - or anybody else - is a mixed type. 'Tain't so.

geezer

P.S. I know that there are people who are going to be upset with me for coming on so strong, but with such massive confusion and dogged persistence that flies in the face of the facts, what did you expect?

No your right it seems a vaild test by definetion would only give a person one personality type in short time frame (many years).

Geezer, I got my points from the actual 'Type' book that deals with the 16 personality types. 10th year anniversary update, in fact

These 'types' are just complete GENERALIZATIONS meaning some people may not exactly fit one but they come out 51% on one side, 49% on the other. Its merely a guide.

Being in the middle with the J or P trait IS desirable. Being too far on either side of the spectrum leads to negative things - I've friends who are so heavy on the P they refuse to have an opinion - They simply refuse to ever acknowledge one side as 'right' over the other because they want more information ALL the time.

Likewise, being too far on the J side is the complete opposite - you may not be open to new ideas or theories and closed on the subject with an opinion thats not right.

Logically, you want both - you want to be able to absorb new information but form an opinion on what you have. Thats called 'adapting.'

These personality types are simply generalizations. Geezer, originally I looked at the 4th post and its yours - how can you reference people to your post stating its "right?" I thought you were agreeing with someone else

Oh so I get it the debate is people not fitting a type perfect. So seems like a valid test
the percent would tell what % break down you where P or J. The percent used in the context of how well you understand you type is of no use.