AncientSpirits
New member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 60
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
Dario, what do you think about skeptics who claim MBTI is a fad that is unfounded in science? I saw an Adam Ruins Everything segment on MBTI and found it frustrating that he made the same basic claim, yet your work seems to be bringing MBTI closer to a place where it might be better backed up by empirical data. Is MBTI more than a pseudo scientific parlor game, and if so, how would you respond to the skeptics and critics?
I'm feeling snarky.
Jung's work "Psychological Type" is almost 100 years old, and Myers and Briggs started their work in the 1920s, though the MBTI didn't come out for another two decades. That puts it on par with post-Victorian women's wear, radio, commercial flight, the end of the British Empire, the welfare state, anti-fascism, television, gay rights, contraceptives, and many other "fads". LOL
Adam Ruins Everything is a manufactured media construct in service of Leviathan.
Jung himself said that "typing" people, in and of itself, was a kind of parlor game. The purpose of type is not to box or label people. It is to provide a lens, language, and lever (3L). Jung's work was psychotherapy and a broad range of cultural commentary. Today, there are folks who use type as "3L" for careers counseling, marriage counseling, leadership development, and many other areas that Jung likely didn't envision but Myers did. When used as the tool is was meant to be, it's a fine one that resonates with tens of millions of people because it empowers individuals in a way that academic models apparently cannot.
More "empirical" data is great. I use quotes because the word doesn't mean what some people think it means. Unfortunately, all the pro-type brain data or stats data in the world is useless if people cling to outdated paradigms.
To deal with skeptics and critics, Consulting Psychologists Press published a point-by-point clarifier/rebuttal. I'm unsure where it is and will find out for you. Please remind me in a few days (I'm guessing no one at CPP will respond over the weekend.)
Here are some pointers I use:
-- The criticism of the MBTI instrument and Myers-Briggs, published in the early 1990s, is based on a version of the MBTI tool that is no longer in use. The current version, around for over 20 years now, uses Item Response Theory, a widely accepted approach in psychometrics.
-- The MBTI helps a person identify preference, not behavior. Preference is like handedness; we use both hands, but one plays a dominant role. That's what preference means.
-- The MBTI is not designed to predict or assess performance, nor is it designed for hiring. It is, mainly, a coaching tool.
-- The MBTI provides a data point to preferred ways of gathering information and making decisions. These are mental processes. As we understand the brain, we see these same mental processes (point to my own work).
-- The Five Factor Model does not meet some basic criteria for being scientific (ex. it lacks explanatory power) and is actually criticized quite a bit in psychology too.
-- If I can, I show the graphic posted above of Trait vs Systems approach, though I usually use that when rolling out the Jungian functions, not the MBTI tool.
I also have some snarky responses. But I won't mention those, except to say, I recall a conversation with a Five Factor Model curmudgeon who didn't understand the difference between a person and a math model.
Ultimately, I go back to my "wrong paradigm" answer. The skeptic or critic is usually enamored with statistical analysis. Until that person can think in terms of systems, understand the difference between analyzing to label and giving feedback to coach, and so forth, it's rough going.