The accuracy of the MBTI system

[IZthe411]

This is the kind of self-referential definition that I take issue with. Anything I perceive or sense has to come from outside of me. If I 'sense' something within my mind, then I'm not sensing at all...
Victor is correct: MBTI is to the 20th & 21st centuries what astrology was to the 19th.

Clarification- you are definitely using senses to start the process. I agree. I also agree that memory plays into both, as they are perceptive functions. Si works within familiar references and usually stops there, where with Ni familiar references is a starting point only and usually works with something else that may not be immediately apparent.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

As I always say (to add to what others have said), the function order is not about strength. The strongest function is likely dominant, but you can't then assume other functions then must tall into a hard order in relation to it.
(And I believe Daria is an ISTJ, or if nothing else, an INTJ, so whatever Fi you are seeing would be tertiary. Since they're introverted, and logical, they might look like an "introverted Thinker", but going by Interaction Styles, she seems too "directive" (consistently cynical, etc) to be an NP).

I won't argue with you, but I will say that I do not trust directive styles as a reliable method of typing at all. I prefer to go by functions, the basis on which whomever made them tried to fit directive styles with IMO varying success. And Daria is anything but Te.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm going to ramble somewhat aimlessly....

When I think of MBTI & Jungian theory in a more "serious" manner, I think of cognitive processes as a psychological orientations; not behavioral patterns, not skill sets, not interests, not lifestyles, not world views, etc. At best, these are clues to a possible mindset, and many do fall neatly into a category (I fit pretty well into NF & INFP in general), but some do not, or they defy too specific details (there I do not fit as well). Thomson's answer to Eric B here is very interesting. She discusses archetypal roles vs. actual cognitive preference.
http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-2.html

Unfortunately, in the attempt to indicate someone's mindset, MBTI has created these dichotomies, and the either/or aspect leaves some feeling alienated. Keirsey's work seems to have further muddied the divide between roles & mind sets. These seem to suggest that a type is defined by that list of observable behavior, as opposed to the intangible thought processes you detect in the form of personality. I really think it's hard to measure such processes through those means because of that.

I'm rather a fan of Jung more than any recent author, despite many creating very interesting theories, and it's probably because his definition of a Fi-dom suits me very well. Technically, I could say my MBTI type is INTP, because I test that more than half the time, but my Jungian type is definitely Fi. I don't feel the compromise an MBTI test makes me feel when I have to choose between a T & F answer.... Instead, I see a whole mindset I can relate to, one which is not overly restrictive or which dictates what I am capable of.

However, I've also been questioning function order lately, particularly Beebe's model. I find it too rigid. I can't imagine every individual developing along such strict lines. I also don't see the functions as narrow as they appear in these models. I think if we took a broader view of the functions, then we would not need to claim a person is using Fe when making decisions that promote interpersonal harmony (or whatever). Such a decision could be made with any J function; it would be taking different roads to the same destination. I tend to see "opposing" functions very differently....I imagine it could be more natural for me, as Fi-dom, to use Ti than Te, simply because the orientation is preferred. Te seems the more opposed function to Fi, and irks me far more when I encounter it in others. A model which took that angle might suit me better.

I do appreciate that MBTI focuses on defining personality based on the dom & aux functions - the primary ways of judging & perceiving. Outside of what I think is not a great system to indicate type, this concept makes sense to me. Your top two functions are what color your personality, and we see this everyday in people. Once you're aware of types, you can spot them rather easily, and this is enough evidence to convince me the labels are largely accurate in explaining a major aspect of personality.

However, when you get into tertiary and inferior functions, it just seems like a lot of guesswork & speculation at best. It seems very questionable to be typing people based on them also; what forms the "visible" personality will be the main two functions, IMO. Lately, when people speak of their tertiary this & that, I cringe because it seems so unlikely that it's really a major force in their personality. It also begins to associate skills with functions. Instead of considering that maybe their F mindset actually made a logical deduction, they have to delegate it to their tert or inferior T, as if functions are gears you shift in & out of instead of a whole frame of mind. I'll paraphrase Peacebaby (I think it was her), who said once that you can't unbake a cake, and sometimes function order seems to try to do that. You can "taste" a person and determine their main type, chocolate or strawberry , but you can't really know the lesser components based on the final product alone. I feel clear I use F & N functions, and my dominant is Fi, but beyond that it's really a grab bag as to how the other functions play out in my mindset.

