Toonia began this thread as an attempt to find evidence in support of or against MBTI. You're turning this into any other thread about the validity of MBTI. Victor et al. starts threads about it's validity nearly every other week. Please take this elsewhere and let's have at least one place on the forum where those of us who want to see some evidence can use as a resource.
What evidence? There can't be any hard evidence for a system which propounds no objective conclusions.
That being said:
Well you seem to take MBTI/Typology pretty seriously. How do you justify your use of it when it doesn't even hold true for MOST people? You can only type people who fall within it's nebulous dichotomies. Most casual users of MBTI have not been
properly trained to ascertain a person's type. BTW, what does it mean to be trained to operate something? Why would you need training in something that does nothing? Why do you need to be a qualified professional to administer MBTI if it's not valid or at least thinks it is?
Dude, seriously. It's not a question of "holding true" because it's all based on subjective categories.
There is no standard for it to "hold true" to because there's no definitive standard for what each type is!
It's all a bunch of conjecture based on the arbitrary decisions to make up common terminology to describe what we see other people doing. We start with the set "all possible behavior" and then categorize it into letter-named categories accordingly. What you STILL somehow don't understand is that this requires no external validation because it's not actually an external methodology. (Amusingly, you're displaying a lack of Ni here by not realizing that all the terminology and symbolism in the system is an arbitrarily defined function of perception, which cannot be externally verified in any objective manner.)
Contrary to the implications of having a "test" for MBTI type, there's not really any way to actually test it. It's based entirely on popular opinion of how each type tends to behave. If someone doesn't behave in a way that I've chosen to categorize as ENFJ, then I don't put that person into my personal ENFJ category. The definitions of categories are loose, variable, and VERY dependent upon interpretation. I post on this forum about it largely to hear more interpretations from others and try to come to a consensus on my own personal beliefs regarding psychological typing and its uses.
I think one of the reasons why I can't really get with what you say is because I'm the type of person to research and study things, believe it or not. I can't just believe something without seeing how it stands up against measurable criteria. I work in the mental health field with psychiatrists and psychologists and whenever MBTI is mentioned (and it's mentioned often!) a collective eyeroll ensues. It's pop psychology and nothing more.
Oh I definitely believe it, and you've done a very nice job of demonstrating your proficiency with rote memorization of hard evidence. Congrats, that's half the battle.
You'd get a very different reaction if you discussed it with philosophers instead of scientific professionals. Do you
expect these people to care about a purely conjectural system of arbitrary behavioral categorization with no real scientific applications? Why should they in their line of work?
But fine let's go to the official MBTI website and see what it says it will do. Let the thing speak for itself.
From the official publisher of the REAL MBTI
https://www.cpp.com/en/index.aspx
You can see more of what the official instruments say it does here:
https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx
MBTI says, (not simulatedworld says) that this is a scientifically-backed tool but science isn't backing it, science is saying that it's a bucket of steaming hot crap. So simulatedworld says it's not supposed to be measuring anything valid, but THE THING ITSELF says it is. Perhaps you should begin correspondence with CPP and expose them for what they are or enlighten them to their real purpose. Because evidently they say what they peddle is legit and if it's not then they're lying and misguiding consumers. If it is, it's up for grabs under scrutiny and it's not doing so well. Ever heard of snake oil?
The funny part is that you're technically right; you're just wasting your time on a question that's been solved for ages. As with most of this, the problem is all in the way you look at it.
I agree with you, but it says it is scientifically valid. See above.
Yeah, and the Bible says the Earth is literally 6,000 years old. We'd better start writing letters to Reform Jewish leaders--I'm not sure anyone has told them yet!
I don't see this as being short-sighted. Short-sighted is that the MBTI is so unimportant that they don't even bother testing it. If you do a literature search on MBTI validity, a lot of research into it's validity has happened, which to me indicates that people DO wonder if it can do what it says it does and are testing it out to see if it's true. To me that indicates there is some possible usefulness of MBTI but it's not doing what it says it does.
Who cares? Use the parts that work and throw out the ones that don't. You'll notice by reading some of the posts on the board that nobody's method of typology is exactly like anyone else's. I'm certain you've observed this, and yet you still chase red herrings in the form of threads regarding MBTI's supposed "scientific validity"?
It's like writing threads to "debate" whether we should take "Intelligent Design" seriously in science class. If you haven't already figured it out and moved on, you're beyond hopeless.
You're right about that, which is yet more proof that it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on.
If by "it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on", you mean, "I'm interpreting it childishly," then sure, I'm on board.
Disagree.
Career counseling is a valid field of study that is more rigorous than what MBTI could ever hope to be.
lol. "A valid field of study!" I'm not even going to entertain the notion that there's anything objectively measurable about career counseling. That said, I think it's a great idea, and if a lot people feel like it helps them (which is the only thing the data regarding its "scientific accuracy" could be based on), then sure, go for it. Confidence is half the battle anyway.
Agree with that, but you'll notice that career counseling goes into more depth with an individual than simply checking a few boxes on a test. Career counseling takes a more holistic approach.
Uh huh, and so does the typology approach that anyone with half a brain on this site is obviously using.
But for many people here it is the only thing they trust. Look at how many threads that pop up giving A/S/L/Type, "how do I do XXXX type to like me?" People are mentally lazy and think that they've figured out the whole of the person simply by knowing their type code. The proof is all around you on the forum are you looking at it?
Again, why do I care how many people miss the real utility here?
Simulated, when you make claims at least try to make them defensible, OK? If I'm going to stand out on a limb and make absurd claims I'm at least going to try to find some evidence to bake it up. Which is what toonia was doing when she opened up the thread. You and so many other people love MBTI to death because you can make all types of spurious claims and have zero evidence to back your it up. Then when someone hands you evidence to the contrary you fall back upon the old IT'S JUST THEORY! bag of nothing.
You're such an S it's actually endearing at times. I appreciate that you're being sincere here, and it's not that you're actually wrong about MBTI not holding up to scientific scrutiny, just that that's essentially a non-issue because nobody with any real understanding of the inductive system we use here actually thinks it's science.
Exactly what absurd claims am I making here?
Unfortunately, many people here don't treat MBTI as just theory, some people here have a religious devotion to MBTI. They've latched onto it for whatever reasons they have and it's become overinflated and taken on proportions it should never have.
Actually, most people just appropriate the usage of letter terminology to form their own proprietary systems--whatever works best for conceptualizing the framework of their own interpersonal relations. That's all this is really supposed to be, anyway--a particular way of looking at things.
And frankly, the same is true of intelligent religious people. They don't take the literal details seriously so much as assimilate the root concepts and apply them to gain perspective and understanding regarding their own lives.
If you sought to show fault in religious fundamentalism, it's already been done enough times.