• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Big 5 is more accurate than MBTI, and is favored by researchers

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Thus, I believe the focus on this site ought to shift more towards Big 5, though MBTI is still interesting.


My Big 5 has stayed pretty stable, with conscientiousness always being really low, openness and agreeableness staying very high, and my extroversion and neuroticism staying about around the mean of the general population. This was from several sources over some time. On the other hand, while N and P stay consistent on my MBTI, E/I and F/T flip a lot. That is just my affirmation.

So, the creators of the Big Five speak very highly of the MBTI, and its test retest validity are right up there with the best of the Big Five instruments (see Reckful's Debunking the MBTI Debunkers)... but only if you treat the preferences as a continuum (as the Big Five treats its traits). So people with middling preferences may test on one side or the other of the middle, but that's more indicative of a middling preference than of a flaw with the MBTI instrument itself. (The whole "the preferences are dichotomies and you can't be in the middle" is a problem with cognitive function theory, which is another matter.)

Drawing from Reckful's article:

McCrae and Costa said:
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.

Or this quote from a meta-review of studies of the MBTI's validity (also from Reckful's article):

Bess/Harvey/Swartz said:
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.

So it seems clear that the MBTI gets no respect in academia... from people who haven't bothered to look at the research. The MBTI has some pluses (more neutral language, emphasis on describing the combination of preferences, etc) and minuses (type dynamics, the emphasis on whole types, etc). To dismiss it as inherently inferior and without merit is to ignore what the creators of the Big Five said, and what a review of the research has revealed.

The 4 letters indicate something else - your ego aka "dominant function". You don't tell it that you, say, have a preference for Fi over Ne, but it combines all your answers to indicate it (if you are INFP).

There's no evidence for dominant vs auxiliary function rankings, empirically. Stronger preferences lead to stronger correlations, and weaker preferences to weaker ones. There's no empirical evidence that INFPs are more "feeling dom" than ENFPs, or that ENFPs are more "intuition dom." Strength of preference fits the objective evidence far better than type dynamics. However, in so far as a preference of introversion informs the "Fi" description, then of course people preferring introversion will be better described. But I'd argue that most of the Fi descriptions are "F+P" not "I+F" or even "I+F+P."
 

Remiel

New member
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
27
MBTI Type
INTP
Big 5 doesn't indicate anything. It just tells you what you already told it. It is like an echo. "I am open to new stuff" --> Big 5: "You are open to new stuff."

Why would you even comment if you have no idea what you're talking about?

You don't use the theory that way.
It's just supposed to reliably place an individual on a spectrum of personality dimensions. (And it does, regardless of cultural context)
You can then use these values to screen for predictors in relation to your covariate/s.
That's basically how all quantitative research is performed in modern psychology.
The Big5 and drinking habits for example. Hypothesize; "High extraversion predict high alcohol consumption". Et cetera.

Edit: Actually you are completely right OrangeAppled, it is both a reliable and valid instrument.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There's no evidence for dominant vs auxiliary function rankings, empirically. Stronger preferences lead to stronger correlations, and weaker preferences to weaker ones. There's no empirical evidence that INFPs are more "feeling dom" than ENFPs, or that ENFPs are more "intuition dom." Strength of preference fits the objective evidence far better than type dynamics. However, in so far as a preference of introversion informs the "Fi" description, then of course people preferring introversion will be better described. But I'd argue that most of the Fi descriptions are "F+P" not "I+F" or even "I+F+P."

This totally misses the point..... The point is that MBTI is indicating something beyond the 4 letter results.

Why would you even comment if you have no idea what you're talking about?

You don't use the theory that way.
It's just supposed to reliably place an individual on a spectrum of personality dimensions. (And it does, regardless of cultural context)
You can then use these values to screen for predictors in relation to your covariate/s.
That's basically how all quantitative research is performed in modern psychology.
The Big5 and drinking habits for example. Hypothesize; "High extraversion predict high alcohol consumption". Et cetera.

Edit: Actually you are completely right OrangeAppled, it is both a reliable and valid instrument.

You didn't even understand the point I was making. You just confirmed exactly what I was saying. Big 5 doesn't tell you anything by itself.

The Big 5 doesn't tell you drinking habits. That hypothesis would require separate studies. In giving someone a test to see where they land on this "scale", you might as well ask them, because it is just spitting out what you put in. If you see yourself as moderately extroverted, then that is what the test will show. It is not much different from a survey.
 

Kendrix

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
30
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The thing with Big 5 is...

"boring" isn't the right word as much as "less useful" seems to be it, at least to an individual as opposed to say, an employer who wants to hire someone capable of basic teamwork. . (So maybe it's a question of which contexts they're applicable to?)

It basically just measures 5 factors - however accurately - and tells you wether you suck at them or not, and just that.
Whereas other systems available like MTBI, Enneagramm etc. gives you actual useful feedback and constructive criticism, some variation of "This is what you can do well, this is what might suck, these are pitfalls to watch out for and this is how you get more mileage out of your brain".

It doesn't tell you much about the hows and whys and inner mechanics, just the surface result.
Few perceivers are ever gonna max out "conscientiousness" but a sufficiently well-functioning person of any MTBI type or enneagram should be able to master the basic tasks of not being completely rigid, keeping others from hating you, getting stuff done etc. to a satisfactory degree.
Big 5 kinda takes to unsatisfactory state and says it's who you are. Or, maybe that's not necessary an implication with those emotional connotations to it.

As for very stable scores, I dunno. I had the agreeableness in particularly fluctuate in particular, usually embarassingly low but going all the way up to the middle field (!) in more elaborate tests with more questions and more "large scale general morality" questions. I wonder if that's common with some sort of classification applying to me.
 

estorm

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
109
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This totally misses the point..... The point is that MBTI is indicating something beyond the 4 letter results.

This is something that I love about MBTI (and Enneagram even more so). Certain discernible bits of information can lead to other bits of information that may not have been discernible. Each of the 4 letters do tell you something, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Combination of letters tell you something, and the functions can tell even more. Accuracy is important, but all self-reporting test have huge liabilities that the tests themselves can't overcome. Garbage in, garbage out. But even a somewhat off result can lead to further self-awareness ... even a negative "Hey, I'm not like that!" By answering a few questions, you can open a world of self development potential. That's amazing!

As for the Big 5, boring, and usefulness, I think each system has a piece of the puzzle. Each may offer more at different times in your life, or at least be useful at the beginning of a self-development journey. Each looks at personality differently, which can be useful for what it is (and then you don't have to worry about what it doesn't do). I agree that by seeing what traits map together in statistically significant ways, they may have made it more self-evident and so less useful. But that it what they set out to do. "People who say they are X are very likely to have D, E and F traits." It didn't start with a theory of personality or set out to describe personalities. From what I remember it set out to see what were the most basic traits, the ones that then correlate to all others. [Someone can correct me if I have that wrong.]

I guess I don't see much point in trying to come up with an objective "this system is better than that system". You can prefer one over another - great. You can tell others, "Hey, this is really cool and helpful" - great. Even, "This is boring" - no problem. But since they each set out to do different things, it's apples and oranges.

My two cents.
 

Chrysanthe

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
742
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Not enough symmetry and interdependent variables for me to enjoy the Big 5... Functional stackings are just so interesting and complex, changing the definitions of functions based off positioning. Its almost like a mathematical system to me. Also, Big five traits are so two-dimensional to me.... they all seem like traits that one could and should develop rather than simply stating how one actually is. Sry for lack of explanatoon, typing on my phone is irritating. :p
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Big 5 is good for categorizing surface features. MBTI and Socionics seek to map the subterranean regions.

Edit: Socionics also seeks to create a political map of the surface area, if the 16 types were mapped as 16 distinct nations/regions.