I personally don't see Si as my tertiary in the way they want to define it; I can start ascribing behaviors to functions, but that's really a misuse of the theory.

When I think of MBTI in a more playful sense, then I am comfortable using phrases like "Fi-Si loop", which I just see as shorthand for a common mental rut INFPs get stuck in. How that mental rut actually relates to the functions is not the point; it's just a phrase unique to a community that expresses in terms of Jungian theory . What I mean to say is, I'm no MBTI gestapo who has a problem with that type of casual discussion, which tends to serve its own purpose.

 

[Ginkgo]

The function preference orders presented by MBTI are not the only orders people have. Plenty of people fall outside the realm of the 16 types. The system itself was meant to be a rough tool to be applicable to most people. While the dichotomies of the functions are sound, the dichotomies of MBTI are not because they claim to typify more than what their foundation has to offer.

Here's a lady who has analyzed MBTI as well and has managed to expose some holes in it. She is a self-proclaimed INTP, but like you, she has strong emotions at times.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgPQjBZe98"]A[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWzLBqpWmyo"]B[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1YqwW3LIMQ"]C[/YOUTUBE]

 

[KDude]

Keirsey's approach doesn't help me, for sure. It's like he's coming from some extremely remote view in his observations of behavior. Like he didn't actually talk to people or something. The minute you get up close, it falls apart. You'll find that there are tons of rationals who exhibit a lot "artisan" like behavior or interests, or artisans who are idealists, rather than hedonistic, etc.. In fact, there may be rationals who trump artisans at what they do, and artisans who do admirable things that would inspire an idealist to emulate them. Further, there are rationals who are more holistic or literary in their investigations, and don't have some overblown, "scientific" air about them. Johnny Rotten might be INTP, for all I know. Not all of them are trying to be Darwin or Einstein. It's not like "Ti" would be promoted in some overt, formal way all of the time. And hell, as far as scientists go, Darwin may have been an ISTP actually. Maybe not, but my point is.. Are they really all riding around on jetskis and making cabinets? Give me a break.

 

[entropie]

There's an ancient old german fairytale about the small caterpillar Nimmersatt, who always liked to eat more and more. He found a new kind of leaf, thought of it as totally awesome, only ate the leaf until he was so overfed that he thought those leaves are boring and found a new kind of leaf he found totally awesome. In the end, Nimmersatt ( which means sth. like "never full" ), exploded.

I know thi's a kinda stupid relation, but I think it says a bit about the mental attitude one needs to have when approaching certain things. I've seen it often now on this forum that people came saying mbti is totally awesome and the solution to all of life's problems and then a few times later they got stuck in the many contradictions the theory has and they get disappointed. I then personally have to ask myself what did they expect ? That one theory like that could explain life that is full of contradictions in the first place ?!

I think mbti has a dangerous character to look like a natural law from science, one shouldnt be blinded by that tho. Cause in other words it's just one of a billion attempts to understand the human nature. And it is as flawed as any other model out there.

What I want to say with this is that one shouldnt only look if a system like mbti is flawed, one should look aswell if the guy studieng the system may no be flawed too. Cause if you went so deep down the rabbit hole that you start mole digging for logical indiscrepancies in the system, you may have already overshot the limits in which the system still applies. The easiest example for this is a person that is a primary T-dom, from whom is expected that he fits a certain stereotypical pattern, like he is not allowed to be friendly with people or to have good people skills. If he does tho and why shouldnt he, even according to mbti he has F, you will automatically start thinking of him that he may be a different type. And this is when type theory gets ultimatively blurry, cause when it is about preference, some people change their personal preferences according to the task at hand and could be given just a very general and faint signature in mbti. So it's ultimatly hard to type them at all.

The most threatening element mbti has for me is putting up this stereotypes. In other words, it justifies for nerds that it is ok to be nerds, instead of encouraging them to become more social. And I think this holds no educational value.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Cause if you went so deep down the rabbit hole that you start mole digging for logical discrepancies in the system, you may have already overshot the limits in which the system still applies.

I think this hits a key point for me: trying to make MBTI serve more purpose than it is capable of, including defining personality beyond its own bounds. I like MBTI (and Jungian theory & personality theory in general) for what it is & am not ready to get over my obsession any time soon , but it's important to keep in perspective what it actually defines, what is actually meant to be used for, and how that even relates to real people.

