You know, for people who claim to be intuitives, a lot of you sure do put a lot of faith in random statistics. How can you take MBTI/IQ data at face value when, for instance, MBTI has been shown to have low test-retest reliability?
How can you take MBTI/IQ data at face value when, for instance, MBTI has been shown to have low test-retest reliability?
Bingo. My issues with MBTI have always been the forced-choice test method and the fact they use questions which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Upon retest, the person can easily flip choices since both answers were true for the person, to begin with. What some people conveniently ignore is there is a big difference between a forced answer, and an accurate answer.
I agree with kelric's thoughts from one of the MBTI threads:
Originally Posted by kelric
Bipolarity, while making classification relatively simple, just doesn't seem to be an accurate way of representing the issues. How many times, when considering type, are we asked to prefer a to b? And how often do we make conclusions on this a/b decision (or a small sample size of a/b decisions) when our "real" answers are more along the lines of "well, a is good in this situation, b in this other one, well, except if something else also happens, but when I was in a similar situation, I really didn't think a *or* b, or I thought *both*, or "*neither*. There really isn't one answer that's better in general, but I have to pick one, so I guess I pick a". For me, it's pretty often. Simplifying can sometimes give insight, but it can also sometimes discard the complexity that is absolutely integral to understanding - I think that's the case here.
Bipolarity just doesn't ring true for me, and I'd say that this goes double for introverted vs. extroverted functions. Not a fan of that theory at all, in that the "introverted" functions and the "extroverted" functions just don't seem to be dichotomous. A simplistic analogy is that it's like saying that liking oranges is opposite from liking broccoli, and that I have to have a preference for one over the other, and that this says something important about me. I just don't accept that the two are related in any significant way.
A few conclusions from studies:
Evidence for the bipolarity of the introversion/extroversion dimension was weak, and findings did not support the bipolarity of the sensing/intuiting or thinking/feeling dimensions. Results provide evidence that high negative correlations within MBTI dimensions are an artifact of its forced-choice format.
The MBTI may capture a person's current state, but that state should probably not be treated as a fixed typology.
Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it.
If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?
― Voltaire, Candide
"How dreadful!" cried Lord Henry. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." ~ Oscar Wilde - The picture of Dorian Gray
The smartest type is: I/E (0%/0%), N/S (0%/0%), T/F (0%/0%), and P/J (0%/0%). All other types lie on a continuum, which indicates how much farther they are from *that* type. I'd honestly felt I was extremely close to *that* type when I first discovered, and investigated MBTI back in Spring '08. I wasn't on any forums, and posted my thoughts on YouTube, where it initially occurred to me what type is the best ideal for *existence*, in general. Clearly, by observation, if you're *that* type, you aren't swayed by general existence, which does *things* to people, otherwise. Unfortunately, there was no way of fitting in with that fundamental analysis, which I called it, so I decided I'll stick with one of the types. Eventually, that's how I settled with ExTJ. When I first joined this forum in January '09, I said I only *tended* toward ENTJ, which seems realistic enough.
Basically, that'd be a *well-balanced* personality type.