• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
You know I write things and people read what is in their heads....

I'm not a sicentist I'm a market researcher... nor am I a psycologist although I buy them in....

I have at no point claimed MBTI is science, it's just a segmentation - a bit posher than some but still its a classification system....which can be evaluated.. but it's expensive to do

It can be evaluated as much as those self-report tests will allow, and again, that's really not saying much. The fact that you can evaluate it does not mean that you can prove its accuracy. It's almost circular to say that those questionnaires prove anything.
 

Mitzy

brat
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
687
MBTI Type
ENTP
men are always hating!
regardless of what type i am, im allowed to have own interests even though theyre not the same as my male "club members"
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
men are always hating!
regardless of what type i am, im allowed to have own interests even though theyre not the same as my male "club members"

Yes, because gender determines what subjects you dislike and things you enjoy studying. Alright. :newwink:
 

Mitzy

brat
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
687
MBTI Type
ENTP
you guys like action movies, why dont you join the estp's

and yes it does determine what things you like to some extent.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
ALL self completion questionnaire are liable to biase

All research is flawed... even medical research...

When you are dealing with quant, it's about limiting error and trying to reduce it down as far as possible.

MBTI isn't being used to save babies... so it only needs to be good enough for people to use it with some common sense to help them understand peoples behaviour... it's sutiably stable enough for doing that.

I wouldn't offer up conclusions on peoples lives off the back of it.... but I would say largely useful

I never said that MBTI can't be a useful tool in understanding behavior. I'm trying to say here that its accuracy cannot be proved because it's so non-falsifiable and there's no empirical way to measure its accuracy.

You can do as many questionnaires as you want, measure them for consistency by repeating these questionnaires, and then use the results as predictive/descriptive tools, but you can never prove that the results of such questionnaires are "right."
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It doesn't...



... and she's being pretty grounded and rational in her explanations, at least about this.

She's only explained how to test consistency in results, but has said nothing to show how the test actually relates to real life behavioral tendencies.

As for the test itself, it's two-choice forced selection, which introduces numerous problems on its own. Not to mention the rampant N-bias.

For instance one question said (paraphrased):

"When I'm reading, I like to:

A) Take the author's words at face value, or
B) Read between the lines and try to figure out the real meaning"

The implication is that the S answer (A) doesn't actually find the real meaning and is therefore somehow inferior to the N answer.

This happens all over the test and leads tons of people mistype themselves as Ns. You don't have to look far on the forum to find Ss who think they're Ns because numerous test questions are worded in a way that's biased toward the N answer.

Now, we could use this testing research to adjust the questions until 50% of people test S and 50% test N, but that doesn't work because we don't know how these statistics correlate to the neurochemistry involved in cognition and so we have no idea if 50% of people should test as Ns in the first place.

Nobody has explained the problem of relating these test questions to real cognitive processes.


men are always hating!
regardless of what type i am, im allowed to have own interests even though theyre not the same as my male "club members"

Well, I guess you're outta the club too then. :hi:
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
Seconded.




It can be evaluated for consistency, not accuracy in its descriptions.[/QUOTE]

thats not science....

You want to actuarely prove that all ENTP's tested are bonefide ENTPS... my test wont do that nor does it have to be... it measures the overall segmentations reliability...and gives you a score of accurace over time... that is evidencing it's fitness for purpose....

As I said before ALL segmentation have errors, the fact it's self completion is irespective.... the test I suggested will actually identify if there are specific scales/questions that cause the grey areas (this is how you would IMPROVE the MBTI tool).

Providing that 80%/90% of all people would classify themslves as a specific type - is evidence of fitness for purpose (and would be very good....) .
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Nobody has explained the problem of relating these test questions to real cognitive processes.

Even though I've requested that several times...

It's because at this point in the field of psychology, it has not been done, and until it is, MBTI will remain an abstract, non-falsifiable system of classifications.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance. :)

"Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Seconded.




It can be evaluated for consistency, not accuracy in its descriptions.[/QUOTE]

thats not science....

