MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

[tinkerbell]

AN important thing about the descriptors of type... is that there will just be a skewed tendancy- it will not be definative, because there is a RANGE of tastes

Hope this makes some sense to you...

Either way think about a brickie... he builds a wall... you don't need to know anything about brick laying to establish if the wall there....

You need to identify critera and meaure the wall to see if it constitues a wall....

 

[teslashock]

Well yes, isn't that what the thread is about? "Can this be proven empirically?"

The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.

We can go about tweaking the MBTI questionnaires and classifications all we want so that paper descriptions of behaviors match up with our categories (a kind of "proof", if you will), but we can't really prove the accuracy of MBTI until we see its backing in the physical world (via studying brain chemistry yadda yadda yadda).

 

[tinkerbell]

MBTI is a descriptor of character, not of their physiology doh

 

[VagrantFarce]

The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.

We can go about tweaking the MBTI questionnaires and classifications all we want so that paper descriptions of behaviors match up with our categories (a kind of "proof", if you will), but we can't really prove the accuracy of MBTI until we see its backing in the physical world (via studying brain chemistry yadda yadda yadda).

...yes, this is a Te stance. What exactly are we disagreeing about?

 

[Laurie]

Motion to evict any ENTP club members who are interested in astrology and cast them into the ENFP club.

Oh no you di'int.

 

[nightning]

MBTI has extremely high test-retest consistency... its problem lies in construct validity. How do we know that what we're measuring actually exists or are we merely assigning labels for something else?

Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.

MBTI is used in counseling psychology (because people find the concepts useful because people like categorizing things) and not in other psychology (because MBTI is not valid and there already exist a better lexicon-based system, namely FFM).

 

[DaPerformer]

As a "noob" I'm interested in this thread, as it is brings to the surface a question I have about MBTI.

I frequently wonder how granular people think they are going to be able to be when "predicting" how a person thinks/acts based on their type. I see many gross generalizations about specific types in here and that concerns me that some stereotypical behaviors are thought to be present in all people of a certain type, when it is really meant more to indicate a natural tendency.

Life experience still has to play a huge role in a personality. For example, my father was a job-hopper, and the problem that created in our lives influenced me to be very stationary in my work, even past what might normally be comfortable for me. this might lead a person to think this "stability "trait represents a specific type, when it wasn't the natural tendancy at all, but rather an experience that developed the trait.

My concern is that some people might think that this typology gives them the ability to judge a book by it's "cover". The science behind what I have read so far seems solid regarding determining a "type". The application of stereotypes seem to detract from BMTI's value, it seems.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.

That analogy makes me giddy with joy.

 

[tinkerbell]

MBTI has extremely high test-retest consistency... its problem lies in construct validity. How do we know that what we're measuring actually exists or are we merely assigning labels for something else?

Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.

MBTI is used in counseling psychology (because people find the concepts useful because people like categorizing things) and not in other psychology (because MBTI is not valid and there already exist a better lexicon-based system, namely FFM).

++ from me...

MBTI is a descriptor system with limits, like anything else.... But then it's not claiming to me much more than just that... for what its worth it just calls the colour the same most of the time, which means it does work at consitantly naming, it can't paint pictures




AND for what it's worth, there are loads of ways to test it's reliability and consistancy, I just suggested on possible approach..... you put 10 researchers into a room and you will get 10 different wway to do it with different strengths and weakenesses in the approaches... but then all research is flawed

 

[Mole]

The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.

Actually, all of mathematics is based on the injunction, "Make a distinction".

Even the natural numbers are based on the same injunction.

And how lucky you are that you can read all about it in a lovely book by G. Spencer Brown called, "The Laws of Form".

 

[tinkerbell]

As a "noob" I'm interested in this thread, as it is brings to the surface a question I have about MBTI.

I frequently wonder how granular people think they are going to be able to be when "predicting" how a person thinks/acts based on their type. I see many gross generalizations about specific types in here and that concerns me that some stereotypical behaviors are thought to be present in all people of a certain type, when it is really meant more to indicate a natural tendency.

Life experience still has to play a huge role in a personality. For example, my father was a job-hopper, and the problem that created in our lives influenced me to be very stationary in my work, even past what might normally be comfortable for me. this might lead a person to think this "stability "trait represents a specific type, when it wasn't the natural tendancy at all, but rather an experience that developed the trait.

