Considering Confirmation Bias

[Tater]

Have you ever questioned the validity of MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, or any of the other personality theories discussed on this website?

In 2014, I inadvertently started a project that led me to question the methods behind personality theory even more than I had prior.

My experience goes back to 2009, when I first joined this website. It was then that I typed myself as a Feeler in MBTI and eventually Socionics. On this typing, I received very little argument or push-back. Most of the time, people corroborated my self-typing by supporting it with their own assessments, anecdotes, and feelings.

Then, 2014 rolled around, and someone who knew me more intimately than anyone I had known up until that point doggedly convinced me that I was a Thinker in socionics. Moreover, the reasons behind the argument that I was a Thinker undermined my own reasoning for being certain types in various systems. Overall, I had to re-evaluate my self-concept to suit new information.

So, in the aftermath of Typology Central's email leak, I started a new account and listed new types. I told only a handful of individuals that I was Ginkgo/Mystic Tater. And, similar to my experiences back in 2009, I found virtually no objection about my listed type from people who didn't know me prior. Mostly, people corroborated my self-typing as a Thinker.

Overall, I think my experiences shed a light on how much confirmation bias influences the analysis of someone's type. In making conclusions about what my type was, it didn't matter what my behavior was so much as what I listed on my profile. Objectivity gets lost when information simply supports pre-existing conclusions.

So, after all this time, I've found even more reason to be skeptical about the methods used to type people - especially as they concern online communities.

 

[notmyapples]

With personality type theories you are never going to be able to avoid the frequent phenomenon of people mistyping, but nobody will ever know you better than you can know yourself. It is useful to rely on other's opinions, especially if they have much knowledge in the particular area, but that should never be what you rely on. When you have a label, it's easier to see those qualities in someone. My advice to anyone struggling with their type would be to evaluate how well you understand the MBTI system and how well you understand yourself, then start trying to pin down your type. Starting with little knowledge on MBTI and going 'I think I might be INTJ' before the previous steps will only lead you towards a potentially bias typing and understanding of type altogether.

 

[Tater]

With personality type theories you are never going to be able to avoid the frequent phenomenon of people mistyping, but nobody will ever know you better than you can know yourself. It is useful to rely on other's opinions, especially if they have much knowledge in the particular area, but that should never be what you rely on. When you have a label, it's easier to see those qualities in someone. My advice to anyone struggling with their type would be to evaluate how well you understand the MBTI system and how well you understand yourself, then start trying to pin down your type. Starting with little knowledge on MBTI and going 'I think I might be INTJ' before the previous steps will only lead you towards a potentially bias typing and understanding of type altogether.

I understand. Oneself is the best authority on oneself.

However, even self-assessments can fail. For example, the Forer Effect causes myopia that limits a person's range of data to work with. Furthermore, in many cases, people subconsciously type themselves based on what feels most desirable.

Additionally, some personality systems don't even hold up to their own logic, nor do they stand the test of empirical evidence. For instance, the J/P dichotomy doesn't really apply to everyone, nor does necessarily stack up when people lead with a introverted judging function.

I see the merit in what you have to say, though.

 

[Jaguar]

Honestly? The whole time you were posting as an ISTP I figured it was a lie.

 

[notmyapples]

I understand. Oneself is the best authority on oneself.

However, even self-assessments can fail. For example, the Forer Effect causes myopia that limits a person's range of data to work with. Furthermore, in many cases, people subconsciously type themselves based on what feels most desirable.

Additionally, some personality systems don't even hold up to their own logic, nor do they stand the test of empirical evidence. For instance, the J/P dichotomy doesn't really apply to everyone, nor does necessarily stack up when people lead with a introverted judging function.

I see the merit in what you have to say, though.

Yes, self-assessment is also not a flawless system which is why I said that nobody will ever know you better than you can know yourself. I don't believe dichotomies are very reliable at all because of how commonly they fail and disregard functioning, I think you really need to research cognitive before settling on a type. Like I said, mistyping is never going to be unavoidable because there is no foolproof test or technique that'll tell you your true type, but the most accurate way you will be able to type yourself is by self-assessment and knowledge. At least as of now. It would be quite an impressive discovery if someone could figure out a test or method with 100% accuracy, but the realist in me doubts that will be something achieved any time soon.

