Thoughts On the Validity of MBTI

[Savage Idealist]

Recently I began re-wondering the validity of MBTI and to an extension all personality theories. At first I started wondering is there was any use in them at all, read through critics of them, thought about it, and came to the general conclusion that although MBTI shouldn't be taken too seriously because of a lack of scientific data, it's still a fun activity to type characters and people in my spare time.

Now I want your opinions.

 

[skylights]

i think it can be very useful for understanding yourself and others if you and they fall into the delineated categories well. but the categories are totally artificial, so it's only useful as far as people actually match up. which, depending on the individual, might be very much, or really not very much at all.

that said, i like the MBTI better than, for instance, the big five, because i feel like the MBTI gives equal pros and cons to each personality type. the big five, on the other hand, has an obvious "answer". regardless of how much data may support it, the big five can be very disempowering to someone who is by nature one of the "unfavored" types.

 

[Cybin]

I would love to find out if there are neurological differences that correspond with the different types for functions.

 

[INTP]

validity and reliability of internet tests are pretty poor, dunno about real tests.

but when you understand what mbti is supposed to measure and understand the system, its pretty valid. type descriptions naturally arent that valid since they only talk about generalizations of how the function set on that particular type usually effect your personality.

I would love to find out if there are neurological differences that correspond with the different types for functions.

http://aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol65_1105_apti.pdf

 

[Andy]

Recently I began re-wondering the validity of MBTI and to an extension all personality theories. At first I started wondering is there was any use in them at all, read through critics of them, thought about it, and came to the general conclusion that although MBTI shouldn't be taken too seriously because of a lack of scientific data, it's still a fun activity to type characters and people in my spare time.

Now I want your opinions.

I don't have much confidence in MBTi itself, but I do feel that the border subject of function theory in general has validity.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by Andy
I don't have much confidence in MBTi itself, but I do feel that the border subject of function theory in general has validity.

Now if only scientists could find a strong and concrete correlation to actual brain function and cognitive functions, perhaps then MBTI could regain reliability.

 

[INTP]

Now if only scientists could find a strong and concrete correlation to actual brain function and cognitive functions, perhaps then MBTI could regain reliability.

check out that pdf i linked to cybin.

just to make it clear that reliability and validity are totally different things in psychological research

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by INTP
check out that pdf i linked to cybin.

just to make it clear that reliability and validity are totally different things in psychological research

Looks intruiging, I'll make sure check it out later.

 

[Eric B]

There should have been another choice:
•Whether it's entirely scientific or not; it's still provides a good way to understand our preferences.

 

[iwakar]

There should have been another choice:
•Whether it's entirely scientific or not; it's still provides a good way to understand our preferences.

Yes, an imperfect system that is still very helpful in understanding others and ourselves.

I'm always glad of your sane perspective on this among other things Eric. What are Mrs. B's thoughts on this since you no doubt discuss this sort of thing a lot?

 

[INTP]

Yes, an imperfect system..

there isnt a perfect system and people dont even have perfect understanding of the human personality. there are only tools that you can use to explain parts of the whole personality.

validity means that the system is measuring what it is supposed to measure and mbti isnt supposed to measure the whole human personality, just parts of it. the parts that it measures, it measures them pretty well, so its fair to say that the system is pretty valid.

if you want wider understanding on some persons personality, you will need multiple different personality measurements, none of them can come even close on their own.

@eric

there isnt any system that measures personality in totally scientific way, other than biological measures. like EEG, reaction time, PET scan, MRI scan, hormonal levels etc. and those things dont tell much on their own.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, an imperfect system that is still very helpful in understanding others and ourselves.

I'm always glad of your sane perspective on this among other things Eric. What are Mrs. B's thoughts on this since you no doubt discuss this sort of thing a lot?

Hi!
She said she would agree with what I said.
Though, I often get into it so much (especially when it comes to some of the concepts and using them to explain our every move sometimes), she will then point out it is not scientific, or that it can become like a religion. (Especially considering its source is Jung who kind of mixed it with religion at times).

there isnt a perfect system and people dont even have perfect understanding of the human personality. there are only tools that you can use to explain parts of the whole personality.

validity means that the system is measuring what it is supposed to measure and mbti isnt supposed to measure the whole human personality, just parts of it. the parts that it measures, it measures them pretty well, so its fair to say that the system is pretty valid.

if you want wider understanding on some persons personality, you will need multiple different personality measurements, none of them can come even close on their own.

@eric

there isnt any system that measures personality in totally scientific way, other than biological measures. like EEG, reaction time, PET scan, MRI scan, hormonal levels etc. and those things dont tell much on their own.

Yeah; it seems that "science" is defined in a very STJ way that demands conformity to agreed upon principles and concrete "empirical evidence"; and I'm sometimes not even sure what exactly it is they want. Various statistical studies have been done on it, but it seems a theory like this is too abstract for them. And of course, even with empirical evidence, a theory is still not perfect.
Since there are some who attempt to integrate neurology into the theory; I would think that would be a potential hope for gaining some concrete credibility.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by Eric B
There should have been another choice:
•Whether it's entirely scientific or not; it's still provides a good way to understand our preferences.

Should I add that to the poll?

 

[iwakar]

there isnt a perfect system...

I wasn't implying there was.

I agree that we should cast a wider net if we want to upgrade our 2D people models to 3D ones.

 

[Eric B]

Should I add that to the poll?

If you can; definitely! (I didn't know you could modify a poll).

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by Eric B
If you can; definitely! (I didn't know you could modify a poll).

Tried and discovered that it cannot be modified

 

[iwakar]

Tried and discovered that it cannot be modified

/sadface

I would pick that option.