What MBTI can't do

[garbage]

I don't know... I think upbringing actually is a fairly big factor in what your type is.

Pff. It's not like our neural pathways are insanely flexible and changeable over time, and that they tend to be shaped by one's upbringing or anything


Too bad the theory doesn't readily account for that (but at least the categorization scheme does innately). The reason why MBTI--at least where Jungian typology is involved--can't do certain things is because its limitations aren't recognized. It seems that identifying its limitations would, interestingly enough, give it a good deal more power.

 

[You]

There's no way round the simple fact that it claims to be a personality test and it's not.

So then the interesting question arises - what is it?

So we look at who created it and for what purpose. And we look at how it was created. And we look at who uses it today and for what purpose. And we look at its history.

How isn't it a personality test?

 

[Mole]

Fooling Ourselves

How isn't it a personality test?

To discover whether it is a reliable and valid personality test, psychometricians apply many random double blind experiments.

But in seventy years not one random double blind experiment has been applied.

So psychometricians themselves think it has the same truth value as astrology.

So the interesting question is, how do we fool ourselves into thinking it is a personality test?

 

[Wrath Mania]

To discover whether it is a reliable and valid personality test, psychometricians apply many random double blind experiments.

But in seventy years not one random double blind experiment has been applied.

So psychometricians themselves think it has the same truth value as astrology.

So the interesting question is, how do we fool ourselves into thinking it is a personality test?

It's really not that interesting of a question, considering that MBTI has been put through the ringer of tests for reliability, validity, and accuracy over the years, and it has done fairly well. Sure, some psychologists would write it off as astrology, but I think a lot of people who work in I/O psychology would disagree with what you're saying. If it's been put through a double-blind or not, I don't know. I do know it's been through a blind experiment, where only some participants received accurate results, and it passed correspondingly. I know that because I ran the experiment.

The truth is though, it's not a great test. It's the system that is great, not the measurements that we use to fit people into it. In truth, the best way of discovering one's type is to read the profiles. And that's the beauty of personology; it's about the person's cognitive style and how they relate to society, rather then just a list of traits. I understand your point that it was created with societal development in mind, but I starkly disagree with the idea that it's meant to serve 'military complexes' and all that jazz. If anything, it's the other way around.

 

[rowingineden]

MBTI can't seduce Scarlett Johansson and then run away from an explosion... I'm guessing.

 

[You]

To discover whether it is a reliable and valid personality test, psychometricians apply many random double blind experiments.

But in seventy years not one random double blind experiment has been applied.

So psychometricians themselves think it has the same truth value as astrology.

So the interesting question is, how do we fool ourselves into thinking it is a personality test?

I've read through the criticism of MBTI, and there have been plenty of validations that it is a personality test.

 

[nolla]

I don't see what is so interesting about criticizing MBTI...

You have two boxes, you say "people who tend to write with left hand, go to box number one", "people who tend to write with right hand, go to box two". Then you divide these boxes into A and B, for people who kick the ball with left or right, and then, surprisingly you find that in the box 1A there are people who are left handed and left footed.

 

[redacted]

Pff. It's not like our neural pathways are insanely flexible and changeable over time, and that they tend to be shaped by one's upbringing or anything


Too bad the theory doesn't readily account for that (but at least the categorization scheme does innately). The reason why MBTI--at least where Jungian typology is involved--can't do certain things is because its limitations aren't recognized. It seems that identifying its limitations would, interestingly enough, give it a good deal more power.

I don't really get what the theory itself really matters as long as you understand the categorization scheme, though. It's not the responsibility of the theory to speak to its own limits; it's the responsibility of the user of the theory.

I don't see what is so interesting about criticizing MBTI...

You have two boxes, you say "people who tend to write with left hand, go to box number one", "people who tend to write with right hand, go to box two". Then you divide these boxes into A and B, for people who kick the ball with left or right, and then, surprisingly you find that in the box 1A there are people who are left handed and left footed.

Right on.

 

[garbage]

I don't really get what the theory itself really matters as long as you understand the categorization scheme, though. It's not the responsibility of the theory to speak to its own limits; it's the responsibility of the user of the theory.

I agree; I'd say that those who use the theory (and categorizations, for that matter) should recognize its limitations. There are many out there who understand the underlying theory but try to apply it far beyond where it should be applied.

I'd also say that part of clarifying misunderstandings in Jungian typology is in determining where it can be applied. Even if it's a user's responsibility to recognize its limits, its potential limits should be discussed and studied--that in and of itself will help construct a more solid framework.

 

[redacted]

I agree; I'd say that those who use the theory (and categorizations, for that matter) should recognize its limitations. There are many out there who understand the underlying theory but try to apply it far beyond where it should be applied.

I'd also say that part of clarifying misunderstandings in Jungian typology is in determining where it can be applied. Even if it's a user's responsibility to recognize its limits, its potential limits should be discussed and studied--that in and of itself will help construct a more solid framework.

Agreed.

There isn't much hope for a lot of the people on this forum, though. Seems like there is actually psychological incentive to over-apply the system, as it can "explain away" problem spots in a person's behavior. Since it's easier to describe those things as mere personality differences instead of approaching them as problems, I doubt it will ever be used correctly by a majority.

I throw up my hands at this problem. I've spent years calling people out for mis-using the system, and I seem to have lost my faith.

I like discussing it still, but I really think the limits are a function of people, not the system itself.

 

[Poki]

MBTI has been very effective for seventy years. Four million Americans do the MBTI test every year not counting the rest of us.

MBTI was invented by Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers to fight WW II. And it has been so successful it has been adopted by the military/industrial complex for the last seventy years.

So MBTI can't be understood without understanding its context. And its context is a country that has been perpetually at war for seventy years.

And the flywheel of their whole economy is military spending.

So MBTI is part of shaping your personality rather than analysing, evaluating and integrating your personality.

From its very beginning MBTI has been part of the American war machine and remains part of the war machine today.

Thats only if you believe in a single path. A concept can be used only one way, for one thing. If this is the case, then I suggest you do not learn MBTI or you may become nothing more then a war machine.

What if its meant as protection mechanism, not to be part of a war machine, but to be part of a defensive system. A system designed to protect the weak, the vulnerable, a system that wants to avoid war, but must engage in concepts that may have stemmed from war and may create war. To not utilize concepts outside of what it was initially used for would be like having to recreate the wheel because you dont like the car the wheel was connected to. To judge the whole based on a part.

 

[Laurie]

MBTI can't push.

 

[Such Irony]

MBTI can't make you immortal.

 

[garbage]

MBTI can't make you immortal.

Sure it can.

Absolutely everything about everyone is captured in sixteen archetype descriptions. So long as those live on, so do we.