MBTI - Where Is The Proof?

[Qre:us]

Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?

One thing you can do to circumvent this is that rather than categorical variables, broken into binary response choices, given each of the 4 axis (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P), treat them as continuous variables.

But, then you lose the whole point of MBTI, which is to categorize into X number of categories.

Some things are clear cut in terms of it being a categorical data - male or female. Other things, it depends on the premise you start off with, so MBTI's premise is to group using X # of axis (dichotomous), i.e., categorize, thus it's kind of moot trying to find individuality through a test that's saying they want to group.

But, this is an issue inherent in any type of categorization. However, we can see aggregates of results and how it shows a normal distribution within each category. If everyone was falling exactly at 100%, you should raise a few eyebrows at the scale.......because it shows a clear bias. Variance is good. Hence, a good scale should give a range of responses, from 0 to 100 and thus, there will be those weirdos who fall around the 50% mark. It's a good thing for a scale to do this.

People are really different, and there's not a categorical scale that can ever hope to account for all the differences we see, because we'll be increasing the categories towards infinity, accounting for all the variables to measure differences.

MBTI has chosen 8 variables, to use to group people, of course, 8 variables cannot account for all human differences, nor should one fault it for doing so, because they're missing the premise of MBTI.

I guess, the best thing to do would be that the person is aware of how close they fall between an axis (near 50%), rather than take on the subsequent grouping to be absolute for them (i.e., take on the dichotomous reality and end it there).

 

[Thalassa]

Great evil overlords, too.

So the quintessential NTJ archetype would be Special Agent Dale Cooper after he's been traded for his evil double in the Black Lodge?

 

[simulatedworld]

ummm sure, whatever floats your boat honey

 

[Qre:us]

Nothing succeeds like excess.

And, extravagance is a sin.

 

[tinkerbell]

Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?

woooops sorry

Yes that is correct, think religion, or politics.... You get extremists and non extremists.. in MBTI the coding is usually such that a fair few will be extreme... NS dicotomy particularly... I don't think I've met a borderline S type or N type... but EI, PJ T/F often come out that way... (MBTI is valid only as an SN differenciate all by itself.....)

You have less extremes towards the middle and extremes at the end.... excet without it being about either religion or politics, its about the estent to which the are extroverted or introvrted.

As an E type I can think quite happily on my own, I can brain storm and get a range of excellent ideas... but I if I chat to people i get more enthusiastic about whatever it is I'm doing... the more E the more energied they would be at the end

I types however get their energy from the intial creative of thinking it all the way through themselves.... I types get energy from thinking... if you made them sit with very chatty people for 8 hours they would be exhausted... The more I the more exhausted.

Sorry to have missed you

 

[tinkerbell]

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

No I was providing one type of experimental design to MEASURE internal and cross time reliability/consitancy...

You seem to be struggling with measurment as evidence thats all ... and what I suggested is a perfectly valid appoach that would include normal statistical modeling etc... there are of course several very valid approahces that could be used to do what is being talked about byt the OP

I do appreciate that you are struggling to disscoiate measurment/validation with existance... doh - don't you just hate that when it happens.... but do enjoy the quagmire that you are making for yourself.....

 

[Kalach]

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.

Oh heavens no, the complaint was not about the lack of empirical evidence. Rather it was about the idea that there can be no empirical evidence. I'm aware (I think) that Ti and Te differ on what counts as foundations for proof and I was jokingly opining.

It's interesting, maybe even relevant, to observe the differences between NTP and NTJ "proof". I think NTJ, particularly this INTJ, is/are willing to grant concrete truth to some things (maybe everything) quite quickly, and probably well before NTP brethren. Some evidence is accumulated and then, kablammo, something is asserted true, and let's move on from there. That's Te being shallow, and probably turning to Ni to build up the rest of the picture and evidence be damned... but not quite, because the picture can be revised at later dates. The NTJ won't necessarily admit the picture can be revised. But probably the fact is the picture is constantly being revised via Ni creation and recreation of concepts and connections.

So, as INTJ, I say Jungian functional analysis is true and let's go with that and see what happens. Naturally, I am being hasty and technically I am wrong to say "it's true", but I don't care because I know there's a whole lot of processing still to come before complete and utter truth is established. But, just so that Ni can get on with the job, and actually has something to be getting on with, I'm letting Te be shallow and I say Jungian functional analysis is true. (And Ni is going to change the Te referents anyway, so what they hey, hey?)

Technically, I suppose that's doing the search for truth backwards. But there it is. I think that, or something like it, is what goes on for NTJs.

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 recognise that attitude. I can believe the usual idea that NTJs who study philosophy usually end up happy to escape it. I think that may be accounted for by the backwards search for truth idea inasmuch as going backwards like mentioned above is really counter-productive, or at least painful, if attempted much on conceptual analysis. Pragmatic analyses, yes. Conceptual... sometimes.


But so... MBTI...where's the proof? I dunno. That's a tough question for me to worry about answering when I'm in the middle of playing with the system itself and checking it every day against people I meet and things I "see".

But I am aware that it might all be wrong. It might even all be false.

 

[Laurie]

People are really different, and there's not a categorical scale that can ever hope to account for all the differences we see, because we'll be increasing the categories towards infinity, accounting for all the variables to measure differences.

MBTI has chosen 8 variables, to use to group people, of course, 8 variables cannot account for all human differences, nor should one fault it for doing so, because they're missing the premise of MBTI.

I guess, the best thing to do would be that the person is aware of how close they fall between an axis (near 50%), rather than take on the subsequent grouping to be absolute for them (i.e., take on the dichotomous reality and end it there).

Why are people so offended by MBTI when it's just an imperfect model. (as is almost every scientific model)

"3. A model of a system or process is a theoretical description that can help you understand how the system or process works, or how it might work"
model in English - Google Dictionary

I had a long discussion with someone finishing up his PhD in AI to determine acceptability of different objects (sponges, for one thing) just with a computer looking at them. That is how he looks as MBTI, as a model, it's not there to box but rather to model people's behavior in a relatively worthwhile way.

 

[ubiquitous1]

I am though an ardent critic of MBTI.

Your "criticisms" of MBTI seem more intent on maligning those who find MBTI valid, rather than specific criticisms of the theory.

 

[KLessard]

I don't know if this adds any credibility to MBTI, but one of my friends was MBTI tested in High School for Orientation class. If the education system trusts it, it must be trustworthy and useful to some extent...

 

[Eric B]

This topic illustrates the very things the theory highlights, and that's the S/N and Te/i distinctions, where science is colored by the predominant STJ mindset that says the only thing "real" is what is concrete and measurable.

Though you hear about the left/right brain theory (popularized by Lenore Thomson, and there are a few others who use it, and it supposedly came from a particular source), but that, I haven't been hearing any reaction to, from science. That would sound like it could tie the functions to empirical neurological research. It makes sense that if all our other bodily and mental functions are coming from certain regions of the brain, then our perception and decision making preferences would also, and that's all type is, really.

 

[FemMecha]

1. This link was a study done at the U of New Orleans on 359 students.

Study showing strong support for the construct validity of MBTI:
Construct Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator -- Thompson and Borrello 46 (3): 745 -- Educational and Psychological Measurement

2. This is the meta-study that appears to have been done through Texas A&M

Study showing strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability of MBTI:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study -- Capraro and Capraro 62 (4): 590 -- Educational and Psychological Measurement

3. This link was an interesting discussion examining various aspects of MBTI validity and contained the following comment by Paul Matthews. The counter arguments seemed to focus on MBTI as the most reliable tool available more than its intrinsic reliability. This study I believe was showing MBTI's validity in facilitating doctor-patient communication.

Study concluding MBTI meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments:
bmj.com Rapid Responses for Schuwirth and Cantillon, 328 (7450) 1244

The MBTI personality dimensions seem to be distributed such that most people fall between the two extremes around the boundary point of the dichotomous category distinctions. Therefore people who are very small distances apart on the dimensional measure are categorised as being qualitatively different to one another because they fall either side of the cut-off point between the types and are lumped in with much more extreme scores that fall on the same side of the cut-off however far apart they are on the dimension.

This flaw in the MBTI, as a measure of personality, undermines the significance of the conclusions of Clack et al as it is not possible to establish the magnitude of difference between doctors and their patients on the personality dimensions.

While it seems a good idea to teach trainee doctors to try and "ameliorate the potential difficulties resulting from such personality differences, thereby improving the outcome of the interaction" it would be unhelpful to include the MBTI and personality type in the communication skills training of health care professionals, given its limited validity and potential for misuse (Pittenger 1993).

4. The National Academy of Sciences research focused on MBTI as a predictor of job performance. As an organization it is a leader in the sciences. (Context = "Election to membership in the National Academy of Sciences is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a U.S. scientist or engineer. Academy membership recognizes those who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.")

Organizational Performance Dimensions

It appears that whether MBTI is seen as valid vs. invalid has in part to do with what aspect of its application is being measured. The more subjective the measurement (facilitating communication) the more reliable it is measured to be. The more objectively measurable the application (job performance), the less valid it appears to be as an indicator.

