The Scam of the MBTI Trance

[simulatedworld]

Jag, man--

I really don't give a shit. I've fully explained the altered interpretation of MBTI that I'm using, and all that I'm writing is under that pretense.

Get over it.

 

[Splittet]

Really? I suppose you ought to write letters to a lot of professors, then, mine included. I'm sure they're all just uneducated hacks, though, in comparison to a person of such intellectual stature as yourself.

Indeed I believe there are some rather ignorant professors in the US, blinded by religion or whatever. It just seems very different from here. Maybe some professors don't teach it because they are skeptics, it seems like such considerations are more important over there. I think it might be professors don't do that to the same degree here. As a psychology student you really need to know Big 5, if for no other reason, then because there is so much correlational studies using it, to study the correlations between personality and behavior.

Your use of the term "perceived usefulness" displays a fundamentally different perspective on what's "useful" than that of MBTI fans. For Ne, simply comparing various possible interpretations is an end unto itself; it doesn't matter if we accomplish any objectively verifiable goals in the external world. Just looking for common threads and placing them into mental frameworks gets us off, and that's good enough. Comprehending any possible interpretation of observed patterns IS a goal on its own!

And I get that, I am a connection junkie myself. I can get off at theorizing based on MBTI theory... I have done so many times on this discussion board. But that's only useful in the sense that it is intellectually stimulating and rewarding for the individual. It doesn't necessarily have much to do with usefulness in the sense of being able to better understand and predict the behavior and thoughts of others.

 

[Jaguar]

I really don't give a shit. I've fully explained the altered interpretation of MBTI that I'm using, and all that I'm writing is under that pretense.

All evidence to the contrary.
You are giving a lot of shit in this thread--horse shit.
I'll just continue to unleash the pungent odor of it,
which can be found in most of your arguments.

 

[professor goodstain]

There's nothing 'modern' about mbti. It's still stuck in the dark ages. imo, it has about 60% truth to it and 40% theory. Alot of truth found in function but not order. All individuals are very different. Where mbti comes into play is when a person tests and decides for ones self which of the 16 they only closest come to. For it to evolve, it would need additional theory added on. Sure we have enneagram and other things to tweek it to best fit a person. Yet it needs more reality to it such as descriptions of function orders that are not found in the rules as it is now. These descriptions could go into the thousands when tweeking then with more theory. That's how evolving mbti could be done though. Once we have all this new extra theoretical crap sorted out, we could narrow it down a little only to find that mbti was still 60% accurate and 40% theory. It would help though because all these new descriptions of more than 16 function orders would be in some kinda direct/indirect support of the 16 that exists. Reason: all these new types would have been developed using the existing model of what we have today.

So what we need to have happen is Costrin and Blackcat to get busy on this right away starting with my own-Ne>Ni>Ti>Fi>Si>Se>?>Fe. Sarcasm is acceptable and most certainly welcomed it's a start.

Until then, i'll just be stuck with xNTP and xNFP. Just a scam?

 

[simulatedworld]

All evidence to the contrary.
You are giving a lot of shit in this thread--horse shit.
I'll just continue to unleash the pungent odor of it,
which can be found in most of your arguments.

lol argue that ENTJ way: define your opponent's position for him and then ignore it when he explains that that isn't his position.

cute.

 

[simulatedworld]

Indeed I believe there are some rather ignorant professors in the US, blinded by religion or whatever. It just seems very different from here. Maybe some professors don't teach it because they are skeptics, it seems like such considerations are more important over there. I think it might be professors don't do that to the same degree here. As a psychology student you really need to know Big 5, if for no other reason, then because there is so much correlational studies using it, to study the correlations between personality and behavior.

Since we started discussing this, I've begun to read up on Big 5 myself. Started taking one of the tests but had to leave before I could finish, but frankly it seems very similar to MBTI, minus the neuroticism dimension.

It doesn't seem like it'd be too difficult to incorporate that into MBTI by simply using statements such as, "He's a very neurotic ENTJ."

In fact, people around here already do that all the time; they just tend to use the terms "healthy" or "unhealthy" instead of "low neuroticism" or "high neuroticism."

Same concept, though.

