The "intuitive bias" debate

[Shadow Play]

I'm assuming that Ti is an actual process that occurs in the mind, so Ti isn't what person A, B or C said about it, it's what it is in reality.

So, if Ti is just a mental process, why relate it to an MBTI type at all? Why not just call any logical process in any person's mind Ti?

 

[rav3n]

I see dichotomies as being in the same ballpark as the Big Five, and functions as being in the same ballpark as Horoscopes; particularly the Grant stacks. The notion that TJs and FPs are more alike than TPs and FJs is as credible as the notion that two people born in the same month will share personality traits in common because they were born that month.

Fan boyism is annoying. If you wish people to be open to your pseudo science, be open to theirs. Otherwise, it's hypocritical behavior.

 

[Pionart]

I see dichotomies as being in the same ballpark as the Big Five, and functions as being in the same ballpark as Horoscopes; particularly the Grant stacks. The notion that TJs and FPs are more alike than TPs and FJs is as credible as the notion that two people born in the same month will share personality traits in common because they were born that month.

I don't know what kind of validity astrology has, but if you haven't seen the validity of cognitive functions enough to be convinced by it, and view dichotomies as being in some much higher league, then you haven't looked hard enough/haven't been able to see it.

TJs and FPs are not "more alike" than they are to TPs and FJs - they share the same conscious judgement functions, so are alike in that respect, but they share one less dichotomy so are less alike in that respect. It depends which level you're looking at as to whether they're more alike or not.

One example of types with the same functions seeming similar is e.g. ENTJ pop singers often appear to be like SFPs.

 

[Pionart]

So, if Ti is just a mental process, why relate it to an MBTI type at all? Why not just call any logical process in any person's mind Ti?

That question confuses me.

Different people place different emphasis on Ti, they place it in a different position in the function order.

I actually believe in a multi-type view of people, but going by the pure type view (which is approximately correct): Ti can be in any of the 8 positions in the function order, e.g. some people use it consciously, others use it unconsciously. Some find it energising, some find it draining.

 

[Shadow Play]

Fan boyism is annoying. If you wish people to be open to your pseudo science, be open to theirs. Otherwise, it's hypocritical behavior.

How can it be "my" pseudoscience if I don't swear by it? I'm not even an MBTI fanboy. As for openness, I've demonstrated this through writing about what Jung thought about types, irrespective of my opinion.

I don't know what kind of validity astrology has, but if you haven't seen the validity of cognitive functions enough to be convinced by it, and view dichotomies as being in some much higher league, then you haven't looked hard enough/haven't been able to see it.

TJs and FPs are not "more alike" than they are to TPs and FJs - they share the same conscious judgement functions, so are alike in that respect, but they share one less dichotomy so are less alike in that respect. It depends which level you're looking at as to whether they're more alike or not.

One example of types with the same functions seeming similar is e.g. ENTJ pop singers often appear to be like SFPs.

Or it could just be Forer effect, thinking that an ENTJ will appear to be an SFP.

That question confuses me.

Different people place different emphasis on Ti, they place it in a different position in the function order.

I actually believe in a multi-type view of people, but going by the pure type view (which is approximately correct): Ti can be in any of the 8 positions in the function order, e.g. some people use it consciously, others use it unconsciously. Some find it energising, some find it draining.

So, you mean Beebe's eight function model? The one which says INTPs are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi? Why not just have the inferior as the weakest of the eight functions, since it's the opposite of the dominant?

 

[Pionart]

Or it could just be Forer effect, thinking that an ENTJ will appear to be an SFP.

It has immense explanatory and predictive power etc. I think "Forer effect" is a very poor way to explain any trick that might be going on.

So, you mean Beebe's eight function model? The one which says INTPs are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi? Why not just have the inferior as the weakest of the eight functions, since it's the opposite of the dominant?

I'm not talking about Beebe, ffs. Stop mentioning these different people!

The "why" is because that's how it works. I've actually investigated the problem through actual data to determine what order functions go in for a particular type.

I'm not saying it's this way or that because Grant or Beebe or Jung or whoever said that's how it was, I actually determined it through observation.

The fact that it agrees with what some other person said is an indicator that that's the correct view.

 

[Shadow Play]

It has immense explanatory and predictive power etc. I think "Forer effect" is a very poor way to explain any trick that might be going on.

I'm not talking about Beebe, ffs. Stop mentioning these different people!

The "why" is because that's how it works. I've actually investigated the problem through actual data to determine what order functions go in for a particular type.

I'm not saying it's this way or that because Grant or Beebe or Jung or whoever said that's how it was, I actually determined it through observation.

The fact that it agrees with what some other person said is an indicator that that's the correct view.

I only mentioned Beebe because I wanted to specify which function model you were talking about, so we can be on the same page. There are numerous ones out there, and the eight function model you cited happens to be the model Beebe invented.

Okay, so you've subjectively "proved" functions are a certain way through personal observations, and with these observations being personal ones, perhaps your experience is not easily shared with a stranger over the internet. At least not to the extent where that stranger would be able to understand your lived experiences. I see. Still, every theory begins as a hypothesis. You may have tested this model, but you learnt about the model from somewhere else, right? I'm betting you didn't pull that eight function stack out of thin air.

 

[Pionart]

I only mentioned Beebe because I wanted to specify which function model you were talking about, so we can be on the same page. There are numerous ones out there, and the eight function model you cited happens to be the model Beebe invented.

Okay, so you've subjectively "proved" functions are a certain way through personal observations, and with these observations being personal ones, perhaps your experience is not easily shared with a stranger over the internet. At least not to the extent where that stranger would be able to understand your lived experiences. I see. Still, every theory begins as a hypothesis. You may have tested this model, but you learnt about the model from somewhere else, right? I'm betting you didn't pull that eight function stack out of thin air.

I had heard about it beforehand, yes.

However I have also experienced myself using an Ni-Si-Fe-Te-Ti-Fi-Se-Ne function order. I pulled that one out of "thin air".

I also pulled out of thin air the idea that a function order literally means an order that the functions go in sequentially. I wasn't the first to come up with it I later discovered but it was original in the sense that no one told me about it.

 

[Pionart]

I had heard about it beforehand, yes.

However I have also experienced myself using an Ni-Si-Fe-Te-Ti-Fi-Se-Ne function order. I pulled that one out of "thin air".

I also pulled out of thin air the idea that a function order literally means an order that the functions go in sequentially. I wasn't the first to come up with it I later discovered but it was original in the sense that no one told me about it.

To elaborate on why I am saying that Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si is the function order of INFJ, but other orders are too:

The model I just wrote is the "natural" sequence of the INFJ's functions. It simultaneously shows the functions from most conscious to least conscious, and it just so happens that we ordinarily process things through that order.

However, at certain times we can enter into an altered state. The Ni-Si-Fe-Te-Ti-Fi-Se-Ne order represents a person "diving" into their most unconscious function, and going alternatingly "above and below the water". It starts with a stressor and ends in resolution.

There are other function orders an INFJ can use too depending on what is causing then to be altered. I am still investigating this.

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION]

You seem to be doing a broad survey of MBTI culture and critiquing what you see in it; as such your insights are likely relevant regarding bringing the pseudo-scientific era of typology to a close.

I'm just letting you know though that there are waves building which are likely to bring typology to the level of science, and I would advise turning your attention to that.

 

[reckful]

Fan boyism is annoying. If you wish people to be open to your pseudo science, be open to theirs. Otherwise, it's hypocritical behavior.

The MBTI dichotomies have decades of data in support of their reliability and validity, as McCrae & Costa (the leading Big Five psychogists) have acknowledged, and a meta-review of existing studies, supplemented by an 11,000-subject study of his own, caused Robert Harvey to conclude in 2003 that the MBTI was psychometrically "on a par" with the Big Five.

Very much by contrast, and as Shadow Play has noted, the supposed tertiary Si of an INTP has the same validity-free status as the zodiac.

That's not a fan boy's opinion. Those be the facts.

 

[Shadow Play]

[MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION]

You seem to be doing a broad survey of MBTI culture and critiquing what you see in it; as such your insights are likely relevant regarding bringing the pseudo-scientific era of typology to a close.

I'm just letting you know though that there are waves building which are likely to bring typology to the level of science, and I would advise turning your attention to that.