I can see in part why it could increase communication because the more doctors and patients focused on increasing communication, the more communication would be facilitated. If a doctor took great care to treat me like an ESFP, my stay in the hospital might be more fun and my response positive to the process. If I were treated like an INTJ, the doctor might be straightforward with me about my diagnoses which I would appreciate as well. Any effort to increase communication would make my stay more positive regardless. Extremes of this might not be the case as some personality types might reject one extreme or another, but my point is that there is a fairly wide margin for error in accurately determining personality type in such a process while still maintaining some degree of success. I should see if/how the study addresses this issue.

Edit: As a tool based on observation and categorization, it reminds me of the historical approach in biology to identifying species some of which has become proven false with the increased understanding of genetics. The same is for any analysis based on observation and categorization that assumes inherent similarities. From what I can tell MBTI is the best system so far, but its method for categorization is pretty limited to observation, and it will most likely be replaced eventually especially now that there are brain scan technology to provide more definitive results.

 

[Quinlan]

There is really nothing to prove, I tend to think of the functions as attitudes, and we don't need to prove that attitudes exist. My attitude towards life is Inward looking, focused on Sensory experiences, mindful of Feelings and emotion and I prefer to Perceive the outer world than judge it. I don't need to prove this as it is just a way of describing my subjective experience of the life.

Your type is just your personal opinion of what your general attitudes are, the test is just a way to help you figure out what those attitudes might be.

How do I prove to others that I prefer apples to oranges?

The problem is when people want to start applying the system to specific behaviours and talents. This is tempting to many people because predicting behaviour gives us a sense of control and determining talents/skills gives us a sense of heirachy. The MBTI never claims to be able to do this.

Example:

You can have a preference for male or female sexual partners, you can also have the actual behaviour (closeted gay men marrying and having sex with women for example) and you can have skill/ability at having sex with either males or females.

Preference, behaviour and skill can be related or unrelated. People seem to want MBTI to tell us all of these things but it only ever claims to measure preference.

 

[Mole]

There is really nothing to prove, I tend to think of the functions as attitudes, and we don't need to prove that attitudes exist. My attitude towards life is Inward looking, focused on Sensory experiences, mindful of Feelings and emotion and I prefer to Perceive the outer world than judge it. I don't need to prove this as it is just a way of describing my subjective experience of the life.

Ths is very nice. But since the Enlightenment we have known that we are all subject to self deception and illusion. That is why we do double blind experiments - so that we will avoid self deception and illusion.

And the problem is that MBTI plays on our self deception and illusion.

So MBTI is a popular confidence trick like astrology.

 

[peterk]

nothing about psychology can ever be really proven untill there is a mathematical theory of the mind that provides predictions that can be tested empirically.

 

[evilrobot]

And we are here because MBTI was taken up by the USA military during WW II. And then used by the USA military and USA business ever since to create a popular, world-wide cult.

These are the most unispired “trolls”, the ones who do repetitive threads and posts trashing the mbti/Enneagram/etc. to get attention (though I admit calling the mbti a cult does add a little spice to it). Yet it works, everyone falls for it and they get the replies.

 

[simulatedworld]

These are the most unispired “trolls”, the ones who do repetitive threads and posts trashing the mbti/Enneagram/etc. to get attention (though I admit calling the mbti a cult does add a little spice to it). Yet it works, everyone falls for it and they get the replies.

Yeah, Victor is just more articulate than most trolls so he gets this adoring NFP fanclub that's just dazzled by his vocabulary (and rarely bothers paying attention to how ridiculous what he's actually saying is.)

 

[Jeffster]

Yeah, Victor is just more articulate than most trolls so he gets this adoring NFP fanclub that's just dazzled by his vocabulary (and rarely bothers paying attention to how ridiculous what he's actually saying is.)

And there's people like me that are entertained by how ridiculous what he's actually saying is.

Well, for awhile anyway, I admit it's gotten a bit tiresome lately. Vic needs a new angle or something.

 

[wildcat]

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.

My question is this - and I speak from the standpoint with no experience in research - why can't it be proven? At least in some form, fashion, or respect. Has nobody ever tried? Are there difficulties in running surveys or experiments to determine accuracy of the profiles? Do the studies show flaws and that it doesn't work (that we don't hear about)? There seems to be a large body of information out there, but always "no proof". Is there anything in the field of psychology that can be proven?

If there is no proof that it works, and people don't believe in it, then why are we all here?

You are so ambitious.
There is no proof.
Ascendability is the word.

Why are we all here?
Exactly.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Do you talk like that in real life? Must be tough keeping it up all day.