MBTI vs. Big Five

[reckful]

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

Oops. It didn't occur to me that that post is in a blog thread.

I forgot I had the PMs turned off for mods/admins at the start, but if so I rectified that early on.

I have mixed feelings on the subject of PMs. The main issue is that I came to INTJf to participate in the public discussions and not to round up long-distance pen pals. Rightly or wrongly, and in somewhat typical INTJ fashion, I'm already in a position where I tend to neglect the friends/acquaintances I have, and I'm not really looking to expand my guilt list.

In some of the official (or semi-official) posts explaining the comment-on-post system, one of the stated advantages is that there's no "pressure to respond." Exactly.

Plus I really enjoy the opportunity a public forum provides to "listen in" on everyone else's discussions. I get the feeling that, because of the PM system, some detailed discussions that would potentially be of interest to others get hidden away -- and not always because they include anything confidential.

I haven't necessarily ruled out ever changing my PM policy, but for now that's where I am.

 

[Jaguar]

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

You'd think you would have figured out ahead of time that many of us have been over the "scientific status" 100 times in this forum. Now, 101.

 

[valaki]

Big five is just a dumbed down mainstream friendly version of MBTI. It has better packaging. People feel insulted being put in boxes with MBTI. In big five you get to be called vague non threatening things like "open to experience" and "agreeable".

Lol you'd better read up on how things really are about Big Five, it's got nothing to do with MBTI in that sense as it was developed separately. And all these unfounded assumptions about people's feelings and motivations make no sense in especially this context.

I agree with [MENTION=16476]badger055[/MENTION]. Accommodating/Egocentric seems like a much worse naming for a category than Feeling/Thinking. Calm/Limbic, come on.

The Big 5 isn't really all that different from MBTI, it's just got a longer name for types and tells whether or not you are emotionally stable or neurotic. Plus it has overtones slightly against Egocentric types, and the test is sometimes labeled the SLOAN test, (the equivalent of the ESFJ) and is a little biased toward people closest to SLOAN. That means types closest to RCUEI (or INTP) get blown out of proportion somewhat negatively.

I can say the same to you about reading up on Big Five history.

And Accommodating/Egocentric isn't the same thing and isn't meant to be the same thing as Feeling/Thinking.

Where did you get the info on the "SLOAN" bias? I'm curious.

 

[Franz]

You'd think you would have figured out ahead of time that many of us have been over the "scientific status" 100 times in this forum. Now, 101.

Jeebus, try actually contributing instead of just exuding negativity on the sidelines.

 

[Jaguar]

Jeebus, try actually contributing instead of just exuding negativity on the sidelines.

What exactly was your 'positive' contribution - calling Grant a blowhard?
Whether you like it or not, I think his article was excellent and I will say it again - he did a thorough job of cutting through the bullshit.

In the future, if you have something to say to me, quote my post with my username. Thanks.

 

[garbage]

I do wish the CPP rebuttal was point-by-point, because it's hard to trace back to Grant's arguments. Some of the factual corrections to Grant's article make sense if true. Sure, the instrument is arguably useful, and many organizations use it. His assessment of T/F was off. And so on.

The kicker, to me, is this:

The Myers-Briggs assessment merely says that we’re predisposed to behave in certain ways, not that our behavior is limited to one direction or the other. According to the theory, we use both preferences of any dimension, but we’re innately predisposed toward one. A right-handed person prefers their right hand. The fact that they’re capable of using their left as well, and may even have become very proficient at it, doesn’t render their designation as “right-handed” less accurate. Likewise, the fact that someone prefers Introversion doesn’t preclude them performing in an Extraversion capacity — it simply means that it will require more of their energy.

Furthermore, the Myers-Briggs assessment actually does have a means for determining the degree to which a person identifies with a certain preference. It is called the “Preference Clarity Index (PCI),” which measures how clear an individual is about a particular preference — slight, moderate, clear, and very clear.

Grant also plays on a familiar criticism of the MBTI assessment’s forced-choice format, which identifies an individual as either preferring Introversion or Extraversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling and Judging or Perceiving.

The MBTI presupposes that these preferences exist but simply aren't clear for some--whereas trait-based typologies (such as Big 5) short-circuit that whole mess and simply assert that there's a degree of preference. The PCI seems tacked-on--a hand-wavey way to reconcile the MBTI's underlying type-based theory with the fact that test scores.. well, simply don't line up with a type-based theory (e.g. results showing bimodal distributions as they "should").

Not to mention, the primary result that the MBTI reports is one's type--it doesn't emphasize that "clarity" as much as it should.

That's exactly why folks levy the criticism--valid or not--that the MBTI is too absolute in its assessments. That in turn leads to questions about its test-retest reliability (I'm an ESFJ! Now I'm an ISTP! The test is broked!) and so on.

If the criticism is familiar, then it should be addressed more rigorously.

 

[valaki]

The MBTI presupposes that these preferences exist but simply aren't clear for some--whereas trait-based typologies (such as Big 5) short-circuit that whole mess and simply assert that there's a degree of preference. The PCI seems tacked-on--a hand-wavey way to reconcile the MBTI's underlying type-based theory with the fact that test scores.. well, simply don't line up with a type-based theory (e.g. results showing bimodal distributions as they "should").

Not to mention, the primary result that the MBTI reports is one's type--it doesn't emphasize that "clarity" as much as it should.

That's exactly why folks levy the criticism--valid or not--that the MBTI is too absolute in its assessments. That in turn leads to questions about its test-retest reliability (I'm an ESFJ! Now I'm an ISTP! The test is broked!) and so on.

If the criticism is familiar, then it should be addressed more rigorously.

You put that very well. It would be great if the type report included and highlighted that fact, how clear the type is. I feel a lot better about MBTI by simply stating something like "I'm 60% ESTP". Instead of "I'm ESTP". Something like that.

 

[Franz]

Oops. It didn't occur to me that that post is in a blog thread.

Well reckful, if you would like to hear some pitch about writing up some of your research on the scientific status of the MBTI, please drop me a PM containing your email. Then you can turn PMs off again

 

[rogue350]

Big Five doesn't really have a purpose. You don't get information on how to grow or better oneself.

 

[INTP]

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-grant/goodbye-to-mbti-the-fad-t_b_3947014.html

AHAHAHA its always amusing to see an INTJ talking about stuff that they dont know about, but thinks that they got it all figured out. Whats even more amusing is that some people fail to see that talking about something with great confidence doesent mean that the person actually knows what he is talking about.

:-----DDDDD

 

[Jaguar]

AHAHAHA its always amusing to see an INTJ talking about stuff that they dont know about, but thinks that they got it all figured out.

Looks like we've come full circle:

lol @ you for questioning the basics of mbti

lol @ you for not.