You want to actuarely prove that all ENTP's tested are bonefide ENTPS... my test wont do that nor does it have to be... it measures the overall segmentations reliability...and gives you a score of accurace over time... that is evidencing it's fitness for purpose....

As I said before ALL segmentation have errors, the fact it's self completion is irespective.... the test I suggested will actually identify if there are specific scales/questions that cause the grey areas (this is how you would IMPROVE the MBTI tool).

Providing that 80%/90% of all people would classify themslves as a specific type - is evidence of fitness for purpose (and would be very good....) .

Once again, it doesn't matter how many people would classify themselves as a specific type if those people don't have any background in Jung's cognitive functional theories (upon which all of the MBTI questions are based and for which there is no empirical evidence.)

If your intention is simply to prove that x% of people describe themselves in a certain way, then great. Knock yourself out--that's just not very useful at all when it comes to accurately typing people.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance. :)

"Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"

Actually the main people arguing against the testing of psychological type here are Ti types.

The dogmatic Te stance here would be, "All of this is completely useless without an empirical test."

But that's not even what we're saying. We think typology has very significant uses, just not in a way that can be quantified or measured.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance. :)

"Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"

Science relies on extroverted thinking. Logical theories are cool and all, but they don't mean anything until you've proven them empirically.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
Don't get confused between measuring effectivness of MBTI questionnaire with absolute psycological accuracy...

Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Don't get confused between measuring effectivness of MBTI questionnaire with absolute psycological accuracy...

Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....

When you say "effectiveness", what uses would your proposed research actually have? It would be effective in doing...what? Showing how many people describe themselves in a certain way?

It's my contention that yes, you could do this, but it wouldn't help with anything significant, nor would it bear any real resemblance to Jung's ideas. So what's the point?
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
The dogmatic Te stance here would be, "All of this is completely useless without an empirical test."

Well yes, isn't that what the thread is about? "Can this be proven empirically?"

Science relies on extroverted thinking. Logical theories are cool and all, but they don't mean anything until you've proven them empirically.

Yes, the limits of Extraverted Thinking are that it needs to be proven empirically before it can be considered to exist. That's what I'm saying. And this thread is a wonderful exploration of that idea. :)
 

Lux

Kraken down on piracy
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,458
Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....

Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance. :)

"Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"

The Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason because we are subject to self deception and illusion.

The Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason because we are fallible.

And the Enlightenment has been enormously successful and has given us modern science and technology, modern economics, modern liberal democracy and modern medicine. In fact the Enlightenment has given us most of the modern world.

And the inconvenient truth is that MBTI is based on self deception and illusion rather than evidence and reason.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
Man, it's so easy for people to take an innocent observation too seriously. :doh: I'm sorry that I offended your precious sensibilities.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
When you say "effectiveness", what uses would your proposed research actually have? It would be effective in doing...what? Showing how many people describe themselves in a certain way?

It's my contention that yes, you could do this, but it wouldn't help with anything significant, nor would it bear any real resemblance to Jung's ideas. So what's the point?


If 450 people describe themselves consistantly wave on wave as INTP (in the survey I pre defined) then the MBTI questionnaire is seen as being reliable X% of the time (we would have expected there to be 500 INTPs). Ie the sample has consitently calssed themselves as being INTP. By doing this with AL mbti - you estblaish the questionnaire reliability at identify a group this is then called INTP....

Now your second issue is INTP definition... MBTI discribes INTPS as thinking first, doing second, less sociable, more theoretical etc... this can be establsihed and measured and to an extent challenged by running quant research with INTPs.

You may develope a lifestyle questionnaire you get all MBTI people to fill in in addition to their MBTI questionnaire... this can establish how well Myers Briggs described each group... beacuse the group should pick up on the same INTP qualities MB used when describing this group.

I know you desperately want to get into functional analysis but it's simply not nessesary.... I'm an innovative person who happens to score ENTP, not the other way round...
 
Top