MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

[simulatedworld]

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

We're talking about Tinkerbell's attempt to transfer Ti ideas into Te practice without adequate evidence.

 

[ubiquitous1]

And the inconvenient truth is that MBTI is based on self deception and illusion rather than evidence and reason.

Did you know that for a long time the existence of germs was scoffed at? That many doctors who advocated washing their hands, as a way to prevent disease, were laughed at ?

I wonder if you were a doctor during the 1840s, would you have washed your hands? Or would you have been with the majority and laughed at the "unenlightened" doctors? Those stupid alchemists who wash their hands because there are "invisible" creatures on our hands which make us sick.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ I think Victor's ardent opposition to typology (despite explanations that it's unscientific and unfalsifiable) comes down largely to Fi's indignation at being "boxed in." He thinks it's dehumanizing, hence all the nonsensical garbage about how people who use MBTI are incapable of intimacy and blah blah blah.

It's just Fi whining that personality is too personal to be described in such seemingly clinical terms. He has no interest in whether or not it actually works; he'd rather just whine that his feelings have been hurt and use tertiary Ni to invent a bunch of ridiculous conspiracy theories about it.

Of course, I have to wonder what a self-described histrionic extreme introvert with no connection to anything outside himself would know about intimacy with others anyway.

 

[Mole]

I think Victor's ardent opposition to typology

I'm not opposed to typology which is the study of types - from mathematical types to types of literature, and even psychological types. I am though an ardent critic of MBTI.

Fortunately this is no longer MBTI Central, rather it is Typology Central.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm not opposed to typology which is the study of types. I am though an ardent critic of MBTI.

Fortunately this is no longer MBTI Central, rather it is Typology Central.

Then how is it that you still haven't figured out that almost no one on the board actually puts stock in MBTI? We use its categorical labels but it's almost universally understood that the test is unreliable...and yet, you keep burning the same straw man, as if in effigy of your own imaginary demons.

 

[Mole]

Then how is it that you still haven't figured out that almost no one on the board actually puts stock in MBTI? We use its categorical labels but it's almost universally understood that the test is unreliable...and yet, you keep burning the same straw man, as if in effigy of your own imaginary demons.

When I arrived here 4,000 posts ago, no one criticized MBTI. But now it is commonplace.

And you, dear Sim, are the perfect example of an MBTI critic.

Welcome aboard.

 

[simulatedworld]

When I arrived here 4,000 posts ago, no one criticized MBTI. But now it is commonplace.

And you, dear Sim, are the perfect example of an MBTI critic.

Welcome aboard.

Thanks. Maybe you should find a new dead horse to beat into a bloody pulp.

 

[Mole]

Thanks. Maybe you should find a new dead horse to beat into a bloody pulp.

Nothing succeeds like excess.

 

[simulatedworld]

Nothing succeeds like excess.

[insert vague solipsistic moralizing here]

 

[tcda]

I can predict what result people will get, ask them to take the test, and usually I'm right...how could I do this with a theory with no validity?

That's the point though it's a theory...which in science is on a higher plane than empirical evidence, i.e., it uses the latter to support it but can't be simply reduced to it, it requires someone to generalize from evidence and use reasoning to explain it.

 

[simulatedworld]

I can predict what result people will get, ask them to take the test, and usually I'm right...how could I do this with a theory with no validity?

That's the point though it's a theory...which in science is on a higher plane than empirical evidence, i.e., it uses the latter to support it but can't be simply reduced to it, it requires someone to generalize from evidence and use reasoning to explain it.

In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.

Anyway, being able to guess how people will test (I can often do this too) just means you can guess how they will describe themselves. This still doesn't prove anything about whether those self-descriptions are accurate, or whether they fit in with Jung's cognitive theories or not.

 

[tcda]

In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.

I'll take your word on the difference between theory, hypothesis and law. Makes sense actually, I was sloppy...slap me on the back of the hand.

Regarding "higher plane"...I thought that bit was true though (funny that seeing as I wrote it)...wouldn't the theory of evolution for example be considered on a higher plane than a simple peice of empirical evidence (a fossil let's say)

Anyway, being able to guess how people will test (I can often do this too) just means you can guess how they will describe themselves. This still doesn't prove anything about whether those self-descriptions are accurate, or whether they fit in with Jung's cognitive theories or not

This just shows your Ne is better than mine To be honest I usually base myself on how I've observed someone's behaviour, and just assume they will answer honestly.

