MBTI Needs To Change

[Asa]

In the years since MBTI was established, society has changed. Humans are raised differently, have different values, different life experiences, and different senses of self.

For example: In the 21st century, individualism is prized. Decades ago, being unique was something people wanted to keep under wraps. Most humans feel alone, misunderstood, and unique. This is a facet of the human condition. In present society, those feelings are celebrated; we're all special, unique, and 'different'. Furthermore, society is more openly diverse. When MBTI was established, society was presented ad homogenized. (It was not homogenized then, merely presented that way.) This slowly growing acceptance of diversity, countered with resistance to diversity in the same culture, is making room for people to recognize that they are unique, but causing them to continue to feel alienated, different and misunderstood.

Decades ago, introversion was considered a flaw. Now, introversion is desirable.

MBTI began in 1917. The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944 and the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. The second edition was published in 1985. The third edition was published in 1998.

Decades ago American society had strict social codes that needed to be followed, WWI and WWII soldiers returning from war, tract housing for WWII veterans, factory work, housewives attempting to fit the stereotypes presented in magazines, new materials that made it easier (and more affordable) for a rising, middle class to obtain possessions (feeding a 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentality), and the 'Silent Generation' who valued fitting in, staying quiet about radical and personal thoughts, and 'going with the flow'. When the first manual arrived in 1963, the Hippie movements and protests of Vietnam had not yet happened. Punk rock had hit by the time the second edition arrived in1985, but anyone who is part of Gen X will tell you rebels and individualism of all types (punk, Goth, hippies, etc.) were still considered "social outcasts". The mentalities of the Millennial Generation, as well as how they were raised, truly changed how Americans think about themselves and about society as a whole.

The ages of fearing individuality, and denying that we feel different, is ending. In truth, most people feel different and misunderstood. We all crave deep connection. We all want to find people who understand us. We all think we are creative, thoughtful, intelligent, (etc.) individuals. The term ambivert is growing in popularity. More people believe they are 'empaths', or 'highly sensitive'.

As gender stereotypes fragment, and gender is accepted as a spectrum, certain traits will become more evenly distributed, notably Thinking and Feeling traits that have traditionally been assigned gender roles. (Women are Feelers, men are Thinkers.)

As long as MBTI test questions stay as they are, more and more people who take the tests (particularly the free online tests), instead of studying function, are going to mistype.


This creates an interesting dilemma for INFJs:

Are INFJs becoming more popular, or are the attitudes about individualism, combined with outdated test questions, causing more and more people to be mistyped as INFJs? Will changing the test questions reduce the number of over-all mistypes? Mistyping will make MBTI meaningless.

If the questions are not changed, and if mistyping continues, MBTI must stop describing INFJ as the "rarest" type.

BTW: The official MBTI website already states that female INTJs are the rarest type, not INFJs.

 

[Sandie33]

@Asa I was just reading/looking for more information regarding the antiquated "tests" of searching for personality type.

The common denominator I've found lies in rational emotion vs rational logic, of which only 50% of the population has emotional rationality, (ie. Responding to an event with a correct emotional response to the situation in the moment.)

Then I ran across information leaning toward there not being a logical awareness without emotional involvement...how & where we place our attention.

The ages of fearing individuality, and denying that we feel different, is ending.

The video in the story below...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_8517098
This too

In relation to this:

Are INFJs becoming more popular, or are the attitudes about individualism, combined with outdated test questions, causing more and more people to be mistyped as INFJs? Will changing the test questions reduce the number of over-all mistypes? Mistyping will make MBTI meaningless.

If the questions are not changed, and if mistyping continues, MBTI must stop describing INFJ as the "rarest" type.

I believe yes, if the test questions were to change we could find a more grounded "base personality" or the platform from which we navigate our cognitive processing in relation to situational data. With a better understanding of our individual natural functioning we could then work on developing our shadow functions as a means to make them more comfortable when experiencing them. Again, the tie-in to emotion comes up here...because we all feel something, whether frustrated, overwhelmed, frightened, etc when we have to respond to a logical situation that is out of our comfort zone of rational thinking for us...it does illicit an emotional resonse whether we are completely aware of it or not.

So, perhaps it's true that without emotion there is no logic. And, we are emotional beings after all.

***and about that "most unique type", we have to remember that those statistics are based on the population of those who have taken the test and not the World's population. Until they find the last aboriginal bushman in the far corners of over there and test him/her I'll think the "rarest type" idea will remain questionable.

 

[Ginny]

Are INFJs becoming more popular, or are the attitudes about individualism, combined with outdated test questions, causing more and more people to be mistyped as INFJs? Will changing the test questions reduce the number of over-all mistypes? Mistyping will make MBTI meaningless.

I suppose I'm not going to be very factual but more idealistically generalistic. I'll do my best to be as objective as possible in my reply.

There are a lot of theories on why mistypes occur. Some believe the mistyping rate to be at about 90% because people rarely have the right balance of self-criticism and self-perception to type themselves accurately.
Also, the MBTI isn't as firmly established in the world as we might think. In the age of individualism, the MBTI is often associated with being put inside a box, and it is therefore not desirable to a lot of them.
The test has always been flawed, because there is a standardised language involved that equalises values with certain types. And if we consider what sort of connotations the word 'test' has in itself, it implies right or wrong answers (however flexible that term seemingly becomes in psychological tests), and people will focus on what is being expected of them rather than giving self-reflective answers. The test just isn't enough to determine type, and somehow I doubt that it ever was.
Even among a type, there are so many fluctuations and variations on how it is expressed, that the type descriptions aren't completely accurate. Overall, they cannot describe so many people, not just because an individualistic trend in society allows them to be, but because they were individuals from the beginning.
I am probably biased by my adherence to cognitive functions, with function preference, development, strength, control and dynamic. But this is what is behind the types' actual practice, isn't it?

We could say that the theory of cognitive functions makes the test irrelevant, but it doesn't have that much of an impact on the MBTI in itself, because it consists of more than just a test. Even if people were to dive into the matter behind the test, instead of taking it, I think there would still be a lot of mistypes. I don't know what will happen if we change the questions. It will probably stay the same, nonetheless. I mean, what would change if we changed the questions? What would we change about the questions? What could we change about the questions?
Mistypes have always been there, and they will continue to exist for as long as the types are being considered as unequal, which actually imo goes against the concept of expressing individuality.
I don't think it makes the whole thing meaningless, because it is still a personal thing, it's the meaning that we put into it that gives it meaning. We need to ask ourselves what it is to us, how we relate to it and how we use it. Being dishonest with ourselves won't bring us any further as individuals if we use a type to identify with. The truth of the Self will always surface sooner or later. We needn't be discouraged by misattribution of test, type or functions in order to use it, talk about it or live it. If anything, I believe the attitude towards the MBTI needs to change, not the MBTI in itself.

 

[Pin]

Honestly, I don't even believe in it, I'm just here to bother ya'll.

Socionics seems like a good alternative.

 

[Asa]

Thank you @Sandie33 and @Ginny for your input.

@Sandie - interesting video. Thank you for posting it.
I've been thinking about the topic of this video and how it relates to men. (Basically, how men are not allowed to be emotional, and are not taught how to manage emotions and how that is a disservice to men.)
I know this topic covers women as well.

- Regarding everyone on the entire planet taking the test: Well, yes! Hahaha. That is another reason why types should not be labeled " rare", and should be described based on cognitive strengths.
Let's face it: A lot of people choose types because they want to feel special, and what they value as special dictates which type they choose, whether that is rare, charismatic, outgoing, creative, idealistic, or intelligent.

I mean, what would change if we changed the questions? What would we change about the questions? What could we change about the questions?

Basing the questions on dominant cognitive function preferences would help.

I am probably biased by my adherence to cognitive functions, with function preference, development, strength, control and dynamic. But this is what is behind the types' actual practice, isn't it?

Yes!

Mistypes have always been there, and they will continue to exist for as long as the types are being considered as unequal, which actually imo goes against the concept of expressing individuality.
I don't think it makes the whole thing meaningless, because it is still a personal thing, it's the meaning that we put into it that gives it meaning. We need to ask ourselves what it is to us, how we relate to it and how we use it. Being dishonest with ourselves won't bring us any further as individuals if we use a type to identify with. The truth of the Self will always surface sooner or later. We needn't be discouraged by misattribution of test, type or functions in order to use it, talk about it or live it. If anything, I believe the attitude towards the MBTI needs to change, not the MBTI in itself.

You make good points.
I really believe in this line, too: Being dishonest with ourselves won't bring us any further as individuals if we use a type to identify with.

