• 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.

MBTI - science or bullshit?

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Uh, I think you completely missed my point.

My point was that there ARE lots of worthwhile ideas that are not quantifiable or empirically verifiable. I think we probably agree.





Uhh dude, do me a favor and compare the Big 5 factors to the MBTI scales; they're all virtually the same concepts except MBTI lacks neuroticism.

The other four line up almost exactly with MBTI's E/I, N/S, T/F and P/J scales...they're so conceptually similar it's hilarious.

The only difference is that the Big 5 people came up with a better testing system. The ideas are all the same shit across all forms of psychological typology.

(P.S., the Big 5 also fails utterly if you're not able or willing to self-report honestly. It suffers precisely the same problem.)

Yeah the only difference with the big five is that part of their definition includes the fact that the scales are spectrums. MBTI's (as in the system designed by Myers and Briggs, not the version I use) big failure is the binary opposition aspect that any sane person would reject anyway...
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Big5
Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits

This is interesting, because I rarely score the same on Big 5 tests. The results for me are more varied than even the MBTI tests.

I know that the Big 5 is more accepted, but I have never understood the reasoning why.

Also, I forget the paper, but I thought traits have proven to be less stable than type as a personality construct.

Even though the Big 5 is more accepted academically, I really don't see how it is any more falsifiable.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^ Don't tell that to Big 5 advocates who are just ABSOLUTELY DAMNED SURE that their system is somehow "objectively superior" to MBTI (when in reality all "testing" of psychological type is fundamentally ridiculous.)

It's just like religious zealots who get really upset when you claim that their sect is the same shit as every other sect with only minor details changed.

"NO WAY MINE IS UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT...JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS!"

Sure it is, buddy.


Yeah the only difference with the big five is that part of their definition includes the fact that the scales are spectrums. MBTI's (as in the system designed by Myers and Briggs, not the version I use) big failure is the binary opposition aspect that any sane person would reject anyway...

I don't think Myers and Briggs claimed that Thinkers never use Feeling or anything like that. Are you sure about this?
 

laughingebony

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
236
MBTI Type
INTP
The other four line up almost exactly with MBTI's E/I, N/S, T/F and P/J scales...they're so conceptually similar it's hilarious.

The scales in the Big Five hardly have any "concept" at all. The extent of the underlying concept is as follows:

Factor analysis produced these five scales, so we'll use them.

ygolo said:
I know that the Big 5 is more accepted, but I have never understood the reasoning why.

I think part of it has to do with the fact that the scales were derived empirically, with just one underlying (and, IMO, very plausible) theory. "Let's go where the data takes us." Or something like that. And the data led to the five scales. The scales in the MBTI, on the other hand, were derived from some guy's theories based on his personal observations.

simulatedworld said:
when in reality all "testing" of psychological type is fundamentally ridiculous.

Cool.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Am I only the one who finds statements such as "It doesn't have a concept" utterly ridiculous?

HINT: The problem is in the self-report testing mechanism.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Is the MBTI science, or is it bullshit? (I'm already pretty sure that the enneagram is bullshit.)
Is history a science?

If it is, it is invalid.
If it is not, it is valid.
Choose your pick.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
The scales in the Big Five hardly have any "concept" at all. The extent of the underlying concept is as follows:

Factor analysis produced these five scales, so we'll use them.



I think part of it has to do with the fact that the scales were derived empirically, with just one underlying (and, IMO, very plausible) theory. "Let's go where the data takes us." Or something like that. And the data led to the five scales. The scales in the MBTI, on the other hand, were derived from some guy's theories based on his personal observations.

I am pretty sure the Big 5, at base, started with the lexical hypothesis. It has been a while since I looked into it, but I believe they took a bunch of descriptive words of people and ran factor analysis on it to see how the descriptions correlated with each other and came up with five somewhat independent factors.

Anybody who claims to have started with "no concept" is lying. It may simply be an indication that they don't understand their starting concepts (and possibly never examined them).

The inherent assumption in this is that descriptions do a good job of capturing personality. Essentially, the assumption is that "personality" is well defined as a set of "traits."

I find this theory just as unfalsifiable as the theory of archetypes. I also believe that "traits" (if they exist in a well-defined manner) are very mailable.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Then I guess it's a good thing the FFM scales were derived mostly from peer evaluations.

K so suddenly we've introduced a huge degree of subjectivity based on people's opinions and perceptions of each other?

Whoops. Not so scientific anymore.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Ok, thanks for the responses.

The MBTI types are not bullshit. If you measure your personality along four axes, you can use those four attributes to describe your personality in broad strokes. Clearly this works to some extent... for instance, the description of an INTP fits me (perfectly), while the description of an ESFJ does not (to say the least). In this respect MBTI is just like the more scientifically accepted Big 5, and the four MBTI axes even correspond nicely to four of the Big 5 axes.

The part that's bullshit is the cognitive functions. This whole subtheory seems to be an ugly mix of pop psychology, some arcane numerology, and a dogmatic reading of Jung (who wrote a lot of bullshit to begin with).

Conclusion: MBTI is at least partially bullshit, but it's interesting anyway. The Big 5 seems a lot more useful to me but it's got one big disadvantage: nobody wants to talk about how neurotic they are. The MBTI is less invasive. :)

Edit: That said... I think I really showed my type (INtP) by starting this thread. Google "MBTI bullshit" and you get a thread from an INFP site, a thread from an INTP site, and this one. :p

If the cognitive functions are purely BS. You'd have to ask yourself, why the heck does there seem to be some correlation between types and the dominant/auxillary function. Surely if it was purely BS, there'd be no statistical correlation at all. That it's all an illusion.

