[MBTI General] In Defense of MBTI

[highlander]

I thought this article was pretty good

In Defense of the Myers-Briggs | Psychology Today

 

[Pionart]

I didn't read much of the article, but:

- MBTI is very similar to Big 5 in terms of dichotomies
however
- actually has 2 different traits opposed to each other as opposed to high vs low in a single trait
e.g.
- in Big 5, being low in openness means... being low in openness,
but in MBTI, a low score in intuition would indicate a high score in sensation

- also, MBTI (or is it a later addition?) has cognitive functions, which adds an extra layer of analysis

There's plenty to criticise the MBTI for,
But I think it has more going for it than Big 5.

Also, Big 5 has neuroticism, which MBTI doesn't have as a dimension,
But a one-dimensional approach to neuroticism sounds oversimplified to me.

 

[cascadeco]

I thought this article was pretty good

In Defense of the Myers-Briggs | Psychology Today

I don't actually have a huge problem these days with mbti itself -- if we're talking the dichotomies and how the test was originally devised, formulated, studies have been made upon, etc. The dichotomies in and of themselves, as defined, are fairly straightforward. Now people may disagree whether they're 'true' to Jung or whatnot, but to me it's pretty black and white when it comes to the dichotomies, and thus it's 'useful' in that sense -- since the dichotomies tend to be more behavioral-based anyway (or at least the J/P tends to be). Thus, 'useful' in the sense it was originally used for - comparing and contrasting more readily observable differences between people when it came to workplace environments and so on. We all know 'super J' people, contrasted with 'really P' people, 'very very S people', 'very F' people, and so on.

 

[Merced]

MBTI? Bullshit. Jungian Typology? Legit.

 

[highlander]

MBTI? Bullshit. Jungian Typology? Legit.

I actually dont agree. What I have found is from a testing perspective, dichotomies work very well. It is true though that cognitive functions provide some much deeper insight in some respects. Both have value.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I didn't read much of the article, but:

- MBTI is very similar to Big 5 in terms of dichotomies
however
- actually has 2 different traits opposed to each other as opposed to high vs low in a single trait
e.g.
- in Big 5, being low in openness means... being low in openness,
but in MBTI, a low score in intuition would indicate a high score in sensation

I've been saying that about how much it overlaps (though not perfectly) with the Big Five for years to skeptics (who are invariably not actually psychological researchers; I haven't had the opportunity to ask a research psychologist this). During that time, nobody has been able to explain to me why the Big Five is a valuable tool for psychological research, to the extent that it's used in legitimate scientific journals, but the MBTI is utter rubbish with no basis in reality, even though there are correlations between the two. I understand that the MBTI is IP and therefore would not be used in research for that reason, but if it overlaps so much with Big Five, that should mean it's not total crap like people claim it is.

I believe the weakest correlation with the Big Five is the T/F dichotomy. I like the way Keirsey explained it in terms of T types being reticent to engage in emotional expression vs. to the way some people used to understand it in terms of not having emotions (which usually actually just means that the people in question have extremely poor emotional awareness).

 

[Pionart]

I've been saying that about how much it overlaps (though not perfectly) with the Big Five for years to skeptics (who are invariably not actually psychological researchers; I haven't had the opportunity to ask a research psychologist this). During that time, nobody has been able to explain to me why the Big Five is a valuable tool for psychological research, to the extent that it's used in legitimate scientific journals, but the MBTI is utter rubbish with no basis in reality, even though there are correlations between the two.

I guess it's because the correlations are stronger. With MBTI you'll still get statistically significant correlations with other relevant measures, but perhaps when you correlate them with Big 5 dimensions instead the effect size is larger.

However, that would be because the original MBTI instrument hadn't gone through sufficient refinement to enable the test items to accurately reflect the dimension which it's testing for. I'm sure that with a well formulated equivalent inventory (i.e. one that uses the same basic dichotomies but uses better questions) you would get much better correlations, and again by including, for example, introversion and extroversion as 2 distinct and anti-correlating measures, as opposed to merely low extroversion and high extroversions, the correlations formed would be much better and more explanatory than Big 5. I mean, assuming of course that introversion and sensing, thinking, perceiving are actual independently existing cognitive patterns distinct from a merely low level of their opposing cognitive pattern... and I'm sure most people here agree that they are.

edit: one reason people tend to think of the MBTI is rubbish is due to the concept of type, i.e. that you're one type or another type, as opposed to it being a sliding scale where you can test differently at one time or another, and have any combination of strong or weak/no preferences. Having to be either, say, an INFJ or INFP and not an INFx, is a stumbling block for people to accept the system (though, going by what reckful has said, MBTI actually does accept being in the middle of one or more dichotomies, so that argument would be invalid for invalidating MBTI).

I believe the weakest correlation with the Big Five is the T/F dichotomy. I like the way Keirsey explained it in terms of T types being reticent to engage in emotional expression vs. to the way some people used to understand it in terms of not having emotions (which usually actually just means that the people in question have extremely poor emotional awareness).

Yeah, by the correspondance between the two, that would be equating someone with a natural preference for logical reasoning with an egocentric person. The correspondence sounds off.

Feeling is largely about social reasoning, and includes the use of emotions for socially related expression, and doesn't include everything related to emotion. A Thinker would find the social use of emotion to be energetically taxing, and thus be less predisposed to it than someone who is energised by such thing. Of course, there are other factors such as male Feelers being reluctant to socially express emotion due to gender expectations.

 

[Vendrah]

I believe the weakest correlation with the Big Five is the T/F dichotomy. I like the way Keirsey explained it in terms of T types being reticent to engage in emotional expression vs. to the way some people used to understand it in terms of not having emotions (which usually actually just means that the people in question have extremely poor emotional awareness).

Its a good "belief", because its what research tells.
There is a subjective measurement about what correlations are low or high and some people misuse that by interpretating correlations that are too low as they were very high/equivalent. The connection between Agreeablaness and F is too weak to them to be considered equivalent, same for conscientiousness and J, but this latter in conceptual terms are still a lot connected, I dont know why the correlation gets too low.

Also, Openess to experience is more connected to the cognitive function Ne than with intuition. NP is pseudo Ne, but if you pay attention there is a weak and almost irrelevant correlation between Openess to Experience and Perceveing, NPs tends to get more Openess to Experience than NJs, and I believe that it is due to Openess to Experience being more connected to Ne than with Ni.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

MBTI test has the well known problem of not testing the MBTI type well.

 

[GavinElster]

I think the MBTI test, scored with the allowance of being more or lesser of each of the 4, along with the possibility of being more in the middle, is probably the most realistic.

The main problematic claims associated with it include

- the MBTI test can accurately predict some kind of cognitive functions type

- that there's some kind of established cognitive functions model that's obviously right. People who are familiar with the large number of views on cognitive functions should know the status -- already between CG Jung and the most commonly used cognitive functions models associated with MBTI, there's a huge difference. Things like 'does the attitude of the auxiliary differ from that of the dom' come to mind. CG Jung was happy to type people with the same two function-attitudes, e.g. Nietzsche had NiTi as his top two.

These matters are better treated as ones of severe philosophical debate, with advantages and disadvantages to different models...the problem is the MBTI is probably what has the most name recognition, and people are unaware of the rather tenuous connection between the psychometrically validated test and the functions theory.... so there's a tendency to sort of parrot that "of course you *obviously* can't have Ni and Ti as your top two, you are a confused INFJ with repressed Fe" and things like that.