Is MBTI a pseudo-science in your point of view?

[GirlSmartStreet]

A lot of people talking about how real this typology thing is. I personally don't think it's a pseudo-science, but at the same time, I don't find it so much reliable. But it's stimulating and so related in many ways. Tell me why is this a pseudo-science or why not.

 

[reckful]

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they long ago acknowledged that the MBTI passed muster in the validity and reliability departments, and that each typology might have things to teach the other. And contrary to what you sometimes hear from poorly informed sources, the validity and reliability of the MBTI have been found to be basically on a par with the leading Big Five test (the NEO-PI-R).

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this TC Wiki article.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

MBTI is so unscientific that it's not even pseudoscience. It's just plain, not science. No one can agree on the definitions, and it fails to predict anything.

 

[Amberiat]

MBTI is so unscientific that it's not even pseudoscience. It's just plain, not science. No one can agree on the definitions, and it fails to predict anything.

That's what happens when you try to categorize over 7 billion people into 16 types when it's literally impossible for 2 humans to have the exact same personality, keeping in mind that even the smallest experience can change the way a person thinks.

 

[j.c.t.]

It is what it is within the framework that it is in. Big Five is probably more scientific, as it describes personality traits yet predicts little. Also, science doesn't necessarily equal truth/accuracy.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

That's what happens when you try to categorize over 7 billion people into 16 types when it's literally impossible for 2 humans to have the exact same personality, keeping in mind that even the smallest experience can change the way a person thinks.

If put in the wrong hands it can be used for control too.

 

[senza tema]

MBTI is so unscientific that it's not even pseudoscience. It's just plain, not science. No one can agree on the definitions, and it fails to predict anything.

Yes, this.

 

[Amberiat]

If put in the wrong hands it can be used for control too.

Indeed, if someone is naive enough to be completely taken in by the theory they can be manipulated to act predictably and they won't have any idea, this goes both ways too, if there's someone that puts too much faith in it and a predator notices it they can easily predict their behavior using it (ironically, in this case because some people adapt their behavior to fit the MBTI categories the system becomes reliable for manipulators to get their way with even more ease).

 

[Sacrophagus]

Indeed.

The inanity of things is when someone acts out of the behavioral spectrum of that established definition of what they should be, bringing doubts among who they are, since they have started to associate who they are with mere 4 letters. That in itself is the paramount of nonsense.


I always knew I was an NT. Some kind of toxically masculine fucking CUNT. I, call the shots. Always did, always will. It is not my place, however, to partake in segregation and put etiquettes on people to appease my control-seeking colossal ego under the pretense of optimization and self-discovery. Each one of us are free to choose to be whatever they want anytime they want. Empirical data itself suggests that it is not set on stone. That sort of classification is not faultless since it does not take into consideration the variable of time, the unknown. It is beyond their arrogant capability.

One might entertain the idea of typology lightly, but it should stop there.

 

[Dashy CVII]

The true types are pretty scientific (Jung's Psychological Types - Examples) as they make the most general successive predictions of relational chemistry and behavioral patterns. It's rather incredible.

But as far as most peoples' understanding on here, no, there's nothing of consistent accuracy or substance. This is because most individuals prefer the easy pseudo, aren't willing to put in the research to the real stuff.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

MBTI can still be fun though, so don't let it ruin your day. Just best not to take it too seriously.

 

[rav3n]

As a generality, almost all typologies are pseudo-science at best. The only one that appears somewhat robust would be the Big Five and even then, they've found cultural holes in it. Anything that's premised on self-reporting can be fraught full of inconsistencies.

 

[Non_xsense]

There is some true tho ( We just know a small porcentage of the true ) , I can imagine funtions being like micro-chips that make perceive reality in a way . Of course , our understading is very limited right now and people can learn and grow up , we are not stactic and a incomplete theory can't say what you are.

Yeah , Mbti is just a step to a more greatest understanding ... sadly i don't think we are gonna find the answer in our life-time but for sure we are gonna fking try xD.

