Forer Effect | INFJ Forum

Forer Effect

After taking the test for the first time, I read most of the type descriptions, and found all but three hard to identify with. If the data can be accounted for by the Forer Effect, then all or most of the descriptions should be approximately equally well matched.
 
I think to an extent yes, people can do this. However, when you read some of the types clearly they are some that don't apply. This aspect alone shows me that there is some truth to the differences in types.


I mean, clearly though the MBTI is "vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people." If it weren't it wouldn't be very useful if you think about it, there would be 6,000,000+ types.



I think the big problem is subjective validation "Subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectancy, or hypothesis demands a relationship."

We see this when people start overgeneralizing and saying that "all xxxx types do y".

I think it is important for the system to be a bit vague, so it can fit an individual. If the descriptions become too specific clearly it just won't be as accurate to describe people. On the other hand, if they become too vague, they also won't be accurate. There needs to be a balance of the general and specific, and I think MBTI is pretty good in that regard. Though it really depends on the author who is describing the types.
 
I find MBTI highly accurate and useful. It has proven to be right and predictable on so many occasions in real life for years. After learning the inner workings and base of it, I have found it even more so useful.

But you all know me, I will put stock in to pretty any system :D
 
Once you introduce the functions things become much too vague, you can fit anyone into any type and explain it away with different function combinations and developments.

What is really the difference between Fi(Ne+Si) and FiSe?

It just all seems too convenient.
 
The functions things aren't supposed to be used by laymen, reason is, idiots fuck them up and misunderstand them.

"Letter Talk" is one of the things Keirsey is against, in that it's the Temperament as a whole that matters.
 
MBTI is a corrupt system that should NOT be trusted!!!
 
Shai Gar said:
"Letter Talk" is one of the things Keirsey is against, in that it's the Temperament as a whole that matters.
Click to expand...

You are just saying that because you are an ENTP.
 
I've identified with a few other type descriptions as many others probably do, and wonder why should one alone fit. I have a bit of difficulty accepting that one type must be correct and others are automatically not. I would more likely believe I'm a combination of types than one type alone. Some of the differences between types are portrayed as contrary which I don't think they are.

And we're not always aware of how we really think or operate. We're socialized by so many different influences, that when you take a test, it's questionable whether you are identifying with a type, or maybe you've just developed a persona which fits in with that type, which may ultimately not be you. So, I'm not sure. Like someone else has said, I'm worried that it is used to justify generalizalizing and stereotyping, suggesting that everyone who is a particular type will fit in comfortably within the characteristics.

What I think would help, is the development of a subtype system, more in depth than socionics, which analyze differences within types. But I guess, the Enneagram is supposed to an example of a subtype system. But I don't follow it.

So, yeah. Hmm.
 
Last edited:
I have typed INTP, INFJ, ISTP, ISTJ and ISFP.

The only reason I label myself as an ISTP is because that's what people here voted I was, so I figure it's appropriate to play the part.
 
I think the problems and solutions that may seem plagued by Forer effect are mainly due to incapability of formal and natural languages to describe and evaluate the data.

Humans are very hard to be described with words. The problem applies to all personality systems, and even to astrology and the like. The truth is that we simply cannot test such systems properly (for now). We rely on our common intuition more than reasoning.

It's similar to the continuous/discrete, or analogous/digital problems of translation. Reality sometimes is far more complicated than any amount of words could describe.

As an illustration, one of my favourite photo effects "halftone" - here's a couple of years old picture of myself with such effect:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2mfgl01.jpg

That's how far our textual descriptions are from some aspects of reality, as far as I'm concerned.
 
enfp can be shy said:
I think the problems and solutions that may seem plagued by Forer effect are mainly due to incapability of formal and natural languages to describe and evaluate the data.

Humans are very hard to be described with words. The problem applies to all personality systems, and even to astrology and the like. The truth is that we simply cannot test such systems properly (for now). We rely on our common intuition more than reasoning.

It's similar to the continuous/discrete, or analogous/digital problems of translation. Reality sometimes is far more complicated than any amount of words could describe.

As an illustration, one of my favourite photo effects "halftone" - here's a couple of years old picture of myself with such effect:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2mfgl01.jpg

That's how far our textual descriptions are from some aspects of reality, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

So, would you say that humans are too complicated to be defined by such a system as MBTI?
 
enfp can be shy said:
I think the problems and solutions that may seem plagued by Forer effect are mainly due to incapability of formal and natural languages to describe and evaluate the data.

Humans are very hard to be described with words. The problem applies to all personality systems, and even to astrology and the like. The truth is that we simply cannot test such systems properly (for now). We rely on our common intuition more than reasoning.

It's similar to the continuous/discrete, or analogous/digital problems of translation. Reality sometimes is far more complicated than any amount of words could describe.

As an illustration, one of my favourite photo effects "halftone" - here's a couple of years old picture of myself with such effect:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2mfgl01.jpg

That's how far our textual descriptions are from some aspects of reality, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Agreed it's very difficult to categorize human beings as the factors that are used in input are largely intangible. These systems help us in understanding people better and where it falls short in terms of accuracy, it is up to us to 'fill in the blanks' therefore giving us a more realistic and practical conclusion.
 
Restraint said:
So, would you say that humans are too complicated to be defined by such a system as MBTI?
Click to expand...
To be defined precisely. By words, not by the system itself. The system is promising. Check TypeTango, for example, and you can find patterns in the way people from different types look.

Most people also agree about descriptions, and my intuition is that it's working, but that's not the proper scientific way to test things. For the most part, we still don't have a good method of strict validation, we rely on common intuitions.

That only means we have to improve our methods of description, or invent new ones (if we insist on strict validation). It doesn't mean that the system is useless. People are sometimes afraid to deal with what science still cannot handle properly, as if that's static.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back