Cognitive functions capture something. I identify with Si alot more than I do with Ne, in that regard it can just be seen as "S vs N"
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If the cognitive functions are purely BS. You'd have to ask yourself, why the heck does there seem to be some correlation between types and the dominant/auxillary function. Surely if it was purely BS, there'd be no statistical correlation at all. That it's all an illusion.

Cognitive functions capture something. I identify with Si alot more than I do with Ne, in that regard it can just be seen as "S vs N"

Once again, you see correlations in people who are capable of honest self-report. The problem is that many people are not and it's impossible to tell the difference.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Once again, you see correlations in people who are capable of honest self-report. The problem is that many people are not and it's impossible to tell the difference.

Yep. Hence I feel that there is some practical factor behind these cognitive functions and understanding the ideas behind them. They might not capture the whole personality, but they sure do capture aspects of a person.

The OP seems to be suggesting to me. That these functions don't actually describe something, it's just a matter of confirmation bias. That if someone were to read it the different functions, assuming correct assessment, they would identify with all functions and there wouldn't be a distinctive pattern emerging. It'd just be random like that of newspaper astrology or fortune cookies.

Removing people's analysis out of the picture. I would believe that the functions are descriptions of particular thinking patterns, but that can manifest in so many variable manner that would render MBTIs cognitive functions useless as a predictive tool.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ok, thanks for the responses.

The MBTI types are not bullshit. If you measure your personality along four axes, you can use those four attributes to describe your personality in broad strokes. Clearly this works to some extent... for instance, the description of an INTP fits me (perfectly), while the description of an ESFJ does not (to say the least). In this respect MBTI is just like the more scientifically accepted Big 5, and the four MBTI axes even correspond nicely to four of the Big 5 axes.

The part that's bullshit is the cognitive functions. This whole subtheory seems to be an ugly mix of pop psychology, some arcane numerology, and a dogmatic reading of Jung (who wrote a lot of bullshit to begin with).
You'd probably like this, then: INTP Central - View Single Post - A New Hybrid Function System

I say it's a pretty interesting system, though I still find the processes (and complexes) useful.

Uhh dude, do me a favor and compare the Big 5 factors to the MBTI scales; they're all virtually the same concepts except MBTI lacks neuroticism.

The other four line up almost exactly with MBTI's E/I, N/S, T/F and P/J scales...they're so conceptually similar it's hilarious.

The only difference is that the Big 5 people came up with a better testing system.
Don't forget the the Myers' attempt to match the fifth factor: "Comfort-Discomfort" in the type Differentiation Indicator (a specialized version of MBTI usually used in institutions).
 
G

garbage

Guest
I'm torn between wanting to raze the MBTI system and use something like Jack Flack's model, or embracing something like Socionics that's more intricate and descriptive but potentially incorrect in certain places.
 

laughingebony

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
236
MBTI Type
INTP
I am pretty sure the Big 5, at base, started with the lexical hypothesis.

I'm sorry. Yes, that was the theory to which I was referring. I realize the way I worded my post indicated that the theory was something else, particularly, the sentence that was in quotation marks. They started with the lexical hypothesis, then went where the data took them. I claim that the lexical hypothesis is possible because it captures the essence of language itself. It is how language works. Beyond the lexical hypothesis, it is all empirical.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm torn between wanting to raze the MBTI system and use something like Jack Flack's model, or embracing something like Socionics that's more intricate and descriptive but potentially incorrect in certain places.

How about just read all the sources and make up the one that works best for you?

Btw, JF's system is total garbage. He thinks his Ni, Ne, Ti and Te are all equal; dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
 
G

garbage

Guest
How about just read all the sources and make up the one that works best for you?

That's pretty much what I've done in my own mind, yeah, and that tends to be my default approach to a variety of subjects. My mental models keep getting refined as I discover more about the subject at hand. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to have certain meaningful discussions about them when everyone uses different fundamental definitions for the same concepts or when discussion is boiled down to the lowest common denominator because of the lack of agreement.

See also: disagreement on the tertiary/auxiliary functions, interaction styles, shadow functions, and so on.

Btw, JF's system is total garbage. He thinks his Ni, Ne, Ti and Te are all equal; dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Well, one who's devised a system in his own mind where introversion and extroversion doesn't "play" in his definitions of S/N and T/F is probably going to think that his Ne/Ni and Te/Ti are equal, at least. And they might well be--by his own definitions. And therein lies an example of the problem outlined just above.

Although, I was more referencing it for its overall simplicity to contrast with Socionics's attempt at a more detailed explanation.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think he has a great point, though, and the "in practice" relative scores of the different functions would of course figure into it. It's true that we have probably made a bit much of "function attitude"; at least more than Jung made of it. So as I have been saying, it is probably more about introverts and extraverts who chose a[n attitudinally neutral] function, and then the other three functions are used externally or internally according to either being rejected from the dominant ego orientation, or by the various complexes. JF rejects even this, but I see it as simply different perspectives of the same thing.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I'm sorry. Yes, that was the theory to which I was referring. I realize the way I worded my post indicated that the theory was something else, particularly, the sentence that was in quotation marks. They started with the lexical hypothesis, then went where the data took them. I claim that the lexical hypothesis is possible because it captures the essence of language itself. It is how language works. Beyond the lexical hypothesis, it is all empirical.

The lexical hypothesis, despite its apparent simplicity is deeply connected with "traits" as a way of describing human behavior.

There are further assumptions that were built into the analysis.When they did the correlations, they are implicitly seeing how "common descriptions" correlate with each other. In other words, the analysis implicitly embeds common perceptions (whether or not the perceptions are misconceptions) people have about personalities into the descriptions.

So if it is common to associate "eccentricity" with "unreliability," that association will show up as a correlation even if the association is not valid in an "objective" description of personality.

To put it more bluntly, in my understanding, the Big 5 is a description of the descriptions of personality, not a description of personality directly.
 
Top