• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Taking MBTT too seriously

red13

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
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.
 

red13

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

red13

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying that it can't be scientific...
Sorry, I thought that’s exactly what you were saying

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.
 
Top