The "intuitive bias" debate

[reckful]

I acknowledge that test results can vary across a timeframe, allowing for the possibility of inconsistent results on the S/N dichotomy. The retest rate consistency overall for subjects is approximately 50% within nine months, while the retest rate after nine months is approximately 36%. I believe it's possible for extenuating life circumstances to skewer one's preferred responses. However, I'm talking about people who consistently test as an N, not people whose S/N results are subject to change.

To maybe clarify, besides being on the low side (in terms of overall test-retest stats for the MBTI), those stats you've cited involve whether you come out the same on all four dimensions. The retest numbers for single dimensions are much higher.

As an example of how that works, if the retest rate for a four-dimension typology averages 88% per dimension, the retest rate for a four-dimension "type" will be 60% (.88 * .88 * .88 * .88).

The test/retest reliability for the MBTI is actually in the same range as for the leading Big Five tests, and if you're interested, there's a longer discussion of that in the Reliability section of this TC Wiki article.

The MBTI's test/retest reliability stats are also discussed in those two official Manual Supplements that I already linked to in this post.

 

[Shadow Play]

To maybe clarify, besides being on the low side (in terms of overall test-retest stats for the MBTI), those stats you've cited involve whether you come out the same on all four dimensions. The retest numbers for single dimensions are much higher.

As an example of how that works, if the retest rate for a four-dimension typology averages 88% per dimension, the retest rate for a four-dimension "type" will be 60% (.88 * .88 * .88 * .88).

The test/retest reliability for the MBTI is actually in the same range as for the leading Big Five tests, and if you're interested, there's a longer discussion of that in the Reliability section of this TC Wiki article.

The MBTI's test/retest reliability stats are also discussed in those two official Manual Supplements that I already linked to in this post.

True, the retest percentage stats I posted were for consistent results across all four dimensions. The retest consistency just for one dimension - S/N in this case - would be much higher than that. Nevertheless, my point remains that S/N results can vary across a given timeframe, and may also be subject to change based on extenuating life circumstances, as [MENTION=36353]Hexcoder[/MENTION] suggested.

We're sourcing our statistics from different sources. Your sources show an average of 88% for each dimension, the ones I sourced show an average of 83%. Your stats for overall test consistency is 60%, but you haven't indicated consistency across a timeframe. Is that 60% within a timeframe of approximately nine months, comparable with the 50% I've cited?

 

[reckful]

True, the retest percentage stats I posted were for consistent results across all four dimensions. The retest consistency just for one dimension - S/N in this case - would be much higher than that. Nevertheless, my point remains that S/N results can vary across a given timeframe, and may also be subject to change based on extenuating life circumstances, as [MENTION=36353]Hexcoder[/MENTION] suggested.

We're sourcing our statistics from different sources. Your sources show an average of 88% for each dimension, the ones I sourced show an average of 83%. Your stats for overall test consistency is 60%, but you haven't indicated consistency across a timeframe. Is that 60% within a timeframe of approximately nine months, comparable with the 50% I've cited?

The Form M Manual Supplement I already linked to presents some stats for both the MBTI and NEO-PI (among other tests), in support of their conclusion that "the internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities of the MBTI Form M assessment are as good as or superior to those reported for the other personality assessments." And as previously noted, Harvey concluded (based on his meta-review) that both the reliability and validity of the MBTI put it "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests.

But I believe that both the 60% (for four-letter types) and 88% (for individual dimensions) stats I referred to are the kind you get for relatively short-term retestings — for the MBTI and Big Five both — and I don't have comparative 9-month stats ready to hand.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I acknowledge that test results can vary across a timeframe, allowing for the possibility of inconsistent results on the S/N dichotomy. The retest rate consistency overall for subjects is approximately 50% within nine months, while the retest rate after nine months is approximately 36%. I believe it's possible for extenuating life circumstances to skewer one's preferred responses. However, I'm talking about people who consistently test as an N, not people whose S/N results are subject to change.

I'm also talking about people who consistently type as the wrong thing, similarly to how I tested as 5w6 for several consecutive years while having 0 baseline knowledge pertaining to Enneagram...and tested as INTJ for the first 2 years of MBTI, and would have been longer if I stayed in the environment I was in longer...yet INTJ 5w6 is very wrong for me. I'd sooner be INFP than INTJ in dichotomies only.

Yes, this eventually changed with research, introspection, and etc. yet a person can retain the same inaccurate perceptions of themselves or remain in environments which skew things for many years. They may stay in that environment for 6 years and then only repeat testing for 3, that's going to count as a consistent result in the books in spite of being wrong.

 

[rav3n]

Was the article written by McCrae & Costa peer reviewed, either?

Yes it was. I provided a researchgate link that was cached by google, in order to provide the complete study. You'll find it on Wiley.