 

[KDude]

There's an ancient old german fairytale about the small caterpillar Nimmersatt, who always liked to eat more and more. He found a new kind of leaf, thought of it as totally awesome, only ate the leaf until he was so overfed that he thought those leaves are boring and found a new kind of leaf he found totally awesome. In the end, Nimmersatt ( which means sth. like "never full" ), exploded..

Heh. I was going to use another mythical/fairytale reference earlier.. About Jason and the Argonauts, and the song of the sirens. I kind of thought it'd be too much, but the point I was going to make to Sherlock is that sometimes it's best to pull away if you hit a wall with a system like this (at least for a time). If it keeps driving you crazy, you need an Orpheus.. something with a more enticing song that will distract you from whatever the sirens are driving you mad about. Whatever that may be.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Thank you all for your responses. Grr... I don't like it when something I've been studying for a long time turns out to be so flawed and incomprehensive. For the longest time it seemed a near perfect system, but the deeper you get, the bigger the holes look. And you're right, I need something more interesting to focus on. I'm going to Uni next year and currently I am looking to go into game programming and design. I'm not even entirely sure I will enjoy it, since I can't really decide what I feel passionate about at the moment, but hopefully, it will be something else to get myself lost in.

 

[KDude]

Here's a lady who has analyzed MBTI as well and has managed to expose some holes in it. She is a self-proclaimed INTP, but like you, she has strong emotions at times

Personally, I never doubted that T's have emotions. It's definitely more complicated than that. All I have to do simply go outside and speak to TJs and TPs and will find the idea that they lack emotion disproven fairly quickly. People without emotions are autistic or in some cases, on lithium. What I've been puzzled on is not emotion, but the nature of Ti and Fi convictions. "Values" vs "Principles", and the differences on where they originate from. As for emotions, the funny thing is that ESTPs, for example, who apparently don't have Fi, can voice anger, impatience, or enthusiasm for something that can almost be construed for "feeling" to an outside observer. It's how they're reasoning that makes them Ti though. And the energy is just Se. While some ISTJs, who have Fi, come off even more stoic and less vocal about things. I have two ISTJ family members who probably should get a medal for it. Then there are ISFPs who are pleasant and soft spoken and ESTJs who can fly off the handle quickly.

 

[stalemate]

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread. I totally 100% identify with the Keirsey definition of ENFP. And any general descriptions of ENFP... totally me.

If I start to analyze function order/preference and stuff, it doesn't fit, and doubt starts coming in. I over think it to the point that I think it actually affects my behavior in real life because my mind is in this meta state a lot.

I took a few months away from the forum and it helped a lot. I'm done over thinking function order. I appreciate each function as a singular thing on its own but I am not that interested in the ordering.

Just to throw this out there though... another possible explanation is just that you are really intelligent and use a wide range of functions well. That's a loophole I allowed myself before I decided I just didn't care.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Just to throw this out there though... another possible explanation is just that you are really intelligent and use a wide range of functions well. That's a loophole I allowed myself before I decided I just didn't care.

I wouldn't really say that's the case. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I use any function with particular efficiency. I have Ne randomness and thought patterns, but rarely produce good ideas. I have Fi preference but am awful at sympathising and understanding people, I have a Ti desire to look into and solve everything and reach the truth, but I always miss things or draw the wrong conclusions if I draw any at all. And so on for the other functions.

I think it's more my preference.

 

[IZthe411]

I wouldn't really say that's the case. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I use any function with particular efficiency. I have Ne randomness and thought patterns, but rarely produce good ideas. I have Fi preference but am awful at sympathising and understanding people, I have a Ti desire to look into and solve everything and reach the truth, but I always miss things or draw the wrong conclusions if I draw any at all. And so on for the other functions.

I think it's more my preference.

That's part of your problem. You think that dominance in a function equals excellence. Not the case. Nes can be complete idiots and a Fi doesn't mean you have an understanding of anyone, even yourself.

 

[Eric B]

I won't argue with you, but I will say that I do not trust directive styles as a reliable method of typing at all. I prefer to go by functions, the basis on which whomever made them tried to fit directive styles with IMO varying success. And Daria is anything but Te.

