Its garbage. It is the horoscope of personality tests with no reliability or validity. https://old.reddit.com/r/IOPsychology/comments/5395fm/mbti_haters_and_lovers_get_in_here/...
Exemplary
Its garbage. It is the horoscope of personality tests with no reliability or validity.
When we say that there is no validity, it means that almost no evidence exists to demonstrate that the test is capturing the four ‘dimensions’ that supposedly classify individuals. To put it more bluntly, “the patterns of data do not suggest that there is a reason to believe that there are 16 unique types of personality,” say Pittenger (1993). The same paper also points out that a large body of research exists to show that the MBTI does not reliably predict important behaviors (Pittenger, 1993).
Do personality types exist? Demonstrating that personality forms “types” requires identifying unambiguous characteristics that indicate differences in kind, in contrast to dimensional characteristics that describe differences in degree. For personality to function as “types”, members of different classes (e.g., Type A versus Type B) must have clearly distinct levels on a cluster of traits, with little overlap between groups. Decades of personality research have found that personality traits do not work this way—people’s personalities are best understood as profiles of high to low values on several dimensions (e.g., the Big Five)[23]. Indeed, the last bastions of types in personality theory have recently fallen (e.g., Self-Monitoring[24], Type A[25]), with data clearly supporting dimensional interpretations over discrete types. Personality’s basic units are continuous traits, a fact undisputed by Gerlach et al. The density-clusters identified by Gerlach et al. overlap substantially in their Big Five trait levels and cannot be interpreted as discrete types—rather than “types”, they are better as described as “lumps in the batter” of personality traits[15]. Any scheme that places individuals into a limited number of clusters (e.g., 16 types in the MBTI) necessarily breaks continuous personality dimensions into discrete units and therefore loses valuable individual differences information.
If you want to take a scientifically valid/reliable measure of personality, you can assess it with the Big Five model here:
MBTI isn't really a personality test, but it's often misunderstood as one. It's more of a theory describing how people see the world and it can get pretty complicated with cognitive functions....
MBTI isn't really a personality test, but it's often misunderstood as one. It's more of a theory describing how people see the world and it can get pretty complicated with cognitive functions. Comparing it to the Big 5 is like comparing apples to oranges.
You didn't critique the cognitive functions which is where I believe most of the power of the theory comes from. I'm still open to debate, I just want to make sure you understand the theory.
Correct, and I do agree that there are more scientific tests than the MBTI; but it has it's strengths too. This article I found states: "...And if we want to get an idea of why somebody does what...
Correct, and I do agree that there are more scientific tests than the MBTI; but it has it's strengths too. This article I found states: "...And if we want to get an idea of why somebody does what he does, we use the Jungian theory, which is the theory that the MBTI is based on." https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/
There isn't anything to debate. Link some academic sources. Define cognitive functions. Email any psychology professor on the planet and 99.999% will say that the test is unreliable and isn't...
You didn't critique the cognitive functions which is where I believe most of the power of the theory comes from.
There isn't anything to debate. Link some academic sources. Define cognitive functions.
Email any psychology professor on the planet and 99.999% will say that the test is unreliable and isn't valid. A test that is neither doesn't measure anything.
There's little empirical evidence, and I agree with that as my replies to other people. "The test" (there are many of them; I assume you mean the official one) is also unreliable. So what am I...
There's little empirical evidence, and I agree with that as my replies to other people. "The test" (there are many of them; I assume you mean the official one) is also unreliable. So what am I arguing for? That it has some useful value to it.
MBTI cognitive functions can be used to grow as a person. Some people can be stuck in a cognitive function loop and there are guides to get out of them. You can argue that there are other methods for self-improvement, but I personally find MBTI a good way for self-improvement.
P.S: The "99.999% will say that the test is unreliable" is argumentum ad populum.
P.S.S: To prevent the argument from becoming heated, I would like to diffuse any tension we may have by thanking you for arguing with me. I'm personally not used to arguing so that's why I may come off as bad at it. Thanks!
The only value that can be extracted from it is to explain to people that there are individual differences between people and not everyone shares the same personality. Beyond that, the feedback it...
There's little empirical evidence, and I agree with that as my replies to other people. "The test" (there are many of them; I assume you mean the official one) is also unreliable. So what am I arguing for? That it has some useful value to it.
MBTI cognitive functions can be used to grow as a person. Some people can be stuck in a cognitive function loop and there are guides to get out of them. You can argue that there are other methods for self-improvement, but I personally find MBTI a good way for self-improvement.
The only value that can be extracted from it is to explain to people that there are individual differences between people and not everyone shares the same personality. Beyond that, the feedback it gives you is unreliable because the test(s) are unreliable. You can't take meaningful actions on a measurement that has no grounding in reality.
As my other article mentions:
A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources. If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing, reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability.
You cannot fix something if you can't accurately identify what exactly is broken.
Using the MBTI as a self-improvement tool won't lead to any real meaningful change. I am not trying to be mean, but it just isn't the right way to go if you are wanting meaningful change in your life and help in identifying the problems that are being faced. Go see a therapist, engage in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Applied Behavioral Analysis, dialectical behavior therapy, or whatever the therapist specializes in. More insight can be gained from seeing someone whose job it is to understand self-improvement strategies that are backed up by the scientific method than from a faulty test that is by and large, rejected by the scientific community.
Is there anything you can say with confidence knowing someone's type? Something more precise than "your type starts with I, so you prefer to relax alone". I'd be interested in something proven by...
You didn't critique the cognitive functions which is where I believe most of the power of the theory comes from.
Is there anything you can say with confidence knowing someone's type? Something more precise than "your type starts with I, so you prefer to relax alone". I'd be interested in something proven by an academic study.
Yes. I can say an ISFJ has a preference towards comparing things to their past (Introverted Sensing; Si) and values harmony within their group (Extroverted Feeling; Fe). Everyone does this, but an...
Yes. I can say an ISFJ has a preference towards comparing things to their past (Introverted Sensing; Si) and values harmony within their group (Extroverted Feeling; Fe). Everyone does this, but an ISFJ would prefer it more.
Nothing can be "proven" because this is a soft science that relies on self-identification. I found this neato article after looking around that addresses some of your concerns: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/
A relevant quote is here: "By the common definition of pseudoscience (i.e. that there is no empirical evidence for the claims that are set forth by the theory), the MBTI is not pseudoscience. No scientific study has ever found that there is no validity to the MBTI."
A similar article below also states: "However, four of the five of the ‘Big Five’ traits correspond to some degree to the four traits covered by Jung and Myers’s theory of the types. Thus, the machinations of Jungian typology do have some scientific validation, although at the same time there may be minor differences with regards to the definitions of individual concepts."
When you provide people which such widely applicable descriptions of their personality it's very likely they'll be able to self-identify with their type. They'll be more conscious of the behaviors...
I can say an ISFJ has a preference towards comparing things to their past (Introverted Sensing; Si) and values harmony within their group (Extroverted Feeling; Fe). Everyone does this, but an ISFJ would prefer it more.
Nothing can be "proven" because this is a soft science that relies on self-identification.
When you provide people which such widely applicable descriptions of their personality it's very likely they'll be able to self-identify with their type. They'll be more conscious of the behaviors they should have, which will reinforce their beliefs and maybe even the behaviors themselves. Confirmation bias ensures that any discrepancies are ignored since some of the qualities match their personality. What is the threshold for matching/non-matching qualities to determine if the type is a good fit?
"By the common definition of pseudoscience (i.e. that there is no empirical evidence for the claims that are set forth by the theory), the MBTI is not pseudoscience. No scientific study has ever found that there is no validity to the MBTI."
This quote says two completely different things:
Pseudoscience is a theory with no supporting evidence
No evidence refutes MBTI, thus it's not pseudoscience
The burden of proof is on the proponents of MBTI, not on the rest of the population that is largely too apathetic towards the idea to disprove it. This is exactly the argument used by flat-earthers, theists, etc. to support their beliefs.
Here's a story; it's mine. After I hit puberty, I spent a lot of time in and out of mental health facilities and behavior modification programs. I was diagnosed with a crap load of, well, crap. I...
Exemplary
Here's a story; it's mine.
After I hit puberty, I spent a lot of time in and out of mental health facilities and behavior modification programs. I was diagnosed with a crap load of, well, crap. I was continually forced to examine myself, and to reflect on how my behavior affected others. The "experts" said there was something fundamentally "wrong" with me, and I believed this for a very long time. No matter how hard I tried to fix myself, I could not make mysef "right." I was a broken human being.
In my quest to fix my brokenness, I found a therapist who administered the MBTI test. It was pretty freaking cool to kind of see myself laid out in a way without judgement. It allowed me accept myself to some degree, I mean, I still thought of myself as broken, but it gave me a framework towards acceptance of just being a person.
I kind of forgot about the test until years later when the internet was becoming a thing and I saw that I could take the test online. I tested the same as I had all those years ago. For fun, when someone would come over, I would bring up the test, and whoever was over and I would take the test together. It was weird because I would sometimes test INTP and sometimes INFP (introverted thinking vs introverted feeling). I had done this enough times that I saw a pattern - when I had PMS, I was INFP. Hrmm... does this mean anything?
It absofuckinglutely meant something. It took a while (a few years before I started menopause), but it turns out there is thing call Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and I had it. When I would PMS, I didn't get bitchy, I wanted to die, I wanted you to die, there was no hope, there was no light, and I when I was younger I would literally beat the shit out of myself, and don't try to stop me because I would beat the shit out of you too.
OMG once I knew about having Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, I knew that when I started feeling this way, it was limited by time, and all I had to do was endure, and it would pass (generally half a month). And suddenly my entire history became clear. Yes, I was "broken," but not in a way that was permanent or required STRENGTH OF WILL to fix.
So basically the MBTI test saved my sanity and made me "normal." I don't know how real the test is, and it pisses me off to see people so vehemently call it B.S (because who cares)., but I think that it has a place as a tool when one is trying to go on a journey of discovery.
I also am interested in pursuing truth. I never got much of an education and I was extremely isolated, so I spent what brain power I have searching for personal truths, trying to answer questions...
I also am interested in pursuing truth.
I never got much of an education and I was extremely isolated, so I spent what brain power I have searching for personal truths, trying to answer questions like who am I, who can I be, does any of it matter, what is the point (because I still thought and puzzles are interesting and I had no other framework with which to explore). The answers I sought, science hasn't answered for me. I would love to know THE TRUTH to those questions if they exist.
I guess I get pissed because I get defensive. Because I think if it helped me, maybe it can help someone else, and I think why would someone want to tear down someone's path to self discovery especially when it doesn't hurt anyone. And maybe I am wrong and was just lucky, and that is okay too.
I don't disagree with anything you've said in this discussion! Some time after I posted last night, I realized I didn't speak to OP's question, instead I shared story. You and others in the thread...
I don't disagree with anything you've said in this discussion!
Some time after I posted last night, I realized I didn't speak to OP's question, instead I shared story. You and others in the thread answered the question about MBTI theory. I sort of bristled over nothing!
You're taking it personal. It's like saying i can't call Chico Xavier or João de Deus a bullshiter because they helped some people. It's good that it helped you and it could help some people. But...
You're taking it personal.
It's like saying i can't call Chico Xavier or João de Deus a bullshiter because they helped some people.
It's good that it helped you and it could help some people. But it doesn't prevent that thing from being a lie. And calling it bullshit doesn't take away from other people getting help, there's a lot of other venues for that, ones with true reliability.
Why showing that something is a lie would tear down someone's path to self discovery? Isn't the path to self discovery ditching old beliefs? It's all part of the same thing. The path to healing or self-discovery is dealing with the downsides too.
I know a bunch of people don't find the comparison of MBTI theory to horoscopes to be particularly kind, but I don't think there's anything especially problematic in using it to find more meaning...
I know a bunch of people don't find the comparison of MBTI theory to horoscopes to be particularly kind, but I don't think there's anything especially problematic in using it to find more meaning about the world around you. If you use MBTI as a lens to explain others' behaviors, as long as you know that you can't expect perfection from that system and you allow for people to be different, you're probably doing alright. As with any system, the dogmatic approach is the one that's rather unsustainable, especially when it comes to how little empirical evidence there is supporting MBTI.
So to answer the question about what I think about MBTI, I mostly don't. I don't need a test to tell me I'm extremely extroverted. I know that well enough anyway. I like the attempt some of those tests get into to make varied spectrums of these traits, but I'm not dying to be measured by them. I think MBTI can satisfy an altogether human impulse to belong to something larger than ourselves, but it's an impulse that rings the same notes for me as religion, and I have never needed religion to find belonging.
Personally I think it's a neat and useful theory but I'm open to other points of view. After studying the cognitive functions for a while, I determined that I was an ISTJ. People often dismiss the...
Personally I think it's a neat and useful theory but I'm open to other points of view. After studying the cognitive functions for a while, I determined that I was an ISTJ.
People often dismiss the MBTI in favor of The Big 5, but I saw this helpful link that defends MBTI.
From the website I linked: "I think anyone who points to the MBTI as a good example of the Forer effect can't be very familiar with the MBTI. To go all the way back to its roots, Jung viewed...
From the website I linked: "I think anyone who points to the MBTI as a good example of the Forer effect can't be very familiar with the MBTI. To go all the way back to its roots, Jung viewed temperament as, to a substantial degree, the source of people's crazinesses and difficulties as much as their strengths. And I'd say all the respectable modern MBTI sources devote a significant amount of attention to the common weaknesses associated with each type.
What's more, because of the MBTI's dichotomous structure, deciding that any particular MBTI preference fits you well involves, by definition, a corresponding decision that the opposite pole doesn't fit you that well. When I read MBTI profiles, I recognize myself in INTJ descriptions, yes, but in reading descriptions of some of the other types, my reaction — far from a Forer effect — is often more along the lines of, yes! those are those people who drive me up the wall, or feel alien to me.
I'm not saying that someone looking to discredit the MBTI as a Forer phenomenon couldn't locate some websites where the descriptions tend to be on the vague and/or rosy side. But that's not typical of MBTI sources, in my experience, and it certainly wasn't Myers' perspective."
My biggest problem with MBTI is that I’ve gotten different results over time, and these time periods can be as long as years or as short as days. The fact that my results change on my mood, or...
My biggest problem with MBTI is that I’ve gotten different results over time, and these time periods can be as long as years or as short as days.
The fact that my results change on my mood, or current mindset, leads me to think that they are not fixed, and therefore lose some value in being tools for deconstructing your personality.
I also believe that personality is very much on a spectrum, and while I spend many days as an extrovert, without a day to myself as an introvert I end up in a funk. The mind is not so binary, and to put people in camps (even with a score that provides context) is disingenuous to the fluidity of our experience.
Certain scenarios (e.g. a large new group) will make me more introverted, while others (e.g. drinking alcohol in the same group) will unleash a part of my personality that was previously hidden.
I don’t believe we can easily come up with a definitive way to describe people, but I do think these tests can be useful in the sense that they cause you to evaluate your life, which is a useful self reflection.
TL;DR Myers Briggs is interesting, but not prescriptive imho
If you take an actual administered test instead of an online one they usually report the results as percentages on each. So it is a spectrum, just one with 4 separate axes.
I also believe that personality is very much on a spectrum
If you take an actual administered test instead of an online one they usually report the results as percentages on each. So it is a spectrum, just one with 4 separate axes.