Honestly, I don't even believe in it, I'm just here to bother ya'll.

Socionics seems like a good alternative.

Well, MBTI is so flawed and unreliable, especially due to all the online quizzes, which keep growing in number, that there is less and less reason to "believe in it". That's why the testing has to change for MBTI to have "legs".
(I'm personally less interested in Socionics.)

I don't know why people who don't believe in MBTI come to this forum, or what you'd get out of it, but there are a lot of you here. Did you have friends who were members before you joined?
I would not join a religious forum, or an astrology forum. It would drive me sort of nuts, really.

Ultimately, I believe that cognitive function preferences influence who we are as individuals, and help shape our personalities and interests. The online fluff tests and articles, and the rate of mistyping, make me less and less interested in MBTI types. It has good bones, but needs improvement.

 

[Ginny]

Basing the questions on dominant cognitive function preferences would help.

But are we even always aware of the dominant cognitive function preference? I mean, I am totally aware of using Fe all the time and it's probably my strongest function, but I'm still an Ni-dom. Maybe we could phrase the questions to ask for the dominant and auxiliary, but then what about the tertiary, which is perhaps not as well developed as others, but still easy fun to use? Or the Se-hobbies that we often pursue?
What about the functions we use in the shadow, when we are emotionally compromised or under severe stress? We would have to tell people to not take the test if they are in such a state, but where do you draw the line? How can you make sure that you are not influenced by the shadow? -- Okay, now that I got to the end of the chain, we cannot always tell what our dominant function is like, we may not even prefer our dominant function or secondary and think we use the tertiary all the time when stuck in a loop. All this would need to be accounted for in writing new questions.

Perhaps more research needs to be done in terms of dynamics before we can properly think about how to reframe the questions.

 

[Asa]

@Ginny, I think people who are MBTI professionals could develop questions. The official test is already much better than most of the online ones.

Based on the current emotional and mental health of the individual, I think you can estimate type based on shadow functions.
I've only been studying MBTI for only a few years, and I can tell when someone's shadow function is in "control" (in person) because it just seems like it is coming out of the land of the Jabberwocky or something. It isn't healthy. It's like a funhouse mirror image of a behavior. Then, if you ask them questions, or know them from other stages of their lives, you will know that the person isn't usually this way. Like a person who is acting highly extroverted and personable, but it seems way off, may tell you they are introverted.

 

[Ginny]

@Ginny, I think people who are MBTI professionals could develop questions. The official test is already much better than most of the online ones.

Based on the current emotional and mental health of the individual, I think you can estimate type based on shadow functions.
I've only been studying MBTI for only a few years, and I can tell when someone's shadow function is in "control" (in person) because it just seems like it is coming out of the land of the Jabberwocky or something. It isn't healthy. It's like a funhouse mirror image of a behavior. Then, if you ask them questions, or know them from other stages of their lives, you will know that the person isn't usually this way. Like a person who is acting highly extroverted and personable, but it seems way off, may tell you they are introverted.

I haven't taken the official test or talked to anyone that I know is an MBTI professional, so I wouldn't know that. For sure, they obviously could. But then the questions aren't exactly available for free and most people who first get into it wouldn't want to pay for a test. The question is then are we still talking about all the tests, or do we limit ourselves to talking about just one part of the spectrum?

 

[Asa]

The question is then are we still talking about all the tests, or do we limit ourselves to talking about just one part of the spectrum?

We don't have to limit the discussion. Maybe we should clarify when we post?

I agree that most people don't want to pay for tests when they first become interested in MBTI.

I do want to mention that my psychiatrist/psychologist friends do use MBTI tests in their practices, which validates it for me.

 

[Ginny]

We don't have to limit the discussion. Maybe we should clarify when we post?

A very good option. So let me clarify that for my posts, I have been talking from the experience of only having taken several free tests.

I do want to mention that my psychiatrist/psychologist friends do use MBTI tests in their practices, which validates it for me.

You're so lucky
I would prefer talking to a psychiatrist/psychologist too, or indeed any MBTI versed professional, and I would even pay for it.

 

[Wyote]

The more you understand psychology, physiology and the practicality of such things, the more it makes sense as to where mbti falls in the stratum of life.
It doesn't really need to change, but people's understanding and usage of it does.

We aren't really changing as a species or anything drastic like that. Technology has instituted a false narrative of sorts.
People are just people, and they'll continue peopling.

 

[Pin]

Thank you @Sandie33 and @Ginny for your input.

@Sandie - interesting video. Thank you for posting it.
I've been thinking about the topic of this video and how it relates to men. (Basically, how men are not allowed to be emotional, and are not taught how to manage emotions and how that is a disservice to men.)
I know this topic covers women as well.

- Regarding everyone on the entire planet taking the test: Well, yes! Hahaha. That is another reason why types should not be labeled " rare", and should be described based on cognitive strengths.
Let's face it: A lot of people choose types because they want to feel special, and what they value as special dictates which type they choose, whether that is rare, charismatic, outgoing, creative, idealistic, or intelligent.



Basing the questions on dominant cognitive function preferences would help.



Yes!





You make good points.
I really believe in this line, too: Being dishonest with ourselves won't bring us any further as individuals if we use a type to identify with.



Well, MBTI is so flawed and unreliable, especially due to all the online quizzes, which keep growing in number, that there is less and less reason to "believe in it". That's why the testing has to change for MBTI to have "legs".
(I'm personally less interested in Socionics.)

I don't know why people who don't believe in MBTI come to this forum, or what you'd get out of it, but there are a lot of you here. Did you have friends who were members before you joined?
I would not join a religious forum, or an astrology forum. It would drive me sort of nuts, really.

Ultimately, I believe that cognitive function preferences influence who we are as individuals, and help shape our personalities and interests. The online fluff tests and articles, and the rate of mistyping, make me less and less interested in MBTI types. It has good bones, but needs improvement.

I'm here because I find that when you get into cognitive functions, the theory does get interesting and rings anecdotally true for me. Also, this is a pretty fun place to post.

Why doesn't Socionics appeal to you?

 

[Asa]

@Wyote - I see a tremendous amount of change in how younger generations view themselves and how liberated they are to be individuals, plus big changes in social habits. This isn't 'evolution' in the real sense of the word, just a shifting of social norms, but it does affect how people perceive themselves, their political points of view, their life choices, attitudes, etc. There is a big shift between Gen X and Millennials. From studying past generations, I see a big shift from the Silent Generation to Gen X, too. (I think if the Silent Generation were on the Internet taking MBTI quizzes and reading "12 Signs You're A...." they'd want to be ISTJs. LOL!)

I don't think the fluff articles and inaccurate online tests are helping MBTI at all. Shifting the questions asked and changing the descriptions of the types could greatly benefit the way people understand MBTI.
"Do you do this type of thinking, or this type?" vs "Is your desk messy or clean?"

This isn't about the forum, so please, please don't think that. It's about stuff I've seen and heard IRL/social media circles pertaining to those fluff articles and quizzes like Humanmetrics.

Why doesn't Socionics appeal to you?

TBH, no reason. I haven't given it enough focus to fairly judge it. I just don't like the system as much as MBTI.
I do appreciate that INFJ/INFP are flipped due to INFJ's dom Ni.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

We aren't really changing as a species or anything drastic like that. Technology has instituted a false narrative of sorts.
People are just people, and they'll continue peopling.

You seem to have adopted a very nomothetic view of human nature here, whereas @Asa's argument is very expressly idiographic. I'm going to support @Asa here, and I'll explain why.

Those terms (nomothetic and idiographic) are those of the philosopher Wilhelm Windelband and essentially describe the 'truth conditions' of certain academic disciplines.

'Nomothetic' disciplines like the natural sciences deal with universal laws.

'Idiographic' disciplines - for example history - deal with the particular and unique, like events.

When Windelband came up with this terminology, German philosophers in particular were trying to figure out how the 'new sciences' like Sociology, Psychology and professionalised history fit into an overall scheme of human knowledge creation. At this point, it wasn't clear if nomothetic (nature/biology) or idiographic (nurture/culture) disciplines would dominate the study of human society, or even if such a contest would even take place.

However, for various reasons nomothetic psychology branched into the study of society with the innovations of 'social psychology', sociometry, the school of Gestalt psychology, &c.

This meant that by 1945, the nomothetic disciplines were ready to become preeminent in the social sciences. Then, with the hurry to explain the Holocaust after the IMT at Nuremberg, it was nomothetic explanations that prominently won out.

The Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust not because of some strange or particular cultural reason (idiigraphic explanation), but because ultimately any human being could be capable of such a thing (nomothetic explanation). For example, Theodore Adorno et al in The Authoritarian Personality concluded that Fascist and anti-Semitic beliefs were corrolated with having had an authoritarian upbringing.

You can see here that the 'nomothetic assumption' had already been made - there was a fundamental belief in something called 'universal human nature'. Despite the protestations of historians and political scientists, the 'victory of the nomothetic' was practically complete by about the mid 1950s for a variety of reasons, not least the incredible aura of legitimacy cast by the nomothetic natural sciences.

Now, we can see that at the meta level, the belief in a nomothetic universal human nature has become axiomatic for psychology and other disciplines, whether it is true or not. The problem now, however, is that the further away we get from the cultural milieux which produced many of the initial 'findings' of social psychology (mid century American colleges, &c.), the more difficult it has become to reproduce their results experimentally. This is now referred to as the 'Verification Crisis' in psychology.

It genuinely does seem that much too little attention has been paid to the cultural background of experimental subjects before their behaviour was recorded, generalised and imputed to this theoretical construct of 'universal human nature'.

Now I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I am saying that it's scope has been vastly overstated, and the idiographic influence of culture has been hugely understated, such that now psychologists are having to ignore a great amount of previous findings.

 

[Wyote]

@Wyote - I see a tremendous amount of change in how younger generations view themselves and how liberated they are to be individuals

I don't. I see a lot of ego and attempts at social positioning through such assertions though.

I think if the Silent Generation were on the Internet taking MBTI quizzes and reading "12 Signs You're A...." they'd want to be ISTJs. LOL!

The thing about mbti is that when applied correctly, it doesn't matter what a person wants to be, only what they are. Which itself matters very little.
One thing that is wrong about mbti, or some people's perceptions of it, is the importance people place on it.

I don't think the fluff articles and inaccurate online tests are helping MBTI at all.

Yea, the way people interpret them can also be inaccurate. There is a lot of dysfunction between test administration and test interpretation, in most circumstances this is a complex hurdle.

Shifting the questions asked and changing the descriptions of the types could greatly benefit the way people understand MBTI.

It could potentially, but no matter how well you formulate a test/questionnaire it will always suffer from the stupidity/ignorance of test takers to some degree

This isn't about the forum, so please, please don't think that. It's about stuff I've seen and heard IRL/social media circles pertaining to those fluff articles and quizzes like Humanmetrics.

Yea I am just thinking in a sort of holistic way, from what I've encountered in my own life

nomothetic and idiographic

You didn't explain why you side with idiographic tho?
The stuff they are having to ignore is largely biased anyway.
I don't see where you go from "but muh culture matters" to "humans are entirely different behaviorally based on culture"
While I think you are correct - it has been a hugely understated aspect - it does not supersede the human condition.
And in fact, this would negate Asa's orginal insinuation of some sort of unification of a thought/mind among humans.
Unless of course, we all collectively become one culture. But humans don't and have never operated that way.
We always, always, obsessively seek out differences and group ourselves accordingly.

And anyway, my mind isn't exactly coming from a nomothetic place and I don't appreciate being pigeonholed as such.
I am just trying to observe humanity at a historical macro level. It seems to me, humans tend to repeat human things.

 

[Sandie33]

@Sandie - interesting video. Thank you for posting it.
I've been thinking about the topic of this video and how it relates to men. (Basically, how men are not allowed to be emotional, and are not taught how to manage emotions and how that is a disservice to men.)
I know this topic covers women as well.

@Asa did you have a look at the Huffington article too? The video within the article was my main point here.

I don't disagree that the stereotypical mindset that men have to be masculine, and women feminine causes confusion as well as conflict for the individual in general. ...in my opinion we are all human and society needs a critical reality check in regards to human emotion and behavior.

Perhaps we as a society could prevent some if the disorders caused by societal dichotomy through accepting that uniqueness variable ...
I vote for the individual to be allowed the phrase I'm still learning when behavior comes into question

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I don't. I see a lot of ego and attempts at social positioning through such assertions though.



The thing about mbti is that when applied correctly, it doesn't matter what a person wants to be, only what they are. Which itself matters very little.
One thing that is wrong about mbti, or some people's perceptions of it, is the importance people place on it.



Yea, the way people interpret them can also be inaccurate. There is a lot of dysfunction between test administration and test interpretation, in most circumstances this is a complex hurdle.



It could potentially, but no matter how well you formulate a test/questionnaire it will always suffer from the stupidity/ignorance of test takers to some degree



Yea I am just thinking in a sort of holistic way, from what I've encountered in my own life



You didn't explain why you side with idiographic tho?
The stuff they are having to ignore is largely biased anyway.
I don't see where you go from "but muh culture matters" to "humans are entirely different behaviorally based on culture"
While I think you are correct - it has been a hugely understated aspect - it does not supersede the human condition.
And in fact, this would negate Asa's orginal insinuation of some sort of unification of a thought/mind among humans.
Unless of course, we all collectively become one culture. But humans don't and have never operated that way.
We always, always, obsessively seek out differences and group ourselves accordingly.

And anyway, my mind isn't exactly coming from a nomothetic place and I don't appreciate being pigeonholed as such.
I am just trying to observe humanity at a historical macro level. It seems to me, humans tend to repeat human things.

I'm saying that nomothetical explanations have thus far been unduly prominent and privileged (since '45), to the extent that we now have this meta-construct of 'universal human nature' that is very difficult to approach critically.

Take the MBTI - do the types adequately encapsulate personality variation in, say, a tribe of sub-Saharan African cannibalistic headhunters?

Now, your instinct in thinking about this question should reveal your nomothetic/idiographic bias:

If you immediately thought 'yes', you probably really believe in a 'strong' universal human nature and the ability of MBTI to describe it.

On the other hand, if you thought 'I don't know, I would have to learn more about these people' or something along those lines, you are essentially taking an idiographic or empirical view of things, despite any professed beliefs.

 

[Wyote]

I'm saying that nomothetical explanations have thus far been unduly prominent and privileged (since '45), to the extent that we now have this meta-construct of 'universal human nature' that is very difficult to approach critically.

Quite true in the western world

Take the MBTI - do the types adequately encapsulate personality variation in, say, a tribe of sub-Saharan African cannibalistic headhunters?

Now, your instinct in thinking about this question should reveal your nomothetic/idiographic bias:

If you immediately thought 'yes', you probably really believe in a 'strong' universal human nature and the ability of MBTI to describe it.

On the other hand, if you thought 'I don't know, I would have to learn more about these people' or something along those lines, you are essentially taking an idiographic or empirical view of things, despite any professed beliefs.

I wouldn't say I believe in mbti specifically as a universal tool and I don't think any rational person would either(?), as it was designed in specific biased ways. But I do believe in some variant of cognitive functions, which could be applied to any people. As I said before, knowing where mbti fits into things is important.

 

[Fidicen]

I'm saying that nomothetical explanations have thus far been unduly prominent and privileged (since '45), to the extent that we now have this meta-construct of 'universal human nature' that is very difficult to approach critically.

My experience in social sciences and philosophy is rather that idiographic explanations have been becoming more prominent since the 60s, first in poststructuralist philosophy (which coexisted with the more nomothetical critical theory) which then began to influence cultural studies, sociology and women's studies, becoming actually more influential on those fields than in philosophy.

I'm less familiar with what's going on in psychology, but my impression is that it relies heavily on empirical data and statistics, which is also why MBTI isn't taken seriously since the results haven't been reliable enough. Expressed in the framework you presented, I guess one could say that MBTI is more nomothetical than mainstream psychology. However, when it comes to psychiatry, there does seem to be a strong nomothetical tendency in the form of the DSM, but that approach is frequently questioned (sometimes based of Foucault's critique of medicalisation, which I find rather amusing because postmodernism in itself can become a nomothetical explanation for some people even while they seem to question everything).

In recent years, perhaps even since the late 90s, there's been a return to more nomothetical explanations, or at least now it seems more difficult to see what exactly is the prominent approach compared to the 90s. For a while there seemed to be a huge clash between natural and social sciences because the former thought the latter are veering dangerously close to relativism. What happened in the academia 20 years ago now seems to be seeping into popular culture and public discussions about the usefulness of idiographic explanations. So my impression is that in the academia nomothetical explanations have been pretty popular, but there's also been a strong opposition for decades. It's only in the public discussion that the situation has seemed so one-sided.

 

[Wyote]

It's only in the public discussion that the situation has seemed so one-sided.

U rite