The Scam of the MBTI Trance

[Mole]

I'm sure Jack Block would love to be bothered by internet people.

I think you would be surprised how approachable professors are - particularly if you are prepared to talk to him on the telephone or Skype video rather than email.

They are, after all, human beings and there is every chance he would be flattered by your call.

But look, you both live in the same country and we are now all connected in the noosphere, so why not talk with him.

He doesn't know you, but you know him - so only you can make the first move.

 

[garbage]

MBTI doesn't have to be valid in order to be useful in some capacity.

 

[Mole]

MBTI doesn't have to be valid in order to be useful in some capacity.

But it purports to be a personality test.

And if it is not a personality test, it is a scam.

 

[thisGuy]

But it purports to be a personality test.

And if it is not a personality test, it is a scam.

if its not a personality test, what is it? other than a scam, i mean

 

[Mole]

if its not a personality test, what is it? other than a scam, i mean

Well, it is a highly successful scam.

And it became successful in WW II and it has become more successful over the last 70 years over the whole of the literate world.

So it plainly meets the needs of vast numbers of diverse people.

But what are these needs?

And I think these are the same need as are met by astrology.

So it's like MBTI is astrology for the College educated.

It's like an up-market astrology.

 

[simulatedworld]

Hey, I find MBTI interesting, but what can you really "rely" on the tests for? They tell you something that really can't be disproven. It's only useful as a vocabulary for vague self-exploration IMO (and I enjoy vague self-exploration as much as the next person but I'd never rely on it for anything really important like hiring someone or choosing a mate).

Agreed. It's really just a perspective from which to consider personal interactions, and it just places a name on the inductive reasoning we all already use to predict each other's behavior anyway.

But I'm sure Victor is having a great time pushing our buttons again.

When will we learn?

 

[wolfy]

What is MBTI scamming for? Cash?

 

[thisGuy]

Well, it is a highly successful scam.

And it became successful in WW II and it has become more successful over the last 70 years over the whole of the literate world.

So it plainly meets the needs of vast numbers of diverse people.

But what are these needs?

And I think these are the same need as are met by astrology.

So it's like MBTI is astrology for the College educated.

It's like an up-market astrology.

you fail.

 

[Mole]

Cui Bono?

What is MBTI scamming for? Cash?

Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers started the scam during WW II while our attention was elsewhere.

So I guess the first question is, how did it benefit them? And I guess the money trail is as good a place to start as any.

And I understand that MBTI was first used to induct women into the industrial war machine.

And it was the industrial war machine that got us out of the Depression by pumping billions upon billions of dollars into the economy. And I find it hard to believe that some of this didn't find its way into the pockets of Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers - after all, they were making a great contribution to the war effort - surely they should be handsomely compensated.

And scamsters need willing victims, so I guess the second question is, what do the victims get?

And the answer was that the women got liberated from their unpaid domestic duties and were given industrial jobs with rates of pay comparable to men.

So MBTI was irresistible during WW II and has retained its popularity ever since and has come to challenge astrology among educated women.

Cui bono?

 

[VagrantFarce]

It of course only becomes a scam if you pay for the test, and there's no real need for that IMO; there's such a wealth of free knowledge on the internet about the system (and a huge amount of free tests as a low-entry point) that anyone can become an authority on it if they have enough interest. I do draw the line at paying for a test, though. Seems like a waste of money to me.

 

[ptgatsby]

Hey, I find MBTI interesting, but what can you really "rely" on the tests for? They tell you something that really can't be disproven. It's only useful as a vocabulary for vague self-exploration IMO (and I enjoy vague self-exploration as much as the next person but I'd never rely on it for anything really important like hiring someone or choosing a mate).

MBTI is a four-axis measurement along validated traits. The theory... weaker. But the test does exactly that.

And MBTI has been proven to be invalid an unreliable.

I have corrected you on this at least a half dozen times. No, it has not been shown to be invalid, as the construct allows for proper correlations (not to functions, but to the general usage of the test). No, it is not unreliable, it's reliability have been tested multiple times with much the same results - it is considered fairly reliable.

I know you aren't going to stop spreading this bullshit, but I'd appreciate if you kept it to easily-seen-as-rhetoric rather than spreading actual misinformation.

Which tests have been proven valid and reliable, and what are they valid/reliable for?

All of the modern schedules, which are not the same as the ones on the net. As for research, google scholar will return a lot (MBTI reliability, etc.). I suggest a metastudy, if you are able to get it (ironically, for the 6th time, my library access has been revoked, so I can't read it ATM. IIRC, this'll answer what you are interested in)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study -- Capraro and Capraro 62 (4): 590 -- Educational and Psychological Measurement

 

[RinconSB]

While there are those that take the whole MBTI thing way too seriously (akin to religious fundamentalists), it is my experience that most people don't. In my opinion, MBTI is really just a useful descriptive system: when writing or talking about people and their personalities and how they interact, it gets tiresome to keep referring to "those that prefer concrete, tactile physical experience, etc, etc", and instead replace all those words with "sensor". MBTI is relatively popular/useful because its descriptions match or approximate many peoples' personal perceptions about personality.

 

[FC3S]

Some people are downright fanatical about MBTI.

Never forget how to think outside the box.

 

[Ivy]

While there are those that take the whole MBTI thing way too seriously (akin to religious fundamentalists), it is my experience that most people don't. In my opinion, MBTI is really just a useful descriptive system: when writing or talking about people and their personalities and how they interact, it gets tiresome to keep referring to "those that prefer concrete, tactile physical experience, etc, etc", and instead replace all those words with "sensor". MBTI is relatively popular/useful because its descriptions match or approximate many peoples' personal perceptions about personality.

Totally agree! At this point (and this is probably unorthodox I know, these are my own opinions and not those of Typology Central as a whole, blah blah blah) I really see it as descriptive, not proscriptive. Like I said earlier it's a useful shorthand for a few personality concepts. I just see personality as so mushy that the usefulness of anything measuring it is also going to be mushy. I don't mind fuzziness though, so I do find it useful. Just not predictive, and it becomes pseudoscience when it's said to be predictive.

pt, I'm going to read that link now (ish).

 

[simulatedworld]

Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers started the scam during WW II while our attention was elsewhere.

So I guess the first question is, how did it benefit them? And I guess the money trail is as good a place to start as any.

And I understand that MBTI was first used to induct women into the industrial war machine.

And it was the industrial war machine that got us out of the Depression by pumping billions upon billions of dollars into the economy. And I find it hard to believe that some of this didn't find its way into the pockets of Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers - after all, they were making a great contribution to the war effort - surely they should be handsomely compensated.

And scamsters need willing victims, so I guess the second question is, what do the victims get?

And the answer was that the women got liberated from their unpaid domestic duties and were given industrial jobs with rates of pay comparable to men.

So MBTI was irresistible during WW II and has retained its popularity ever since and has come to challenge astrology among educated women.

Cui bono?

How do you explain the continuing use of MBTI in University psychology and business management courses?

I attended Georgia State University and was taught MBTI from a four independent sliding scales perspective, not involving Jungian functions.

My professor, Dr. David A. Washburn, holds a doctorate in psychology, just like your friend in your signature quote, and yet he still takes MBTI seriously enough to repeatedly write its use into his curriculum each semester.

That's awfully interesting, isn't it? Lovely as appeals to authority are, there are a lot more conflicting opinions among psychology professionals than your misleading signature would have us believe. Dr. Block is not the end-all be-all of professional opinion.

 

[Jaguar]

And the simple fact is - some personality tests are valid and reliable and some are not.

It just happens MBTI is not.

it is.

In 1984 two jungian analysts--Singer and Loomis-- began developing an alternative to MBTI, called the S-L TDI.
The main reasons were:

1) The profiles were not consistent with the characteristics of many individuals.
2) Criticisms of MBTI

In a nutshell, Singer and Loomis determined the cause:
The oppositional pairs and the forced-choice test format.

MBTI claims but never actually proves an ENTJ's order of 8 functions are:

Te
Ni
Se
Fi
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

MBTI doesn't allow for even the possibility of any other order.
If one is seeking the truth, we don't do so by playing a rigged game.

