[Ni] MBTI must be destroyed.

[Mole]

MBTI is definitely an incomplete system. As said by user Fluffywolf, it isn't science, and doesn't claim to be.

I don't think it should be destroyed, but taken as a start for a new thing. It been several months I'm wondering why no new similar, upgraded system hasn't been created.

Of course it has. You can discover the discipline of Psychometrics in Psychology Departments of registered Universities.

And if we are genuinely interested in discovering our personalities we go to a qualified Psychometrician who will apply a valid and reliable personality test and interpret the result.

However if we wish to belong to a seventy five year old cult, we join mbti.

 

[reckful]

MBTI is definitely an incomplete system. As said by user Fluffywolf, it isn't science, and doesn't claim to be.

MBTI doesn't claim to be science? Do tell.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in a two-post discussion starting here.

 

[Zeego]

What doesn't make sense about MBTI is that it tests for dichotomies, and then gives you a spread of functions. I don't see how they relate at all. Just because I tested as ISFP, doesn't mean that I use FiSeNiTe. The connections don't follow.

One thing that people don't address when they say MBTI and Socionics are compatible is that they have a fundamentally different interpretation of how the letters map to functions. If you're introverted, sensing, feeling, and perceiving, you're FiSe according to MBTI but SiFe according to Socionics. If you read Socionics type descriptions, ISFp does really sound like ISFP and ISFj sounds like ISFJ. The systems are fundamentally different, and in my opinion, incompatible.

 

[Zeego]

One could also see them as different but likely correlated, for example ISFP may be the type code for FiNeSiTe with emphasis on the sensing function.

I know a user on another site who disagrees with the idea of dom-tert loops. He said something along the lines that if an INFP's Si were truly stronger than their Ne, then on a purely dichotomy level they would be ISFP and not INFP. In general he sees things like dom-tert loops as cheap copouts that falsely validate the idea of functions stacks.

 

[bundleofsunshine]

I agree especially since it's getting popular lately.

 

[Mole]

I agree especially since it's getting popular lately.

It's been popular for about 80 years because it provides an escape from painful reality in fantasy.

And it does not provide psychotherapy to help us deal with our painful reality. Sadly, it glorifies fantasy. No wonder it is popular.

 

[Pionart]

I know a user on another site who disagrees with the idea of dom-tert loops. He said something along the lines that if an INFP's Si were truly stronger than their Ne, then on a purely dichotomy level they would be ISFP and not INFP. In general he sees things like dom-tert loops as cheap copouts that falsely validate the idea of functions stacks.

FiNeSiTe skipping over the Ne is INFP in a loop; default state is still N based, and in particular the N comes before S in the ordering. Functions are valid, I have confirmed this. Dichotomy based typing is more akin to Big 5 than a true psychoanalysis of the cognitive workings of the psyche. Without functions, the whole thing doesn't fall apart, but it's like doing physics without Newton's laws. We have the theory, the theory corresponds to reality, why shove it to the side except to cling to a dying belief.

It's been popular for about 80 years because it provides an escape from painful reality in fantasy.

And it does not provide psychotherapy to help us deal with our painful reality. Sadly, it glorifies fantasy. No wonder it is popular.

Can you honestly say that science is fantasy-free? Where do the hypotheses and theories come from? The imagination. Methodology is consensus based in the sense of being confirmable by multiple subjects giving it objective validity. Fantasy is still a major component.

 

[Mole]

Can you honestly say that science is fantasy-free? Where do the hypotheses and theories come from? The imagination. Methodology is consensus based in the sense of being confirmable by multiple subjects giving it objective validity. Fantasy is still a major component.

This is true, science is the scientific method consisting of evidence and reason applied to the imagination.

But the shame of mbti is that although it encourages imagination, evidence and reason are not applied.

If we wish to see evidence and reason applied to in psychology we attend to Psychometrics.

So rather than the potency of Psychometrics we prefer the masturbatory mbti.

 

[Pionart]

This is true, science is the scientific method consisting of evidence and reason applied to the imagination.

But the shame of mbti is that although it encourages imagination, evidence and reason are not applied.

If we wish to see evidence and reason applied to in psychology we attend to Psychometrics.