 

[Tater]

Honestly? The whole time you were posting as an ISTP I figured it was a lie.

I thought you might. I mean, how many times did I screw around with some other type there? Lol.

 

[Amargith]

You've also changed your language patterns, Flokes.

With your own perception being shifted, and you now identifying as a T (which, btw, I don't agree with ), you now use and value the typical word usage of a T-user more.

I think it also helps that as a guy, it gets you more...credibility, almost? Besides, with age comes a certain ambidextrousness in F/T matters, allowing us to more easily dip into the other's pool.

As for your topic - I agree it's a problem, but I too believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, as they tend to know themselves best - especially when we consider that we only see a small part of them, through the written word, no less. The loss of information alone makes our perception of that person, along with our own amateur status regarding the typing of others even less reliable than their own assessment would be. That said, I have called out people before, with serious caveats included, when they displayed a clear set of recurring patterns that invariably seems to belong to just one type. But few people are *that* stereotypically recognisable, hence the problem

 

[Tater]

You've also changed your language patterns, Flokes.

With your own perception being shifted, and you now identifying as a T (which, btw, I don't agree with ), you now use and value the typical word usage of a T-user more.

I think it also helps that as a guy, it gets you more...credibility, almost? Besides, with age comes a certain ambidextrousness in F/T matters, allowing us to more easily dip into the other's pool.

I agree that one's typing tends to play into how they behave: self-fulfilling prophecies.

But, at this point, I'm not convinced that MBTI accurately reflects who I am or who most people are. Recently, I've become disillusioned with Model A in Socionics as well.

So, I don't think that assessment really accounts for how I'm acting. I communicate to be intelligible and engaging to my audience.

In any case, weren't you one of the few who said that I "vibed" like an ENTP back in the day? A few people said that about the way I argued. With respect to my writing-style, not much has changed. So, the type-development angle you're getting at doesn't have all much strength to it.

However, by all means, believe what you like.

 

[Coriolis]

Overall, I think my experiences shed a light on how much confirmation bias influences the analysis of someone's type. In making conclusions about what my type was, it didn't matter what my behavior was so much as what I listed on my profile. Objectivity gets lost when information simply supports pre-existing conclusions.

This sounds much less like confirmation bias to me, than simply a healthy deference to a person's self-typing based on the principle that they know themselves best. That being said, I have had occasions when, as I get to know someone better, their stated typing seems distinctly at odds with their manner. I generally keep this to myself, though, unless they ask.

But, at this point, I'm not convinced that MBTI accurately reflects who I am or who most people are. Recently, I've become disillusioned with Model A in Socionics as well.

MBTI reflects who we are as accurately as gender, race, religion, generation, sexual orientation, or any of the other categories into which we sort ourselves; I find generally moreso, in fact. None of these can reflect who an individual is completely. Even in aggregate, they are at best a closer approximation. That doesn't render the categories worthless, just places important limitations on their utility.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I have found the confirmation bias here (in the forums) to feel tedious at times. It's like people seem more intent on deciding the truth than on discerning it. And when the 'deciding' process works in a self-serving direction, it gets to feeling stale and almost rancid sometimes to behold. Because when several people get together and 'decide' something is true about type theory, it's like affirmation to all involved that it's true. Being an FJ, obvs, all sorts of red flags come up for me in this regard when discussion of Fe/Fi comes up.

But anyway, yeah. There's a difference between discerning the truth and deciding it. And too often the type discussions feel like the type theory is being forced to explain a situation/experience.

 

[Tater]

This sounds much less like confirmation bias to me, than simply a healthy deference to a person's self-typing based on the principle that they know themselves best. That being said, I have had occasions when, as I get to know someone better, their stated typing seems distinctly at odds with their manner. I generally keep this to myself, though, unless they ask.

Sometimes, a user earnestly changes their listed type on a routine basis without drawing closure to the process. When this happens, do you think they have confirmation bias, or do they have a healthy deference to the principle that they know themselves best?

MBTI reflects who we are as accurately as gender, race, religion, generation, sexual orientation, or any of the other categories into which we sort ourselves; I find generally moreso, in fact. None of these can reflect who an individual is completely. Even in aggregate, they are at best a closer approximation. That doesn't render the categories worthless, just places important limitations on their utility.