And I get that, I am a connection junkie myself. I can get off at theorizing based on MBTI theory... I have done so many times on this discussion board. But that's only useful in the sense that it is intellectually stimulating and rewarding for the individual. It doesn't necessarily have much to do with usefulness in the sense of being able to better understand and predict the behavior and thoughts of others.

That's possible. Personally, I'm not naturally empathetic, so MBTI worked as a sort of spring board for showing me that iNtuitive-Thinking intelligence is not the only kind of intelligence worth having or exercising. It put a name to these concepts that really helped me to conceptualize, accept and understand the fundamental differences between others and myself.

It helped me to stop considering all non-NTs to be complete idiots. I realized that everyone is actually rational in different ways; they just have very different values and priorities than mine. It's truly made me a more accepting person, and I'll always be grateful for that.

 

[Splittet]

Since we started discussing this, I've begun to read up on Big 5 myself. Started taking one of the tests but had to leave before I could finish, but frankly it seems very similar to MBTI, minus the neuroticism dimension.

It doesn't seem like it'd be too difficult to incorporate that into MBTI by simply using statements such as, "He's a very neurotic ENTJ."

In fact, people around here already do that all the time; they just tend to use the terms "healthy" or "unhealthy" instead of "low neuroticism" or "high neuroticism."

Same concept, though.

Indeed it is quite similar, and in order to understand why Big 5 is so superior, one must understand the differences in methods used. Big 5 is base upon the lexical and statistical approaches (it's data driven), MBTI upon the theoretical, and the theory it is based upon, is a theory from the 1920s, that there is no evidence for. From the scientific point of view, that's a massive problem. Secondly it's the type thing. The fact that traits are normally distributed goes against the type hypothesis. Then there is the fact that there is a wonderful Big 5 test named NEO-PI-R, which is the most reliable personality test out there, and so it's also considered the best. The trait of neuroticism is a big deal, because it is a massive gap in the MBTI taxonomy. By every measure it's a massively important personality trait, too important to be left out, and that's why many on this board take action into their own hands, and adds it. Openness and agreeableness has moderate correlations to intuition and feeling, but are more fundamental traits. That's what data-driven factor analysis is showing us.

 

[simulatedworld]

Indeed it is quite similar, and in order to understand why Big 5 is so superior, one must understand the differences in methods used. Big 5 is base upon the lexical and statistical approaches (it's data driven), MBTI upon the theoretical, and the theory it is based upon, is a theory from the 1920s, that there is no evidence for. From the scientific point of view, that's a massive problem. Secondly it's the type thing. The fact that traits are normally distributed goes against the type hypothesis. Then there is the fact that there is a wonderful Big 5 test named NEO-PI-R, which is the most reliable personality test out there, and so it's also considered the best. The trait of neuroticism is a big deal, because it is a massive gap in the MBTI taxonomy. By every measure it's a massively important personality trait, too important to be left out, and that's why many on this board take action into their own hands, and adds it. Openness and agreeableness has moderate correlations to intuition and feeling, but are more fundamental traits. That's what data-driven factor analysis is showing us.

Then conceptually, we're effectively doing the same thing, just using a different naming system.

That's what I've been getting at all along.

 

[Splittet]

Then conceptually, we're effectively doing the same thing, just using a different naming system.

That's what I've been getting at all along.

No, because MBTI is based on a completely false theory and completely different methods than Big 5. What makes Big 5 so good, is the sound methods it is based on. I realize this is a bit hard to understand unless you dip a little deeper into the material, though. It certainly took me some time and scientific schooling to fully appreciate.

It's analogies to the similarities between Christianity and Islam, but also in how these two faiths are ultimately incompatible.

 

[garbage]

Is the Big 5 actually used to categorize people in ways similar to the MBTI, or is it simply a scale for each of the five traits that measures one's overall psychological health?

If the latter, could the Big 5 be used as a sound, scientific basis for a typing system (such as SLOAN, which doesn't seem to have taken off) rather than using Jungian functions as the basis for one?

It seems like such a system would serve everyone's purposes to a greater degree.

 

[Splittet]

Is the Big 5 actually used to categorize people in ways similar to the MBTI, or is it simply a scale for each of the five traits that measures one's overall psychological health?