So rather than the potency of Psychometrics we prefer the masturbatory mbti.

It's in the early stages of development so far, but is gradually becoming scientific in status. What you're doing seems like criticising a child for not yet being an adult.

Science started as natural philosophy, and did not have evidence and reason applied to it for quite some time (although, as has been noted before, MBTI DOES have reason and evidence applied to it).

Before a thing is certain, it is uncertain, and when it is uncertain, it does not yet have conclusive proof.

So people who come to MBTI are viewing an incomplete theory, but it's a theory which DOES have roots in reality. I used to doubt it, but I see no reason to any more, cognitive functions are there.

 

[bundleofsunshine]

It's been popular for about 80 years because it provides an escape from painful reality in fantasy.

Nope. It's only been popular with the hipsters previously.

 

[Mole]

It's in the early stages of development so far, but is gradually becoming scientific in status. What you're doing seems like criticising a child for not yet being an adult.

Science started as natural philosophy, and did not have evidence and reason applied to it for quite some time (although, as has been noted before, MBTI DOES have reason and evidence applied to it).

Before a thing is certain, it is uncertain, and when it is uncertain, it does not yet have conclusive proof.

So people who come to MBTI are viewing an incomplete theory, but it's a theory which DOES have roots in reality. I used to doubt it, but I see no reason to any more, cognitive functions are there.

I'll bet my boots you have not even read one book on Psychometrics nor have you attended and passed a University course on Psychometrics, I'll bet you are sunk in fantasy, addicted to fantasy, and can't get out.

 

[Mole]

Nope. It's only been popular with the hipsters previously.

It's an 80 year old American cult which has been used by the Government of the United States of America to induct women into the war machine.

And in like manner, American corporations have used mbti to induce employees into their service, for donkey's years. C'mon, Americans are so gullible, they will believe anything that makes money or fights wars.

 

[Zeego]

Functions are valid, I have confirmed this. Dichotomy based typing is more akin to Big 5 than a true psychoanalysis of the cognitive workings of the psyche. Without functions, the whole thing doesn't fall apart, but it's like doing physics without Newton's laws. We have the theory, the theory corresponds to reality, why shove it to the side except to cling to a dying belief.

Not necessarily saying you're wrong, but how have you confirmed that functions are valid? How do we know that the theory corresponds to reality? Personally, I have yet to see anything that definitively proves function stacks work the way they're theorized to work, so I remain skeptical of the theory. I'd be interested to hear a good argument in its favor, though.

 

[chubber]

I love this thread.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

I'm just going to pop in and out of here real fast ...

MBTI's greatest flaw is that the personality types are discrete units whereas one's actual personality is continuous. To fix this, MBTI would have to include more types so that way people with varying percentages along the I/E S/N F/T P/J axes would have different types outside of merely the 16 types. Of course, this typing system would be quite complex and thus would be unlikely to catch on in popular culture.

 

[Pionart]

I'll bet my boots you have not even read one book on Psychometrics nor have you attended and passed a University course on Psychometrics, I'll bet you are sunk in fantasy, addicted to fantasy, and can't get out.

I haven't but I would have no trouble understanding it if I were to. You realise I am very intelligent, right?

But as for the second bit, let me see if I've made the correct inference - my schizophrenia is essentially synonymous with being sunk in and addicted to fantasy. Because I love fantasy so much, I almost refuse to get out, and the only way to overcome schizophrenia would be to give up on fantasy - and do what? My mind naturally forms fantasies, that's how I make sense of my life. That's where my sense of purpose comes from, that's where much of my enjoyment comes from. What exactly would getting out of fantasy entail, what would it look like, how would it be done, why should it be done?

 

[Mole]

I haven't but I would have no trouble understanding it if I were to. You realise I am very intelligent, right?

But as for the second bit, let me see if I've made the correct inference - my schizophrenia is essentially synonymous with being sunk in and addicted to fantasy. Because I love fantasy so much, I almost refuse to get out, and the only way to overcome schizophrenia would be to give up on fantasy - and do what? My mind naturally forms fantasies, that's how I make sense of my life. That's where my sense of purpose comes from, that's where much of my enjoyment comes from. What exactly would getting out of fantasy entail, what would it look like, how would it be done, why should it be done?

It is an inference a bit too far because I don't think schizophrenia is essentially synonymous with being sunk in and addicted to fantasy.

I do think fantasy and imagination are very important and it is equally important to test our imagination against reality. This is called the scientific method: it is the testing of our imagination, our hypotheses, against reality. We inherit the scientific method from the 18th century from the Western Enlightenment.

Schizophrenia as I see it is a disorder of the thoughts but not a disorder of the emotions, by contrast Clinical Depression is a disorder of the emotions but not a disorder of the thoughts.

So I think fantasising about our personalities in mbti is good, but what would make it useful is to test it against reality. This is what we do in Psychometrics, we test our hypotheses about personality against reality.

An interesting hypothesis is that schizophrenia is left over from the bicameral mind where we hallucinated the voice of God. Click on http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf and go to Book 3, Chapter 5, "Schizophrenia".

 

[reckful]

This is true, science is the scientific method consisting of evidence and reason applied to the imagination.

But the shame of mbti is that although it encourages imagination, evidence and reason are not applied.

If we wish to see evidence and reason applied to in psychology we attend to Psychometrics.

So rather than the potency of Psychometrics we prefer the masturbatory mbti.

So I think fantasising about our personalities in mbti is good, but what would make it useful is to test it against reality. This is what we do in Psychometrics, we test our hypotheses about personality against reality.

Meet Robert Harvey:

RJ Harvey (Ph.D. Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Ohio State, 1982) has taught at Virginia Tech since 1987. As author of the Common-Metric Questionnaire (CMQ), the preeminent standardized job analysis survey, he has been active in research on job/occupational analysis and assessment topics related to employee selection and competency modeling. In recent years, he has been a vocal critic of the Department of Labor's plans to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with the O*NET on philosophical, legal-defensibility, and psychometric grounds. His current research programs focus on developing a defensible, job-related occupational analysis system suitable for replacing the failed O*NET, using job-component validation (JCV) to link the domains of job work-dimensions and worker personal-traits, and developing faking-resistant assessments of non-cognitive (personality) traits.​

(source)

After a large meta-review of the existing data, supplemented by an additional 11,000-subject study, in 2003, Harvey and his co-authors summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.​

...and they went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.​

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and authors of the NEO-PI-R, and after reviewing the MBTI's history and status (including performing their own psychometric analysis) back in 1990 — using an earlier version of the MBTI (Form G) than the one being used today — they concluded that the MBTI and the Big Five might each have things to teach the other, approvingly pointed to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into those dimensions of personality, as well as "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

And I've corrected you on this issue multiple times, Mole, and you keep coming back with the same nonsense.

Whack-a-Mole indeed.

Am I dealing with a reading comprehension problem or an integrity problem?

 

[Mole]

Whack-a-Mole indeed.

Am I dealing with a reading comprehension problem or an integrity problem?

It's a matter of principle, mate. Mbti is the guiding principle of Typology Central, indeed the correct name of Typology Central is MBTI Central.

So first of all we hide our real name from the general public, and so this immediately arouses my suspicion.

And then for more than 70 years we hide the personal diary of our guru, Carl Jung, in a locked safe, so we will not discover he suffered from a florid psychosis. And this confirms my suspicion.

Our guru also sexually abused his female patients, and freely and willingly followed the orders of Reich Marshal Hermann Goering. So I am moving beyond suspicion into alarm.

The government of the USA and large American corporations use mbti, and also follow the book called "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays, this is plainly meant to deceive the public. All this is concealed under a rigid patina of narcissism.

Mbti is never used to help us reach our life goals. Just look around us here and see we are in a slough of despond untouched by therapy.

 

[reckful]

It's a matter of principle, mate. Mbti is the guiding principle of Typology Central..., indeed the correct name of Typology Central is MBTI Central. ...

Mbti is never used to help us reach our life goals. Just look around us here and see we are in a slough of despond untouched by therapy.

So... you're retracting the charge that the MBTI hasn't been tested by psychometric standards, amirite?

Can we get an apology, mate?

I think that would help lift me out of my slough of despond.