The use and abuse of MBTI and other personality matrices

[Salomé]

I meant it's worse than a link to the internet.
/self-referential

They used a retarded version of MBTI/Keirsey at my last workplace (Red, Blue, Green, Yellow) to decide how to train/who to promote (they wanted Red managers). An HR woman gave me a lecture on it (and clearly didn't understand the first thing about it.) She thought I was Red. And told me "Introverts are like batteries that recharge when they sleep". Um..sure...whatever you say. She said most people in IT were Blue (NT, so right there), but that Blue = "being good with details." :facepalm: Clearly, she wasn't very Blue herself.

 

[ptgatsby]

I phrased my sentence badly: I wasn't comparing MBTI to IPIP directly, only that MBTI Step II is the scientific version of MBTI theories. That is, the gap between Step II and IPIP is small compared to MBTI theory and FFM theory.

FFM has more scientific support than MBTI (does anyone even take the latter seriously outside the US?)

To separate things;

FFM does not have the MBTI theory equivalent; MBTI theory is not terribly scientific.

FFM as 5 axes has more backing than MBTI as 4 axes, but the gap isn't huge. Both are fairly robust and fairly similar. The MBTI scientific error is the presumption of function theory, but Step II was created as direct result of that criticism and generally is fairly agnostic.

IPIP-NEO and other standard tests are a standard more because they are available openly than because they are strictly superior. They do have the advantage of better factor clustering, but there are lots of large cluster gaps (PF16 and the like, for example) missing either way. MBTI Step II (III) are decent for research, especially considering sub-factors. It has the advantage of a very large research base since the test is administered a lot.

 

[Chrononaut]

Jung rejected the scientific approach of Myers, so I'm not sure history would of gone the way you suggest. MBTI is the "scientific" version of the theories where as most of the current alternatives (more academic ones like FFM and IPIP) you referred to are relatively theory-agnostic, preferring factor analysis or similar bias-free foundations.

You seem to be aware of the development of MBTI(Step II etc), whereas many people only look at the original idea. That's great, though MBTI was originally developed with apparent misunderstandings and reductions of Jung's work. There have been studies for MBTI, so it isn't all theory, but it is limited to superficial behavior and personality. There is nothing psychological or scientific about MBTI, even with the present day developments. That is because it was never intended to be about cognitive psychology / science, but career matching.

The idea that there are 8 psychological functions in the psyche(E/I + T, F, S, N) have been stripped from their psycho-spiritual context to explain that some people are more talkative than others, and some people are more bookish than others. That's why I say MBTI needs to be scrapped and forgotten if there is to be scientific progress(I'm not claiming there would have been, I'm saying there should be). Unresolved Issues with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by Anna-Maria Garden.

Socionics is more on the psychological / cognitive side but it is way too speculative. However it is more science ready than MBTI.

[MENTION=16966]Chrononaut[/MENTION] - Welcome to the forums by the way.

Thanks.

 

[ptgatsby]

You seem to be aware of the development of MBTI(Step II etc), whereas many people only look at the original idea. That's great, though MBTI was originally developed with apparent misunderstandings and reductions of Jung's work. There have been studies for MBTI, so it isn't all theory, but it is limited to superficial behavior and personality. There is nothing psychological or scientific about MBTI, even with the present day developments. That is because it was never intended to be about cognitive psychology / science, but career matching.

I don't disagree strongly enough to get into the minutiae of this and for the most part I agree with you as far as the history goes. The mental gymnastics for step III (the functional side) is pretty funny to me.

However MBTI step II was put through factor analysis (sadly, they did constrain themselves to a particular set of clumps, seen in the sub-factors for each dimension). This gives a certain rigidity to the test and divorces it from the theory, and ultimately is the test that is used for the research. I guess it depends on your perspective on 'what is MBTI'. I consider MBTI to be the umbrella of tests they use, which is what I find "scientific".

 

[Salomé]

FFM does not have the MBTI theory equivalent; MBTI theory is not terribly scientific.

FFM as 5 axes has more backing than MBTI as 4 axes, but the gap isn't huge. Both are fairly robust and fairly similar. The MBTI scientific error is the presumption of function theory, but Step II was created as direct result of that criticism and generally is fairly agnostic.

The "MBTI scientific error" is to assert that items that are non-dichotomous, are in fact, dichotomies. Also to assert that there are 16 discrete types, when the empirical data do not support that assertion and in fact, indicate the opposite - that extreme differentiation is the exception and not the rule.
I'm not as familiar with the development of the instrument as you are, but I'm assuming that hasn't changed?