My concern is that some people might think that this typology gives them the ability to judge a book by it's "cover". The science behind what I have read so far seems solid regarding determining a "type". The application of stereotypes seem to detract from BMTI's value, it seems.

The point is that MBTI is a descriptor, wich has some common behaviours and attitutes overlayed on it. I think the reliablity of prediction is pretty weak in places, but useful in others...

E types tend to think outloud/get energiesed by conversation.... etc
When it gets down to specifics and detail I think its pretty poor... and of limited use (but still better than nothing)

I fully agree with defining a book by its cover etc.. but it can be helpful to have some awareness of likihood, it depnds on how the user uses it

 

[Mole]

MBTI is used in counseling psychology (because people find the concepts useful because people like categorizing things) and not in other psychology (because MBTI is not valid and there already exist a better lexicon-based system, namely FFM).

We are pattern seeking animals. And we prefer any pattern to no pattern. And for this reason we are subject to self deception and illusion. And this is why we test patterns we perceive against evidence and reason.

And this is what we learnt in the Enlightenment - to test patterns we perceive against evidence and reason. For instance, this is how we discovered the Earth goes round the Sun, and that our perception that the Sun goes round the Earth is an illusion.

And when we test MBTI against evidence and reason we find MBTI is based on self deception and illusion.

 

[teslashock]

...yes, this is a Te stance. What exactly are we disagreeing about?

Oh I guess we aren't disagreeing on anything. I just took your original comment about the limitations of dogmatic Te as a subtle insult to the perspectives that SW and I were arguing (and again, my argument is not that MBTI is useless because it can't be empirically proven; my argument is simply that MBTI cannot be empirically proven).

Anyway, I think science requires a healthy dose of dogmatic Te. Te is limited but for good reason.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Oh I guess we aren't disagreeing on anything. I just took your original comment about the limitations of dogmatic Te as a subtle insult to the perspectives that SW and I were arguing (and again, my argument is not that MBTI is useless because it can't be empirically proven; my argument is simply that MBTI cannot be empirically proven).

It was just an impartial observation. I figured the smiley helped to illustrate the non-judgemental stance, but oh wellllllllllllllllllllll

(note to self - design an improved smiley that helps illustrate a non-judgemental stance)

We are pattern seeking animals. And we prefer any pattern to no pattern. And for this reason we are subject to self deception and illusion. And this is why we test patterns we perceive against evidence and reason.

And this is what we learnt in the Enlightenment - to test patterns we perceive against evidence and reason. For instance, this is how we discovered the Earth goes round the Sun, and that our perception that the Sun goes round the Earth is an illusion.

And when we test MBTI against evidence and reason we find MBTI is based on self deception and illusion.

Gosh, I just wanna put you in a glass box labelled "INTJ" and keep you forever and ever.

 

[Mole]

Gosh, I just wanna put you in a glass box labelled "INTJ" and keep you forever and ever.

I would prefer you related to me as a person than a type.

 

[teslashock]

It was just an impartial observation. I figured the smiley helped to illustrate the non-judgemental stance, but oh wellllllllllllllllllllll

(note to self - design an improved smiley that helps illustrate a non-judgemental stance)

It's cool; my comments come off the same way some times. Miscommunications over the internet are all too common, so don't mind my slight sensitivity.

 

[Mitzy]

a scary person

 

[teslashock]

I would prefer you related to me as a person than a type.

Yes because didn't you know that MBTI types = robots?

 

[VagrantFarce]

I would prefer you related to me as a person than a type.

But you're soooooo INTJ! "At the heart of it people prefer any pattern to no pattern" is totally a Dominant-Ni stance! And "We must test these patterns against evidence and reason" is sooo an Auxillary-Te stance! And then you get all defensive with your Tertiary-Fi! WEEEEEEE

If it isn't clear, this is sort of a half-troll / half-sincere friendly poke at the ribs

 

[sofmarhof]

MBTI may not often be used in scientific experiments, but the Big 5 Personality Factors, which are basically the same thing plus another dichotomy, are. There's nothing unscientific about saying someone is a T, because you are essentially saying that a thinker is a thinker. MBTI becomes unscientific where we start saying that an INTP is something more than I+N+T+P.

We should come up with a list of falsifiable hypotheses about MBTI that could be tested.

However I regard MBTI more than anything else as a language for describing behavior. So whether it's correct is not the question, but whether it's useful, which I find it is. Nobody would argue that French is true or not true.