MBTI criticism?

[Carebear]

Hm. I'll be honest. I've only read a few of the studies on MBTI reliability. Like you said, they're very unconvincing.

I've never read tests regarding validity because I can't really think of a test that would validate an instrument like this, which is essentially descriptive. Like you said yourself, it's not a scientific theory. In that case, though, what is there to validate?

Hm... I read a bit about it in a personality psychology course I did, but have forgotten a bit and will need to read up to give a thorough answer. I remember they did one test where they wanted to test the validity of type descriptions (with the forer effect in mind I guess) and found that people would respond positively to several descriptions even if they weren't all that close to their test result type. Hm... ok, I've forgot most of it, I'll read my books tomorrow and see if I can't give a better answer.

[Ilah]

Hm... I read a bit about it in a personality psychology course I did, but have forgotten a bit and will need to read up to give a thorough answer. I remember they did one test where they wanted to test the validity of type descriptions (with the forer effect in mind I guess) and found that people would respond positively to several descriptions even if they weren't all that close to their test result type. Hm... ok, I've forgot most of it, I'll read my books tomorrow and see if I can't give a better answer.

When I read the INTP description on the site that is linked with INTPcentral, I identified very strongly with it. Out of a couple of paragraphs, I only found one sentance that didn't seem to fit. This was why I first did myself as an INTP rather than INTJ.

I have a question for all those who are posting negative things about the test. Why do you particpate in this site if you don't agree with the MB? I don't mean this to be a confrontational thing. I am not suggesting people should leave if they don't like the test. I am just curious.

Is it because you enjoy the discussions with people here? Is it because you find you have a lot in common or can get along better with those of your type or similiar type? Is it because the MB is the most accurate of the various personality tests, all of which are flawed? Is it because the ennegram doesn't have a nifty on-line group like us?

Ilah

[Tigerlily]

After you've been here a while discussing "types" becomes boring. I think Rajah said once that you can only discuss one subject for so long and then some people find that they don't really have anything else in common. We then form bonds and so on.

I am really starting to believe what my husband always tells me and thats, MBTI is an indicator, nothing more. That being said welcome to MBTIc, hope you'll hang around for a while.

[Not_Me]

I'm quite new to the MBTI stuff, but I find it to be a very good tool for understanding a person who is very different from myself. I found it to be uncannily accurate in predicting what the person is likely to find appealing.

The system might not have been rigorously proven, but it's good enough to be useful in real life, at least for me.

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

[QUOTE=BlueWing;252765]

I've got a new one I was thinking about today. It's a little on the mystical side, though.

Why are your quotes always screwed up?

This is merely an example of our coping mechanism concerning application of systematic thinking towards what appears to be a chaotic world. This is a remark concerning systematic thought which is synonymous with logical thought as well as is the cornerstone to sciences and philosophy.

What's your point? (Asking honestly, not just to dismiss you.)

MBTI contains deep flaws, and ought to be rejected for the reasons depicted in my previous post. In order to gain reliable insight into typology one must conduct a critical overview of Jung's writings and purge them of the errors innate in his system. Obviously its unreliable at this point as the ideas behind the system of MBTI are untenable, yet could be rendered tenable through careful revision.

I don't know if you can cure something like test-retest reliability by reworking the theory. The test simply asks for your preferences, and preferences change, even though personality theory is built around a presumption of constancy.

Introversion and Extroversion temperaments are empirically falsifiable. Thinking/Feeling and Intuition/Sensation will be as cognitive sciences advance further. (I've commented on why this is the case in my longer post)

Maybe we're not connected on what falsifiable means. I think MBTI isn't falsifiable because it makes no prediction, or, any prediction it makes is tautological. It asks you to characterize yourself as a thinker or feeler, and then tells you you're a thinker or feeler. Where's the falsifiability there?

[SolitaryWalker]

What's your point? (Asking honestly, not just to dismiss you.)?

My point was that it is not only MBTI that organizes the world into a structure of a sort. We should not complain about this. All systems do this. And in order for you to reason systematically (which is necessary for clear-thinking and having a reliable way to know things), you will do just that.

I don't know if you can cure something like test-retest reliability by reworking the theory. The test simply asks for your preferences, and preferences change, even though personality theory is built around a presumption of constancy..)?

A test is not a reliable way to assess how one's unconscious mind tends to function.

For the sake of applied typology, it should be noted that temperaments tend not to change much. We are naturally more comfortable and have more aptitude for one way of functioning than the other. We may be good at both however. The test may lead us to illusory beliefs about what our type is because it tends to confuse what we are good at, for what we naturally gravitate towards.

Because study of temperament is concerned with the former and not the latter, this is not a personality theory.