If the latter, could the Big 5 be used as a sound, scientific basis for a typing system (such as SLOAN, which doesn't seem to have taken off) rather than using Jungian functions as the basis for one?

It seems like such a system would serve everyone's purposes to a greater degree.

SLOAN is a Big 5 system. This is how Big Five is used:

When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

Big 5 is about describing personality, it's not about explaining it:

The Big Five personality traits are empirical observations, not a theory; the observations of personality research remain to be explained.

Wikipedia describing the consensus of Big 5:

Consensus on the Big Five

In a 1981 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality tests of the day. They concluded that the tests which held the most promise measured a subset of five common factors, just as Norman had discovered in 1963. This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s, as well as the publication of the NEO PI-R five-factor personality inventory by Costa and McCrae in 1985. The Big Five are now viewed as the first and only scientific consensus in personality psychology.

One of the most significant advances of the five-factor model was the establishment of a common taxonomy that demonstrates order in a previously scattered and disorganized field. What separates the five-factor model of personality from all others is that it is not based on the theory of any one particular psychologist, but rather on language, the natural system that people use to communicate their understanding of one another.

A number of meta-analyses have confirmed the predictive value of the Big Five across a wide range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page examined the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and each of the 10 personality disorder categories in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Across 15 independent samples, the researchers found that each disorder displayed a unique and predictable five-factor profile. The most prominent and consistent personality predictors underlying the disorders were positive associations with Neuroticism and negative associations with Agreeableness.[13]

In the area of job performance, Barrick and Mount reviewed 117 studies utilizing 162 samples with 23,994 participants. They found that conscientiousness showed consistent relations with all performance criteria for all occupational groups. Extraversion was a valid predictor for occupations involving social interaction (e.g. management and sales). Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience were valid predictors of training proficiency criteria.[14][15]

 

[simulatedworld]

I'll look more into it.

I still don't concede that MBTI doesn't have conceptual/organizational uses.

But I'll agree that Big 5 seems more useful on a quantifiable level.

 

[Jaguar]

lol argue that ENTJ way

 

[simulatedworld]

SLOAN is a Big 5 system. This is how Big Five is used:



Big 5 is about describing personality, it's not about explaining it:



Wikipedia describing the consensus of Big 5:

Just took the 300-question Big 5 test. My IPIP-NEO Narrative Report says:

Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.

I suppose the fact that I'm pretty average on neuroticism makes that particular variable less important to me personally...but I've always intuitively taken it into account when sizing up others. A very neurotic INFJ looks different from a less neurotic one, but they still have enough properties in common to warrant grouping them together. We can just create subdivisions of each MBTI type, so what's the problem?

But I think I've figured out what's going on here: Without really realizing it, I've adapted MBTI's terminology into my own proprietary system which functions essentially like the Big 5, just with different labels.

And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.

 

[Splittet]

Just took the 300-question Big 5 test. My IPIP-NEO Narrative Report says:

Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.

I suppose the fact that I'm pretty average on neuroticism makes that particular variable less important to me personally...but I've always intuitively taken it into account when sizing up others. A very neurotic INFJ looks different from a less neurotic one, but they still have enough properties in common to warrant grouping them together. We can just create subdivisions of each MBTI type, so what's the problem?

But I think I've figured out what's going on here: Without really realizing it, I've adapted MBTI's terminology into my own proprietary system which functions essentially like the Big 5, just with different labels.

And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.

But the methodology of Big 5 and MBTI is completely different, and one is trait based, and one type based... The problem with MBTI is that so many of its assumptions are wrong... You could use it in a Big 5 like fashion, but why not use Big 5 instead then? That way you are not doing anything half-way, but in the most coherent fashion.

 

[garbage]

And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.

This thing has correlations between MBTI traits and Big 5 traits. For the most part, the factors line up, but Judging is related to Conscientiousness and Openness.. true to the typical description of Judging.

 

[Jaguar]

Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.

I scored like you in all areas, except one: conscientiousness.
I was in the upper 60's. You hit zero.
So of course we could suggest 0=P and 60's= J.