There are administered tests, but I believe they are also unreliable. If you're not looking into the cognitive functions, you might as well take The Big 5 as they're similar but have an added...
There are administered tests, but I believe they are also unreliable. If you're not looking into the cognitive functions, you might as well take The Big 5 as they're similar but have an added axis: Neuroticism.
Relevant quote from the tumblr page I linked: "Test results only tell you, very roughly, what types you COULD be, that is, they only measure probability and provide you with a good starting point for analysis. If you are familiar with psychology and how researchers use psychometric instruments, you will know that tests are never the final answer, rather, they are mainly used to point professionals in a general direction or to narrow down the available options. If you want to assess yourself, it is incumbent upon you to investigate the personality types in more detail to ensure that you have typed yourself accurately. Unofficial tests, like fun online quizzes, often yield inaccurate results when they are constructed by people who have little to no knowledge of Jung’s type theory."
The Big-5 gets pretty complicated and has tons and tons of sub-types underneath the 5 main types. I just don't see it working in the contexts MBTI is used without oversimplifying it to the point...
If you're not looking into the cognitive functions, you might as well take The Big 5 as they're similar but have an added axis: Neuroticism.
The Big-5 gets pretty complicated and has tons and tons of sub-types underneath the 5 main types. I just don't see it working in the contexts MBTI is used without oversimplifying it to the point where it's no more reliable.
I've usually seen Myers-Briggs used in work contexts to help people understand how to work with each other better or be more successful in their relationships. That's why the high emphasis on communication styles and problem-solving approaches.
In that context, of a thing being used by managers and HR people, online tests, or community leaders, it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to understand all the ins and outs of how to interpret the Big-5. Psychologists can do it because it's just a tool in their toolbox to contextualize where you're coming from, but it doesn't do much by itself to help a group of lay-people figure out how to interact with each other. And if it gets simplified down to be applicable in the ways MBTI gets used, then it starts to lose its validity.
Tests are unreliable, your type is supposed to be fixed. Also, MBTI is misunderstood as a personality theory but it's mostly a theory on how people see the world. I recommend reading up on the...
Tests are unreliable, your type is supposed to be fixed. Also, MBTI is misunderstood as a personality theory but it's mostly a theory on how people see the world. I recommend reading up on the cognitive functions, they are very central to the theory.
I'm apparently an ISTJ, which is one of the most common Myers-Briggs personality types. Whenever people have talked to me about MBTI, or whenever I've read about it in dating profiles, I tend to...
I'm apparently an ISTJ, which is one of the most common Myers-Briggs personality types.
Whenever people have talked to me about MBTI, or whenever I've read about it in dating profiles, I tend to get a /r/iamverysmart vibe about that person. It feels like something pseudo-intellectuals throw around.
Its garbage. It is the horoscope of personality tests with no reliability or validity.
https://old.reddit.com/r/IOPsychology/comments/5395fm/mbti_haters_and_lovers_get_in_here/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/myers-briggs-trick-treat-ben-hawkes/
https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Calls-for-Papers/ArtMID/19859/ArticleID/1698/On-%E2%80%9CNew%E2%80%9D-Personality-Types
If you want to take a scientifically valid/reliable measure of personality, you can assess it with the Big Five model here:
https://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j/IPIP/
There was a thread nearly a year ago where people took the test and shared their results:
https://tildes.net/~misc/5nr/lets_take_a_personality_test
MBTI isn't really a personality test, but it's often misunderstood as one. It's more of a theory describing how people see the world and it can get pretty complicated with cognitive functions. Comparing it to the Big 5 is like comparing apples to oranges.
You didn't critique the cognitive functions which is where I believe most of the power of the theory comes from. I'm still open to debate, I just want to make sure you understand the theory.
Correct, and I do agree that there are more scientific tests than the MBTI; but it has it's strengths too. This article I found states: "...And if we want to get an idea of why somebody does what he does, we use the Jungian theory, which is the theory that the MBTI is based on."
https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/
There isn't anything to debate. Link some academic sources. Define cognitive functions.
