This is the abstract from the McCrae & Costa paper. It has a lot of typos and many other strange gaps. Not sure why. You'll notice that McCrae and Costa have refuted the J/P dichotomy and that they only found correlation with some aspects of the Big Five. The word 'aspects' is key, since it clearly identifies that MBTI only correlates to
parts of 4/5 big five factors. So that's like saying that since two vehicles have engine blocks, they're equivalent, even though one vehicle's missing its battery, crankshaft, radiator, ignition system, cylinders and the other has a fully functioning engine.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality/links/59e164a1a6fdcc7154d3718b/Reinterpreting-the-Myers-Briggs-Type-Indicator-From-the-Perspective-of-the-Five-Factor-Model-of-Personality.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca]Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality[/url]
Was this study ever peer reviewed? It appears that you've linked to a PDF, not a study that's housed with any accredited scientific journal.
What you claim are facts are often questionable spin to the degree of wondering whether you're paid by the MBTI spin machine.
You've completely misunderstood that McCrae & Costa abstract.
The
low construct validity that McCrae & Costa discussed in that article was the failure of the official MBTI instrument to reflect
Jung's original type constructs. And as McCrae & Costa explained, that was
bad news for Jungians but it was
good news for the MBTI. As they put it:
Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.
On top of acknowledging that Myers had ended up effectively tapping into four of the Big Five factors about 20 years before there really was a Big Five, McCrae and Costa also concluded that the MBTI and the Big Five might each have things to teach the other, approvingly pointed to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.
And their approval applied to
all four of the MBTI dimensions. Your assertion that they "refuted the J/P dichotomy" is just another facet of your misreading of their article.
Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in
this TC Wiki article.
As for the Harvey meta-review and supplemental study, here's Harvey's CV:
RJ Harvey (Ph.D. Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Ohio State, 1982) has taught at Virginia Tech since 1987. As author of the Common-Metric Questionnaire (CMQ), the preeminent standardized job analysis survey, he has been active in research on job/occupational analysis and assessment topics related to employee selection and competency modeling. In recent years, he has been a vocal critic of the Department of Labor's plans to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with the O*NET on philosophical, legal-defensibility, and psychometric grounds. His current research programs focus on developing a defensible, job-related occupational analysis system suitable for replacing the failed O*NET, using job-component validation (JCV) to link the domains of job work-dimensions and worker personal-traits, and developing faking-resistant assessments of non-cognitive (personality) traits.
If you want to think Harvey fudged the data in his 11,000-subject study, I guess that's your right, bechimo. But the more significant aspect of his article for anyone wondering about the MBTI's psychometric status is really his meta-review of the large body of existing studies. And they include a number of studies in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are also reviews of previous studies in peer-reviewed journals, and you're free to explore his citations if you're interested.
And if you're hungry for moar, here are the two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations, both of which also point you to peer-reviewed assessments:
Step I:
MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II:
MBTI Step II Manual Supplement
ADDED: A-a-and it's maybe worth noting that neither of those official MBTI publications makes reference to any "cognitive function."