I haven't completely closed myself off from the prospect that, given enough time, typology would become a more refined field brought "to the level of science." Should that day come, I'm presuming this refined system of typology might end up looking very different from any of the current typology systems around, but the question is whether it would reflect any of the underlying principles of any existing theory. Would this system be focused on varying dimensions of personality arranged as spectrums, in a way similar to the Big Five or MBTI? If so, would its dimensions reflect ideas present in those spectrums? I can see Extraversion/Introversion being a spectrum of this system, but I'm uncertain about the other factors. Or would it be a neurological hard science which maps out mental processes? I'm open to the idea that different individuals use different parts of their brain to make decisions or form values. With the advances in neuroscience, I can sort of envision maybe a chart or grid system where each neural activity is classified using a label, and individuals who demonstrate more of one kind of neural activity can be labelled a certain label, if they show consistent preferences for a given activity. These could be thought of as loosely analogous to functions, but I think the eight functions model we currently have - despite its attempts to do this - is inadequate at mapping out one's mental landscape to quantify "how people think." Until neuroscience becomes advanced enough to leverage for typological purposes, functions proponents are attempting to apply soft science (at best) methods as a tool inadequate for hard scientific purposes.

 

[rav3n]

The MBTI dichotomies have decades of data in support of their reliability and validity, as McCrae & Costa (the leading Big Five psychogists) have acknowledged,

This is the abstract from the McCrae & Costa paper. It has a lot of typos and many other strange gaps. Not sure why. You'll notice that McCrae and Costa have refuted the J/P dichotomy and that they only found correlation with some aspects of the Big Five. The word 'aspects' is key, since it clearly identifies that MBTI only correlates to parts of 4/5 big five factors. So that's like saying that since two vehicles have engine blocks, they're equivalent, even though one vehicle's missing its battery, crankshaft, radiator, ignition system, cylinders and the other has a fully functioning engine.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality/links/59e164a1a6fdcc7154d3718b/Reinterpreting-the-Myers-Briggs-Type-Indicator-From-the-Perspective-of-the-Five-Factor-Model-of-Personality.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca]Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality[/url]

ABSTRACT

The Myers-Bnggs Type Indicator (MBTI, Myers & McCauUey,1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five-factor model of personahty 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 viewthat the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distmcttypes, instead, the instrument meastires four relatively independent dimensionsThe interpretation of the Judging-Pferceivmg index was also called into ques-tion The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or madequately op-erationalized 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 withina broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework

and a meta-review of existing studies, supplemented by an 11,000-subject study of his own, caused Robert Harvey to conclude in 2003 that the MBTI was psychometrically "on a par" with the Big Five.

Was this study ever peer reviewed? It appears that you've linked to a PDF, not a study that's housed with any accredited scientific journal.

That's not a fan boy's opinion. Those be the facts.

What you claim are facts are often questionable spin to the degree of wondering whether you're paid by the MBTI spin machine.

 

[Shadow Play]

This is the abstract from the McCrae & Costa paper. It has a lot of typos and many other strange gaps. Not sure why. You'll notice that McCrae and Costa have refuted the J/P dichotomy and that they only found correlation with some aspects of the Big Five. The word 'aspects' is key, since it clearly identifies that MBTI only correlates to parts of 4/5 big five factors. So that's like saying that since two vehicles have engine blocks, they're equivalent, even though one vehicle's missing its battery, crankshaft, radiator, ignition system, cylinders and the other has a fully functioning engine.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality/links/59e164a1a6fdcc7154d3718b/Reinterpreting-the-Myers-Briggs-Type-Indicator-From-the-Perspective-of-the-Five-Factor-Model-of-Personality.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca]Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality[/url]



Was this study ever peer reviewed? It appears that you've linked to a PDF, not a study that's housed with any accredited scientific journal.

What you claim are facts are often questionable spin to the degree of wondering whether you're paid by the MBTI spin machine.

Was the article written by McCrae & Costa peer reviewed, either?

The comparison to a car is faulty because we know exactly what components of a car are necessary for a car to work. As I've alluded to earlier in this thread, MBTI and Big Five both share the same limitations of factor analysis - there is no universally recognised basis for distinguishing which factors are the most accurate dimensions for mapping out temperamental differences. Thus, we can't be entirely certain as to whether any traits present or absent in each respective system are necessarily more crucial than the other. If the four overlapping dimensions between the two systems really are meaningful factors of personality, what's to say the Big Five is necessarily more "complete" than the MBTI? Perhaps one car is missing a battery, crankshaft, and radiator while the other is missing an ignition system and cylinders.

 

[Pionart]

The MBTI dichotomies have decades of data in support of their reliability and validity, as McCrae & Costa (the leading Big Five psychogists) have acknowledged, and a meta-review of existing studies, supplemented by an 11,000-subject study of his own, caused Robert Harvey to conclude in 2003 that the MBTI was psychometrically "on a par" with the Big Five.

Very much by contrast, and as Shadow Play has noted, the supposed tertiary Si of an INTP has the same validity-free status as the zodiac.

