MBTI - science or bullshit?

[onemoretime]

1% of the public? 2% maybe?

More than you think. I actually overheard a couple of people at the train station talking about it randomly. I was surprised, to say the least.

 

[Moiety]

Making predictions with MBTI is indeed bullshit. Using MBTI as a descriptive tool, and then making predictions based on the traits you've narrowed in on (and hopefully others) isn't necessarily bullshit.

For example, if you meet person X and know a bit about MBTI, it may help you think about person X to use the MBTI framework. You might be quicker to notice something like, "oh, person X seems to place great importance on concepts like 'right' and 'wrong'". Since you've realized that, you may be able to make inferences about their future actions more quickly than you would without MBTI.

Same goes for astrology, I guess.

But most people seem to make all sorts of wacky inferences with MBTI (just look at all the threads on this site!), and in that sense, it may do more overall harm than good. But it's all a matter of how you apply it.

Yes, and in my arrogance, I must admit, I don't trust most of the people here to apply it wisely.

 

[BlackCat]

It's not bullshit, but it sure doesn't cover every part of someone's personality...

This is like comparing something being blazing hot to freezing cold. It's two extremes, and neither really describe what it is.

But it's definitely not science.

 

[redacted]

Yes, and in my arrogance, I must admit, I don't trust most of the people here to apply it wisely.

I hear ya.

Me neither.

 

[laughingebony]

Is the MBTI science, or is it bullshit?

In asking this question, you assume that...

1. It must be at least one of the two.
2. It cannot be both.

 

[wren]

MBTI is not science...

Cognitive functions are just like Freudian theories... not science because it cannot be falsified.

Think of MBTI as quick categorical labels defined arbitrary by people.
Like colors of a rainbow... Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, purple do not exist.

i don't agree with what you said above. mbti can be falsified just like any theory. i was thinking about what someone said about cognitive functions, where they couldn't understand why the order of preference didn't indicate the type determined by prevailing theory.

well, what if the theory is actually wrong? maybe there isn't a pattern of cognitive functions 8 deep that determines type? beebe and all those other theorists aren't right in their thinking!

not to harp on you in particular here. i don't even know your screen name and i'm going off a post that hit me in a shallow (drunken) way which brought along my train of thought.

cheers!

 

[alcea rosea]

Is the MBTI science, or is it bullshit? (I'm already pretty sure that the enneagram is bullshit.)

Parts of the things described in the MBTI have been proven in the field of science, like:

tendency towards extroversion and introversion
tendecy towards seeing the big picture or tendency to focus on details

also intuition has been searched a lot and I would assume some people have stronger tendency to use it than other

I would connect J an P to the need to have a closure or to control the outcome (?) and probably those traits have been aslo searched.

For the jungian functions, I don't know if any of them are really "proven" which doesn't mean that they couldn't be.

And for the type, I don't know if it really is as described. But it is true, I think, that there are certain types of behavior among people and thinking patterns and raction patterns and some people are alike in some parts of their traits. But at the end, all people are unique.

 

[nasmoe]

....what would penn jillette say.....
Actually I dont know about science but I dont think its bullshit either.

 

[Xander]

MBTI and science? F'sure?

Is science science? Not usually. Too much "cause I said so".
Is MBTI science? Not when used correctly no. Basically because it doesn't claim certainty. Only idiots and scientists claim that.

 

[dbw]

In asking this question, you assume that...

1. It must be at least one of the two.
2. It cannot be both.

I was asserting (1) with tongue in cheek. (2) is correct.

 

[MrRandom]

I've been extremely interested in MBTI for a long time. My interest in it has been based on self-validation for the most part. It provided understanding, even deep insight, for an odd-one-out like me.

Not long ago I read Lenore Thomson's book about MBTI/typology and I was extremely excited about it. After I had read it, I felt kind of empty... like the whole subject had lost its meaning to me. I suddenly felt that MBTI is worth nothing.

I suppose that feeling came from the fact that I could identify with every type description in it. It didn't feel like 16 distinct boxes anymore, which plays key role in its usage as a tool. I dunno. Nothing was clear anymore, although it was supposed to be even clearer after such focused literature.

I'm still interested in MBTI. Just not as much. It's difficult to let go of it. I'd still like to know the type of any new friends I make... the urge to test them is strong... but all in all, I've lost a lot of respect for MBTI.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I believe that cognitive functions are broad terms that capture something within the psyche so I don't think it's just all fake confirmation bias. If it were, then technically I should identify with all functions but I don't. There's definitely a correlation, and if that correlation exists then I think it's a theory that has some credibility.

The only reasons psychology departments never touch MBTI is because of the heavy focus on empirical studies only. Just like how psychology doesn't dabble with general philosophical ideas on the mind, virtually no focus on the idea of visual images or that dreams exist. All that doesn't indicate that MBTI is bogus, otherwise you could claim that dreaming is bogus.

 

[simulatedworld]

Why do you people still insist on making threads like this?

Honestly, this has been settled like 600 times.

The fact that you expect a binary answer ("TOTAL REAL SCIENCE!" OR "100% BULLSHIT!") probably indicates that you aren't considering the issue in the right context to make it meaningful.

But I guess I'll explain one more time...

Typology is not scientific and doesn't purport to be; it's not a fundamentally testable hypothesis because it's based on arbitrarily made up categorizations and never actually makes any quantifiable or testable claims.