And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

I agree with you. (For once.)
There is plenty of research on the net that equates high A with MBTI's F,
and high C with MBTI's J.
This is not news here, fellas.

BTW, who cares about Neuroticism?
My score was 55. It said I was neither calm, nor nervous.
That test is as exciting as watching a parking meter expire.

 

[simulatedworld]

But the methodology of Big 5 and MBTI is completely different, and one is trait based, and one type based... The problem with MBTI is that so many of its assumptions are wrong... You could use it in a Big 5 like fashion, but why not use Big 5 instead then? That way you are not doing anything half-way, but in the most coherent fashion.

Right, but since I'm only using typology for purposes of expanding my own perspective, and because I don't have any plans to apply it in any scientific manner, it really doesn't matter at all to me whether I'm labeling my own arbitrary mental constructs using Big 5 or MBTI.

The way I use it, the shorthand is very useful because I can summarize numerous behavioral patterns in just four letters. I find it more succinct.

But Big 5 or MBTI, it's all the same shit, for my purposes. But thanks for introducing another perspective in the form of Big 5; that does improve my overall understanding somewhat.

I scored like you in all areas, except one: conscientiousness.
I was in the upper 60's. You hit zero.
So of course we could suggest 0=P and 60's= J.



I agree with you. (For once.)
There is plenty of research on the net that equates high A with MBTI's F,
and high C with MBTI's J.
This is not news here, fellas.

BTW, who cares about Neuroticism?
My score was 55. It said I was neither calm, nor nervous.
That test is as exciting as watching a parking meter expire.

haha yeah, 300 questions! And I swear there were several that were exactly the same damn question as earlier ones, and this happened repeatedly.

I agree that, regardless of the methodology used to establish them, MBTI (my proprietary form of it, anyway) and Big 5 serve essentially the same purpose with relatively similar results.

The idea of categorizing people based on commonly observable behavioral trends has been around since at least Ancient Greece, if not longer. Isn't it telling that Big 5 came to the same conclusions through scientific means that MBTI-ers come to intuitively by just watching people and making guesses?

That suggests to me that these "archetypes" of human behavior have deep-seated correlations to fundamental human brain chemistry. Would be interesting to research this further, but as long as I'm using typology as a subjective means of description, I have no real reason to swap my terminology over to Big 5. I'll likely carry on using MBTI's letters as a basis for my system, but including neuroticism in my analysis.

I don't feel it necessary to subscribe wholly and exclusively to one typology system. It's still the same concepts.

 

[ygolo]

The main thing I use of all the theory I've picked up is to do a sort of "lateral thinking" exercise from time to time.

This means I sometimes try to change my perspective by trying to see things from other people's perspectives but in rather specific ways...

As many of you know, I was introduced to workplace use of personality theory through DiSC. So I still try to change my usual perspective (which generally fits with the "Stable" style) to others ("Dominant," "Influencer", and "Conscientious").

This translates also very nicely in changing my "interaction style" from (or accommodating another style besides) "Behind-the-Scenes" (which is an informative, responding style) to others, "Chart-the-Course" (a directive, responding style), "Get-things-Going" (an informative, initiating style) and "In-Charge" (a directive, initiating style).

Similarly, thinking about Temperaments allows for further lateral thinking. Changing perspective from my usual preference of being Abstract and Utilitarian, to become more concrete or cooperative or both.

The individual dichotomies allows for further lateral thinking, and the cognitive functions, still more.

Even if I guess wrong the other person's perspective, I can keep shifting perspective till something improves communication. I just now have a systematics way of doing it because of the theory. I find it helps...if only because it keeps me shifting perspectives.

 

[Mole]

I can keep shifting perspective till something improves

Yes, our job was to improve the productivity of the Leyland assembly line.

We tried all kinds of things but what we noticed was that any change at all improved the productivity of the assembly line.

Of course at first we were looking for some specific change that would improve productivity, but it turned out there was no specific change, it was change itself.

So I wonder, is it a particular perspective that produces improvement, or is it the shifting of perspectives itself that produces the improvement.

For if it is the shifting itself, it doesn't matter what perspective you adopt.

And in fact any perspective will produce confirmation bias, or a false positive, just like astrology or MBTI.