User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 27 of 27

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I'm not qualified to say whether the MBTI is accurate or not, but it's pretty clear that it is nonscientific, at least as I have experienced it.
    I decided to go to my best "scientific" book on the MBTI

    Amazon.com: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide (C & H): Books: Rowan Bayne

    I suspect that academia has ignored MBTI because it is a proprietary and commercial product that does not fit comfortably into an academic world. However Five Factor Theory has been accepted and used by the psychology world.

    Bayne states that there has been a significant amount of research on Five Factor Theory that can be directly related to MBTI, in that four of the five factors have been shown to directly correlate with the four dichotomies of the MBTI.

    To quote Bayne “The evidence for the validity of five factor theory is as follows: McRae and Costa have correlated their measures with other self-report scales and psychological tests – this is routine. More importantly, they have correlated the measures with peer, spouse and clinician ratings, tested for stability of the results over several years and found that the measures predict real life outcomes like occupational change and happiness.”

    “The correlations support the validity of both self-reports and observer ratings. Expert ratings and behavioural observations e.g. Founder and Sneed(1993), provide further support.”

    “Indeed, I would say that the relationship between the two theories is ideal for type theory: strong enough to provide good evidence for the MBTI’s construct validity, but leaving room for different interpretations”

    I you think this is unscientific then we must just have very different views of what science is.

  2. #22
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red13 View Post
    I you think this is unscientific then we must just have very different views of what science is.
    Randomnity is correct, in part. The actual test is fairly scientific (better than the vast majority of ones being used in "RL" as compared to academia). The theory is not.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Randomnity is correct, in part. The actual test is fairly scientific (better than the vast majority of ones being used in "RL" as compared to academia). The theory is not.
    Yes, I can agree with this, It's the test/4 digit personality code that I find useful and interesting. I find much of the deeper analysis and the type descriptions a lot more woolly.

  4. #24
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    MBTI ought not to be taken seriously as that is merely elaborate hocus-pocus. Though Jung's work, with due emendation indeed amounts to a highly plausible philosophy of mind. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between the two, as the former is a simulacrum of the latter at best.

    Jung wrote about our unconscious tendencies, and gave some examples for how they manifest in personality. Others down the line assumed that this unconscious tendency must manifest only in this or that particular way. Therefore they were led to mistake the external manifestation thereof, for the essence itself.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #25
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red13 View Post
    I decided to go to my best "scientific" book on the MBTI

    Amazon.com: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide (C & H): Books: Rowan Bayne

    I suspect that academia has ignored MBTI because it is a proprietary and commercial product that does not fit comfortably into an academic world. However Five Factor Theory has been accepted and used by the psychology world.

    Bayne states that there has been a significant amount of research on Five Factor Theory that can be directly related to MBTI, in that four of the five factors have been shown to directly correlate with the four dichotomies of the MBTI.

    To quote Bayne “The evidence for the validity of five factor theory is as follows: McRae and Costa have correlated their measures with other self-report scales and psychological tests – this is routine. More importantly, they have correlated the measures with peer, spouse and clinician ratings, tested for stability of the results over several years and found that the measures predict real life outcomes like occupational change and happiness.”

    “The correlations support the validity of both self-reports and observer ratings. Expert ratings and behavioural observations e.g. Founder and Sneed(1993), provide further support.”

    “Indeed, I would say that the relationship between the two theories is ideal for type theory: strong enough to provide good evidence for the MBTI’s construct validity, but leaving room for different interpretations”

    I you think this is unscientific then we must just have very different views of what science is.
    You are saying things now that have nothing to do with your original point.

    The above quotes indicate that the author believes that FFM correlates reasonably well with "other psychological tests" and that FFM (not MBTI) has some predictive value. Also, if that's the most scientific book out there, that's pretty telling.

    I can't say that I'm inclined to trust your view of what "science" is, considering the fact that you were mistaken about what constitutes a scientific theory.

    I'm not saying that it can't be scientific...if a standardized test is used in a proper way, it could potentially be tested for predictive value. I'm just saying that what I see now is a fuzzy, irrefutable system with large areas for human error and misunderstandings, which makes me consider it unscientific.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Randomnity is correct, in part. The actual test is fairly scientific (better than the vast majority of ones being used in "RL" as compared to academia). The theory is not.
    I think you are correct in part, that some of the “theories” are not testable and are not true theories. MBTI contains multiple theories some falsifiable others not. To my mind the most important theory is that a personality can be represented to a reasonable degree by a few characteristics, in MBTI case four.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    You are saying things now that have nothing to do with your original point.
    I’m not sure what you think my original point was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    The above quotes indicate that the author believes that FFM correlates reasonably well with "other psychological tests" and that FFM (not MBTI) has some predictive value. Also, if that's the most scientific book out there, that's pretty telling.
    As I stated very little work has been done in peer reviewed journals regarding MBTI. However there has been work to show that personality can be represented by just a few traits, MBTI – 4, Five Factor Model 5, Belbin – 7 and 16PF – 16. All of these are providing a measurement or categorisation of personality. It has been shown that MBTI correlates with 4 of the 5 factors in FFM so they are just different implementations of the same theory. Now, FFM has had a lot of research undertaken demonstrating its validity, which indirectly validates MBTI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I can't say that I'm inclined to trust your view of what "science" is, considering the fact that you were mistaken about what constitutes a scientific theory.
    I can only think you misunderstood my post. I am in total agreement with you on the definition of what a theory is. I used the intelligent design court case as an example of how someone can say that Evolution is just a theory not fact. The evolution lobby managed to demonstrate to the court that science is all about theories, and that any old idea that cannot be tested and falsified is not a theory. I’ve been totally absorbed in science and engineering now for getting on forty years and feel that I have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes a scientific theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I'm not saying that it can't be scientific...
    Sorry, I thought that’s exactly what you were saying

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    if a standardized test is used in a proper way, it could potentially be tested for predictive value. I'm just saying that what I see now is a fuzzy, irrefutable system with large areas for human error and misunderstandings, which makes me consider it unscientific.
    I think most people are too hung up on the test, it is not that accurate, just a good starting place to work out your type.

  7. #27
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    oops

Similar Threads

  1. Do you take pop science seriously?
    By peter pettishrooms in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-26-2017, 09:07 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-15-2015, 10:10 PM
  3. Should I take this site seriously??
    By GHC in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 08:44 PM
  4. [MBTItm] NFs, are you too serious?
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 12:11 AM
  5. Taking Yourself Less Seriously
    By Mempy in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 06:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO