Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless

[Mole]

Well, if you take "the Enlightenment" to stand first and foremost for the advancement of human knowledge by means of respectable scientific methods, then as further discussed in this TC Wiki page (which Seymour just linked to), the respectable districts of the MBTI are basically in the same category as the Big Five, and are part of the Enlightenment (as so defined), rather than "anti-Enlightenment."

Your repetitive, know-nothingish posts, on the other hand, which deal in cartoonish slogans and consistently refuse to meaningfully address the substance of my (and others') replies to them, can make a much better claim to belonging in the anti-Enlightenment camp.

I'd say the reason you've made so few converts here in your multi-year crusade, and have instead exasperated —and OK, sometimes amused — so many of us, has more to do with the faultiness of the "enlightenment" you purport to be peddling than with any failure of understanding on the part of the forumites who you've repeatedly characterized as childishly gullible cultists with damaged psyches.

The Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason, freedom and equality, now under attack.

 

[Cygnus]

Still feel compelled to post these.

FTR I still don't think subjective typing systems can be proven "wrong" any more than they can be proven "right."


Fact is, some of us find it much easier to navigate this world by categorizing things, in this case personalities. But it seems many people -- particularly those with a more humanistic bent -- have trouble understanding this perspective. Maybe they can't understand how it might be hard for some of us to naturally communicate and understand people in the same way.



But I completely disregard tests. MBTI test questions almost always make circumstantial assumptions about the reasons for your behaviors and reactions that don't always apply, at least not to someone like me.

 

[EcK]

Still feel compelled to post these.

FTR I still don't think subjective typing systems can be proven "wrong" any more than they can be proven "right."


Fact is, some of us find it much easier to navigate this world by categorizing things, in this case personalities. But it seems many people -- particularly those with a more humanistic bent -- have trouble understanding this perspective. Maybe they can't understand how it might be hard for some of us to naturally communicate and understand people in the same way.

Well ok, perhaps we shouldn't use the right/wrong nomenclature.
However we can certainly assess how relevant a typing system is.

We can ask people how much they agree with their description (but yes, that's subjective). We can balance that with a blind study, using balanced type descriptions (giving the strengths and weaknesses) and make people agree with specific points and traits in these descriptions.

We can also give people WRONG results and see what happens (how much they agree with it). We'd have to decide what 'false types' we'd give people however. We can do that randomly or via some sort of system if we're trying to make a point about type similarity or whether or not functions are relevant etc.

There are other studies which can be conducted. For example types are correlated with specific behaviors, average earning, iq, risk taking.. etc.

 

[Mole]

The Enlightenment and the Romantic Movement

The Western Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason, freedom and equality.

And as a result the Enlightenment gave us the discipline of Psychometrics based on evidence and reason.

Mbti is not based on evidence and reason and so is anti-Enlightenment.

This raises the question of why mbti is so popular. Mbti is so popular because it is part of the Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment.

And the Romantic reaction finds its origins in the romanticisation of the spoken culture that preceded the literate culture of the Enlightenment.

The Romantic reaction is intuitive and appeals to us emotionally, while the Enlightenment is counter-intuitive and appeals to us intellectually. The Romantic reaction is easy and child-like, while the Enlightenment requires work and is grown-up.

As I write the Western Enlightenment is under physical and ideological attack by radical Islam, which is unfortunately supported by the Romantic Movement.

 

[reckful]

The Western Enlightenment ... gave us the discipline of Psychometrics based on evidence and reason.

Mbti is not based on evidence and reason and so is anti-Enlightenment.

As explained in those previously-linked posts (and cited sources) that you've either refused to read or failed to comprehend, Isabel Myers arrived at the MBTI dichotomies by putting Jung's original ideas to the test in accordance with modern psychometric analysis and adjusting them appropriately — and both the validity and reliability of the current version of the MBTI are more or less on a par with the Big Five.

Alas, you yourself are a disheartening — not to mention tiresome — example of the dogmatic close-mindedness that you purport to be crusading against.

 

[Mole]

As explained in those previously-linked posts (and cited sources) that you've either refused to read or failed to comprehend, Isabel Myers arrived at the MBTI dichotomies by putting Jung's original ideas to the test in accordance with modern psychometric analysis and adjusting them appropriately — and both the validity and reliability of the current version of the MBTI are more or less on a par with the Big Five.

Alas, you yourself are a disheartening — not to mention tiresome — example of the dogmatic close-mindedness that you purport to be crusading against.

Just as no reputable university teaches astrology in their Astronomy Department, so no reputable university teaches mbti in their Psychology Department.

I do understand my critique of mbti is a criticism of your sincerely held belief in mbti, and experienced by you as a criticism of you personally. However I point out that under freedom of speech the criticism of an idea like mbti is legitimate, while criticism of a person is illegitimate. So I am careful to critique the idea of mbti while avoiding criticising you personally.

Unfortunately you fail to extend the same courtesy to me, and rather criticise me personally. This amounts to a personal insult which is against the rules and may lead to banning.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Fact is, some of us find it much easier to navigate this world by categorizing things, in this case personalities. But it seems many people -- particularly those with a more humanistic bent -- have trouble understanding this perspective. Maybe they can't understand how it might be hard for some of us to naturally communicate and understand people in the same way.