The comparison to a car is faulty because we know exactly what components of a car are necessary for a car to work. As I've alluded to earlier in this thread, MBTI and Big Five both share the same limitations of factor analysis - there is no universally recognised basis for distinguishing which factors are the most accurate dimensions for mapping out temperamental differences. Thus, we can't be entirely certain as to whether any traits present or absent in each respective system are necessarily more crucial than the other. If the four overlapping dimensions between the two systems really are meaningful factors of personality, what's to say the Big Five is necessarily more "complete" than the MBTI? Perhaps one car is missing a battery, crankshaft, and radiator while the other is missing an ignition system and cylinders.

This makes no sense, considering how the big five is accepted and acknowledged in the psychological community as an accepted measurement of personality traits with near universal application that spans the majority of cultures. It's definitively more complete than the MBTI.

 

[reckful]

This makes no sense, considering how the big five is accepted and acknowledged in the psychological community as an accepted measurement of personality traits with near universal application that spans the majority of cultures. It's definitively more complete than the MBTI.

Even if you assume that, on some kind of overall basis, the Big Five is more "complete" than the MBTI, if they're both incomplete at this point (certainly true), and if each points to at least some aspects of personality that are either missed or shortchanged in the other (as McCrae & Costa thought, and as I think), there's no reason to dismiss either.

You don't have to choose one team or the other. You can pay attention to both, as I do.

PS: If you don't think typical MBTI characterizations of J and P — and combinations of J/P with other preferences — get into aspects of personality that Big Five "Conscientiousness" characterizations tend to shortchange/miss, I'm guessing you haven't read very many Conscientiousness descriptions.

PPS: And speaking of combinations, there's much more discussion in typical MBTI sources than in typical Big Five sources of aspects of personality that reflect the result of two (or more) preferences in combination — another area where I think the MBTI not only had a big head start, but remains significantly ahead for purposes of a lay person interested in reading descriptions of what various "types" are like.

 

[rav3n]

Even if you assume that, on some kind of overall basis, the Big Five is more "complete" than the MBTI, if they're both incomplete at this point (certainly true), and if each points to at least some aspects of personality that are either missed or shortchanged in the other (as McCrae & Costa thought, and as I think), there's no reason to dismiss either.

You don't have to choose one team or the other. You can pay attention to both, as I do.

PS: If you don't think typical MBTI characterizations of J and P — and combinations of J/P with other preferences — get into aspects of personality that Big Five "Conscientiousness" characterizations tend to shortchange/miss, I'm guessing you haven't read very many Conscientiousness descriptions.

PPS: And speaking of combinations, there's much more discussion in typical MBTI sources than in typical Big Five sources of aspects of personality that reflect the result of two (or more) preferences in combination — another area where I think the MBTI not only had a big head start, but remains significantly ahead for purposes of a lay person interested in reading descriptions of what various "types" are like.

Nardi's EEG imaging of types also detonates the J/P dichotomy. Relative to the prefrontal cortex, the types that focus on managing the process are EPs and IJs. The types that focus on explaining and deciding are EJs and IPs. This aligns with cognitive function theory, in that the types that lead with decision making functions (F & T), aren't process oriented. It also helps to explain why INTJs are prone to detail orientation and micromanagement, even though they're supposed to be global thinkers.

 

[reckful]

Nardi's EEG imaging of types also detonates the J/P dichotomy. Relative to the prefrontal cortex, the types that focus on managing the process are EPs and IJs. The types that focus on explaining and deciding are EJs and IPs. This aligns with cognitive function theory, in that the types that lead with decision making functions (F & T), aren't process oriented. It also helps to explain why INTJs are prone to detail orientation and micromanagement, even though they're supposed to be global thinkers.

Puh-leeze. Nardi's EEGs haven't established anything, and there are various reasons to question whether they ever will, or even could.

In any event, as Nardi himself emphasized in a thread here last December, Neuroscience of Personality "reported on a pilot study. Truly. I can’t emphasize that enough. I 'proved' nothing. I gave some evidence and ideas for how to go about doing research."

 

[rav3n]

Puh-leeze. Nardi's EEGs haven't established anything, and there are various reasons to question whether they ever will, or even could.

In any event, as Nardi himself emphasized in a thread here last December, Neuroscience of Personality "reported on a pilot study. Truly. I can’t emphasize that enough. I 'proved' nothing. I gave some evidence and ideas for how to go about doing research."

How did I know you'd deny, deny, deny, even when the evidence is in your face?

For sure. Paid.

 

[reckful]

How did I know you'd deny, deny, deny, even when the evidence is in your face?

For sure. Paid.

Making groundless assertions about nonexistent financial interests instead of addressing the substance of my posts?

Classy.

As I've explained to Eric B, I'm strictly an amateur typology hobbyist, and I have never had any affiliation with the MBTI folks, or any other psychology-related organization.

 

[rav3n]

Making groundless assertions about nonexistent financial interests instead of addressing the substance of my posts?

Classy.

As I've explained to Eric B, I'm strictly an amateur typology hobbyist, and I have never had any affiliation with the MBTI folks, or any other psychology-related organization.

