Turi
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 249
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/so
Did you read my post? Did you look at the self-selection ratios in that Cal Tech sample?
No, Turi, the respectable (dichotomy-centric) districts of the MBTI are not pseudoscience. They're soft science — like the majority of psychology, economics, etc.
And they deal with probabilities (not "certain predictions," as you put it), and they use the scientific methods appropriate to the field of personality psychology, which involve reliability and validity, among other standards.
And in those departments, as I think you know, the official MBTI can claim to be more or less on a par with the leading Big Five tests.
And there's more on that in this TC Wiki article that I already linked to.
I have looked at the self-selection sample - can I challenge this? What if I or others don't agree those statistics are correct?
What if I don't believe those people are the types they claim to be, due to the MBTI being a self-assessment?
How can I dispute this? What are my avenues for challenging and disputing those claims?
There's either science, or uh, "not science". MBTI falls under "not science".
I've got a real issue with the forced dichotomies employed by the MBTI as well - it's like, someone asks you "what's your favourite colour, blue or red?" well, what if I prefer purple, gray, black, white etc ie an option that wasn't available?
For example:
"Are you usually
*E a "good mixer", or
*I rather quiet and reserved"
What if I'm not "usually" either? What if I'm "usually" a bit of both? What if I don't pay any attention whatsoever to my ordinary social habits?
What if I interpret this question in a way related to animals, and not humans? Good at mixing what? Drinks? What if I'm quiet, but not reserved?
What if I'm reserved, but not quiet? What if I'm not quiet, not reserved, and also not a good mixer?
Or this beauty:
"Do you usually get along better with
*N imaginative people, or
*S realistic people"
How would I know? Imaginative according to who? Me? What if my friend thinks he's imaginative and I think he's not imaginative, but I get along great with him - now what?
Realistic according to who? What's a realistic person? What's an imaginative person? What measurements are being used to define these terms?
Do I usually get along better with them compared to what? Each other? What if I don't pay any attention to how imaginative or realistic people are, and instead just see them as human beings?
Or this:
"Are you
*E easy to get to know, or
*I hard to get to know"
According to who? Me? I'm heaps chill. So chill. Easy to get to know for sure.
According to other people in general? I'm a rock. Impossible to get to know. Never speak. Not open at all. Defensive. Reserved. Not easy to get to know.
According to my friends? Kinda easy to get to know. They like me, I like them, I open up a little.
Etc etc there's no context, the whole thing is completely open to interpretation, and you can't dispute anything.
My friend could say I'm hard to get to know, I say I'm easy to get to know, who wins? What option is correct?
It's a self-assessment, so I suppose it's what I say. Well, what if that's not supported by reality, what if I asked everybody I've ever spoken to, and the majority of people said "hard to get to know" are they correct, or am I correct?
What if I'm kind of in between? What if I don't pay any attention to how easy or hard I am to get to know? What if that's never something I think about, outside of when it pops up in personality questionnaires to which I just provide my subjective as hell response that may or may not be accurately reflected in reality?
This crap isn't scientific. The whole thing is open to interpretation, and it's a self-assessment. There's nothing science about it. It's decidedly *not* science.
You can call it "soft science" if you want. As far as I'm concerned - there's either science or not science and that's the end.
This isn't to say there's no value in the MBTI, I'm not even saying the MBTI is wrong - I'm just saying, it's not science.