(Because geography analogies are always fun.)
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The Enneagram, the MBTI, and the Big 5, all serve different purposes. Yes, the Big 5 is more effective for scientific studies, but the fact that the MBTI and the Enneagram are easier to crowdsource and interpret/re-interpret make those two systems a better fit for an internet forum. Not to mention, they're less about objectively measuring people, and more about

1) serving as shorthand for common human tendencies (you could describe "inferior Fi" without using the MBTI/JCF, but it would be wordy as fuck)
2) making introspection a bit easier
3) making it easier to understand the people around you

The Big 5 is difficult to use that way, IME.

That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a subforum dedicated to the Big 5 -- though I suspect it would be pretty sparse and/or boring.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Drawing from Reckful's article:

That article, slightly ironically, is a bit of a straw-man, in the sense it attacks some really weak arguments against MBTI yet has that dramatic title. However those arguments do need to be addressed, but let's not pretend they're the actual problems with MBTI (though the Forer effect definitely is one, just not as extreme as what the article argues against).

Big 5 is at its core empirical. MBTI is not. There's actually very little difference beyond that. So when people say you can't draw inferences from Big 5, they mean the inferences are empirical and difficult to theorize around. You can quite easily say, I'm high on Openness, therefore likely to enjoy music a lot more than someone who isn't, or I'm more likely to become an addict because I'm high in Neurosis.

MBTI already has the framework to draw inferences from, but it built it with far less empiricism than Big 5. For example dichotomies are a minor inference, function order a major inference. The dichotomies don't hold up in many ways (even introversion and extroversion aren't really contradictory), the function order (from what I remember) doesn't hold up at all. Retest reliability is the absolute basics, so passing that is no big deal.

That's fundamentally where the problems with MBTI stem from. There's nothing stopping the MBTI framework from being used empirically (and it has been, to a much lesser degree), but it would have to let go of some of its core concepts that have been largely disproved since, and concepts that don't hold up in the future. There's also nothing stopping Big 5 from being used in the same way the other typologies are, but there's an empirical culture surrounding Big 5 that seems to stop people from speculating or theorizing much. I suppose it's proto-scientific regulation, of a sort.

The rest of MBTI and other typologies, outside of the inferences, is largely just semantics. New semantics and new language for concepts always help with exploring ideas and analyzing things in new ways. It does beg the question about what makes MBTI's semantics, for example, significant compared to something you make up or something like Tarot or Astrology without the supernatural elements. Big 5 actually makes a case that its 5 factors, due to factor analysis on raw empirical data, are actually semantics that highlight particularly significant parts of a person's psyche. A language worth using. MBTI seems like a much more flawed version of that.
 

Galaxy Gazer

New member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
941
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I feel like a lot of people (myself included) dislike Big Five because it places an emphasis on favorable and unfavorable qualities, rather than every type having its own strengths and weaknesses. Like any other test, it makes generalizations, but these seem to be more biased.

I say that I'm very critical and have a tendency to notice flaws, so it types me as having extremely low agreeability. I went from being critical and pragmatic to being the person everyone avoids; the person who snaps at others for no reason and will win an argument at all costs.

I have reasonably low self-esteem and gradually improving social anxiety, so in a similar fashion, I'm now neurotic. I'm the type of person who loses her head in stressful situations and isn't happy unless everything is perfect.

The thing is, I'm nothing like either of these. They are inaccurate because of the test's generalizations.

The first example (agreeable scale) ignores the fact that I have a tendency to pick up on all kinds of subtle details about people. This includes things as complex as religion, political affiliation, interests, personality type, what social group they were a part of in high school/college, and strengths, as well as weaknesses and flaws. It also ignores the fact that I don't make a habit of expressing my negative judgments about others. In fact, I'm pretty good at hiding when I don't like someone.

The second example (neurotic scale) mistakes being emotionally healthy for being calm and laid back. The fact that I lack confidence has no indication over whether I'm high-strung. It also has nothing to do with how I handle stress.

I'm almost positive that the makers of this quiz personally feel that agreeability is a good, desirable trait, and that neuroticism is bad and undesirable. It seems very ExFJ-esque, in my opinion, and I'm nothing like ExFJs so I'm naturally going to get a more negative result.

Besides, Big Five can't be put into fun little categories of generally like-minded people. MBTI, if nothing else, has been pretty accurate in this regard. A lot of INFPs love reading, especially the fantasy genre. A lot of INTJs are nihilists. A lot of ESFPs enjoy partying/drinking, a lot of ISFJs are deeply religious, and a lot of ISFPs are artists. These things have very little to do with the four letters we see after taking the test, but MBTI is able to accurately sort us into these groups.

The advantage that Big Five has over the MBTI is that its questions are simply easier to answer through self-analysis. "Do you have an assertive personality?" and "Are you outgoing?" are broad questions about traits that people generally keep throughout their lives. The MBTI variations' questions are so specific (ie. "Do you try to respond to your emails as soon as possible?") that they can easily change within a few days' time. It also probably helps that the sole basis of a person's Big Five type is the test itself, and not complicated stacks of cognitive functions.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I feel like a lot of people (myself included) dislike Big Five because it places an emphasis on favorable and unfavorable qualities, rather than every type having its own strengths and weaknesses. Like any other test, it makes generalizations, but these seem to be more biased.

I say that I'm very critical and have a tendency to notice flaws, so it types me as having extremely low agreeability. I went from being critical and pragmatic to being the person everyone avoids; the person who snaps at others for no reason and will win an argument at all costs.

I have reasonably low self-esteem and gradually improving social anxiety, so in a similar fashion, I'm now neurotic. I'm the type of person who loses her head in stressful situations and isn't happy unless everything is perfect.

The thing is, I'm nothing like either of these. They are inaccurate because of the test's generalizations.

The first example (agreeable scale) ignores the fact that I have a tendency to pick up on all kinds of subtle details about people. This includes things as complex as religion, political affiliation, interests, personality type, what social group they were a part of in high school/college, and strengths, as well as weaknesses and flaws. It also ignores the fact that I don't make a habit of expressing my negative judgments about others. In fact, I'm pretty good at hiding when I don't like someone.

The second example (neurotic scale) mistakes being emotionally healthy for being calm and laid back. The fact that I lack confidence has no indication over whether I'm high-strung. It also has nothing to do with how I handle stress.

I'm almost positive that the makers of this quiz personally feel that agreeability is a good, desirable trait, and that neuroticism is bad and undesirable. It seems very ExFJ-esque, in my opinion, and I'm nothing like ExFJs so I'm naturally going to get a more negative result.

Besides, Big Five can't be put into fun little categories of generally like-minded people. MBTI, if nothing else, has been pretty accurate in this regard. A lot of INFPs love reading, especially the fantasy genre. A lot of INTJs are nihilists. A lot of ESFPs enjoy partying/drinking, a lot of ISFJs are deeply religious, and a lot of ISFPs are artists. These things have very little to do with the four letters we see after taking the test, but MBTI is able to accurately sort us into these groups.

The advantage that Big Five has over the MBTI is that its questions are simply easier to answer through self-analysis. "Do you have an assertive personality?" and "Are you outgoing?" are broad questions about traits that people generally keep throughout their lives. The MBTI variations' questions are so specific (ie. "Do you try to respond to your emails as soon as possible?") that they can easily change within a few days' time. It also probably helps that the sole basis of a person's Big Five type is the test itself, and not complicated stacks of cognitive functions.

Small minds need less groups. Some just stick with man and women or race. Lmao :D
 

Electra2

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
13
MBTI Type
INFP
I didn't get any PD's from the test but avoidant and independant came highest up towards the PD-scale-limit. The other ones were pretty fare away.
 

VILLANELLE

New member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
731
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
261
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I've gotten SLOAI on the Big 5, with emphasis on Organized, and then Accommodating aspects, respectively.
 

Galena

Silver and Lead
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,786
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
*RLOAX/XCIAN*

I have a fuzzy theory that conscientious tendencies with higher baseline neuroticism look very different from the same with low neuroticism, and could be mistaken at first glance for low conscientiousness.
 
Top