INTPs and methods of learning tarot (MBTI)

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 17 May 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

kalliope	17 May 2005
Hello all, I'm a huge fan of the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality inventory), and have been thinking about it in relation to the tarot. I've poked around with some searches, and find it absolutely fascinating that most members here are INs, and am not surprised to see that the INFPs are clearly the majority. As an INTP, I've tended to approach the tarot in a very type-typical and rational way: "I need to read more!" "Once I learn all of the esoterics, THEN I'll be able to read the cards!" "What's this tree of life thing? I'd better tackle it!" I've always had the sense that I needed to know the CORRECT meanings before I could successfully read, and I've always been tied to books for that reason. It's also the reason that my tarot studies would become overwhelming. Because of some self-exploration and career issues I've been talking about with my counselor (sorry if that's TMI), I've been actively trying to reconnect with my Intuition, and tarot has been part of that journey. (For MBTI enthusiasts, my dominant introverted thinking is way out of balance, and rules me to my detriment.) Finally, my question: I just wondered if any other INTPs could relate to my initially rational approach to the cards. Was it a revelation to you, as it was to me, that I could learn my OWN meanings and associations for cards, ones that resonated? That through a tarot journal, I could become closer to them? Or conversely, have any NFs ever had a problem with rationality? (I'm guessing it's a less common problem for them.)

Sushi	17 May 2005
Hey there, I'm an INTP too, and I can relate to what you're saying. With Tarot, I find I have to fight my logical impulses and just go with my intuition on it. (In an odd coincidence, a good friend of mine also uses Kalliope as her handle else where. Your handle is actually what drew me to this thread.)

Moongold	17 May 2005
kalliope ~ Just by way of correction we don't exactly know that most people here are IN's. I think the survey we did a while back had about 50 or so responses, or certainly not the active core membership which could be anything up to 500. Your assumption that once you get to know the iconography has a lot of truth in it. Knowing the symbolism and iconography is a critical part of reading for many, including myself. Intuition is knowing immediately without any apparent process of reasoning. Well, when you know things really well you become unconsciously competent in them. It's often easy to confuse that kind of knowing with other kinds of knowing. I think you can't go wrong by learning the iconography. Bu there are other ways also of developing your awareness and intuition. Some of those are daily cards and journalling. Meditation is another. Reading practice is another. There are also different styles of reading and some of us might vary from style to style depending on the circumstances. :) Now, I don't want to complicate it for you. Keep going and having fun and you'll discover your own reading style and the develop your own methods of "knowing". I am an INFP, but I am almost dead centre (within 3 points) where the T/F function is concerned and can easily go either way. Blessings ~

jmd	18 May 2005
In terms of the term 'Intuitive', it perhaps should be noted that the manner in which it is used in the MBTI is somewhat different to the way in which many of us would in other ways use it: it the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), it (succinctly) refers to the ability to see possibilities in a situation, rather than looking at what is actually in place already - quite different to the way it would otherwise be described. For the record, I also come out as INTP. My general approach to learning generally is that I tend to examine the underlying or underpinning central core, seeking for that which is essential, and somewhat separating it from that which isn't. I don't therefore ask 'how is card X related to astrological sign Y', but rather 'why and how have those who have made this correlation come to it, does it hold, and what are the consequences of this'. My sense is that if kalliope 'needed to know the CORRECT meanings before [...] successfully read[ing]', then this would perhaps indicate not so much a stronger T function, but rather a P function that is perhaps very closely balanced with the hidden J, and possibly with a greater J weighing when it comes to such things as Tarot.