Eric B's the best typologist that TypoC has ever seen, as a member. He parsed the most popular typologies. I have nothing but respect for that man's intellect.

 

[reckful]

Eric B's the best typologist that TypoC has ever seen, as a member. He parsed the most popular typologies. I have nothing but respect for that man's intellect.

Even if my assessment of Mr. B was similar to yours (and it isn't), I fail to see what that has to do with your false assertions that my posts are motivated by some kind of financial incentive.

 

[Forever]

You can succeed in life with either preference.

It also depends on what your definition of success as well.

If you feel you can succeed in life with one you don’t think is your dominant function, try that and don’t let the haters stop you. Only you know what works for you.

 

[rav3n]

Even if my assessment of Mr. B was similar to yours (and it isn't),

No surprise to the bolded, all things considered. It was a contrasting statement.

I fail to see what that has to do with your false assertions that my posts are motivated by some kind of financial incentive.

Are they false assertions? That said, consider the assertions redacted, in the spirit of remaining on-topic.

You were provided with the EEG findings of Nardi. You denied them through the application of spin. That's my problem with a lot of your cherry picking posts.

 

[Jaguar]

Eric B's the best typologist that TypoC has ever seen, as a member. He parsed the most popular typologies. I have nothing but respect for that man's intellect.

He thinks Te = "what is right for me is right for everyone." I think no such thing. A control freak STJ might, but I don't. He puts too much emphasis on the dominant function. NTs and SJs are not alike.

 

[reckful]

No surprise to the bolded, all things considered. It was a contrasting statement.
Are they false assertions? That said, consider the assertions redacted, in the spirit of remaining on-topic.

You were provided with the EEG findings of Nardi. You denied them through the application of spin. That's my problem with a lot of your cherry picking posts.

You boldly asserted that Nardi's EEG imaging "detonates the J/P dichotomy," and I pointed out that Nardi hisself has told us that his EEG results haven't (yet, at least) "proven" anything at all.

Calling that "the application of spin" is what I'd call the application of goofy.

With all due respect.

 

[rav3n]

He thinks Te = "what is right for me is right for everyone." I think no such thing. A control freak STJ might, but I don't. He puts too much emphasis on the dominant function. NTs and SJs are not alike.

I'm not going to get into arguing about minute detail with you. Having respect and admiration for another's intellect =/= agreeing with everything they say.

You boldly asserted that Nardi's EEG imaging "detonates the J/P dichotomy," and I pointed out that Nardi hisself has told us that his EEG results haven't (yet, at least) "proven" anything at all.

Calling that "the application of spin" is what I'd call the application of goofy.

With all due respect.

Like every other scientist and study, they all state that more research is necessary. Duh. Not only that but can you point me towards where I stated that Nardi said that he detonated the J/P dichotomy? Hint. I didn't. That was your kamikaze leap.

Also, you were provided with the pics. You can't draw your own conclusions with your two little eyes and a brain?

 

[Jaguar]

I'm not going to get into arguing about minute detail with you.

No one is arguing and making a broad claim about a group of people is anything but a minute detail.

 

[Shadow Play]

Nardi's EEG imaging of types also detonates the J/P dichotomy. Relative to the prefrontal cortex, the types that focus on managing the process are EPs and IJs. The types that focus on explaining and deciding are EJs and IPs. This aligns with cognitive function theory, in that the types that lead with decision making functions (F & T), aren't process oriented. It also helps to explain why INTJs are prone to detail orientation and micromanagement, even though they're supposed to be global thinkers.

I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that, when making decisions or assigning value to things, some people prefer to engage with certain regions of their brain more than others would. The problem here is the approach Nardi's taken involves shoehorning mental processes into predetermined categories. It's like staring at tea dregs to predict the future; you can make the tea dregs mean whatever you want them to mean. A more empirical approach would be to instead observe the processes as they unfold, map those processes out for recurring patterns, and then derive new categories based on what the data's revealed. Once categories have been derived which reflect data, that's when you can match up the functions against these categories for any overlap.

 

[reckful]

Not only that but can you point me towards where I stated that Nardi said that he detonated the J/P dichotomy? Hint. I didn't. That was your kamikaze leap.

Also, you were provided with the pics. You can't draw your own conclusions with your two little eyes and a brain?

I never stated that you stated that Nardi said that he'd detonated the J/P dichotomy.

On the contrary: I pointed out that Nardi said that those results (and he said he couldn't emphasize this enough) shouldn't be viewed as having "proven" anything at all.

So your interpretation of those pix as having "detonated the J/P dichotomy" goes waaaaay beyond any claims that he's making for his results.

And you'll have to excuse me if I'm disinclined to "draw my own conclusions" from pix that Nardi himself says nobody should be drawing any conclusions from.

And if you think you have a better handle than Nardi does on how much significance should be assigned to those pix, I suspect I'm not going to be able to help you with that.


[Sent from my keyboard using my two little eyes and my brain.]