Well, it is a make-believe character, so the writers can mix up different personality traits in any way possible, and there's no way to determine what the real preference is. After all; there's no "ego". So the "directiveness" is just what happened to strike me. (Never even watched it enough to gather how she really thinks). And seeing people say that they sense a lot of Fi while seeming to contradict INTP, would also go along with IxTJ.

Still, in what way is she "anything but Te"? (Never heard it from that angle before).

The function preference orders presented by MBTI are not the only orders people have. Plenty of people fall outside the realm of the 16 types. The system itself was meant to be a rough tool to be applicable to most people. While the dichotomies of the functions are sound, the dichotomies of MBTI are not because they claim to typify more than what their foundation has to offer.

Here's a lady who has analyzed MBTI as well and has managed to expose some holes in it. She is a self-proclaimed INTP, but like you, she has strong emotions at times.

Personally, I never doubted that T's have emotions. It's definitely more complicated than that. All I have to do simply go outside and speak to TJs and TPs and will find the idea that they lack emotion disproven fairly quickly. People without emotions are autistic or in some cases, on lithium. What I've been puzzled on is not emotion, but the nature of Ti and Fi convictions. "Values" vs "Principles", and the differences on where they originate from. As for emotions, the funny thing is that ESTPs, for example, who apparently don't have Fi, can voice anger, impatience, or enthusiasm for something that can almost be construed for "feeling" to an outside observer. It's how they're reasoning that makes them Ti though. And the energy is just Se. While some ISTJs, who have Fi, come off even more stoic and less vocal about things. I have two ISTJ family members who probably should get a medal for it. Then there are ISFPs who are pleasant and soft spoken and ESTJs who can fly off the handle quickly.

Yeah; that's no hole in the theory at all; it's people's misunderstanding of the theory, if they go so far as to expect T's to not have any emotion. All of this is about preference, not "always" and "never".

 

[KDude]

I wouldn't really say that's the case. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I use any function with particular efficiency. I have Ne randomness and thought patterns, but rarely produce good ideas. I have Fi preference but am awful at sympathising and understanding people, I have a Ti desire to look into and solve everything and reach the truth, but I always miss things or draw the wrong conclusions if I draw any at all. And so on for the other functions.

I think it's more my preference.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Not that you shouldn't strive for something great, but another problem with some descriptions is that they don't really illustrate the mundane aspects of all of our lives. The world population is close to the 7 billion mark now, and not everyone is going to contribute on some dramatic level. Even if your type is a rare 3% of the population, that's still somewhere around 200 million people, I think? Whatever your type is, you should find some peace in that (at least, I do), and just do what you like. If you happen to be some super-saint-genius, that's not type related, and you can pat yourself on the back for some other reason.

I can identify with what you're saying btw. I consider myself a good researcher and critic at best, and a mere hobbyist in artistic fields. In some ways, I'm more of an extrovert, so maybe my attention span gets in the way of being highly specialized or something. But either way, it's best to apply what the MBTI types mean in an abstract way, rather than let it dictate some standard that you're not living up to. I fell into the same trap, and didn't even want to acknowledge *ntp as a possibility simply because my IQ is 121 the last I checked. "Oh noes. I'm not a Mensa member. What ever will they say?" Who gives a shit. That's my conclusion. Besides, I've read that Feynman (ENTP probably) was apparently a 125, so I just feel silly to think something like that was ever important. His gift was also probably a lot of work ethic and determination too, so.. take that under consideration.

 

[FakePlasticAlice]

i'm far from an MBTI expert, but i've found using the functions in an attempt to type myself i've become much more confused. it seems that the functions i feel i use the most don't go together to make a "real type".. plus the definitions are so varying that one definitions i feel Fe and another i feel Fi.. or both equally..the same goes for most of the functions for me. I
While i'm a very creative artistic and feeling person...there is also a very logical, concrete and scientific side to me.

I think the best explanation i've heard was that when you go through a difficult time in your childhood you are forced to lean on your shadow functions and they become well developed making you hard to type.

Regardless i don't think anyone fits one type perfectly.. but has one or 2 types that are the closest to who u are...we are all individuals with our own personal feelings, thoughts and experiences after all.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[IZthe411]

Also, as we've discussed in other threads, Functions aren't stand alone, so it's hard to just strip out and identify the actions of one acting exclusively. They are also calibrated differently among those of the same type, so that has to make for some very interesting distinctions even among those of the same type who act almost identically.