This

But I completely disregard tests. MBTI test questions almost always make circumstantial assumptions about the reasons for your behaviors and reactions that don't always apply, at least not to someone like me.

and this.

 

[jcloudz]

Yes people snow flakes. Lets call this the snow flake argument.

 

[Luke O]

MBTI fails to tell us everything about a person, and this is what this video is basically saying. But that doesn't discount MBTI altogether. Clearly not enough Ti went into making that video.

 

[sorenx7]

The video was smug, unconvincing and almost risible.

 

[EcK]

Huh? It's the other way around. No theory or system should be accepted without extensive scrutiny first. Most theories or systems should be, for the most part, ignored until they've proven themselves.

just dont say that to a religious person. you ll upset them.

 

[Mole]

Nike and Meaning

The Myers-Briggs test is not totally meaningless. It contains rich emotional meaning. It appeals to our emotions. We long to belong, we long to know where we fit in, and Myers-Briggs tells us where.

Half of our population has an IQ of less than 100, so half of us don't show the emotional restraint characterised with those of high intelligence.

And without emotional restraint our emotions are not guided by reason. Rather we are guided by how we feel. "Does it feel good?", we ask. We don't ask, "Is it true?"

Nike says, "If it feels good, just do it".

And unfortunately for half of us with an IQ under 100, finding out what is true means tolerating what doesn't feel good.

 

[reckful]

Half of our population has an IQ of less than 100, so half of us don't show the emotional restraint characterised with those of high intelligence.

And without emotional restraint our emotions are not guided by reason. Rather we are guided by how we feel. "Does it feel good?", we ask. We don't ask, "Is it true?"

Nike says, "If it feels good, just do it".

And unfortunately for half of us with an IQ under 100, finding out what is true means tolerating what doesn't feel good.

I think you meant to say "over" rather than "under." Is your IQ due for a tune-up?

Maybe you could have them take care of that the next time they're refilling your condescension tank.

 

[Mole]

Pandering and Condescension

I think you meant to say "over" rather than "under." Is your IQ due for a tune-up?

Maybe you could have them take care of that the next time they're refilling your condescension tank.

Exactly half of us have an IQ over 100 and exactly half of us have an IQ under 100.

And I can quite understand you would prefer not to be condescended to, but consider the alternative.

Instead of being condescended to, you are pandered to.

And it is those who lack self respect who prefer to be pandered to.

And those who are pandered to are usually being groomed.

 

[Edgar]

People go to psychologists to understand themselves...we seriously expect these people to be able to accurately take a test that asks them about themselves? This is my biggest issue with the tests.

This is MBTI biggest weakness in its current state and the reason why it cannot be considered as hard science at this point - because it relies on personal interpretations and not physical evidence. Doesn't mean the physical evidence isn't there though.
Having become a believer in visual identification in the last couple of years, I am certain that this evidence exists, but hasn't been collected and sufficiently interpreted yet.

That's horse crap. you can't base anything on that. It's that pernicious belief that we can all win the world cup, and how dare someone compare us to someone else or say we're not all just as precious etc. people are different, we all know it, we all admit it ... until it hurts someone's feelings.

This another aspect that is holding back MBTI from being accepted into the mainstream - it is directly in conflict with the current social ideology that anyone can be anything they want, and the insinuation that a person is born with a certain set of personality traits triggers knee jerk reactions about eugenics and Nazis and holy shit how dare you even suggest something like this.

 

[Mole]

Originally Posted by Poki -

People go to psychologists to understand themselves...we seriously expect these people to be able to accurately take a test that asks them about themselves? This is my biggest issue with the tests.

Yes, anyone who understands psychometrics would never apply a psychological test to themselves, then interpret the results themselves.

Applying a personality test to oneself and interpreting the results oneself is more a comedy sketch than psychometrics.

 

[reckful]

Yes, anyone who understands psychometrics would never apply a psychological test to themselves, then interpret the results themselves.

Applying a personality test to oneself and interpreting the results oneself is more a comedy sketch than psychometrics.

Once the reliability and validity of a personality test like the NEO-PI-R or the MBTI has been established by modern psychometric standards, there's nothing inherently inconsistent with psychometrics about somebody taking such a test, familiarizing themselves with the typology, and "interpreting the results themselves."

I'd say your post is more like a comedy sketch than the idea of somebody taking a respectably reliable/valid personality test without expert assistance, assuming they understand that such tests are imperfect — as are expert assistants.

 

[Mole]

Once the reliability and validity of a personality test like the NEO-PI-R or the MBTI has been established by modern psychometric standards, there's nothing inherently inconsistent with psychometrics about somebody taking such a test, familiarizing themselves with the typology, and "interpreting the results themselves."

I'd say your post is more like a comedy sketch than the idea of somebody taking a respectably reliable/valid personality test without expert assistance, assuming they understand that such tests are imperfect — as are expert assistants.

From doing the mbti test and interpreting oneself about oneself is no step at all from astrology. The same techniques are used.

These techniques pander to the immature ego. They pander to vanity.

And they pander to those who are vulnerable such as emotionally and financially dependent school children and emotionally and financially dependent women. They pander to those with partially formed egos or weak egos. And they pander in order to groom.

But worse, mbti divides the human world of 7.1 billion into 16 types. Not one of these types is a person. So mbti is dehumanising in the lowest and cheapest way.