Email any psychology professor on the planet and 99.999% will say that the test is unreliable and isn't valid. A test that is neither doesn't measure anything.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
There's little empirical evidence, and I agree with that as my replies to other people. "The test" (there are many of them; I assume you mean the official one) is also unreliable. So what am I arguing for? That it has some useful value to it.
MBTI cognitive functions can be used to grow as a person. Some people can be stuck in a cognitive function loop and there are guides to get out of them. You can argue that there are other methods for self-improvement, but I personally find MBTI a good way for self-improvement.
Here are some relevant pages about cognitive function loops:
https://www.personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/105593-please-explain-loops-me.html
https://mbti-notes.tumblr.com/post/157072876282/notes-on-breaking-loops
P.S: The "99.999% will say that the test is unreliable" is argumentum ad populum.
P.S.S: To prevent the argument from becoming heated, I would like to diffuse any tension we may have by thanking you for arguing with me. I'm personally not used to arguing so that's why I may come off as bad at it. Thanks!
The only value that can be extracted from it is to explain to people that there are individual differences between people and not everyone shares the same personality. Beyond that, the feedback it gives you is unreliable because the test(s) are unreliable. You can't take meaningful actions on a measurement that has no grounding in reality.
As my other article mentions:
You cannot fix something if you can't accurately identify what exactly is broken.
Using the MBTI as a self-improvement tool won't lead to any real meaningful change. I am not trying to be mean, but it just isn't the right way to go if you are wanting meaningful change in your life and help in identifying the problems that are being faced. Go see a therapist, engage in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Applied Behavioral Analysis, dialectical behavior therapy, or whatever the therapist specializes in. More insight can be gained from seeing someone whose job it is to understand self-improvement strategies that are backed up by the scientific method than from a faulty test that is by and large, rejected by the scientific community.
Is there anything you can say with confidence knowing someone's type? Something more precise than "your type starts with I, so you prefer to relax alone". I'd be interested in something proven by an academic study.
Yes. I can say an ISFJ has a preference towards comparing things to their past (Introverted Sensing; Si) and values harmony within their group (Extroverted Feeling; Fe). Everyone does this, but an ISFJ would prefer it more.
Nothing can be "proven" because this is a soft science that relies on self-identification. I found this neato article after looking around that addresses some of your concerns: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/
A relevant quote is here: "By the common definition of pseudoscience (i.e. that there is no empirical evidence for the claims that are set forth by the theory), the MBTI is not pseudoscience. No scientific study has ever found that there is no validity to the MBTI."
A similar article below also states: "However, four of the five of the ‘Big Five’ traits correspond to some degree to the four traits covered by Jung and Myers’s theory of the types. Thus, the machinations of Jungian typology do have some scientific validation, although at the same time there may be minor differences with regards to the definitions of individual concepts."
https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/02/is-jungian-typology-scientific/
When you provide people which such widely applicable descriptions of their personality it's very likely they'll be able to self-identify with their type. They'll be more conscious of the behaviors they should have, which will reinforce their beliefs and maybe even the behaviors themselves. Confirmation bias ensures that any discrepancies are ignored since some of the qualities match their personality. What is the threshold for matching/non-matching qualities to determine if the type is a good fit?
This quote says two completely different things:
The burden of proof is on the proponents of MBTI, not on the rest of the population that is largely too apathetic towards the idea to disprove it. This is exactly the argument used by flat-earthers, theists, etc. to support their beliefs.
Here's a story; it's mine.
After I hit puberty, I spent a lot of time in and out of mental health facilities and behavior modification programs. I was diagnosed with a crap load of, well, crap. I was continually forced to examine myself, and to reflect on how my behavior affected others. The "experts" said there was something fundamentally "wrong" with me, and I believed this for a very long time. No matter how hard I tried to fix myself, I could not make mysef "right." I was a broken human being.
In my quest to fix my brokenness, I found a therapist who administered the MBTI test. It was pretty freaking cool to kind of see myself laid out in a way without judgement. It allowed me accept myself to some degree, I mean, I still thought of myself as broken, but it gave me a framework towards acceptance of just being a person.
I kind of forgot about the test until years later when the internet was becoming a thing and I saw that I could take the test online. I tested the same as I had all those years ago. For fun, when someone would come over, I would bring up the test, and whoever was over and I would take the test together. It was weird because I would sometimes test INTP and sometimes INFP (introverted thinking vs introverted feeling). I had done this enough times that I saw a pattern - when I had PMS, I was INFP. Hrmm... does this mean anything?
It absofuckinglutely meant something. It took a while (a few years before I started menopause), but it turns out there is thing call Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and I had it. When I would PMS, I didn't get bitchy, I wanted to die, I wanted you to die, there was no hope, there was no light, and I when I was younger I would literally beat the shit out of myself, and don't try to stop me because I would beat the shit out of you too.
OMG once I knew about having Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, I knew that when I started feeling this way, it was limited by time, and all I had to do was endure, and it would pass (generally half a month). And suddenly my entire history became clear. Yes, I was "broken," but not in a way that was permanent or required STRENGTH OF WILL to fix.
So basically the MBTI test saved my sanity and made me "normal." I don't know how real the test is, and it pisses me off to see people so vehemently call it B.S (because who cares)., but I think that it has a place as a tool when one is trying to go on a journey of discovery.
I also am interested in pursuing truth.
I never got much of an education and I was extremely isolated, so I spent what brain power I have searching for personal truths, trying to answer questions like who am I, who can I be, does any of it matter, what is the point (because I still thought and puzzles are interesting and I had no other framework with which to explore). The answers I sought, science hasn't answered for me. I would love to know THE TRUTH to those questions if they exist.
I guess I get pissed because I get defensive. Because I think if it helped me, maybe it can help someone else, and I think why would someone want to tear down someone's path to self discovery especially when it doesn't hurt anyone. And maybe I am wrong and was just lucky, and that is okay too.
I don't disagree with anything you've said in this discussion!
Some time after I posted last night, I realized I didn't speak to OP's question, instead I shared story. You and others in the thread answered the question about MBTI theory. I sort of bristled over nothing!
You're taking it personal.
It's like saying i can't call Chico Xavier or João de Deus a bullshiter because they helped some people.
It's good that it helped you and it could help some people. But it doesn't prevent that thing from being a lie. And calling it bullshit doesn't take away from other people getting help, there's a lot of other venues for that, ones with true reliability.
Why showing that something is a lie would tear down someone's path to self discovery? Isn't the path to self discovery ditching old beliefs? It's all part of the same thing. The path to healing or self-discovery is dealing with the downsides too.
I know a bunch of people don't find the comparison of MBTI theory to horoscopes to be particularly kind, but I don't think there's anything especially problematic in using it to find more meaning about the world around you. If you use MBTI as a lens to explain others' behaviors, as long as you know that you can't expect perfection from that system and you allow for people to be different, you're probably doing alright. As with any system, the dogmatic approach is the one that's rather unsustainable, especially when it comes to how little empirical evidence there is supporting MBTI.
So to answer the question about what I think about MBTI, I mostly don't. I don't need a test to tell me I'm extremely extroverted. I know that well enough anyway. I like the attempt some of those tests get into to make varied spectrums of these traits, but I'm not dying to be measured by them. I think MBTI can satisfy an altogether human impulse to belong to something larger than ourselves, but it's an impulse that rings the same notes for me as religion, and I have never needed religion to find belonging.
Personally I think it's a neat and useful theory but I'm open to other points of view. After studying the cognitive functions for a while, I determined that I was an ISTJ.
People often dismiss the MBTI in favor of The Big 5, but I saw this helpful link that defends MBTI.
https://www.personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/283457-another-mbti-debunking.html#post8744961
Well by "useful" I meant that I saw my strengths and weaknesses and how to improve them.
Well, Barnum statements will do that.
From the website I linked: "I think anyone who points to the MBTI as a good example of the Forer effect can't be very familiar with the MBTI. To go all the way back to its roots, Jung viewed temperament as, to a substantial degree, the source of people's crazinesses and difficulties as much as their strengths. And I'd say all the respectable modern MBTI sources devote a significant amount of attention to the common weaknesses associated with each type.
What's more, because of the MBTI's dichotomous structure, deciding that any particular MBTI preference fits you well involves, by definition, a corresponding decision that the opposite pole doesn't fit you that well. When I read MBTI profiles, I recognize myself in INTJ descriptions, yes, but in reading descriptions of some of the other types, my reaction — far from a Forer effect — is often more along the lines of, yes! those are those people who drive me up the wall, or feel alien to me.
I'm not saying that someone looking to discredit the MBTI as a Forer phenomenon couldn't locate some websites where the descriptions tend to be on the vague and/or rosy side. But that's not typical of MBTI sources, in my experience, and it certainly wasn't Myers' perspective."
My biggest problem with MBTI is that I’ve gotten different results over time, and these time periods can be as long as years or as short as days.
The fact that my results change on my mood, or current mindset, leads me to think that they are not fixed, and therefore lose some value in being tools for deconstructing your personality.
I also believe that personality is very much on a spectrum, and while I spend many days as an extrovert, without a day to myself as an introvert I end up in a funk. The mind is not so binary, and to put people in camps (even with a score that provides context) is disingenuous to the fluidity of our experience.
Certain scenarios (e.g. a large new group) will make me more introverted, while others (e.g. drinking alcohol in the same group) will unleash a part of my personality that was previously hidden.
I don’t believe we can easily come up with a definitive way to describe people, but I do think these tests can be useful in the sense that they cause you to evaluate your life, which is a useful self reflection.
TL;DR Myers Briggs is interesting, but not prescriptive imho
If you take an actual administered test instead of an online one they usually report the results as percentages on each. So it is a spectrum, just one with 4 separate axes.
There are administered tests, but I believe they are also unreliable. If you're not looking into the cognitive functions, you might as well take The Big 5 as they're similar but have an added axis: Neuroticism.
Relevant quote from the tumblr page I linked: "Test results only tell you, very roughly, what types you COULD be, that is, they only measure probability and provide you with a good starting point for analysis. If you are familiar with psychology and how researchers use psychometric instruments, you will know that tests are never the final answer, rather, they are mainly used to point professionals in a general direction or to narrow down the available options. If you want to assess yourself, it is incumbent upon you to investigate the personality types in more detail to ensure that you have typed yourself accurately. Unofficial tests, like fun online quizzes, often yield inaccurate results when they are constructed by people who have little to no knowledge of Jung’s type theory."
The Big-5 gets pretty complicated and has tons and tons of sub-types underneath the 5 main types. I just don't see it working in the contexts MBTI is used without oversimplifying it to the point where it's no more reliable.
I've usually seen Myers-Briggs used in work contexts to help people understand how to work with each other better or be more successful in their relationships. That's why the high emphasis on communication styles and problem-solving approaches.
In that context, of a thing being used by managers and HR people, online tests, or community leaders, it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to understand all the ins and outs of how to interpret the Big-5. Psychologists can do it because it's just a tool in their toolbox to contextualize where you're coming from, but it doesn't do much by itself to help a group of lay-people figure out how to interact with each other. And if it gets simplified down to be applicable in the ways MBTI gets used, then it starts to lose its validity.
Tests are unreliable, your type is supposed to be fixed. Also, MBTI is misunderstood as a personality theory but it's mostly a theory on how people see the world. I recommend reading up on the cognitive functions, they are very central to the theory.
I'm apparently an ISTJ, which is one of the most common Myers-Briggs personality types.
Whenever people have talked to me about MBTI, or whenever I've read about it in dating profiles, I tend to get a /r/iamverysmart vibe about that person. It feels like something pseudo-intellectuals throw around.