 

[Arclight]

We are all exceptions to the rule.. We are not clones.. we are complex individuals with unique experiences and perspectives.

We only have one true type.. and that is the type of ourselves..

MBTI is a tool for understanding.. nothing more. It certainly does not "define" any of us.

Functions help break down mental processes .. But they should not be used as a definition of the self either

 

[Salomé]

Here's a lady who has analyzed MBTI as well and has managed to expose some holes in it. She is a self-proclaimed INTP, but like you, she has strong emotions at times.

I liked her disclaimer for using the word "crappy". Cute.

 

[Robopop]

Hello. Haven't been on in a few months. While I'm sure none to few of you care at all, here's why.

I do not trust this system anymore (Though I can't stop analysing with it Aaargh! Seriously, I need to stop, it's driving me crazy.).

The first problem with the MBTI system that I no longer trust is the function order. Through studying myself and various characters and people over the time I spent here, I've noticed that it is very common for people to not fit their function order or having supposedly contradicting functions. And one of the most common instances of this is when people have both Xx and Xy functions. I, for example, can not decide whether I am INTP or INFP. I detatch myself, analyse, search for things I've missed, strive for accuracy and truth, fit everything into logical systems, make decisions on a rational basis follow areas of technical interest with little regard to it's practicality etc. But also, I feel intensely, get attatched to people and care deeply about them, think of the world as full of beauty, have strong morals, like to express my emotions artistically, etc. The thing is, these elements of Ti and Fi are supposed to contradict each other and not appear in the same person, but they have hardly any contradiction at all. A fictional example is the character of Daria from Daria. Does it appear to you that a person could not retain the qualities mentioned in my above description? And as a nother example, Ne and Se. If someone enjoys coming up with crazy ideas and concepts, why does that mean they can't also enjoy exciting physical activities and experiences and notice things around them? A few examples of this in fiction are Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean and Kelso from That 70's show.

Another thing is that these functions are supposed to be single aspects of ourselves, and yet in descriptions of them, and typing people with them, not only do people frequently disagree on the definitions (leading me to believe that they are poorly defined in the first place) but often appear very multi-faceted. For example, going by what I have most recently learned, Te is a function that judges something's worth based on what it is told (as opposed to Ti which goes into thought to verify the logicality (word?) of it), and uses that knowledge to make quick decisions. Yet somehow this also means that Te users (in some cases and something a Ti user cannot do at all for some reason) work hard and efficiently to reach recognisable goals and have a strong desire to make everything efficient and organised (seriously, what does that have to do with it?). They also seem to share some aspects with other functions, and as an example, both Ti and Te want things to be logically correct (or what they believe to be logically correct). If someone appears to have one function but also another function, the typer may say that one of them is just another function behaving in the same way. This is just one example, but it can be applied to most or all of the functions as they are given. And another thing. After many threads, I still don't understand precisely what Ni is, since all I get is hundreds of disagreeing pseudological answers.

Also, sorry if this doesn't make sense. I am awful at explaining what I mean. It makes sense in my head but I tend to choose the wrong words or make mistakes when putting it down in reality.

My point is, is this system really as accurate and definite and comprehensive as we make out here? Are there things that haven't been considered? I want to know what you think about this. Maybe all these holes have a rational explanation. Or maybe MBTI is an insufficient way of explaining people. For other people with functions that do not fit in a type precisely, what do you have to say in that regard?

The function order is like that for a reason(according to the theory), a person has Ji, Je, Pe, and Pi to varying degrees, you need Je and Pe to balance out the introverted attitudes of Ji and Pi, if you were pure 100% introvert(or extrovert) you'd likely be in a mental hospital. Ti and Fi contradict each other on the basis of your internal values, it seems you don't understand what Ti and Fi means, being Ti DOES NOT mean you are an emotionless droid, functions have little to do with feeling emotions, every normal human being feels emotions, in fact, for instance, a Te dom can be more emotional than a Fi dom, there might be a difference in the expression of emotions. The judgment functions are about where you derive your basic values from, either an external context(Te or Fe) or internal context(Ti or Fi). I (in my opinion)think you are an INTP who wants more justification/internal consistency with this system(with I relate too). It is also important to remember to distinction between MBTI and jungian typology, they are not the same. I think Orangeappled's post was very informative and the best post in the thread thus far, she made an important point, stop looking at jungian functions as set skills, that's what causes most of this confusion.