That's not a fan boy's opinion. Those be the facts.

I don't think tertiary Si of INTP is validity free. The methods I've developed suggest that it's the case, and I would think that the typologists who originally promoted the idea had some kind of at least semi-valid reason for doing so.

If it doesn't show up in test data though that's kinda to be expected... because test data is very often inaccurate. The retest validity of the most used tests is like 50% isn't it? And there's a good chance it gets it wrong across multiple takings.

So, if we're dealing with inaccurate data, it might not be clear enough to determine the actual function use of people. There are other ways of determining a person's cognitive function use.

 

[Cellmold]

So, if we're dealing with inaccurate data, it might not be clear enough to determine the actual function use of people. There are other ways of determining a person's cognitive function use.

Could you elaborate on some of these methods?

 

[Pionart]

Could you elaborate on some of these methods?

I've outlined the two methods I personally use in the vocal analysis and post-based threads I've made.

There's also the general method of trying to just interpret a person's behaviour in terms of cognitive functions, similar to how people tend to do it. That's not very precise though.

 

[reckful]

This is the abstract from the McCrae & Costa paper. It has a lot of typos and many other strange gaps. Not sure why. You'll notice that McCrae and Costa have refuted the J/P dichotomy and that they only found correlation with some aspects of the Big Five. The word 'aspects' is key, since it clearly identifies that MBTI only correlates to parts of 4/5 big five factors. So that's like saying that since two vehicles have engine blocks, they're equivalent, even though one vehicle's missing its battery, crankshaft, radiator, ignition system, cylinders and the other has a fully functioning engine.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality/links/59e164a1a6fdcc7154d3718b/Reinterpreting-the-Myers-Briggs-Type-Indicator-From-the-Perspective-of-the-Five-Factor-Model-of-Personality.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca]Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality[/url]



Was this study ever peer reviewed? It appears that you've linked to a PDF, not a study that's housed with any accredited scientific journal.

What you claim are facts are often questionable spin to the degree of wondering whether you're paid by the MBTI spin machine.

You've completely misunderstood that McCrae & Costa abstract.

The low construct validity that McCrae & Costa discussed in that article was the failure of the official MBTI instrument to reflect Jung's original type constructs. And as McCrae & Costa explained, that was bad news for Jungians but it was good news for the MBTI. As they put it:

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.​

On top of acknowledging that Myers had ended up effectively tapping into four of the Big Five factors about 20 years before there really was a Big Five, McCrae and Costa also 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 the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

And their approval applied to all four of the MBTI dimensions. Your assertion that they "refuted the J/P dichotomy" is just another facet of your misreading of their article.

Anyone who's interested 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.

As for the Harvey meta-review and supplemental study, here's Harvey's CV:

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.​

If you want to think Harvey fudged the data in his 11,000-subject study, I guess that's your right, bechimo. But the more significant aspect of his article for anyone wondering about the MBTI's psychometric status is really his meta-review of the large body of existing studies. And they include a number of studies in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are also reviews of previous studies in peer-reviewed journals, and you're free to explore his citations if you're interested.

And if you're hungry for moar, here are the two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations, both of which also point you to peer-reviewed assessments:

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

ADDED: A-a-and it's maybe worth noting that neither of those official MBTI publications makes reference to any "cognitive function."

 

[Mind Maverick]

Technically speaking, if you consistently test as an N, you are an Intuitive. That's that. You would show up in the test data as an N, and this test data may or may not be used for further research correlating type preferences with personality traits.

TBH I'm mostly skimming, as my time is sadly limited and I am spending the time I do have for ruminating and such on my own things that don't pertain to MBTI more these days. I'm sorry if this is missing the point a bit and I'd have understood this if I read more, but what if self-perceptions or life circumstances during that time period skew the results?

 

[Shadow Play]

TBH I'm mostly skimming, as my time is sadly limited and I am spending the time I do have for ruminating and such on my own things that don't pertain to MBTI more these days. I'm sorry if this is missing the point a bit and I'd have understood this if I read more, but what if self-perceptions or life circumstances during that time period skew the results?

I acknowledge that test results can vary across a timeframe, allowing for the possibility of inconsistent results on the S/N dichotomy. The retest rate consistency overall for subjects is approximately 50% within nine months, while the retest rate after nine months is approximately 36%. I believe it's possible for extenuating life circumstances to skewer one's preferred responses. However, I'm talking about people who consistently test as an N, not people whose S/N results are subject to change.