edcoaching
New member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 752
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 7
edcoaching, what makes you think MBTI statistics are accurate? They never made sense to me until I concluded that people who take MBTI have other motives than proper self-assessment and ISTJ is the "most common type" because people want to appear responsible.
There are two main sources for normed reference samples:
- the database at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. They've collected thousands and thousands of Form G results submitted by practitioners all over the place, from people working in multiple fields. In a ton of those fields, ISTJ isn't considered particularly responsible. Further, in high schools, where a lot of the early sampling was done, ISTJ is definitely NOT considered the way to be...In the CAPT database, I think ESTJ is the modal type--I can't find my old manual that shows it...
- The National Representative Sample developed by the publisher of the official MBTI, CPP, Inc. When they created Form M in 1998, they performed a rigorous study using all the statistical gizmos to get as good of a sample as they could across education/income/gender/culture/career to correct for as much bias as they could. In this sample there are really 2 modal types since score ranges are shown: ISFJ and ESTJ.
I can also see evidence that a majority of people answer as they prefer, not as they think they should, when I look at results from people within specific careers--the data on how types cluster in careers is actually validity for the theory. And a lot of that data is on best-fit type: the types people select after going through training, not merely their reported scores.
In anticipation of a possible response (One of my major strenghts as ISTJ, er INTP):
I'd bet serious cash that I could come to your office tomorrow and test as ISTJ, as many people could and surely already have done without even knowing what ISTJ means, they simply put on the front of being a quiet, responsible fellow who follows orders.
I'm not so sure I could fool a socionics practitioner. Not that I would want to, I'd take the test, then we'd get some beers and talk socionics.
Official MBTI is antiquated and defunct.
Of course you could. It's a self-reporting instrument. I can come out any type too. Isabel Myers didn't think people would respond well to being told what they were, so she designed an interactive process. People are supposed to hear the theory, self-select preferences, then see their results and full type descriptions and then decide for themselves what they are. They are to take their "shoulds" off and answer as they prefer. The stats tests show that 75% of people agree with results and 90% with 3 of 4 letters.
The point of the instrument is to help figure out types faster so you can get on to interpretation. If I don't use the instrument with a group, I need about another 30 minutes to do some concrete exercises so people can "See" the preferences and decide which ones suit them best. If training is effective, by the end of the second day everyone appreciates the gifts of each preference, how all types contribute to a team, and why you'd only want to be yourself.
Last edited by a moderator: