How valid is the MBTI?

[Nemo]

So I got into a discussion on MBTI recently and someone gave me a list of reasons for why MBTI is a pseudo-science. I was wondering what people here (who know a lot more about MBTI than I do) think of these reasons.

1. Myers-Briggs are not certified psychologists.

2. Their personality theories are based on the crazy Carl Jung.
Jung's so crazy that Freud (not the sanest person on Earth, mind you) couldn't tolerate him.

3. There is no scientific basis behind this. Jung was not a fan of scientific methods, he preferred anecdotes and such.

4. Why are there only 16 personality types?
16 comes from 4 multiplied by 4.
4 is chosen because Jung thinks that 4 is a mystical number.

5. The test questions is so vague that people can interpret it differently and such give highly variable answers.

6. It is doubtful that people can answer the questions honestly since most people do not know themselves.

7. A lot of the questions have the unintentional effect of getting people to give dishonest response.
For example:
The question may ask, "Are you rational or emotional?"
Most people like to think of themselves as logical, clever creatures, instead of emotional and irrational,
so it is obvious that they would pick "rational" as their answer. The question might as well have asked, "Are you an idiot?"

8. Since the test results is so vague and general, the perceived accuracy of this test is due to Barnum/Forer effect.
The Barnum/Forer effect has been observed with astrology, cold-reading and assorted pseudo-psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

So what do you think? Is he right or am I missing something?

 

[Quinlan]

So I got into a discussion on MBTI recently and someone gave me a list of reasons for why MBTI is a pseudo-science. I was wondering what people here (who know a lot more about MBTI than I do) think of these reasons.



So what do you think? Is he right or am I missing something?

Pretty much right I reckon.

 

[IndigoSensor]

The scientific method is not perfect for everything.

I find MBTI to be accurate in almost every case.

Everything in this world doesn't have to be calculated, tested, and quanitified to be used and truthful.

 

[Shai Gar]

Oh wow. Out of any possible reasons your friend could have given, your friend chose to make himself look like a retard.

 

[Shai Gar]

As for not being certified psychologists, the wright brothers were not ICAO certified pilots.

 

[Nemo]

Oh wow. Out of any possible reasons your friend could have given, your friend chose to make himself look like a retard.

Why do you say that?

 

[Shai Gar]

Because they're incredibly retarded reasons.

Intelligent reasons would attack the system itself, rather than the people who created or administer it.

 

[Blind Bandit]

So I got into a discussion on MBTI recently and someone gave me a list of reasons for why MBTI is a pseudo-science. I was wondering what people here (who know a lot more about MBTI than I do) think of these reasons.



So what do you think? Is he right or am I missing something?

Well honestly the person just invalided their argument by use of fallacious logic. For example, insulting a person(s) and not dealing with the argument is ad hominem. And the argument is a pretty good example of a straw man as well. Or using a weaker version of your opponent's argument and knocking it down.

Becasue anyone who studied psychology, actually knows Freud wasn't crazy. I would argue neither were Jung, or Briggs.

Your friend seems to be a person who doesn't take physiology seriously and thats fine. No matter how wrong his opinion may be. But this person's thoughts on the subjects do not invalidate Myers Brigg, or psychology from the realm of science.

In other words your friends argument isn't sound and there for is not able to prove anything he is arguing.

Oh wow. Out of any possible reasons your friend could have given, your friend chose to make himself look like a retard.

For once we agree Shai.

 

[Shai Gar]

Whenever I'm serious people always make that statement or a derivative of it.
People agree with me when I'm serious, because I'm always right.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Whenever I'm serious people always make that statement or a derivative of it.
People agree with me when I'm serious, because I'm always right.

Oh wait I don't agree with you anymore.

 

[VH]

So I got into a discussion on MBTI recently and someone gave me a list of reasons for why MBTI is a pseudo-science. I was wondering what people here (who know a lot more about MBTI than I do) think of these reasons.

So what do you think? Is he right or am I missing something?

Well, to start with, your friend is kinda dumb.

But in their defense, the MBTI is a very inaccurate psuedo-science. It is a self assessment test, that is poorly designed and prone to mistyping for a multitude of reasons. It is so common that the MBTI mistypes, that there are people who's sole profession is to help people figure out what their actual type is. For me personally, the MBTI has typed me as ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, and INFJ. It took me a lot of research and effort to realize I was not the type I initially assumed I was, but was in fact one of these INFJ wierdoes, hehe. But, boy howdy, am I ever an unmistakable posterboy of an INFJ.

