MBTI: Descriptive or Predictive?

[Xander]

Which is it/ how should it be employed?

Should it be a label that defines what you are capable of or merely communicates general parameters?

Oh and I'm asking for your beliefs as well as this whole "proven theory" hogs wash. I take the word of a madman as equally liable to be true as a scientists.

 

[Eric B]

Welcome back after not seeing you for a long while!

I would say communicating general parameters. It doesn't define us; it's just a general categorization of preferences.

 

[BlackCat]

Welcome back after not seeing you for a long while!

I would say communicating general parameters. It doesn't define us; it's just a general categiruzation of preferences.

Yep, this.

 

[Athenian200]

Could you define "descriptive" and "predictive" as you wish us to use them in this context?

Otherwise, I'll just use these:

descriptive: factually grounded or informative rather than normative, prescriptive, or emotive <descriptive cultural studies>

predictive: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

I think predictive, because it doesn't make any sense to base it on what you've done so far specifically. There's no way of controlling for variables other than personality type, like upbringing, circumstances, etc.

However, I do find that the type becomes more predictive when applied to a longer span of time, while it isn't necessarily descriptive of how a person is at any given point in time.

Unless you wanted to use different definitions of prescriptive and descriptive, in which case my answer will change.

 

[BlackCat]

I'm pretty sure what he meant was that "Predictive" would mean that you could easily predict how people will be just based on their type, versus "Descriptive" being just descriptive of how they are somewhat. Like, you can't "Predict" how someone will be using this system, but you can have a good description of them.

 

[INTJMom]

 

[Xander]

Predictive as in the definition found by the esteemed Athenian and descriptive just as Eric suggests.

The thing is the system is obviously a combination of the two. One cannot exist without the other when referring to temporal creatures such as we but the use of the system and what people expect from it.

Many seem to expect prediction and overlook the descriptive qualities. Is it a language or an answer?

The point being there is a whole lot of extrapolation going on based on someone's type. Surely then that means the type is an answer and is more predictive. If not then surely the extrapolation is shakey at best?

 

[redacted]

Descriptive.

 

[Xander]

Descriptive.

Well as long as you're sure.

Another INTP 9?

 

[iamathousandapples]

I'm going with descriptive. The types don't match up well enough for it to be predictive.

 

[Quinlan]

I never think of it in terms of capability, there is a big difference between skillful use of a function and simply using a function because that's what's comfortable to you.

People want MBTI to be about skill (as an ego boost maybe?) but I don't think it was meant to be used that way.

 

[Xander]

I never think of it in terms of capability, there is a big difference between skillful use of a function and simply using a function because that's what's comfortable to you.

People want MBTI to be about skill (as an ego boost maybe?) but I don't think it was meant to be used that way.

Oh that too, well stated.

I've met many people who's skill does not match their profile, such as my ENFJ friend who's about as empathic as a tank shell... most of the time.

 

[NewEra]

Definitely descriptive. Predictive behavior depends on more complex attributes, and also includes environment.

 

[Wild horses]

I'm going with descriptive too. There is just too much variation within each type for it to be predictive with any real success!

 

[Xander]

So if everyone thinks it's descriptive then why is it used so much for predictive work? It's like the age old question of "what is the meaning of life" to which the answer is nothing because you're analysing the abstraction, not the reality.

 

[INTJMom]

So if everyone thinks it's descriptive then why is it used so much for predictive work? It's like the age old question of "what is the meaning of life" to which the answer is nothing because you're analysing the abstraction, not the reality.

Could you give some examples of how people use it in predictive ways... because I'm not sure if I do that or not, but I think I might to a certain degree.

 

[Xander]

Could you give some examples of how people use it in predictive ways... because I'm not sure if I do that or not, but I think I might to a certain degree.

As in it should be "these are INTJ traits, you should (having been typed as an INTJ, obviously not you you ESFJ in disguise but the global you), show these tendencies and this leads me to believe that this is most probable" versus "you are an INTJ and INTJ's do this".

One is using the language of MBTI to communicate more succinctly (it's greatest asset as a system in my opinion) where as the other tries to make the abstraction a reality.

Many do the latter. The books often hint that you should but the most wise users of MBTI seem to halt short of it and remain in the camp of using it for communication and description primarily.

(Note there is no hard distinction between the two (a bit like most of the "dichotomies") but there seems to be a certain point when it goes from sage advice to myopic assumption.)