The idea that there are 8 psychological functions in the psyche(E/I + T, F, S, N) have been stripped from their psycho-spiritual context to explain that some people are more talkative than others, and some people are more bookish than others. That's why I say MBTI needs to be scrapped and forgotten if there is to be scientific progress(I'm not claiming there would have been, I'm saying there should be). Unresolved Issues with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by Anna-Maria Garden.

I don't know that it needs to be (or even could be) scrapped, just stripped of any scientific legitimacy. (And I believe that has already happened?)
A major difficulty is the attempt to wed sound, scientifically validated constructs (like extroversion, albeit in a distorted, dichotomous form) with entirely speculative ones. It's like wedding pagan festivals to Christian traditions. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but most people don't bother to question it because one lends the other an unearned authority.

 

[Eric B]

I would think MBTI (or temperament, or any other personality system) should be used in workplaces to gain a sense of why people tend to act the way they do, and from there, it can offer some guidance into the type of work or position people might be better suited to (along with conflict resolution of course).
But it should not be used to readily assign people based on the "likely" strengths of their type/temperament/function preference. If a Behind the Scenes type wants an "in charge" kind of position, or an In Charge type work "behind the scenes", or a an introvert approach and deal with many people, or a Feeler deal in impersonal logical stuff, or a "diplomatic" Idealist work on something "Tactical"; and they're good at it, then they should be encouraged to work in those positions. They could be expanding themselves beyond their preference, which is good (maturity), and perhaps the whole point of this stuff in theories like Jung's.

 

[Ginkgo]

 

[Salomé]

^what if the nutty exceptions proved the rule ?

 

[garbage]

Let me throw in some general knowledge about models. .. the absolute skinny of it all, anyway.

A model's verified when it's determined to be logically, internally coherent and sound. It's validated when it's been determined to jive with the external world for some given application. It's accredited for a particular purpose when it's deemed worthy for use in that domain of application.

The model's 'abused' when it's used outside of that domain. We abuse JCF when we link it to behavioral traits when we know there's only a loose correlation between JCF and behavior, for example. We abuse MBTI when we use it for career placement, because CPP outright tells us that it ought not be used for career placement.

There are many ways and degrees by which we can validate a model for different purposes, and expand the scope of a model's power--informally, we can simply test waters outside of its intended domain. If it fucks up in those waters, we need to reel it back. Here, we kinda forget to do that.

We also tend to conflate models. We conflate MBTI and JCF, and thus conflate their scopes and intended domains, yet we have no problem separating out Kiersey, Socionics, physiognomy, and other four-letter type models. I'm not quite sure why.

(Moreover, the verification of MBTI is called into question because of, you know, the low test-retest reliability. Different story.)

--

This is all from the logical standpoint. The ethical standpoint is simply that it's not the right thing to do, and I thank various deities every day that some of our sentiments on typology aren't widespread in the real world.

 

[RaptorWizard]

(Moreover, the verification of MBTI is called into question because of, you know, the low test-retest reliability. Different story.)

Indeed I agree as tests seem a better indicator of how we see ourselves rather than what we in actuality are so it follows that people will type on a test as a predetermined result of their own making which of course brings its credibility into question.

 

[Ism]

INTJs are racists.

 

[garbage]

INTJs are racists.

Yeah, I put way too much thought into my response. All we actually needed to do was link to the thousands and thousands of threads that we have along these lines.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Here's a thought though.

It hardly matters that MBTI is scientifically correct. What matters is that I recognize and understand the strengths and flaws of my personality far better now than I ever did before. And MBTI also gives us a tool that we can use to improve on ourselves in a healthy manner.

Obviously, since MBTI isn't pure science or anything like it, it does depend a lot on the user's intellect and mental state wether or not it is going to be used properly. As anything else that has shaky foundations and does not conform to pure, undeniable logic. It remains largely open for interpretation.


MBTI can be a great tool, but it largely depends on the hands it finds itself in.

 

[Fluffywolf]

For instance, lots of people have responded with disbelief to the idea that I am an ENTJ and work as a social worker, despite the fact that when you think about the public who have most contact with social services that the employment of better TJ or TJ strategies would really help that same public (its no substitute for the necessary formal support when an informal support network is non-existant or over taxed/exhausted but anyway).

I don't find it all that odd. ENTJ's have a deep sense of their own personal value, to be the best person they can be. Helping other people seems like a logical and easy way to be a better person. I suppose it depends on upbringing as well, wether or not you value materialistic things more or idealistic things more. Money and itamz, or, love and kizzez!

The money ENTJ just happens to be the generic stereotype of all ENTJ's.