Have you ever questioned the validity of MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, or any of the other personality theories discussed on this website?
In 2014, I inadvertently started a project that led me to question the methods behind personality theory even more than I had prior.
My experience goes back to 2009, when I first joined this website. It was then that I typed myself as a Feeler in MBTI and eventually Socionics. On this typing, I received very little argument or push-back. Most of the time, people corroborated my self-typing by supporting it with their own assessments, anecdotes, and feelings.
Then, 2014 rolled around, and someone who knew me more intimately than anyone I had known up until that point doggedly convinced me that I was a Thinker in socionics. Moreover, the reasons behind the argument that I was a Thinker undermined my own reasoning for being certain types in various systems. Overall, I had to re-evaluate my self-concept to suit new information.
So, in the aftermath of Typology Central's email leak, I started a new account and listed new types. I told only a handful of individuals that I was Ginkgo/Mystic Tater. And, similar to my experiences back in 2009, I found virtually no objection about my listed type from people who didn't know me prior. Mostly, people corroborated my self-typing as a Thinker.
Overall, I think my experiences shed a light on how much confirmation bias influences the analysis of someone's type. In making conclusions about what my type was, it didn't matter what my behavior was so much as what I listed on my profile. Objectivity gets lost when information simply supports pre-existing conclusions.
So, after all this time, I've found even more reason to be skeptical about the methods used to type people - especially as they concern online communities.
In 2014, I inadvertently started a project that led me to question the methods behind personality theory even more than I had prior.
My experience goes back to 2009, when I first joined this website. It was then that I typed myself as a Feeler in MBTI and eventually Socionics. On this typing, I received very little argument or push-back. Most of the time, people corroborated my self-typing by supporting it with their own assessments, anecdotes, and feelings.
Then, 2014 rolled around, and someone who knew me more intimately than anyone I had known up until that point doggedly convinced me that I was a Thinker in socionics. Moreover, the reasons behind the argument that I was a Thinker undermined my own reasoning for being certain types in various systems. Overall, I had to re-evaluate my self-concept to suit new information.
So, in the aftermath of Typology Central's email leak, I started a new account and listed new types. I told only a handful of individuals that I was Ginkgo/Mystic Tater. And, similar to my experiences back in 2009, I found virtually no objection about my listed type from people who didn't know me prior. Mostly, people corroborated my self-typing as a Thinker.
Overall, I think my experiences shed a light on how much confirmation bias influences the analysis of someone's type. In making conclusions about what my type was, it didn't matter what my behavior was so much as what I listed on my profile. Objectivity gets lost when information simply supports pre-existing conclusions.
So, after all this time, I've found even more reason to be skeptical about the methods used to type people - especially as they concern online communities.