Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Indicator

Its indicator, not inventory. MarkMC (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Clues

In the skeptics dictionary Jung's reasoning can be perceived as sound and according to common sense, at least when reading his words unfiltered. However, reading the skeptical list at Artifacts in reasoning – Hidden persuaders make astrology work one can easily see that the "observational facts" Jung referred to might just be a random clustering of qualities around the extravert and introvert "gravity centers". Psychology typologies must be centered around statistics to filter away hidden persuaders. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 08:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

MBTI as Pop Psychology

I think that meme is done. My world view is physicalism, I'm a Bsc major, rational person and skeptical of pretty much everything (an in agreement with 99%+ of the content on rationalwiki, except this article). Furthermore I actually dismissed MBTI without properly having investigated it, and proud to admit I was mistaken. Also I've have come across quite a few scientifically minded people that think MBTI is rubbish merely, because of the test variability, which is a shame.

I think the idea that MBTI is pop psychology is a dated relic from the 90's, in reaction to it being overhyped. Here in silicon valley, I know of a few Stanford educated psychologists that are regularly using the instrument. So I disagree with the assertion that only business find it useful and "real" psychologists don't use it.

I do however, think the MBTI *test* has some real flaws, but not the MBTI theory itself. Jungian cognitive theory on the other hand, which it is built is pretty decent and in fact recent empirical studies in neuroscience have confirmed E/I dichotomy for example.

We going to see far greater convergence between neuroscience and analytical psychology in the future I suspect.

Has anyone here apart from myself, actually read Carl Jung's Psychological Types and Isabel Briggs Myer's Gift's Differing and sought to apply the theory observationally in the real world?

--Happles (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article notes I-E has empirical support. I can also see the possibility that latent inhibition might be related to the S-N scale somehow. However, it's generally been abandoned for the FFM in actual research. I don't put a whole lot of stock in FFM either, though. Personality psychology in general is heavily reliant on sketchy methodology such as factor analysis, self-reported data, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The only use I find in personality tests is generating ideas - well, words - for when people say "so, describe yourself". If I don't have anything to work with I draw a complete blank and basically suffer a BSOD. ^narchist

ADK, Neb and I were talking about this, and one of them said "Myers Brigs" is horoscopes for psychologists. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 01:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Personality testing in general often comes dangerously close to astrology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

With FFM

[[1]]

In light of this, I think the only difference between the MBTI and the FFM is the former being theoretical and general, e.g. describing "perceiving" or "judging" functions, thinking or feeling, sensing or intuition, and the latter being empirical and superficial, stating only what is apparent on the surface e.g. conscientiousness, agreeableness, or neuroticism. 95.14.200.31 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This page needs to talk about the Jungian functions

I support RationalWiki's attempts to debunk the MBTI theory and everything else related to it, but this page doesn't say a single word about the Jungian functions, except for maybe a vague mention in the following quote.

"The final functions become more complicated based on whether an individual is judged extroverted or introverted. Depending on whether one is extroverted or introverted it expresses whether the Sensing – iNtuition or the Thinking – Feeling aspect is exhibited to the outside. The logically minded may perceive this as some kind of juggling to correct a flaw."

There is an essential aspect of the theory left out and, without any mention of cognitive functions, this page won't hold up much against serious proponents of MBTI. This page just addresses the basic personality tests.

For those who are unfamiliar with the cognitive functions, they are an extension of the Thinking/Feeling Sensing/Intuition dichotomies (which are actually a simplification of Jung's writings about the functions, but that's another story). According to the theory, everyone uses Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition to varying extents. But there are functions assigned to these dichotomies, and some people use each of these four more prominently than others. These four functions are based around diametric opposites, and the four functions are stacked based on the person's preference.

For instance, an ENTJ has the following four functions:

• Dominant: Te (Extroverted Thinking)
• Auxiliary: Ni (Introverted Intuition)
• Tertiary: Se (Extroverted Sensing)
• Inferior: Fi (Introverted Feeling)

Based on the functions that the person assigned the ENTJ type possesses, four things can be concluded:

1) There are extroverted and introverted variants of the functions. These are "sub-functions", since although they are the same function, this function varies in different ways depending on if there's an "i" or "e" next to it. A good website or book can elaborate on this.

2) This is the meat of the matter, so take a deep breath first before reading.

Functions are assigned to each of the 16 types, based on what dichotomies that person has, or alternately the functions decide the person's dichotomies (don't worry, that hurt my brain too). There are four functions, and since there are Introverted/Extroverted versions of these functions, two by four equals eight. With sixteen types, there will be two types sharing the same Dominant/Inferior functions, but these types are also distinguished by their Auxiliary/Tertiary functions. So, two by eight equals sixteen. There's a different function set for each of the sixteen types.

As mentioned before, the person's four dichotomies are connected to their functions. And this is where Introversion/Extroversion and Judging/Perceiving comes into play. If someone is an Introvert they will have an Introverted Dominant function and vise versa. If they are Judging, that person's top two functions will be Pi and Je (Perceiving Introverted, as seen in Sensing and Intuition, and Judging Extroverted, as seen in Thinking and Feeling). If they are Perceiving, that person's top two functions will be Pe and Ji (Perceiving Extroverted and Judging Introverted).

3) Although an ENTJ has a preference for both Thinking and Intuition, they prefer Thinking more than Intuition and struggle less with Sensing than Feeling.

4) This system deals in diametric opposites. If someone was Te Dominant, their Inferior function would be the opposite of their Dominant function. What's the opposite of Te? Fi.

By now, some of the readers of my ramblings will have noticed some flaws in the theory. My bones-to-pick with the cognitive functions are as follows:

• It assumes that a person would actually have a preference for one function over another, which brings us back to the critique of either T/F or S/N in the article.
• The positioning of diametric opposites in the functions is arbitrary. Who's to say that a person who is dominated by Thinking would necessarily be weaker with Feeling? Proponents would argue a Thinker who is good with Feeling has "developed" their Feeling function, but what if a Thinking dominant person is better with Feeling than Intuition or Sensing?
• The theory assumes a person would just use an Introverted/Extroverted variant of a function, and not also the reverse. Who's to say an Intuitive person would only use Ni (Introverted Intuition) and not also Ne (Extroverted Intuition)?
• Is there a reliable coloration between a type (INFJ or ESFP) and the functions associated to that type?
• The theory argues that a person's type and their respective functions don't change, but that's the rub. People do change... and they change a lot. You aren't the same person you were twenty years, or even ten years ago, are you?
• Which is ultimately the greatest failure of MBTI theory. It tries to assign concrete measurements to the shifting landscape of the human mind.

I'm not too confident in my ability to write an adequate critique of the functions, so I'm just leaving this out there as an idea which could be tackled. I hope my ramblings were a starting point for something more coherent.

This Wikipedia page addresses the subject matter better than I can, and it can be used as a starting point for more extensive research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung_Type_Indicator#Functions:_sensing.2Fintuition_.28S.2FN.29_and_thinking.2Ffeeling_.28T.2FF.29

125.237.178.231 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A history of MBTI?

I also think that writing about how the theory was created by Jung, and expanded on by the Myers-Briggs teams and Keirsey, would help in its critique. This leads to seeing how Jung's ideas and Myers-Brigg's ideas fit together in order to form a cohesive overview of the theory.

125.237.178.231 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Popularity with MBTI among people on the Autistic Spectrum?

To me, this theory shows two things about the people who use it.

1. A desire to understand others. 2. A need to categorise.

I'll leave you to connect the dots. Now, with this in mind, one should take a look at personality forums like Personality Cafe and Typology Central.

http://personalitycafe.com/forum/ http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/forum.php

That's not to say that proponents of the theory are all going to have some form of ASD, but they seem much more likely to have it. Especially if their form of Autism/Aspergers is undiagnosed, where they would turn to personality theories as a means of trying to find out what makes them so different from other people, and these forums are all about self-discovery.

I'm not sure if we could prove such a coloration exists, but it's food for thought.

125.237.178.231 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems With the Test Portion

I find the claims that the theory behind MBTI is valid while the test associated with it is flawed to be agreeable. As has been stated previously, there is evidence supporting the introvert/extrovert dichotomy. That said, I think the article's critiques of the dichotomies in the "test" portion of MBTI are pretty spot-on. For example, with the T/F dichotomy, I don't see why one can't think logically and empathize with a situation. In fact, I think combining such approaches is essential to formulating sensible doctrine and policy.

Another concern I have is bias. Apparently, the type "INTJ" is considered one of the rarest types in the real world, but in self-assessments (especially on the internet), it appears to be a very common result. The most glaring explanation seems to be response bias (people aspire to be INTJs and thus rate themselves as such), though another potentially valid hypothesis may be unintentional selection bias (INTJs are more common in online communities or are more likely to be interested in personality tests). I think both explanations are probably major contributing factors. The One They Call Mars (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even psychologists

Mind if I dig up the evidence and make a note that neither Myers nor Briggs were psychologists? Kassorlae (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)