funtensity
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
_
Last edited:
Not sure what the relevancy is but I tested very clear on all four dimensions, and, FWIW, I also went to a weeklong CAPT qualifying course - 10 years ago.
INTJ - good communication. good activity partners. some of my best memories. would consider getting back together. also most of my friends in general.
INFJ - my longest relationship and also, separately, my longest opposite sex friendship. endlessly kind, understanding, reliable and warm.
ENFP - have a crush on almost every one I meet. dated one, she left me on a whim for an impractical dream. they are fun to toss around ideas with.
INFP - wants to spend all her time with me. endlessly sweet. and yes, idealistic.
For dating, *NF*, especially INFJ, ENFP, INFP. For friends, *NT*, especialy INTJ, ENTP, ENTJ. For recreational activities, i.e., volleyball, ISTP. Dat reaction time.
I identify with MBTI ISTP and Jung's description of introverted thinking. I am much more like Kant or Nietzsche than Einstein. The kind of extraverted thinking mental imagery that Einstein used to see how gravity warps spacetime is not my first nature.
The MBTI has very strong correlations with the Big 5 and both have very strong test-retest reliability. Thus, I must ask on what basis Socionics has been validated as an "evolved" version of the MBTI.
Let's assume that we have a number of models, including the MBTI, Big 5, Enneagram, Socionics and Astrology, and let's try to succinctly answer the question I posed.
The answer to this question is, in broad strokes, Science. Science can help us determine the extent to which these models reliably explain variance in reality.
The best way we presently have of doing this with personality inventories is a statistic known as test-retest reliability. ...
Out of the models I mentioned, I am presently aware of test-retest reliability metrics for the MBTI and Big 5, and they are remarkably high as compared to other research in the field of psychology. ...
If you believe in a personality theory that hasn't published this statistic, you should demand that they tell you why, and seriously reconsider whether that system is, to use philosopher Harry Frankfurt's meaning of the term, bullshit.
I also went to a weeklong CAPT qualifying course - 10 years ago.
Jaguar, you've been busted.
Truth is, though, that CPP understands the scientific method, whereas Socionics, Enneagram and Astrology don't.
Not a bad advertising line, truth be told.
Abstract
Journal of Personality Assessment
1993, Vol. 60, No. 2, Pages 290-301
Bipolarity in Jungian Type Theory and the Myers--Briggs Type Indicator
Steven A. Girelli, *Jayne E. Stake*
The standard form of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaultey, 1985) was constructed to measure introversion/extroversion, sensing/ intuiting, and thinking/feeling as single, bipolar dimensions. We tested this assumption of bipolarity with a Likert form of the MBTI that allowed for the independent assessment of each attitude and function. A total of 106 female and 59 male undergraduate and graduate students completed the standard and Likert MBTI forms approximately 3 weeks apart. Evidence for the bipolarity of the introversion/extroversion dimension was weak, and findings did not support the bipolarity of the sensing/intuiting or thinking/feeling dimensions. Results provide evidence that high negative correlations within MBTI dimensions are an artifact of its forced-choice format.
Is the Myers Briggs system reliable?
This is an extended quotation from the Gale Encyclopaedia of Psychology,
"With any psychological test, its use is dependent on its reliability and validity. A reliable test is one that produces consistent results over time. For example, IQ tests have high reliability, inasmuch as your IQ as measured today will not be appreciably different a year from now. The MBTI's reliability is only fair. One study showed that fewer than half of the respondents retained their initial types over a 5-week period. Consequently, we should be careful about making career decisions based on a classification system that is unstable. People change over time as a result of experience. The MBTI may capture a person's current state, but that state should probably not be treated as a fixed typology. Does the MBTI assist in career counselling? Is the test diagnostic of successful performance in particular occupations? These questions pertain to validity-the ability of the test to predict future performance. There have been no long-term studies showing that successful or unsuccessful careers can be predicted from MBTI profiles. Nor is there any evidence that on-the-job performance is related to MBTI scores. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the MBTI's popularity and its proven scientific worth. From the point of view of the test-taker, the MBTI provides positive feedback in the form of unique attributes that are both vague and complimentary, and thus could appeal to large numbers of people. It is possible that the MBTI could be useful as a vehicle for guiding discussions about work-related problems, but its utility for career counselling has not been established."
Personality testing and, MBTI in particular, is here found to be of "only fair" reliability and its use, even in career counselling, doubtful.
Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality.
McCrae RR, Costa PT.
Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD 21224.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five-factor model of personality as measured by self-reports and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985b). Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93. Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework.
With regards to how to unpack the MBTI, we can only trust the system of cognitive functions that the MBTI uses, because their test is the only one that we have test-retest reliability statistics for.
The test-retest reliability of the inventory is evidence for the theory. This is because the theory generated the inventory.
Easy-peasy.
We should place our trust in the theories that generated the inventories for which test-retest reliability has been measured.
McCrae & Costa said:Although it provides rich insights into some aspects of individual differences, Jung's theory also creates formidable obstacles to the development of an inventory for assessing types. Much of his description concerns the unconscious life of the individual, which is not directly accessible to self-report. ... Descriptions of attitudes and functions sometimes seem to overlap ... and all classifications are complicated by the intrusion of unconscious elements of the opposing function when the dominant, conscious function is overdeveloped. Finally, Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices. ...
Jungians might question the addition of the JP scale, or even the enterprise of constructing a self-report type indicator. From the psychometric perspective, however, the MBTI may be looked upon as an advance over Jung's largely untested speculations. However one chooses to evaluate the instrument, it is crucial to realize that it is not isomorphic with the theory on which it is based. ...
[The present study] found no support for the typological theory the instrument is intended to embody. ... The correlates of individual scales were consistent with their item content, but would probably not have been predicted from Jungian theory. ... Yet how can the MBTI be interpreted or employed without reference to Jung's psychological types? One alternative is to adopt the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Each of the four indices showed impressive evidence of convergence with one of the five major dimensions of normal personality. It is these convergences that probably account for the many meaningful associations between MBTI scales and external criteria such as occupational preferences, creativity, and educational performance. ...
There are numerous [type descriptions] for use by counselers, personnel psychologists, educators, and laypersons. ... How well these descriptions square with known correlates of the [four dichotomies] can be roughly gauged by substituting the corresponding [Big Five] factor names ... for the MBTI codes. ... Most of the descriptions provided in the manual seem to be reasonably good by this criterion.
However, the accompanying assertions about the dominance of particular preferences in inner and outer life are based solely on Jungian theory and on the use of the JP and EI scales to determine the dominant function, and are not supported by the data. There is no good evidence that the JP scale has any bearing at all on the relative importance of thinking or perceiving.
RaptorWizard, that's really not enough substance to go on.
I actually have the 1998 manual however I haven't looked at it since I learned about the cognitive functions, which was online. I will crack it open later.
Despite that, nothing changes. We should place our trust in the theories that generated the inventories for which test-retest reliability has been measured.
It's my (still naive) understanding that the four-letter type mappings from Socionics are not 1-1 to the MBTI, and that they haven't measured the reliability of their inventory. It hasn't even been smoke tested. We shouldn't believe it.
That's called confirmation bias and all human beings do it. I personally do not cling to any theory to the extent possible - see http://lesswrong.com . I am, in fact, searching for a way to debunk the MBTI. I have not yet found one.
That's called confirmation bias and all human beings do it. I personally do not cling to any theory to the extent possible - see http://lesswrong.com . I am, in fact, searching for a way to debunk the MBTI. I have not yet found one.