Fudugazi	18 May 2005
According to that test I am ENFP. I find this thing immensely reductive - I don't like to be reduced to letters. I learn the tarot in many different ways. I like to think I am an evolving creature and not stuck in some box made by people - no matter how well-meaning. So I am me, Sophie, a creature of evolution. Intuitive AND logical AND extroverted AND introverted AND practical AND dreamy AND...changing. Some people have taken that test and see different results every time - I find that very reassuring. If that is how you approach that test, as a reflection of the complexity and evolution of the human being, that's fine - otherwise it's just another way of sticking yourself and others in a prison.

kalliope	18 May 2005
Helvetica -- I think that unfortunately many people agree with you about the MBTI, but I have to say I interpret it differently. It's not meant to "put us in a prison" or a box, or anything of the sort -- it's is a way of describing what choices people have made about how to interpret the world. The test doesn't tell us what we were destined to be, or how we're destined to behave; on the contrary, it just summarizes how we've chosen to approach the world around us. Some of us don't have strong preferences, and so may not test strongly as any type. Some of us do, and have. The MBTI is only about preferences with regard to how we perceive and then make conclusions about the world. These preferences can lead to habits and therefore can shape the type of people we become. Some people have very strong preferences to one side or the other, so this may mean that other functions don't develop or become very strong or efficient. Does this mean that we CAN'T use the other functions? Of course not!! Our "type" just shows our usual preference, and can point out our weaknesses. This can be useful when dealing with groups of people. Do you always have trouble communicating with a particular person? Do you feel like you talk at each other rather than to each other? Do you seem to be speaking different languages? It may be enlightening to discover that you interpret problems, situations, and people very differently, and have drastically different ideas about how to create solutions. Knowing those differences can help you figure out how to work together without wanting to strangle one another! Acknowledging type differences honors the beautiful variation in the human psyche. We can always take it upon ourselves to focus on or develop other sides of ourselves; we can always choose to view the world in a different way. I don't see a description of my past choices to be limiting, nor do I think recognizing my tendencies or patterns is reductive or distasteful. Instead, I see it as informative, interesting, and useful for making positive growth into the future. I fully realize that you mentioned the test could be used in a positive way, so please don't think I'm starting a huge debate. Your comments just sparked my desire to defend it a bit, and say that no one ever needs to see a description of their patterns as a box that binds them!

kalliope	18 May 2005
Moongold wrote: kalliope ~ Just by way of correction we don't exactly know that most people here are IN's. I think the survey we did a while back had about 50 or so responses, or certainly not the active core membership which could be anything up to 500. Moongold: You've made a huge point there - the sample was self-selected, and was definitely small for the entire Aeclectic population! You're also right about there being value to learning the iconography. I would never dismiss it. My weakness before was thinking that I shouldn't use my own feelings about the cards. I wanted to be accurate according to the symbol systems. As an aside, if you ever have the opportunity to take the official MBTI-II, you might find it interesting. The benefit of this version of the test is that is breaks down each dichotomy into five subscales to give a more individualized report. For instance, it shows that I'm an F when it comes to the subscale that measures compassion, and near the middle on one or two others (expressiveness, etc.). But then I'm strongly T when it comes to other subscales, and T overall. (Those aren't the real titles of the subscales, I just can't remember them.) The addition of the subscales really made it resonate, because beforehand I couldn't see how my intense compassion and expressiveness/talkativeness fit in with the T. It might be that you're completely F on some scales, and T on the others, which makes you near even on the total. It makes the test much more dynamic!