The MBTI was created by two people with no formal training in psychology, and is an attempt to Indicate (as in get someone into the ballpark) the personality types proposed by the work of Karl Jung, which is astonishingly accurate once proper tools are applied. Just because the most common tool is flawed, does not mean that the theories and principles behind it are.

One of the most common themes for threads on this forum are people trying to determine their actual MBTI type, because the test got them in the ballpark, and now they're trying to decide which it is.

I would strongly suggest that you encourage your friend to do the research to try to determine their own type. At worst, they'll do some self discovery. At best, they'll become an MBTI expert. Clearly, they're a T type of some sort, based on the "Are you an idiot" pretext. (Heh, as an F type, I would have chosen emotional over rational.) Based on their empirical approach to the MBTI, I'd assume they were an S type. They're also quite judgmental, which would point toward a J type. So from there, you've only got to decide if they're an ISTJ, ESTJ.

 

[Shai Gar]

MBTI might be flawed based on how they partner types (by their primary functions, ISTP with INTP because of Introverted Thinking). However it was improved by Keirsey and Bates with the creation of the KBTS or KTS, which linked them by their thinking types (Ne + Ti, INTP and ENTP).

Keirsey IS a trained psychologist. However one doesn't have to have a degree in something to master it. Wilbur and Orville Wright did not have any ICAO Pilot Qualifications, yet they are acknowledged pilots. I've got Pilot friends who have ICAO Qualifications that will not dispute Wilbur or Orville's right to call themselves Pilots. Hell, Orville was a High School drop-out.

It's just envy on their part that two individuals didn't spend shitloads of money on a piece of paper and yet created a valid psychological instrument.

 

[VH]

MBTI might be flawed based on how they partner types (by their primary functions, ISTP with INTP because of Introverted Thinking). However it was improved by Keirsey and Bates with the creation of the KBTS or KTS, which linked them by their thinking types (Ne + Ti, INTP and ENTP).

Keirsey IS a trained psychologist. However one doesn't have to have a degree in something to master it. Wilbur and Orville Wright did not have any ICAO Pilot Qualifications, yet they are acknowledged pilots. I've got Pilot friends who have ICAO Qualifications that will not dispute Wilbur or Orville's right to call themselves Pilots. Hell, Orville was a High School drop-out.

It's just envy on their part that two individuals didn't spend shitloads of money on a piece of paper and yet created a valid psychological instrument.

I'll never invalidate results. The question was whether or not the MBTI is pseudo science, and it is. That doesn't mean that it isn't valid. It's just not up to snuff with the prim and proper scientific method and process. Clearly, this stuff works, and most importantly, it can't be forced into a scientific model because the variables are too abstract to define.

 

[Julia]

Nowack, K. (1997). Personality Inventories: The Next Generation. Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development, Winter 1996/97

The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that only the Intraversion-Extroversion scale has adequate construct validity. That is high correlations with comparable scales of other tests and low correlations with tests designed to assess different concepts. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. No mention was made in this review about the J-P scale.

Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that:

 

[slant]

I dunno, I feel like there aren't enough axes to be accurate.

Figure out the human brain, create a test with 3 billion axes, then come back to me. I'm sure that would be much more accurate.

 

[arbygil]

Nowack, K. (1997). Personality Inventories: The Next Generation. Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development, Winter 1996/97

It's difficult, because I'm of two minds. First, I think we should never discount someone or someone's type because they believe they are X-type. If we all "think" they're ISFJ but they claim to be INFJ, it's not up to us to "set them straight." It's up to the individual to figure it out, and up to us to help them be the best person they're supposed to be.

On the other hand - knowing yourself is one of the greatest gifts you can have. And knowing that you can communicate with others who share your gifts, talents, and ideas is a wonderful experience. Knowing you're "not the only one" who feels the way you do is a relief in this day and age. You have to categorize yourself to "fit" with a group, and in some cases the MBTI can help you understand yourself by understanding others. It's good to know yourself, and it's good to know others so you can communicate with them on a new level.

I believe the MBTI is real, but it might not be as cut and dry as we make it out to be. I like Von Hase's take on it, that our cognitive processes can make a difference even within our MBTI make-up. We're individuals first, but we also need to communicate with others. It's part of who we are.

 

[slant]

I used to have faith in psychology before I discovered neurology.