 

[sofmarhof]

In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.

Really? I've always heard (in response to people who say "evolution is just a theory") that theory and law are completely different—a theory is 100% true and no amount of verification can ever make a theory a law.

 

[Glycerine]

Theory= scientific statement that has some truth to it because of empirical evidence supporting it (at a given time)but is no where near infallible. However, with most scientific theories, they get debunked over time. Ex. Parental investment theory
Law= scientific statement that is practically an absolute truth because nobody could disprove it through empirical findings. Ex. Newton's Law of Gravity

Learned the definitions from my EXTJ chemistry teachers.

 

[Kalach]

How does this solve the problem of confirmation bias and the fact that MBTI relies on self-report? Suppose most people don't know how to describe themselves accurately. I've seen clear ISFJs test INTP and cling religiously to that description. The test needs to be accurate before it can be used for any real research, which is impossible given that it relies on self-report.

If that sentence can be true then there's more than one test available, one being MBTI itself, the other being the perception (and classification) of the test subject by other individuals moderately well-versed in Jungian functional analysis, or at least, individuals moderately well-versed in type-spotting.

This is the puzzle to me, that people can observe that MBTI gets it wrong.

So... there was something to get right?

Thus, the important weakness of "MBTI"... that Jungian functional analysis--the theory that the Meyer Briggs Type Indicator was developed to operationalise--doesn't come with a depth gauge. It does provide a model but doesn't describe testable links between the model and reality. In other words, we can't--neither via MBTI nor Jungian function analysis--say something like "Fe is just short hand for the [something that admits scientific testing, such as say, brain activity, or whatever]."

I have the same general problem with, say, quantum mechanics. Quarks? Yeah, right.

(Observe, ladies and gentlemen, the above comment is naive, and uttered knowingly naively. It does not imply anything about quantum mechanics. It does imply something about my understanding of quantum mechanics.)

(Observe too, ladies and gentlemen, the above parenthetical comment is *not* a proof that all persons who disbelieve "MBTI" merely don't understand. It is entirely possible that it is I who doesn't understand.)


It's a model, a categorisation. One that hasn't described its basis for making that categorisation. The evil mastermind left it to us to observe for ourselves. Kinda cultish that way, one does have to say.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ The "something to get right" is my personal interpretation of Jung's functions. Most MBTI enthusiasts don't know much about them and place too much faith in their MBTI test results.

Note that when I say "clear ISFJs" though, that's just my interpretation. It can't be proven or verified, but I do believe that people who have made an effort to study the functional theory will tend to make more accurate assessments.

The musical genres parallel works well here. Suppose I were to claim that Jay-Z is a jazz fusion artist. There's not any empirical definition of what constitutes jazz fusion, but anyone who's really studied music would still be able to tell you I'm wrong. Make sense?

 

[Kalach]

The musical genres parallel works well here. Suppose I were to claim that Jay-Z is a jazz fusion artist. There's not any empirical definition of what constitutes jazz fusion, but anyone who's really studied music would still be able to tell you I'm wrong. Make sense?

It does. But it hurts. It burns. I may go blind.

Leaving it all up to, roughly, saying "anyone who's really immersed themselves in the day-to-day reality of this thing will see it" is very upsetting for this Te user. We're floating free of anchors, drifting through the sequence of perceptions and sensations that come our way, what others of less hardy constitution squeamishly insist is to be called "fixed and stable reality". Pity the young heads who need to call it fixed and stable, and rely on it.

 

[simulatedworld]

It does. But it hurts. It burns. I may go blind.

Leaving it all up to, roughly, saying "anyone who's really immersed themselves in the day-to-day reality of this thing will see it" is very upsetting for this Te user. We're floating free of anchors, drifting through the sequence of perceptions and sensations that come our way, what others of less hardy constitution squeamishly insist is to be called "fixed and stable reality". Pity the young heads who need to call it fixed and stable, and rely on it.

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.

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.

 

[Thalassa]

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.

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 bet they make great detectives though!

 

[simulatedworld]

I bet they make great detectives though!

Great evil overlords, too.