# Thread: MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

1. Originally Posted by Jenna
Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?
One thing you can do to circumvent this is that rather than categorical variables, broken into binary response choices, given each of the 4 axis (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P), treat them as continuous variables.

But, then you lose the whole point of MBTI, which is to categorize into X number of categories.

Some things are clear cut in terms of it being a categorical data - male or female. Other things, it depends on the premise you start off with, so MBTI's premise is to group using X # of axis (dichotomous), i.e., categorize, thus it's kind of moot trying to find individuality through a test that's saying they want to group.

But, this is an issue inherent in any type of categorization. However, we can see aggregates of results and how it shows a normal distribution within each category. If everyone was falling exactly at 100%, you should raise a few eyebrows at the scale.......because it shows a clear bias. Variance is good. Hence, a good scale should give a range of responses, from 0 to 100 and thus, there will be those weirdos who fall around the 50% mark. It's a good thing for a scale to do this.

People are really different, and there's not a categorical scale that can ever hope to account for all the differences we see, because we'll be increasing the categories towards infinity, accounting for all the variables to measure differences.

MBTI has chosen 8 variables, to use to group people, of course, 8 variables cannot account for all human differences, nor should one fault it for doing so, because they're missing the premise of MBTI.

I guess, the best thing to do would be that the person is aware of how close they fall between an axis (near 50%), rather than take on the subsequent grouping to be absolute for them (i.e., take on the dichotomous reality and end it there).

2. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Great evil overlords, too.
So the quintessential NTJ archetype would be Special Agent Dale Cooper after he's been traded for his evil double in the Black Lodge?

3. ummm sure, whatever floats your boat honey

4. Originally Posted by Victor
Nothing succeeds like excess.
And, extravagance is a sin.

5. Originally Posted by Jenna
Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?
woooops sorry

Yes that is correct, think religion, or politics.... You get extremists and non extremists.. in MBTI the coding is usually such that a fair few will be extreme... NS dicotomy particularly... I don't think I've met a borderline S type or N type... but EI, PJ T/F often come out that way... (MBTI is valid only as an SN differenciate all by itself.....)

You have less extremes towards the middle and extremes at the end.... excet without it being about either religion or politics, its about the estent to which the are extroverted or introvrted.

As an E type I can think quite happily on my own, I can brain storm and get a range of excellent ideas... but I if I chat to people i get more enthusiastic about whatever it is I'm doing... the more E the more energied they would be at the end

I types however get their energy from the intial creative of thinking it all the way through themselves.... I types get energy from thinking... if you made them sit with very chatty people for 8 hours they would be exhausted... The more I the more exhausted.

Sorry to have missed you

6. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
We're talking about Tinkerbell's attempt to transfer Ti ideas into Te practice without adequate evidence.
No I was providing one type of experimental design to MEASURE internal and cross time reliability/consitancy...

You seem to be struggling with measurment as evidence thats all ... and what I suggested is a perfectly valid appoach that would include normal statistical modeling etc... there are of course several very valid approahces that could be used to do what is being talked about byt the OP

I do appreciate that you are struggling to disscoiate measurment/validation with existance... doh - don't you just hate that when it happens.... but do enjoy the quagmire that you are making for yourself.....

7. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
That's a shame. My INTJ younger brother is a psych major and thinks typology/Jung are utterly ridiculous and totally useless. If the lack of empirical evidence is that unsettling to you, typology may not be for you.
Oh heavens no, the complaint was not about the lack of empirical evidence. Rather it was about the idea that there can be no empirical evidence. I'm aware (I think) that Ti and Te differ on what counts as foundations for proof and I was jokingly opining.

It's interesting, maybe even relevant, to observe the differences between NTP and NTJ "proof". I think NTJ, particularly this INTJ, is/are willing to grant concrete truth to some things (maybe everything) quite quickly, and probably well before NTP brethren. Some evidence is accumulated and then, kablammo, something is asserted true, and let's move on from there. That's Te being shallow, and probably turning to Ni to build up the rest of the picture and evidence be damned... but not quite, because the picture can be revised at later dates. The NTJ won't necessarily admit the picture can be revised. But probably the fact is the picture is constantly being revised via Ni creation and recreation of concepts and connections.

So, as INTJ, I say Jungian functional analysis is true and let's go with that and see what happens. Naturally, I am being hasty and technically I am wrong to say "it's true", but I don't care because I know there's a whole lot of processing still to come before complete and utter truth is established. But, just so that Ni can get on with the job, and actually has something to be getting on with, I'm letting Te be shallow and I say Jungian functional analysis is true. (And Ni is going to change the Te referents anyway, so what they hey, hey?)

Technically, I suppose that's doing the search for truth backwards. But there it is. I think that, or something like it, is what goes on for NTJs.

Note the pretentious "non-science" attitude NTJs often take toward philosophy. They don't see any reason to bother with it if you can't stick it in a test tube and write down a number. Pity.
I recognise that attitude. I can believe the usual idea that NTJs who study philosophy usually end up happy to escape it. I think that may be accounted for by the backwards search for truth idea inasmuch as going backwards like mentioned above is really counter-productive, or at least painful, if attempted much on conceptual analysis. Pragmatic analyses, yes. Conceptual... sometimes.

But so... MBTI...where's the proof? I dunno. That's a tough question for me to worry about answering when I'm in the middle of playing with the system itself and checking it every day against people I meet and things I "see".

But I am aware that it might all be wrong. It might even all be false.

8. Originally Posted by Qre:us
People are really different, and there's not a categorical scale that can ever hope to account for all the differences we see, because we'll be increasing the categories towards infinity, accounting for all the variables to measure differences.

MBTI has chosen 8 variables, to use to group people, of course, 8 variables cannot account for all human differences, nor should one fault it for doing so, because they're missing the premise of MBTI.

I guess, the best thing to do would be that the person is aware of how close they fall between an axis (near 50%), rather than take on the subsequent grouping to be absolute for them (i.e., take on the dichotomous reality and end it there).
Why are people so offended by MBTI when it's just an imperfect model. (as is almost every scientific model)

"3. A model of a system or process is a theoretical description that can help you understand how the system or process works, or how it might work"
model in English - Google Dictionary

I had a long discussion with someone finishing up his PhD in AI to determine acceptability of different objects (sponges, for one thing) just with a computer looking at them. That is how he looks as MBTI, as a model, it's not there to box but rather to model people's behavior in a relatively worthwhile way.

9. Originally Posted by Victor
I am though an ardent critic of MBTI.
Your "criticisms" of MBTI seem more intent on maligning those who find MBTI valid, rather than specific criticisms of the theory.

10. I don't know if this adds any credibility to MBTI, but one of my friends was MBTI tested in High School for Orientation class. If the education system trusts it, it must be trustworthy and useful to some extent...

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO