Taking MBTT too seriously

[snegledmaca]

Uhm, is it me or do some people here seem to take MBTT a little too seriously?

 

[FemMecha]

Uhm, is it me or do some people here seem to take MBTT a little too seriously?

I'm thinking it's not you.

But oh my yes. You hit the nail on the head, toots. It's a theory, not a fact, interesting, but not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. That's why I really appreciate that this new site doesn't require a field to declare type. Having to wade through the stereotypes associated with whichever type you declare yourself to be is very much like trudging through a field knee-deep in cow patties. A habit can develop in which people's words are twisted to fit the expectations of whatever type the reader is assuming them to possess. IMO it's very important on an MBTI site to have critics and threads exploring the limitations of the system.

 

[FemMecha]

Here are a couple of links to threads on other forums critiquing the system.

INTPcentral

INTPcentral

philosophyforums

It is considered pop psychology. The dogmatic approach to it is also pseudo-intellectualism. The stereotyping of people to the extent that certain behaviors are expected of them based on their type with the assumption that there is nothing they can do to change it, has gone beyond reason. That is pristine prejudice. It isn't even close to Jung's original theories. People use it as a way to simplify the world and justify ideas that otherwise have no justification.

It's an interesting theory and I enjoy learning about it and analyzing it. More than that I enjoy critiquing it as a way to balance its apparently natural tendency towards prejudicial thinking. People appear to forget that prejudice towards races and cultures were often justified with pseudo-science throughout the twentieth century.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's an interesting theory and I enjoy learning about it and analyzing it. More than that I enjoy critiquing it as a way to balance its apparently natural tendency towards prejudicial thinking. People appear to forget that prejudice towards races and cultures were often justified with pseudo-science throughout the twentieth century.

btw, we're looking for a few mods for PhrenologyCentral -- anyone interested?

 

[FemMecha]

btw, we're looking for a few mods for PhrenologyCentral -- anyone interested?

I'd probably end up putting a few extra dents in some skulls which would make the system less objective and scientific. Better pass.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd probably end up putting a few extra dents in some skulls which would make the system less objective and scientific. Better pass.

Ha -- Exactly what I would expect a melancholic endomorph to say!!

 

[Xander]

It seems to me that most of the criticism against the MBTI theories are that people misuse it and therefore it must be diminished. That doesn't make sense. Merely teach it better surely?

 

[FemMecha]

It seems to me that most of the criticism against the MBTI theories are that people misuse it and therefore it must be diminished. That doesn't make sense. Merely teach it better surely?

From what I understand that is a big part of it. The other issue is that the theory is not falsifiable. Because of that it cannot be subjected to the scientific process. It is theory, not fact, and should be treated accordingly.

 

[Xander]

From what I understand that is a big part of it. The other issue is that the theory is not falsifiable. Because of that it cannot be subjected to the scientific process. It is theory, not fact, and should be treated accordingly.

No psychology nor philosophy is scientifically proven. Neither is quantum physics proven. How far does something have to be proven before it is relied upon?

Do you stop with the rope bridge or insist on the golden gate to cross each ravine?

(Note I'm not meaning to attack, just make a point about how relative reliability and proof is.)

 

[Alienclock]

No psychology nor philosophy is scientifically proven. Neither is quantum physics proven. How far does something have to be proven before it is relied upon?

Do you stop with the rope bridge or insist on the golden gate to cross each ravine?

(Note I'm not meaning to attack, just make a point about how relative reliability and proof is.)

I think things ought to be proven before they are relied upon... But thats my opinion, its also my humble opinion that much of psychology and philosophy could be considered "nonsense"... In the sense that some years ago homosexuality was considered an illness. Now they've changed that to reflect popular opinion... As for quantum physics, I can't speak much about that... I imagine they have done some experiments that utilize quantum theory and have had some kind of consistent results... But theory is theory...

I think people take mbti way way too seriously...
Of course we all have different opinions on this one.

Ha -- Exactly what I would expect a melancholic endomorph to say!!

lol

 

[Xander]

I think things ought to be proven before they are relied upon...

"What is now proved was once impossible" ~ William Blake.

You know that the world doesn't work out according to a singular persons understanding of logic and yet they refuse stoically to try and predict the illogical.

Ergo MBTI may not be science. So what? Does it work for you? You can only really answer that if you investigate it's premises and trust in it at least for experiments. Of course your results are also only ever as good as your experiments but that's a different argument.

 

[red13]

It's a theory, not a fact, interesting, but not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

Virtually everything in life is a theory rather than a fact. Most "facts" will probably be overturned in the future as understanding gets deeper e.g. flat Earth, Sun revolves around the Earth etc.

Having said that I also believe that the MBTI can be demonstrated scientifically. You come up with a hypothesis such as “Certain types of people are drawn to forum such as this one”. In fact to come up a hypothesis that is falsifiable I could say:

“Type theory suggests that Intuitive types (xNxx) are more common on Internet forums than would be expected by chance”

We could then see if there is significantly more than 14% Initiatives on this forum and after applying probability tests (based on sample size) would hopefully be able to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

 

[Mycroft]

Uhm, is it me or do some people here seem to take MBTT a little too seriously?

Hey man, Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing is some addictive shit.

 

[DaRick]

It is considered pop psychology. The dogmatic approach to it is also pseudo-intellectualism. The stereotyping of people to the extent that certain behaviors are expected of them based on their type with the assumption that there is nothing they can do to change it, has gone beyond reason. That is pristine prejudice. It isn't even close to Jung's original theories. People use it as a way to simplify the world and justify ideas that otherwise have no justification.

It's an interesting theory and I enjoy learning about it and analyzing it. More than that I enjoy critiquing it as a way to balance its apparently natural tendency towards prejudicial thinking.