kalliope	18 May 2005
jmd wrote: My sense is that if kalliope 'needed to know the CORRECT meanings before [...] successfully read [ing] ', then this would perhaps indicate not so much a stronger T function, but rather a P function that is perhaps very closely balanced with the hidden J, and possibly with a greater J weighing when it comes to such things as Tarot. Yes, I agree that it's hard to pinpoint, and it's probably irrelevent, which function creates which behavior. However, classic descriptions of the INTP mention a perfectionistic obsession with accuracy. I see that as differing from the concept of "correctness" as associated with the J. INTPs can be focused on wanting to master information and info systems, wanting to know everything about something (but can unfortunately lose interest once they do, or lose interest in using the skills they've mastered). In addition, due to the P, INTPs often put off making conclusions because they want to be open to more data - more learning, more reading, more, more, more!, before I can do, perform, decide, conclude. That's a better description of how I've felt with tarot. Your experience may be different, but I really identify with those aspects of the classic type! jmd wrote: In terms of the term 'Intuitive', it perhaps should be noted that the manner in which it is used in the MBTI is somewhat different to the way in which many of us would in other ways use it: it the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), it (succinctly) refers to the ability to see possibilities in a situation, rather than looking at what is actually in place already - quite different to the way it would otherwise be described. Actually, I don't think it's too difficult to reconcile the two meanings of intuition. Yes, MBTI intuition is about seeing possibilities, but it definitely includes our more common description of the word. It can be seeing the truth beyond or even despite what's concretely there, receiving sudden and inspired answers that don't follow from a careful collection of physical data or experience. It's a common idea within MBTI circles that intuition can be a quick but sometimes unreliable way of perceiving the world. I'd say that's a pretty good description regardless of which usage of the word you're referring to, and it fits perfectly with our concept of perceiving card meanings in an "intuitive" way. Your thoughts?

autumn star	18 May 2005
In response to perceiving the cards intuitively - I am an INFJ/P - 50/50 between the J and the P. I am just starting tarot too - and for me it's just a baptism of fire kind of thing. I am definately learning as I go and picking things up. It's kind of my philosophy in life that to really learn and understand something you have to have the experience of it :) There is always a kind of general meaning to the cards, but intuition can be important when reading cards in certain positions and for certain people and situations. Those are my ideas - autumn :)

jmd	19 May 2005
The concept of intuition is a fascinating one, and one that reccurs again and again, with seeming quite clear differences of meaning. Some (amongst the many) that may be of interest, and that include some discussion as to what intuition is supposed to be, include: [indent]Intuitive Reading vs. Card Meanings; Psychologist's point of view on intuition; Intuition or reading from book?; Intuition and the Reading.[/indent] It may indeed be again worth discussing this important concept in its own thread...

Moongold	19 May 2005
kalliope wrote: As an aside, if you ever have the opportunity to take the official MBTI-II, you might find it interesting. The benefit of this version of the test is that is breaks down each dichotomy into five subscales to give a more individualized report. For instance, it shows that I'm an F when it comes to the subscale that measures compassion, and near the middle on one or two others (expressiveness, etc.). But then I'm strongly T when it comes to other subscales, and T overall. (Those aren't the real titles of the subscales, I just can't remember them.) The addition of the subscales really made it resonate, because beforehand I couldn't see how my intense compassion and expressiveness/talkativeness fit in with the T. It might be that you're completely F on some scales, and T on the others, which makes you near even on the total. It makes the test much more dynamic! Hi kalliope ~ I did have the MBTI done at a university during a management course. It was very big in management training then. I can't remember much about the subscales though. This was in 1990 and I thought the idea was wonderful then. It certainly gave me insights that I did not have before. I still find the idea of the MBTI helpful and interesting. A couple of years ago at my workplace we did a similar test - an Australian cousin to the MBTI called the Team Management Profile - which showed that my *F* preference had become much stronger. Interestingly, this test was taken a year after I had commenced the study of Tarot. I think the strengthening of this function has paralelled my interest in Tarot. Some of the threads JMD has given you may refer to the Tarot Court cards and the MBTI. Mary Greer's new book Understanding the Tarot Court looks into this in some detail.

Moongold	20 May 2005
Kalliope ~ I'd like to quote Marie-Louise von Franz about the Introverted Thinking Type. This comes from a book by Von Franz and James Hillman called Jungian Typology Quote: The main activity of this type is not so much trying to establish order in outer objects; it is moe concerned with ideas. Someone who would perhaps say that one should not start with facts, but first clarify one's ideas, would belong to the introverted thinking type. His wish to bring order into life starts off with the idea that if one is muddle-headed from the very start, one will never get anywhere. It is first necessary to know what ideas to follow and where they come from; one must clean up muddle-headedness by digging into the background of one's thoughts. All philosophy is concerned with the logical processes of the human mind, with the building up of ideas. This is the realm where the introverted thinking type is mostly at work. This is a fascinating book, and was actually easier for me to understand than Jung's own work about typology, if that doesn't sound odd. Jung was not all that flattering of people with predominent IF functions , which put me off a little :laugh:

kalliope	23 May 2005
jmd wrote: The concept of intuition is a fascinating one, and one that reccurs again and again, with seeming quite clear differences of meaning. ... It may indeed be again worth discussing this important concept in its own thread... jmd, The threads you linked provided me with quite a bit of reading! Intuition is certainly a concept that's been the center of much attention, discussion, and some controversy. The last thread was my favorite. I think it gets at my opinion on the topic. While many people may use the word intuition to mean psychic abilities and impressions, it seems that, judging from my psych background, the definitions below, and many posters in the various threads you cited, that the typical usage or connotation of the word matches quite well with its denotation. Similar to an impression, it's a quick insight or knowledge that appears to come without rational, linear thought -- but is usually a lightening-quick synthesis of various factors (prior knowledge, subtle cues, sharp perception). If you believe in or have psychic abilities, then you can add any info gathered by them to that list of factors. This last bit is probably why intuition, which seems to mean quick, sharp perception, gets muddled with psychic abilities, which is like an extra-perception. Intuition, when not misunderstood to mean psychic perception, may still seem mysterious, but that's only because the cognition behind it is not evident, but subconscious, hidden, or too quick to follow. Bah!! Am I making a mess out of all this? Am I talking to myself in circles? Intuition's definition from Merriam-Webster: 1 : quick and ready insight 2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference Dictionary.com: n. 1. a: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. b: Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight. 2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

kalliope	23 May 2005
Moongold wrote: Kalliope ~ I'd like to quote Marie-Louise von Franz about the Introverted Thinking Type. This comes from a book by Von Franz and James Hillman called Jungian Typology This is a fascinating book, and was actually easier for me to understand than Jung's own work about typology, if that doesn't sound odd. Jung was not all that flattering of people with predominent IF functions , which put me off a little :laugh: Oh boy - yes, Jung's own writing on the topic is rather dense. I bought his Psychological Types with much enthusiasm, but was very disappointed. I much prefer Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers, and would highly recommend it. The quote you posted from Jungian Typology is great! I would like to add the book to my wishlist or get it from the library, but can't seem to find a book by that exact title. Von Franz and Hillman have written so extensively on Jung and archetypes! If it's not too much trouble, could you post the ISBN?

Moongold	23 May 2005
Hi Kalliope ~ the ISBN is 0~88214~104X :)

kalliope	23 May 2005
Moongold wrote: A couple of years ago at my workplace we did a similar test - an Australian cousin to the MBTI called the Team Management Profile - which showed that my *F* preference had become much stronger. Interestingly, this test was taken a year after I had commenced the study of Tarot. I think the strengthening of this function has paralelled my interest in Tarot. Some of the threads JMD has given you may refer to the Tarot Court cards and the MBTI. Mary Greer's new book Understanding the Tarot Court looks into this in some detail. It's really interesting that your F preference increased as you became interested in and studied Tarot. A connection between those two things makes sense to me, too. I just bought Understanding the Tarot Court, incidentally. I'm curious to see what she has to say about the correspondences. Also, if you didn't take the second version of the MBTI (the -II), then maybe you didn't have any subscales in your report.

kalliope	23 May 2005
Moongold wrote: Hi Kalliope ~ the ISBN is 0~88214~104X :) Thanks so much!

The INTPs and methods of learning tarot (MBTI) thread was originally posted on 17 May 2005 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.