To validate (or invalidate) is easy:
Test each function independently.
If you claim the function order of a particular type is 12345678,
then create a system to check it.

Singer and Loomis did.

They used a completely different test format: no forced-choice questions.
Instead, they used a Likert scaled format: 20 situations, with 8 possible responses.
Each response correlates with the two orientations ( extraverted or introverted), and 4 functions.
The individual would rank how often they would respond a certain way,
in each of the proposed scenarios. 1= never, leading up to 5=always.

By doing so, they actually proved Jung's own assumption of bi-polarity,
did not hold up for all, but did hold up for some.

Here's what they found:

1)46% of the tested subjects showed a change in their dominant function,
compared to that claimed by MBTI.

2)36% of the tested subjects showed a change in their least developed function,
compared to that claimed by MBTI.



Data Source:
Singer-Loomis TDI : The Next Generation of Psychological Type Instrument
S. Dugan and K.Wilson
Haskayne School of Business
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
July 3, 2002.

 

[Little Linguist]

MBTI is useful for personal purposes, but I don't think it should be used for hiring or mate selecting. That's just silly.

^ What he said.

 

[Splittet]

MBTI is like a Big Five test without the neuroticism dimension. That's really the only interesting thing about it. The theory behind it is utter, laughable crap, just like the theories of Freud.

How do you explain the continuing use of MBTI in University psychology and business management courses?

I attended Georgia State University and was taught MBTI from a four independent sliding scales perspective, not involving Jungian functions.

My professor, Dr. David A. Washburn, holds a doctorate in psychology, just like your friend in your signature quote, and yet he still takes MBTI seriously enough to repeatedly write its use into his curriculum each semester.


That's awfully interesting, isn't it? Lovely as appeals to authority are, there are a lot more conflicting opinions among psychology professionals than your misleading signature would have us believe. Dr. Block is not the end-all be-all of professional opinion.

The Five Factor Model has by far the most support. There really is no competition, and the NEO-PI-R is the best and most reliable personality test out there. When I studied personality psychology, MBTI was never mentioned, and there was no research findings referenced in the book that used MBTI, while there were tons of studies which had used the Five Factor Model. Let me quote Personality psychology by Larsen and Buss:

The conclusion is that the evidence for the validity and utility of the MBTI is weak at best.

About the Five Factor Model:

In the past two decades, the taxonomy of personality traits that has received the most attention and support from personality researchers has been the five-factor model

You cannot really use MBTI in research and expect to be taken serisouly, the golden standard is the Five Factor Model...

 

[simulatedworld]

If MBTI is a slightly simplified version of the Big 5, it probably still has uses...assuming this is true, it would just be a little bit less useful than the Big 5.

My psychology course didn't cover the Big 5, but it did cover MBTI, and it didn't say a single word about Jungian functions. It seems, perhaps, that academia has adopted an alternative version of MBTI that is not faithful to the original.

So...why don't we stop talking about the original, as exact functional order is clearly ridiculous? Let's move on to something useful and discuss MBTI as four independent variables.

 

[Jaguar]

How do you explain the continuing use of MBTI in University psychology and business management courses?

Usage of X, no matter how long, is irrelevant to the validity or reliability of X.

I attended Georgia State University and was taught MBTI from a four independent sliding scales perspective, not involving Jungian functions.

Where anyone went to college is irrelevant to this discussion. Period.

My professor, Dr. David A. Washburn, holds a doctorate in psychology,

I don't care if he holds a doctorate in Cunnilingus.
It has no bearing on the validity of MBTI.

[...] yet he still takes MBTI seriously enough to repeatedly write its use into his curriculum each semester.

Irrelevant.

That's awfully interesting, isn't it? Lovely as appeals to authority are, there are a lot more conflicting opinions among psychology professionals than your misleading signature would have us believe. Dr. Block is not the end-all be-all of professional opinion.

There's nothing "interesting" in your entire post.
You have no direct evidence; no corroborative evidence.
Ergo, you don't have shit.