The "MBTI test" is garbage because it depends on self-report; that does not, however, invalidate the use of psychological archetypes as an exercise in expanding one's perspectives (which is the whole point--not to create a precise scientific mold that can be empirically predicted.)

It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.

The only reasons psychology departments never touch MBTI is because of the heavy focus on empirical studies only. Just like how psychology doesn't dabble with general philosophical ideas on the mind, virtually no focus on the idea of visual images or that dreams exist. All that doesn't indicate that MBTI is bogus, otherwise you could claim that dreaming is bogus.

Actually, I was taught MBTI in college in Intro to Psych, but they stressed that it's unscientific and merely a thought exercise.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Why do you people still insist on making threads like this?

Honestly, this has been settled like 600 times.

The fact that you expect a binary answer ("TOTAL REAL SCIENCE!" OR "100% BULLSHIT!") probably indicates that you aren't considering the issue in the right context to make it meaningful.

But I guess I'll explain one more time...

Typology is not scientific and doesn't purport to be; it's not a fundamentally testable hypothesis because it's based on arbitrarily made up categorizations and never actually makes any quantifiable or testable claims.

The "MBTI test" is garbage because it depends on self-report; that does not, however, invalidate the use of psychological archetypes as an exercise in expanding one's perspectives (which is the whole point--not to create a precise scientific mold that can be empirically predicted.)

It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.

What do you think when people type with high accuracy in that case?
Why is it that self reporting leads to it being garbage? Little faith on peoples introspection skills or something else? =/

Otherwise I agree with the other comments about the fuzziness.

 

[simulatedworld]

What do you think when people type with high accuracy in that case?
Why is it that self reporting leads to it being garbage? Little faith on peoples introspection skills or something else? =/

Otherwise I agree with the other comments about the fuzziness.

Because people have varying levels of ability to self-report honestly.

If you can self-report honestly, such tests will yield reasonably accurate results.

Problem, though: How do we know who's capable of honest self-report and who isn't?

 

[Snow Turtle]

Because people have varying levels of ability to self-report honestly.

If you can self-report honestly, such tests will yield reasonably accurate results.

Problem, though: How do we know who's capable of honest self-report and who isn't?

That's certainly something I'm not going to argue with. It's definitely something that a person can improve on though. Guess that's a problem that exists in all personality theories in which case I always ask this question. Why the hell is Big 5 not seen as garbage?*

*I'm talking to myself at this stage. I realise that it only focuses on descriptions of surface behaviour, rather than what's internal but still it has the whole self-reporting problem.

 

[nightning]

For clarifications...

The difference between MBTI and Big5

Big5
Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits

MBTI
No proof for intrinsic existence of personality types in people. Appears to be arbitrary labels used to categorize people
Vigorous scientific experimentation has consistently FAILED to disprove null hypothesis that MBTI types are made-up.

 

[Xander]

It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.

Verified, measured & quantified by whom? When do you measure them?

Ooo, just realised... I have no idea what height you are... ergo you don't exist... I'm replying to a non existent entity... Eeek!!! I'm running the risk of endangering my existence!!!

 

[dbw]

Ok, thanks for the responses.

The MBTI types are not bullshit. If you measure your personality along four axes, you can use those four attributes to describe your personality in broad strokes. Clearly this works to some extent... for instance, the description of an INTP fits me (perfectly), while the description of an ESFJ does not (to say the least). In this respect MBTI is just like the more scientifically accepted Big 5, and the four MBTI axes even correspond nicely to four of the Big 5 axes.

The part that's bullshit is the cognitive functions. This whole subtheory seems to be an ugly mix of pop psychology, some arcane numerology, and a dogmatic reading of Jung (who wrote a lot of bullshit to begin with).

Conclusion: MBTI is at least partially bullshit, but it's interesting anyway. The Big 5 seems a lot more useful to me but it's got one big disadvantage: nobody wants to talk about how neurotic they are. The MBTI is less invasive.

Edit: That said... I think I really showed my type (INtP) by starting this thread. Google "MBTI bullshit" and you get a thread from an INFP site, a thread from an INTP site, and this one.

 

[simulatedworld]

Verified, measured & quantified by whom? When do you measure them?

Ooo, just realised... I have no idea what height you are... ergo you don't exist... I'm replying to a non existent entity... Eeek!!! I'm running the risk of endangering my existence!!!

Uh, I think you completely missed my point.

My point was that there ARE lots of worthwhile ideas that are not quantifiable or empirically verifiable. I think we probably agree.

For clarifications...

The difference between MBTI and Big5

Big5
Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits

MBTI
No proof for intrinsic existence of personality types in people. Appears to be arbitrary labels used to categorize people
Vigorous scientific experimentation has consistently FAILED to disprove null hypothesis that MBTI types are made-up.

Uhh dude, do me a favor and compare the Big 5 factors to the MBTI scales; they're all virtually the same concepts except MBTI lacks neuroticism.

The other four line up almost exactly with MBTI's E/I, N/S, T/F and P/J scales...they're so conceptually similar it's hilarious.

The only difference is that the Big 5 people came up with a better testing system. The ideas are all the same shit across all forms of psychological typology.

(P.S., the Big 5 also fails utterly if you're not able or willing to self-report honestly. It suffers precisely the same problem.)