Yes, I have been on the receiving end of this 'stereotyping'. People begin to see things in you, or aspects of your personality, that either don't exist or act as part of a facade. I had one ENFP bonehead tell me that they knew I was an ISTJ, despite me not actually liking them or knowing them all that well, for instance (I hate the ISTJ description). Put simply, the MBTI is a signal for certain individuals (including teachers who should know better), to try and put people into a 'box', so to speak. You can't do it, as my mother explained, because everybody's out of the box to begin with, as Jung realised. It's like cramming a dozen people into a room only big enough to fit one person. Despite my irritation with the test itself, it still fascinates me.

 

[Ezra]

Anyone who takes interest in MBTT is likely to take it seriously. You should know this from t16t, snegledmaca; there are plenty of people who take socionics as seriously as MBTT. But you talk as if this is a bad thing. Why do you think this?

 

[red13]

It's a theory, not a fact, interesting, but not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

Aren’t theories the backbone of science? In the Intelligent Design (ID) court case in Pennsylvania , the ID camp claimed that Evolution was “just a theory”. The evolutionists spent a lot of time explaining, and ultimately persuading, the court that theories were essential to science and that virtually nothing in science is a fact. I’m sure that there are many experiments that can be conducted with MBTI that are falsifiable, although it’s true that most have not been tried.

I did a quick search on scholar.google.com, which only contains research papers, and found 5,910 hits. MBTI is widely used in academic research. Have a look at
mbti - Google Scholar

Having to wade through the stereotypes associated with whichever type you declare yourself to be is very much like trudging through a field knee-deep in cow patties. A habit can develop in which people's words are twisted to fit the expectations of whatever type the reader is assuming them to possess. IMO it's very important on an MBTI site to have critics and threads exploring the limitations of the system.

Although I believe that the four dichotomies are basically correct, I’ve never been terribly convinced by the “rounded” descriptions for a particular type. I suspect there are actually a lot more than four dichotomies to describe the six billion individual that exist today, but you need to choose the smallest number of indicators that proves useful and that may well be four.

I think things ought to be proven before they are relied upon... But thats my opinion

Prove gravity, it’s reckoned to be the closest thing to faith that many scientists have!

Finally the reason that MBTI is important to me is because it can be used to make projects more successful. In thirty years of participating and running IT projects it has become apparent that a failed or poorly executed project can have a terrible effect on people. I’ve come across many nervous breakdowns, mostly people on the project, people who have lost their jobs and even projects where their outcome would affect how many people survive e.g. systems in Accident and Emergency departments. I strongly believe that by building well-balanced and harmonious teams, significantly better results can be achieved. If I were building a team today, MBTI would be an important part of the team selection and team building process.

 

[autumn]

The fact that the theory can be misunderstood, or has room for refinement does not make it intrinsically wrong. The fact that it can be misused, and is misused by some people, does not make it intrinsically bad. People can misuse any number of things which are, taken of themselves, good things. The point needs to be made more often that a correct understanding of MBTI is supposed to lead to greater understanding among different people, not to stereotyping.

Ha -- Exactly what I would expect a melancholic endomorph to say!!

That's awesome.

autumn

 

[Randomnity]

Aren

 

[Randomnity]

Aren't theories the backbone of science? In the Intelligent Design (ID) court case in Pennsylvania the ID camp claimed that Evolution was “just a theory”. The evolutionists spent a lot of time explaining, and ultimately persuading, the court that theories were essential to science and that virtually nothing in science is a fact. I’m sure that there are many experiments that can be conducted with MBTI that are falsifiable, although it’s true that most have not been tried.

I did a quick search on scholar.google.com, which only contains research papers, and found 5,910 hits. MBTI is widely used in academic research. Have a look at
mbti - Google Scholar

It is too bad that the term "theory" is so often (mis)used in everyday speech. People start confusing scientific theory with "theory" as the word is commonly used.

A scientific theory (like evolution) is developed like this:
1) Hypothesis is come up with - a falsifiable explanation for a phenomenon.
2) Testable predictions are made and then many well-designed, reproducible experiments are done to see if the predictions happen
3) Given positive results, the scientific community accepts the theory as the most likely explanation, until new data is received

IOW, a scientific theory is not some random pipedream idea. It doesn't become a theory until it's passed through the above steps successfully. MBTI is a theory in the commonly-used sense, but not a theory in the scientific sense. It's still in the first step, as far as I know...its predictions aren't very testable right now and as a result the theory isn't falsifiable. Until someone develops experiments to test the hypothesis that MBTI is correct, it won't be scientific, which is why it should really be used with caution rather than as an absolute law.

Prove gravity, it’s reckoned to be the closest thing to faith that many scientists have!

Theories can't be proven but they can be heavily supported and never refuted, and therefore as close to fact as science is able to come. The fact that theories can't be absolutely proven doesn't mean that any half-baked, unsupported idea can now be considered science.

I'm not qualified to say whether the MBTI is accurate or not, but it's pretty clear that it is nonscientific, at least as I have experienced it.

 

["?"]

It seems to me that most of the criticism against the MBTI theories are that people misuse it and therefore it must be diminished. That doesn't make sense. Merely teach it better surely?

In part I agree, but mostly there have been a number of authors for the sake of simplifying have made some errors (i.e. using dichotomies rather than the type functions). As a result many do not take the time to learn the system in depth. I can't blame the messengers. It's the receivers fault not to develop better a better understanding of the system. As for whether it is taken too seriously, I think that people take themselves too seriously and as a result will transfer that to arguing in the name of the system. However, I would think these would be the same people who have a hard time living in the real world in general.