I disagree that MBTI reflects who we are as accurately as other identifiers. At least a couple of those other identifiers at least have a consistent logical basis. All Baby Boomers were born in a specific time period after WWII, but not all people who type themselves as, for example, INTJ, necessarily have a function preference of Ni>Te>Fi>Se. Some people fall outside MBTI's function stack. Furthermore, if one adheres to a religion, they have a definitive set of beliefs or practices they abide by. However, if someone self-types as, say, an ENFP, they will likely diverge from the profiles established by Briggs, Keirsey, or Jung on one point or another. MBTI is more of an approximation than religion and generation.

 

[Coriolis]

Sometimes, a user earnestly changes their listed type on a routine basis without drawing closure to the process. When this happens, do you think they have confirmation bias, or do they have a healthy deference to the principle that they know themselves best?

You are misinterpreting my comment, I hope not deliberately so. The highlighted applies to an onlooker's perspective on the self-typing of another person. What you are describing here is the perspective of that person on his/her own type.

I disagree that MBTI reflects who we are as accurately as other identifiers. At least a couple of those other identifiers at least have a consistent logical basis. All Baby Boomers were born in a specific time period after WWII, but not all people who type themselves as, for example, INTJ, necessarily have a function preference of Ni>Te>Fi>Se. Some people fall outside MBTI's function stack. Furthermore, if one adheres to a religion, they have a definitive set of beliefs or practices they abide by. However, if someone self-types as, say, an ENFP, they will likely diverge from the profiles established by Briggs, Keirsey, or Jung on one point or another. MBTI is more of an approximation than religion and generation.

So you think the category of "Christians", or "baby boomers" is more uniform than "INTJs" or "ESFPs"? This has not been my experience. People who claim a given religion, for instance, will range for those with only the loosest cultural association to strict fundamentalists. Similarly, baby boomers share mainly a coincidence of birth years, and will vary widely in outlook, attitudes, and approach to life based on the circumstances in which they were raised (socioeconomic status, geographical region, education level, race, religion, etc.) and their innate characteristics, many of which are wrapped up in the shorthand notation that is type.

In short, I have found type - or the equivalent narrative description of how someone processes information, makes decisions, and interacts with the world - to tell me far more about a person than any of the other characteristics mentioned above. Type crosses all these boundaries, as it reflects, however imperfectly, fundamental human characteristics. I have always found more similarity with someone who shares my type than with someone who shares any of these other characteristics with me, or even a combination of them. It is usually the answer as to why I connect with someone who on the surface seems quite dissimilar, while I regularly fail to connect with those who appear much more similar.

 

[Tater]

You are misinterpreting my comment, I hope not deliberately so. The highlighted applies to an onlooker's perspective on the self-typing of another person. What you are describing here is the perspective of that person on his/her own type.

I'm not trying to misinterpret your comment. How does the distinction apply here?

So you think the category of "Christians", or "baby boomers" is more uniform than "INTJs" or "ESFPs"? This has not been my experience. People who claim a given religion, for instance, will range for those with only the loosest cultural association to strict fundamentalists. Similarly, baby boomers share mainly a coincidence of birth years, and will vary widely in outlook, attitudes, and approach to life based on the circumstances in which they were raised (socioeconomic status, geographical region, education level, race, religion, etc.) and their innate characteristics, many of which are wrapped up in the shorthand notation that is type.

In short, I have found type - or the equivalent narrative description of how someone processes information, makes decisions, and interacts with the world - to tell me far more about a person than any of the other characteristics mentioned above. Type crosses all these boundaries, as it reflects, however imperfectly, fundamental human characteristics. I have always found more similarity with someone who shares my type than with someone who shares any of these other characteristics with me, or even a combination of them. It is usually the answer as to why I connect with someone who on the surface seems quite dissimilar, while I regularly fail to connect with those who appear much more similar.

I think what it means to be a Christian or a Baby Boomer is pretty uniform. All Christians believe that "Christ", as mentioned in the Bible, is the son of their god. Of course, a wide range of variance exists in terms of other beliefs they hold, what character traits they possess, and what sects they associate with. However, the key here is that religious affiliation says something at all.

Contrast this with MBTI. For some people, the J/P dichotomy contradicts the functions they prefer. Most notably, this is the case for people who believe that Socionics more accurately describes their cognition and behavior.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

From another angle: Categories of religion and generation apply so broadly because they say so little, while categories like MBTI apply so narrowly because they say so much.

 

[highlander]

Have you ever questioned the validity of MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, or any of the other personality theories discussed on this website?

In 2014, I inadvertently started a project that led me to question the methods behind personality theory even more than I had prior.

My experience goes back to 2009, when I first joined this website. It was then that I typed myself as a Feeler in MBTI and eventually Socionics. On this typing, I received very little argument or push-back. Most of the time, people corroborated my self-typing by supporting it with their own assessments, anecdotes, and feelings.

Then, 2014 rolled around, and someone who knew me more intimately than anyone I had known up until that point doggedly convinced me that I was a Thinker in socionics. Moreover, the reasons behind the argument that I was a Thinker undermined my own reasoning for being certain types in various systems. Overall, I had to re-evaluate my self-concept to suit new information.

So, in the aftermath of Typology Central's email leak, I started a new account and listed new types. I told only a handful of individuals that I was Ginkgo/Mystic Tater. And, similar to my experiences back in 2009, I found virtually no objection about my listed type from people who didn't know me prior. Mostly, people corroborated my self-typing as a Thinker.

Overall, I think my experiences shed a light on how much confirmation bias influences the analysis of someone's type. In making conclusions about what my type was, it didn't matter what my behavior was so much as what I listed on my profile. Objectivity gets lost when information simply supports pre-existing conclusions.

So, after all this time, I've found even more reason to be skeptical about the methods used to type people - especially as they concern online communities.

Generally, I don't question people's types. I do think there is an issue with confirmation bias with respect to any given particular individual and how much what they read resonates with them (think horoscopes). It is relevant to personality type as well. However, I would say that when there is a series of different sites like this forum, other forums, Truity.com, etc. that are most heavily frequented by INFP, INTP, INFJ, and INTJ, that there is definitely something going on, so it doesn't shake my confidence in the system overall.

 

[Jaguar]

INTJ #1 demands logic; irritated by non sequiturs.
INTJ #2 doesn't demand logic; has claimed logic is Ti.
INTJ #3 personal opinion= logic.


How many excuses shall we make for the obvious disparity?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

To say that there's a lot of confirmation bias that surfaces about type theory isn't saying there's no value at all to type theory. To be sure, there are people who fit squarely in a 'type', and there's definitely helpful information to be found about how to bridge the divides between types.

But there's *also* a bunch of crap that people say which seems like they're forcing this or that 'cognitive function' label on an experience or behavior, as 'proof' that a person (whether themselves or someone else) is this or that type. <- It seems like most of that kind of discussion is more arbitrary labeling than having solid value. I imagine that for someone who doesn't fit securely into one or another type, that maelstrom of arbitrary labeling would eventually kinda null the process of 'typing'. Or something.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

INTJ #1 demands logic; irritated by non sequiturs.
INTJ #2 doesn't demand logic; has claimed logic is Ti.
INTJ #3 personal opinion= logic.


How many excuses shall we make for the obvious disparity?

Some of us just like to try on different types like changing skins/avatars in video games.

 

[Agent Washington]

That reminds me of studies that are basically, hmm, about whether or not people prefer to stick to the info they read before they were presented with second conflicting info.

... Yeah I cant remember what the results were, if someone knows pls @ me

 

[Agent Washington]

INTJ #1 demands logic; irritated by non sequiturs.
INTJ #2 doesn't demand logic; has claimed logic is Ti.
INTJ #3 personal opinion= logic.


How many excuses shall we make for the obvious disparity?

Stupidity in its variations transcends typology xD

 

[Mole]

Generally, I don't question people's types. I do think there is an issue with confirmation bias with respect to any given particular individual and how much what they read resonates with them (think horoscopes). It is relevant to personality type as well. However, I would say that when there is a series of different sites like this forum, other forums, Truity.com, etc. that are most heavily frequented by INFP, INTP, INFJ, and INTJ, that there is definitely something going on, so it doesn't shake my confidence in the system overall.

Yes, it is like having confidence in astrology. It is a confidence trick. It is plausible.