 

[BlueScreen]

Of course MBTi is not science. It's just a system of categorising people by certain traits. People who have similar traits end up in the same category. There's nothing mysterious about why people with similar traits seem similar. There is also no reason why the chosen traits are in any way special and all-defining. There are other tests based on other traits that do the same thing. The lines between categories is just different.

The fact you can break categories down into functions gives it no more merit either. The ordering is obvious and falls straight out of the categorisation and traits. You can play abstract games and make systems of categorisation all you like, but without correlating them to something physically measurable and testing them, they aren't science.

 

[Lark]

I was hopeful this thread would appear today, I was thinking about this, what is the importance of it being scientific or pseudo-scientific?

Like if it where considered pseudo-scientific would it be devoid of value? Jung studied a lot of ancient ideas, Alchemy, other cultures, early cultures precisely because he thought that was a value in pseudo-science as pseudo-science is striving towards science, he wrote alongside some other author on the idea of a science of mythology for instance.

I remember being keen to challenge the repeated derisory and dismissive treatment of Freud and psychoanalysis as "only being of literary merit" until I decided that actually "literary merit" was of huge significance and importance to human affairs, probably more so that would ever be realised.

 

[BlueScreen]

Would you ever know more about a person by reading their 4 letter type than by reading their MBTi test answers? No.

Then is the value of MBTi in the reduction of information or categorisation to make it easier to match A to B, e.g. person to job? Probably.

Is MBTi any good for matching people to jobs? In my experience, no, but it probably works for some.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Absolutely, but I don't think it's entirely useless.


It's pretty hard to deny that there are distinct cognitive styles, that different people seem to do better with different cognitive styles. So the question is, how accurately does MBTI categorize, define said styles and how accurately does it work as a tool to measure those styles? How can we refine the system and make it better as a practical tool? Because I refuse to think that Big Five is the only useful personality metric, although I think the future of typology might be something that merges Jungian typology with Big Five.

 

[Lark]

Would you ever know more about a person by reading their 4 letter type than by reading their MBTi test answers? No.

Then is the value of MBTi in the reduction of information or categorisation to make it easier to match A to B, e.g. person to job? Probably.

Is MBTi any good for matching people to jobs? In my experience, no, but it probably works for some.

This is interesting, it also makes sense the popularity of MBTI, or similar quizes, if it is being utilised as selection criteria or a short cut to matching jobs to personnel.

In my experience MBTI or other typologies have value if they spark any sort of awareness per se but I've known so many people who deliberately bluff them to get the results they think others are looking for as to render them almost completely useless, I've read and seen copious amounts of written about "beating" psychometric testing or typological testing as to make me wonder about the validity and value of those sorts of testing at all.

I'll also be honest and say that I think most testing of this sort is generally about identifying people as square pegs in round wholes when it comes to management and then placing burdens of proof or change upon the subordinates while empowering those with seniority, in that respect its reinforcing of Dunning-Kruger effects and definitely a pseudo-science and a bad one. Although, that said, there are plenty of different ways in which knowledge is misapplied in exactly that fashion and I've know idea how to beat that besides raising awareness all round of it happening in the first place.

 

[reckful]

Would you ever know more about a person by reading their 4 letter type than by reading their MBTi test answers? No.

Um, sorry, but not to put too fine a point on it, you're just wrong.

As the leading Big Five psychologists long ago acknowledged, the MBTI dichotomies are tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions — and those are substantially-hardwired clusters of personality characteristics with respect to which identical twins raised in separate households are much more likely to match than less-genetically-similar pairs.

In order for the items on an MBTI or Big Five test to do a reasonably effective typing job, there's no need for them to come anywhere close to covering the waterfront in terms of all the ways those hardwired preferences — not to mention combinations of preferences — can affect someone's personality, and they certainly don't.

To just take introversion as one example: psychologists have been studying introversion for decades. Is it really your understanding that when the MBTI types someone as an introvert, we don't know anything more about them than the specific stuff in the E/I items on the MBTI test?

If you're interested, you might want to check out this TC Wiki article (already linked to earlier in this thread) for more about the reliability/validity/etc. of the MBTI, and how it relates to the Big Five.

 

[1487610420]

ib4 AI typing