MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

[teslashock]

Trying to prove MBTI would be like trying to prove that an apple should be called an apple and an orange should be called an orange.

 

[tinkerbell]

Trying to prove MBTI would be like trying to prove that an apple should be called an apple and an orange should be called an orange.

thats not true, it is measurable/evaluatable, but it will never being 100% reliable because the descriminants are not rigorous enough, to be honest with you most segmentations are not 100% reliable

 

[Mole]

It can't be proven because there's no way to test it empirically.

And Carl Jung said that his book, "Personality Types", on which MBTI is based, contains no empirical evidence whatsoever.

 

[simulatedworld]

That's not actually true......very little of this stuff can't be researched in a robust manner, however it would be very time consuming and expensive....

the research design would be a hgue sample size who are taking an MBTI test preiodically over a time span... this would provide definative meaurment and give and understanidn og the % of migration and relaibility.

From one data set you can also understand the likely reliability within that particualr sample....

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.

I'm a professional researcher of good standing and have a first class honors degree -

...........but I do understand that you tend to spout opinions without evidence at all, so far be it from me to remove you from your little fantasies...

You have a degree in what, exactly? Astrology?

 

[BlackCat]

And Carl Jung said that his book, "Personality Types", on which MBTI is based, contains no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Clearly it's all crap then!

 

[simulatedworld]

Clearly it's all crap then!

Victor is too far in one direction and Tinkerbell is too far in the other. We need a happy medium of interpretation here.

It's not all crap; it just needs to be viewed as philosophy (not science because it can't be tested) and taken with an understanding of its limitations.

 

[teslashock]

thats not true, it is measurable/evaluatable, but it will never being 100% reliable because the descriminants are not rigorous enough, to be honest with you most segmentations are not 100% reliable

It's not measurable. Don't kid yourself. The tools used to measure personality type and cognitive functions are tests based on self-report, and we all know that self-report is vulnerable to a whole slew of potential biases.

The only way that MBTI could be provable is if we correlated each cognitive function with an area in the brain that fires up when we use certain functions. Correlating regions of the brain with those kinds of nuances would be a feat that any neurobiologist or cognitive scientist would sell their souls for, but I don't think it will ever really happen (at least not in this lifetime).

If we did manage to develop the ability to accurately decipher the meanings and nuances within neural signals and/or regions of the brain, I seriously doubt they'd find any real correlations to the 8 cognitive functions. Somebody made those up based on a non-empirical classification system. I can't prove that an apple should be called an apple because somebody made that labelling system up. If there were such biological backing for the cognitive functions, that'd be a huge coincidence, and Carl Jung should be getting the Nobel fucking Prize for his work.

 

[BlackCat]

Victor is too far in one direction and Tinkerbell is too far in the other. We need a happy medium of interpretation here.

It's not all crap; it just needs to be viewed as philosophy (not science because it can't be tested) and taken with an understanding of its limitations.

Yeah, I just find it absolutely ridiculous that even though you can use this system quite well and apply it to your life to help you understand people; that some people still think it's crap because there is no evidence. (wow longest sentence ever)

 

[tinkerbell]

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.

You have a degree in what, exactly? Astrology?

Business (inc statistics and strategy)....

There is only a % of error involved in MBTI... evaluation only measure the scale of the issue it doens't solve it.

GOOD segmentations always carry error as do any peice of research... evaluating a research (which MBTI is - its self completion), you would quantify the vagueries - and track them over time... to be honest, I think the error will be larger than it needs to be with soem tightening of the scales, but it's good enough for use, or it simply wouldn't have any internal reliability at all.. my guess would be around 80%-90% + reliable.... but that is guess work...

 

[Laurie]

I hear time after time that MBTI is only a set of logical groupings, it's not scientifically proven, you can't use it to dogmatically, etc. I then hear you need to consider the nuances of how the functions may be ordered, how strong they are etc.

You may also be combining more than one person's view on it.

 

[tinkerbell]

It's not measurable. Don't kid yourself. The tools used to measure personality type and cognitive functions are tests based on self-report, and we all know that self-report is vulnerable to a whole slew of potential biases.

The only way that MBTI could be provable is if we correlated each cognitive function with an area in the brain that fires up when we use certain functions. Correlating regions of the brain with those kinds of nuances would be a feat that any neurobiologist or cognitive scientist would sell their souls for, but I don't think it will ever really happen. And if we did manage to develop the ability to accurately decipher the meanings and nuances within neural signals and/or regions of the brain, I seriously doubt they'd find any real correlations to the 8 cognitive functions. Somebody made those up based on a non-empirical classification system. I can't prove that an apple should be called an apple because somebody made that labelling system up. If there were such biological backing for the cognitive functions, that'd be a huge coincidence.

OK I do this shit for a living - what's your soap box made off....

It can be evaluated... and the degree of error can be established... thats just multi wave quant research.. expensive but not particularly difficult... a pain to manage

The fact that it hasn't - is MUCH more interesting...

 

[Mole]

it [MBTI] just needs to be viewed as philosophy (not science because it can't be tested) and taken with an understanding of its limitations.

Sure, you might choose to view MBTI as a form of poetry or religious belief.

Jung stated that his work was not based on empirical evidence or reason.

And Carl Jung himself made it plain he was founding a form of modern secular religion.

Jung was not a man of the Enlightenment.

 

[teslashock]

OK I do this shit for a living - what's your soap box made off....

It can be evaluated... and the degree of error can be established... thats just multi wave quant research.. expensive but not particularly difficult... a pain to manage

The fact that it hasn't - is MUCH more interesting...

You attempt to correlate cognitive functions with neural pathways? Cool, dude.

And how exactly do you accurately evaluate the cognitive functions? Do tell, as now you've got me curious.

 

[tinkerbell]

take 5000 people - nationally represenative
get them all to complet their MBTI questionnaire on a specific day
(get them professionally assesed and categoriesed) - code the data base.

This data can be evaludated for internal reliability

6 months (maybe a year) later do it again - code to the data base
Check out which answers have changed - check out which MBTI classifications ahve changed (instantly you've provide SOME evidence of sustainability of classification.

Keep repeating and evaluating for say waves....

Each wave would cost in data collection ... est £300k....(maybe more)

So very expensive to do, but far from impossible at all.

As I said in my post to SW, I'd guess it is reliable about 80-90% of the time... or it simily wouldn't work on mass level

It's internal maths of a large sample, and repeated over time and compared between waves....

Probably a far less sexy answer than you want, but it will establish the degree of error of MBTI as a device

 

[simulatedworld]

Business (inc statistics and strategy)....

There is only a % of error involved in MBTI... evaluation only measure the scale of the issue it doens't solve it.

GOOD segmentations always carry error as do any peice of research... evaluating a research (which MBTI is - its self completion), you would quantify the vagueries - and track them over time... to be honest, I think the error will be larger than it needs to be with soem tightening of the scales, but it's good enough for use, or it simply wouldn't have any internal reliability at all.. my guess would be around 80%-90% + reliable.... but that is guess work...

How would you go about quantifying how accurately people are able to report about themselves? The best you would come up with is, "x% of people SAY this about themselves", which doesn't actually translate into the statement being true.

So you could do research on how people describe themselves, but I don't see any way you could quantify their accuracy in doing so. You can't translate "x% of people say this about themselves" into "x% of people actually ARE like this." Many people unconsciously answer how they would like to be/how they imagine themselves to be, and don't even realize they're not assessing themselves accurately.

How would we quantify this?

 

[ajblaise]

Damnit Tink, I wish you weren't into astrology, because you are actually making sense about MBTI, and psychometrics as an academic study.

 

[teslashock]

take 5000 people - nationally represenative
get them all to complet their MBTI questionnaire on a specific day
(get them professionally assesed and categoriesed) - code the data base.

This data can be evaludated for internal reliability

6 months (maybe a year) later do it again - code to the data base
Check out which answers have changed - check out which MBTI classifications ahve changed (instantly you've provide SOME evidence of sustainability of classification.

Tinkerbell, you are so far the only "psychologist"/"scientist" I know that says MBTI is scientific.

Have we not already said that questionnaires are susceptible to a whole slew of biases? How do you evaluate for internal reliability? I don't see how doing it again after 6months is going to eliminate errors in self-report. Science doesn't just repeat a bunch of correlatory experiments and statistical analyses to prove that they've reached a conclusion. They find a correlation and then attempt to find a causal relationship. Where is the causal relationship here? What causes certain cognitive functions in a person? How can we use this causal relationship to measure cognitive functions?

 

[Mitzy]

dont hate. astrology rules

 

[Mole]

I hear time after time that MBTI is only a set of logical groupings, it's not scientifically proven, you can't use it to dogmatically, etc. I then hear you need to consider the nuances of how the functions may be ordered, how strong they are etc.

It's ironic, isn't it?

 

[teslashock]

Damnit Tink, I wish you weren't into astrology, because you are actually making sense about MBTI, and psychometrics as an academic study.

Don't do that. She's going to take you seriously, and that only perpetuates the problem.