Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon psychology.svg

This Psychology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

What about the "big five"?[edit]

We don't actually discuss the main "alternative" used in actual academic (sociological) settings. Is it fair to say that there's a bit more basis to the big five and their reliability than Myers-Briggs? I mean people can make the same dangerous, stupid, generalizations with that they do with MBTI, but there's more basis there, right? Ikanreed (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

MBTI is illegal as a hiring device in the US?[edit]

This is at least claimed in what's currently reference 6, but I doubt whether the cited court case actually supports that. The decision revolved around the Americans with Disabilities Act, and since MBTI doesn't seem to pin down actual disabilities, not to mention that the RW article already points out that it's frowned upon by professional psychologists, I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall within the scope of the court case cited. Certainly, MBTI isn't specifically mentioned in in case. Any thoughts on this? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The Welcome to the 2012 ADA Legal Webinar Series pdf shows the issues with the MBTI: does it fit the criteria for a psychological test or a medical examination or does it ask protected questions?:
"7 Circuit subsequently ruled that the MMPI was a psychological test and the defendant’s use of it was a violation of the ADA – see, Karraker, 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005)
Karraker v. Rent-a-Center: Testing the Limits of the ADA, Personality Tests, and Employer Preemployment Screening The Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 37 Issue 4 Summer 2006 article 6 states "Part IV analyzes this decision and argues that the court correctly interpreted the ADA's prohibition on medical examinations because: (1) the MMPI is a psychological test designed to identify mental impairments under the ADA and EEOC provisions"
"There appears to be some debate about whether psychological assessments and tests like Myers-Briggs would be classified as a "medical examination" by the federal or state civil rights agencies. See, "Is a Personality Test a Pre-Job-Offer Medical Examination Under the ADA?," Northwestern University Law Review, Winter 1999." - Stoel Rives Attorneys at law
The MBTI is on shaky ground on reliability and ADAwise it has other potential headaches.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The MMPI is not the MBTI. Not even close. Tielec01 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC
The Attorneys at law site above references a work that points there are those saying that far as the ADA is concern MMPI is effectively the same as the MBTI ie a "medical examination" and therefore illegal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The MMPI was designed to be a medical examination and used for that too. I doubt the MBTI has ever been used as a medical examination, and if it has it shouldn't have been and no longer is. Ironically it seems that the MBTI can be used because it has no validity, whereas the MMPI cannot because it does. Tielec01 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "One large human resource consulting firm uses the MBTI and a 360-degree behavioral style assessment in its hiring process, no doubt not realizing that this use is illegal." - Gary English (2001 ) Solving the People Puzzle pg 38.

"Scores on the MBTI should be confidential and respondents given feedback explaining their scores and what they mean. "It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be use to screen out appicants (CAPT)" - Jay C. Thomas and Michel Hersen (2003) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational Assessment. (Volume 4) pg 136--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"It felt like reading my own life story"[edit]

I have read a few posts by people who believe in MBTI. They say that when they first read the description of their personality type, after completing the test, they felt as if they are reading their own life story. They feel as if someone has spied on them and written their story and is sharing it with them. How do you explain that? NOTE: I do not mean to say that I believe in MBTI. I just mean to say that if we should cover "this" on our page here.— Unsigned, by: Rational1 / talk / contribs

I would say it's trivially explained through the Forer effect. Failing to account for the fact that people tend to identify closely with any reasonable description of a personality will skew any conclusions drawn.
That is to say: that feeling would only be meaningful if there was an adequate experimental control and we didn't see it in people who received the wrong blurb. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
So, if I make a guy take the test in front of me. Hide the result from him, and then ask him to read the description of any random MBTI personality type, he will still feel like it's his own life story? Has this been experimentally verified? Rational1 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Read this section of this page for the most famous example. Not specifically about Meyer's Briggs, but the concept in general. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not that any personality type will suffice. It's just that the MBTI test questions are so obvious that you could just ask the testee to pen a self-reflecting essay about his supposed personality and it would conform to the test "results". For example, when I was in high school in the early 2000s and first found some MBTI tests online, I, with all the arrogance and "individuality" of a typical angry young man, subscribed to all kinds of (in my mind) ultra-"rational" and ultra-"scientific" ideologies, like transhumanism and libertarianism. I was also set to study natural sciences, computer science or mathematics and felt loathing for people who weren't as "logical" and "rational" as I envisioned I was. I read cyberpunk and scifi, watched anime, listened to obscure electronic music, played role-playing games and in every way tried to be above the "sheeple". Needless to say, I was also enthralled by the New Atheism movement.
So, when I took the MBTI test, how did I answer? Of course, I always selected the answers that would say something like "On saturday evenings, instead of going to a party, I read books at home" or "I like to find out how various machines work" or "Social niceties are unnecessary" because these answers would conform to my twisted "self-understanding". I thought I was the reincarnation of Ayn Rand and Alan Turing combined, cold, logical, rational Übermensch. Such personalities would let the "sheeple" do the partying and read Ray Kurzweil at home. They would tirelessly tinker with electronics and read Linux kernel source code in anticipation of starting their own IT company. In social situations, they would bluntly dismiss all the delusions of the Liberals and all kinds of other non-rational people. Of course, I ended up with INTP or INTJ or whatever which were even said to be "rare" personality types, further contributing to my self-image of being one of the few rational human beings. I thought that the the test understood me perfectly.
So, I never went to the parties and instead spent weekends compiling Linux kernel? Not really true, I just lied to myself because I idolized the people that (supposedly) did so. I wasn't even socially that awkward. I could be a bit "edgy" sometimes but I really didn't shove libertarianism or atheism down anyone's throat and usually I was kind and polite to people. I slowly realized this as I outgrew the worst libertarian-transhumanist-atheist stuff in my early 20s. I did went to study computer science for a short while, but never graduated. So, I probably wasn't an INTP after all! The last time I tried to take some MBTI test was some years ago. I couldn't finish it, because I realized that in order to take the test, you would already have to perfectly know your "personality type" yourself, and through answering the questions, you would just transmit that knowledge to the test. I don't have that kind of self-reflection. I can't honestly say that I "like to find out how various machines work". Well, yes, I guess I do, but on the other hand, how often I'll settle with "I'm glad it WORKS, no matter how"? (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This article has a split personality[edit]

The summary is overly long and seems whitewashy (weirdly concluding with a "no" that this is not pseudoscience).

Meanwhile, the criticism section is tucked away far down, and it basically calls pseudoscience instantly.

The whole midriff of the article is packed with, I dunno if it's original research or poe material or whitewashing or an accurate description.

Seems to me the Criticism portion ought to be the new summary, to put it bluntly. Opening quote is also great. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)