Well, it repeats many of the criticisms we know already and the author goes a bit overboard at times but at the end of the day, MBTI is still not scientifically validated and still bears more than a little resemblance to astrology...
http://www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/WP/2006/2006-05.pdf
Egad, I'm probably one of the worst when it comes to attack MBTI on this board, but I skimmed it and was... decidedly not impressed.
He makes no allocation for what they have done correctly, even from his own stance. Independent functions not validated - like say, through factor analysis done to create Step II? The one that mirrors FFM and such to a fairly high degree (ignoring the 5th dimension). And yes, the J/P divide has issues, ones they are now addressing under Step III. Or how about the validation studies they have done? Reliability studies? No backing is a completely unfair statement to level and shows ignorance of the instrument, its history and its current research branch.
Then he uses typelogic as a basis for the problems with type? Namely the description of ENFPs that has
The following comes partially from the archetype, but mostly from my own dealings with ENFPs. as a disclaimer at the top of the description? I mean, I don't know exactly who the author of the description is, other than a professor at some school, but most of those seem taken from Keirsey to start with (archetype!?).
Hardly MBTI at all. In fact, I'm not sure he once referred to MBTI except through the scientific investigations - like those ones that do correlation studies, test comparisons and such between MBTI and FFM?
And yes, we know that Jung was a bit whacky and didn't have hist stuff validated. Yes, the functions and all that hangover sucks. But Jung is so far removed from the current MBTI body that you might as well blame humors for the failure of MBTI. Actually, in a way, I guess they are.
Obviously written as persuasive and not investigative, this offers nothing new to the debate and merely references every problem, ranging from the scientific problems (functional, hierarchies) to the general (personalities don't capture human nature, don't put people in boxes).
As someone who acts on the ethics boards, he should of stuck to... well... the ethical side. Even one case study would of been nice, since I didn't see one, pointing out what can happen... rather than just supposition.
IMO, this is an opinion piece... and a badly validated one at that. There would be more strength if it was written;
1) Listed actual issues that come from typecasting (reference to IQ for bonus points)... since this is contrary to all ethnical rules MBTI and most personality assessments, since they are to be used for research, not sorting.
2) MBTI as being commercial, therefore violating the ethnical rules not to sort people (ie: despite the code of ethics stating this shouldn't be done, it often is indirectly used this way)
3) Made a single reference to MBTI research
3) Not made a single reference to "typelogic.com"... or any internet site... and picked up an MBTI manual for $100.
4) Hell with that, made a single reference to actual MBTI theory, process or... well... anything.
I admit, I skimmed it... I read fast, but not that fast. Maybe I missed this. If I did, 70% of the report should be eliminated regardless.
Gah. That irritates me.