So what empirical evidence support it? Big Five has been replicated by more than a dozen researchers using different samples. It's been replicated every decade, in different languages and different item formats. The most reliable personality test out there is based on it, the NEO-PI-R. Reliability is necessary for validity. MBTI has huge reliability issues. Big Five is used in a lot of studies, while MBTI is not. Big Five is well supported by the scientific community, while MBTI is frowned upon, with good reason.
Big Five is based on a completely different approach. It's based on the lexical approach and factor analysis. Basically they found all the adjectives describing personality in the dictionary, made a test where people evaluated the degree to which the item adjective described them, then found through factor analysis there where five clusters of adjectives, each making up a broad trait. Big Five does not claim to explain underlying personality processes, it's just a tool for describing personality. MBTI actually make that claim with its cognitive processes though, but fails utterly.
"Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart
Eric. How does the mid Fe correlate with the Supine temperament?
Mmm. I would have expected that it would have been a more feeler dominanted temperament and phlegmatic more Ti based.
The way it turns out in the correlation I have made, is that purely "responsive" temperaments like Supine are in their purest form Fi types (FP). However, with me, it's mixed with Choleric, which is where I get my T preference from, and a mixture of responsive and less responsive (directive or structure-focused) temperaments produces Ti/Fe. Sup-Mel, Mel-Sup, Chlor-Sup and San-Mel are the FJ (Fe) types. For TP, it is in a "less mature" third or fourth position, and in actual CP test results, for most, it comes out even weaker according to percentage (often at bottom). I believe it is the Supine that gives me higher Fe and Fi. Most INTP's have Phlegmatic in its place, which is less F-like. The purest Phlegmatic would be more like the purest Supine, as a kind of INFP. They are peacemakers, and not really driven by Thinking, though Keirsey thought the NT's "calmness" was Phlegmatic. The classic Phlegmatic's calmness is actually from low energy, not T preference. Being more "informative" or "diplomatic', they would really fall on the F side, except when mixed with Choleric in the INTP.
Such high Si compared to Ni. I wonder if there's a correlation between the two, depending on focus and development. Gotta admit. Ne with Si is quite a combo.
For my type, Si is supposed to be right where it is, actually. For most of the other INTP's, it does fall much lower, while Ni is higher. I'm not sure why. Some of them seem to have INFJ leanings, with some crossing from one to the other. Ni might really be higher for me (though still weakest, probably), as it is a matter of coming to understand and recognize it better. Probably so relatively waek for me, because my Fi and Se developed to be stronger than it, or at least, I'm more conscious of those two.
Originally Posted by Splittet
Of course they do, because the functions themselves are unclearly defined. The theory is bullshit. The brain does not work through these 8 functions. Not a chance in hell. It's based on no empirical evidence, and has no relevance to modern psychology, just like Psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is of historical interest though, that's the difference. The only thing one can treat MBTI as, is like a bad version of Big Five.
Lenore Thomsom ties the functions to brain hemisphere" MBTI Brain Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz
That seems like it would make some sense, though I don't know whats being done with this idea; whether they're testing it, not taking it seriously, etc. If this turned out to be proven, then you'd have some empirical evidence, and it would be a great shot in the arm for type theory.
Not so much the evidence that you are correct about but how it operates. Any categorization is valid. Its aim should be practicable and its descriptions concurrent and comprehensive enough to acknowledge. MBTI is fine with practicablity. Though it is frequently regarded as an ambiguous theory and that is where the nonsense begins.