User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 31

  1. #11
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    big 5 is made to be accurate in statistics and is good at predicting some stuff, thats why its used in research the most(research is always based on some statistics) and thus has the most empirical evidence for it and thus its easiest to get funds for a study using big 5 than for MBTI.

    MBTI on the other hand is much used, and also much misused and thus has a bad reputation in the research field(there are also much more stuff for its bad reputation in high academic circles, but it still has a good reputation in some areas, like career counseling).

    Personally i think that MBTI/jungian typology looks things from deeper than big 5(and i like it better), but that kinda comes from the fact that big 5 is a trait theory and jungian typology tries to explain on what sort of mental processes the traits originate from. Also big 5 uses quite traits that correlate quite well with MBTI scales, so understanding both can benefit on understanding yourself and others. Naturally neither of the systems shows the whole of human nature, they just show it from a bit different angle.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #12
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    I don't think Grant is a blowhard at all - he did a thorough job of cutting through the bullshit.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-g...b_3947014.html

  3. #13

    Default

    It's interesting to see, that people here view Big 5 as the "mainstream" "avarage" version of MBTI. I took the official personality test twice, once at highschool, when there was a psychologist to help us find the right college/university/job for us after graduating and the test was Big 5 test. I took the test again at college, it was given to me and my classmates from our psychology professor who promissed us the full personality report, again it was the Big 5 test not MBTI. I don't see the reason why Big 5 should be the mainstream version of MBTI, Big 5 has bigger circle of characteristics it can monitor, than MBTI. Actually MBTI is viewed as obsolete by many professionals.

  4. #14
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I don't think Grant is a blowhard at all - he did a thorough job of cutting through the bullshit.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-g...b_3947014.html
    I disagree. I'd say Adam Grant's blog post is the kind of poorly-informed, straw-manny MBTI "debunking" that turns up with disappointing regularity, and often in sources that ought to have higher standards.

    For some background on the scientific status of the MBTI, see this post.

    I considered doing a paragraph-by-paragraph smackdown of Grant's shoddy post back when it first came up in a PerC thread, but then I found out there's an "official response" from the MBTI folks. There's actually significantly more foolishness in Grant's post than their response covers, but it'll do, and anyone who's interested can find it here.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Hi reckful.
    I found your long articles very insightful.
    I wonder what you think of this rebuttal of Adam Grant? You expert feedback would be much appreciated.

  6. #16
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franz View Post
    Hi reckful.
    I found your long articles very insightful.
    I wonder what you think of this rebuttal of Adam Grant? You expert feedback would be much appreciated.
    I'd say that rebuttal does a reasonably good job pointing up many of the weaknesses in Grant's blog post.

    They're too kind to him when they give him "credit" for pointing to what they describe as the "cardinal flaw" in the MBTI — namely, that, as they put it, "most personality traits appear to be distributed like a bell curve rather than bi-modally." As I never tire of pointing out, Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

    And it's important not to lose sight of the difference between theoretical assertions and factual assertions. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies were truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the continuum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best.

  7. #17

    Default

    The only advantages the Big Five has over the MBTI, in my opinion, are: 1) it has the neuroticism dimension, which can have a pretty big influence on personality for someone who is very strongly limbic, and this should be taken into account when figuring out the T/F preference, and 2) it seems to be better at acknowledging that, on each dimension, some people's preferences (or whatever the Big Five term is) are going to be stronger than others. Even if, as @reckful says, MBTI sources allow for the possibility of middleness/differing preference strengths, the type profiles are describing people who have four reasonably strong preferences, so anyone who has one or more preferences that are close to the middle isn't going to be described quite as well. Having said that, I don't know of any decent Big Five type descriptions, so it's only an advantage in that most sources seem to introduce the Big Five dimensions as scales where different people are going to be at different positions, and the MBTI preferences as black and white dichotomies.

    I'm only interested in the Big Five because it lines up with the MBTI, and because of the Neuroticism dimension. I find the Big Five quite one-sided, not only because it tends to describe one end of each scale more positively than the other, but because it doesn't seem to really describe the more supposedly negative end of the scale in as much detail. There's a lot more to what, E.G. a P preference involves than "P's are not conscientious" or "P's are not J's".

    And, "openness to experience" is an awful name for an N preference, although "intuition" isn't much better. I would think ESPs would be more "open to experience" than INJs; that term would lead me to expect that it was describing the kind of people who seek out lots of new sensory experiences in the external world.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    I'd say that rebuttal does a reasonably good job pointing up many of the weaknesses in Grant's blog post.

    They're too kind to him when they give him "credit" for pointing to what they describe as the "cardinal flaw" in the MBTI — namely, that, as they put it, "most personality traits appear to be distributed like a bell curve rather than bi-modally." As I never tire of pointing out, Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

    And it's important not to lose sight of the difference between theoretical assertions and factual assertions. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies were truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the continuum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best.
    Thanks for that. Good stuff

    EDIT: Now Reckful, why can't I PM you?

  9. #19
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franz View Post
    Now Reckful, why can't I PM you?
    Sorry. It's nothing personal. It's my general policy, as explained in this old INTJforum post.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Can you quote it here? Because I "do not have permission to view" on the INTJ board

Similar Threads

  1. Indirect MBTI/Big Five test
    By /DG/ in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 02:05 AM
  2. mbti vs big 5
    By jcloudz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-13-2013, 11:54 PM
  3. Big five and MBTI
    By Rex in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 01:57 PM
  4. Can MBTI thinkers really be agreeable types on the Big Five?
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 10:58 AM
  5. MBTI Compared to the Big Five
    By FFF in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO