How do you feel about MBTI? Yes, it was formed by non-scientists, but based on Jung...

How do you feel about MBTI? Yes, it was formed by non-scientists, but based on Jung, who was pretty credible as far as early 20th century psychology is concerned. So there's probably some value in it. That is mostly consistent with my personal experience, intuition, and research.

Other urls found in this thread:

psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
asm.sagepub.com/content/3/3/225.short
joa.sagepub.com/content/15/2/70.short
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

take your pseudoscience elsewhere

No.

it's garbage that doesn't belong on Veeky Forums
kill yourself, shitposter

What the fuck is your guys problem?

We have these threads almost every day

Hate to burst your bubble kiddo. Army did a study years ago to see if they could use it. Ended up being unreliable because people would test as different personality types at random.

Your best bet is studying neuro-endocrinology if you want know what makes people tick.

Just a regulation Technique used by businesses when hiring employees, so yes very much a pseudoscience, interesting though.

It's not bullshit. The underlying theory has some flaws, but Jung was obviously on to something. The idea of MBTI is that people have tendencies to consume and interact with the world in kinds of ways and that people can be classified on those tendencies, which is a reasonable basis.

To test whether something like MBTI is not BS, you need to test how closely people match up to their purported types. How many people classified as ENFJ really behave like MBTI claims ENFJs behave compared to other groups? With that in mind, MBTI has not been debunked. In fact, relationships found between MBTI and things like gender, sexuality, IQ, job/major, and psychological disorders have been found that suggest plenty of validity to MBTI.

The problem with using MBTI to classify interviewees and employees is that if you put a personality test in front of someone under those conditions, they are not going to answer honestly.

There is consistency in aggregate. For instance, there's a type distribution among men and women and straight, bi, and gay people. You'll find things like gay men being much more likely to have types most common in women (NF/P). High IQ individuals and gifted students are overwhelming distributed within the N types.

MBTI is often simplified to the four letter classification (ENFJ, INTP, ESTJ, etc.), which is the wrong way to look at it. There are 4 scales, and where you lie on each scale determines your type. Some types are more related than others, and it's conceivable that under different testing conditions, someone might end up with a different type. But this doesn't mean there was a dramatic difference in where they lied on the scales. Anti-MBTI rhetoric is based on that assumption which is intellectually dishonest.

Stop researching this meme, OP. It's not not scientific in the slightest.

psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die

>quantifying personalities

This guy doesn't understand MBTI at all. MBTI doesn't make the claim that people only "think" or only "feel." It makes the claim there are different extents to which "thinking" and "feeling" are incorporated into decision making. It is separate from whether and how extreme you feel emotions.

>To test whether something like MBTI is not BS, you need to test how closely people match up to their purported types. How many people classified as ENFJ really behave like MBTI claims ENFJs behave compared to other groups? With that in mind, MBTI has not been debunked. In fact, relationships found between MBTI and things like gender, sexuality, IQ, job/major, and psychological disorders have been found that suggest plenty of validity to MBTI.
Then why have psychologists tried to distance themselves from it over the years? Can you pull up any convincing reviews on pubmed? Do you even read primary sources or are you some pleb undergrad?

And the fact that studies show it cannot be used to predict anything useful about a person such as job performance?

You realize that people only like the 16-types test because all online versions give you a horoscope with your letters, right?

So hijacking this thread: what does Veeky Forums think of the Big Five personality?
I always was skeptical of self-testing but it seems the Big Five is pretty solid.

Big five at least doesn't try to flatter people like a horoscope and pretend all types are equally good because they all have comparable drawbacks and strengths. Here's my type:

>
avoidant, withdrawn, not usually happy, does not believe in human goodness, loner, moody, avoids crowds, depressed, overwhelmed by unpleasant feelings frequently, agnostic/atheistic tendencies, unsure where life is going, impatient, avoids eye contact, does not think things work out for the best, discontent, negative, suspicious of others, uncooperative, socially uncomfortable, hard to get to know, not punctual, low self confidence, pessimistic, lonely, does not finish work on time, does not like to lead, attracted to things associated with sadness, ambivalent about the problems of others, feels defective, fears failure, often bored, ambivalent about the suffering of others, unproductive, avoids unnecessary interaction, easily frustrated, does not finish many things, lower energy level, focuses on fantasies instead of reality, ambivalent about the needs of others, easily annoyed, rarely prepared, disorganized, quiet around strangers, slow to forgive, hard to understand, not that interested in others, skeptical, wounded at the core, self absorbed

>Here's my type:
That's funny but not the Big Five personality test my man.

It's solid because it tells you about traits that you can determine with five minutes of interaction with someone and tells you nothing you didn't already know about a person.

It's useless but true, which makes it good for sociology and psychology studies. One of the main advantages is that it measures traits that exist outside of context. You stick a bunch of neurotics in a room together and they'll all still be neurotic.

With MBTI on the other hand, if you stick a moderate Perceiver with a bunch of hardcore Perceiver and have them interact for a while, the moderate will start defining themselves by their need for completion and certainty. They'll start calling themselves a Judger, and in that context they're right.

However when we look at the Flynn effect, and the N-S spectrum, we can see that MBTI is measuring real psychological traits, and that it is only our perception of where we are on the scale that us context-sensitive, and that there is an absolute objective scale to speak of.

Yeah it is you fucking imbecile. It's the rluei type description. Fuck off, faggot. I bet you're an undergrad at some retarded cow college.

To put it another way, Big 5 measures somewhat important traits with large degrees of variability between people in the same culture/context whereas MBTI measures very important traits with small degrees of variability between people in the same culture/context. Accordingly Big 5 is easy to do questionnaire-based science with and MBTI is not.

>that us context-sensitive
That is interesting because I always felt that my personality is context dependant. Any research on it?
>Yeah it is you fucking imbecile.
My mistake. Should have known:
>easily annoyed
But no.
Every time I did the Big Five test, on different websites, I never got those just the five things it measures (i.e. agreeableness, neuroticism and so on). There's another one which adds humility-honesty.

I am very skeptical of MBTI tho.

As well you should be, scientific evidence for it is limited. I find it a useful model to understand the world through, so I use it anyway, or at least I will until scientific evidence refuting it becomes sufficiently convincing.

>I find it a useful model to understand the world through, so I use it anyway, or at least I will until scientific evidence refuting it becomes sufficiently convincing.
That's a good way to look at it, and not just MBTI.

>That is mostly consistent with my personal experience, intuition, and research.
>mostly = vague
>evidence = anecdotal
Thus a completely redundant sentence that is not proving anything.

>Jung was obviously on to something
>obviously
Why obviously? It's not obvious at all if it's completely inconsistent.

>In fact, relationships found between MBTI and things like gender, sexuality, IQ, job/major, and psychological disorders have been found that suggest plenty of validity to MBTI.
>doesn't provide any source to back up said claim
Yet again, a completely redundant claim you could've simply kept to yourself.

Also, MBTI completely ignores the fact that people can change their personality and behaviour depending on the circumstances. People attempted to explain those phenomena with 'function grips' and conclude that it's beneficial for the individual to go back to their usual behaviour instead as it's allegedly their most 'natural' one even though none of it has ever been proven.

In a nutshell, it's nothing but pseudoscience and should be kept outside of Veeky Forums. If you really want to circlejerk about your results, there are plenty of alternative boards to do so, such as , or simply reddit.

>based on Jung, who was pretty credible

Is this a joke? Jung has zero (0) credibility, he faked his research and presented no scientific explanations for ANYTHING. His legacy is the New Age movement, his work held back psychology by injecting mysticism into it.

>scientific evidence for it is limited

Nope, there is a huge body of research done on it by the US Army. They found that has no bearing whatsoever on anything, it doesn't correlate with ANY known personality factors, neither does it correlate at all with career or interests. It's as valid as a horoscope.

MBTI makes psychologists butthurt because they don't have control over it. It's also not as good as a scientific instrument as something like Big 5.

>Is this a joke?
It is part of our COLLECTIVE Intelligence. If you weren't so smug and stepped over your Shadow you would understand and know.

No, it makes them butthurt because it's new age woowoo that is peddled as psychology.

ISTJ seeks ENFJ with big butt

>And the fact that studies show it cannot be used to predict anything useful about a person such as job performance?
It doesn't predict anything in those studies because if you give someone a personality test that potential employers will see, they will not answer in good faith. MBTI does correlate with IQ, in that N (intuitive) types tend to be higher IQ than S (sensing) types. And IQ definitely correlates with job performance.

The US Army did an extensive survey of MBTI, they found it had NO value or predictive power whatsoever, and that the MBTI types did not correlate AT ALL with the subjects interests and career choices. In other words, when MBTI describes you as "introverted", you are in fact no more likely to BE an introvert than you are to be an extravert. It is a test with no value and no use, people like it because it's made up of Barnum Statements.

Upset INTJ spotted. You also have no idea what the word "redundant" means. I don't have access to my uni library now, but here are sources I found showing correlation between MBTI and IQ,giftedness, and gender.

asm.sagepub.com/content/3/3/225.short
joa.sagepub.com/content/15/2/70.short

People behave differently outwardly different in different circumstances, but not so much inwardly. MBTI focuses more on the internal, so behavioral changes aren't all that relevant. Besides, the limit of any personality test is that it can only know the information you give it.

>and that the MBTI types did not correlate AT ALL with the subjects interests and career choices

Truly choosing your career is a luxury most people never enjoy.

>it's made up of Barnum Statements

The MBTI functions are diametrically opposed, unlike all other personality models.

Moron spotted. Enjoy your horoscope you simpleton.

I agree with you but isn't INTJ one of the more common genius personalities? if he's actually INTJ he shouldn't be upset about correlation between MBTI and IQ

>claim the mbti cannot predict outcomes outside of most people's control
>claim the mbti is made up thing opposite to the things it's actually made up of

I mean it's a model made by Humans for Humans. You're in the clear, don't worry.

Are you talking about the one from 1993?

Yes, they are intelligent, but the most likely type to be dismissive of MBTI. The "I'm an atheist, debate me" kind of person is commonly of the INTJ type.

>Jung
>credible

The original type-descriptions by Jung reads like character-descriptions from LOTR-fanfiction. It's pure fantasy. Any predictability it has in describing human behaviour is 90% luck and 10% intelligent guessing. It's only become so popular because it strokes everyone's egos, and because it does so in a slightly more sophisticated way than horoscopes.

I think it's somewhat accurate but you can't boil down all of human nature into four dichotomies. The main reason why personality tests are so popular is because it tells you pretty general things about your behavior and tendencies (the MBTI does the best job of this though) and they're typically self-congratulatory so people tell their friends to take it, etc.

I've taken two in my life. One legitimately that I had to pay for through my University -- INTJ with fairly low confidence for J over P. The second time more recently, INTP, but this was a freebie a coworker sent to me.

Unlike a horoscope, you'll find it doesn't suffer from the Barnum effect. Find someone who consistently types on the NT axis and they'll generally respond with anger and disgust if you give them the description of a type on the SJ axis. Meanwhile everyone can see themselves pretty much anywhere on the horoscope. So it is categorizing people in some way that is meaningfully different than the categories that a horoscope system presents.

There are many claims made by corporate MBTI consultants that are completely, demonstrably false and the army studies demonstrate that convincingly. I only claim that MBTI is measuring *something*, and that that something is useful to consider.

For proof of this you need look no further than your standard Veeky Forums or /b/ MBTI thread. When internet users self report their type, it's completely dominated by N types. When sociologists go out in the world and give people questionnaires, only about 25-33%. This is replicated constantly whenever people in internet forums self report MBTI.

>redundant
>not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous
at least according to the oxford dictionary. So, the word perfectly fits the context and my intention, so maybe you have no idea what it means or maybe you didn't quite understand what I was trying to say.

Any sources that use 'self-typed' individuals as samples are irrelevant as, naturally speaking, people showing interest in abstract thinking will have a tendency to perform better in a quiz questioning exactly that, as suggested by your first study. There is nothing groundbreaking there.

As for the outward/inward thing, it is very difficult to confirm that 'inward' behaviour isn't changing along with your 'outward' behaviour. Furthermore, I don't see why those two should be completely disconnected from each other as both are in constant interaction with each other. So I'd like to see any sort of proof or logical argument to support said claim ('[...], but not so much inwardly.[...]').