Why is MBTI so successful even though it has been debunked?

Why is MBTI so successful even though it has been debunked?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#Forer.27s_demonstration
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

cute kitty

thanks user

It's not successful because it has been debunked.

i rephrase: why is it still so wildly used

By who? People on facebook and Veeky Forums for some reason?

Debunked how?

As a general-purpose measure, applicable to all people and all traits and all situations? Sure, but it was never meant to be that.

As a specific measure of defined traits and only according to the original use cases under which it was defined? It's not debunked in the slightest, it's still very useful.

This droneman here is a brainlet, don't listen to xim.
I don't like Memerson but sometimes he's alright, he said that MBTI is succesful because it hurts noone while the more scientifically valid Big Five does. And you have to understand that MBTI is popular in education and especially the corporate world and those two don't care much about science. And well... they make it more succesful.

>noone
Nooone
NOOOOOOONNEEEE

It's "no one", Good post otherwise.

I still have trouble with English
In Dutch we combine a lot of words, that's my excuse
And I did know I was about to make a mistake since I hesitated, but fuck linguistic prescriptionist

People feel the need to identify with some group to feel special. It's the same thing as astrology, SJW's taking pride in being a nonbinary dragonkin, and literal inbred trailer trash from /pol/ bragging about being white.

Oh, kind of like the Rorschach that is used in custody hearings and sex abuse cases? Like that?

If you don't want to take a test, use the magic phrase:

I have received formal training on these tests.

Works every time.

Its not been "debunked". It can't even be debunked, its descriptive not predictive.

People like it because it gives them a special identity they can read about, not because they care about its statistical validity.

why do people not see that they subscribe to an ideology out of hatred for the other side ?

You have your IQ in seconds to explain why you are not INTJ.

Because I'm not anywhere near decisive or organized enough for the:
>J
Why don't you explain how you're able to have your life together enough to be J? I don't understand how people have the energy to keep their clothes washed or to throw out garbage for example. People have just tolerated me all these years at work because I can sort of black out and write thousands of lines of code even though I'm otherwise a useless manchild.

someone redpill me on why mbti is so bad

It's a completely evidence devoid made up set of cartoon identities that people like because it makes them feel special. It's also based on grouping everyone into one extreme or the other out of a bunch of false dichotomies when there's no reason to believe there are actually two distinct opposing categories for each of these attributes.

It's astrology for people who think they're smart.
I'm Aries, by the way.

>a classification has been debunked
Okay pleb, we get it you want to OH YEAH SCIENCE it up

I don't get why you think classifications can't be debunked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#Forer.27s_demonstration

>The primary method for testing reliability is to give the test to a person on two occasions. This procedure is known as “test-retest reliability." Typically, the test-retest interval can range from several weeks to more than a year.
>Because type is said to be a constant characteristic, we would expect that people's personality would not change over time. Several studies, however, show that even when the test-retest interval is short (e.g., 5 weeks), as many as 50 percent of the people will be classified into a different type.
Well, that was easy to debunk, wasn't it?
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

>Because the MBTI is a typology, we would expect that its scores would be distributed bimodally and not be normally distributed.
>The data indicate that there is no evidence of bimodal distributions for the MBTI. Instead, most people score between the two extremes. This means that although one person may score as an E, his or her test results may be very similar to those of another person's, who scores as an I.
>Research on the factor analysis of the MBTI has not produced convincing results. In one study, based on the results of l,291 college aged students, six different factors were found. In addition, the study authors found a high level of measurement error. Specifically, 83 percent of the differences among the students could not be accounted for by the MBTI. The results led the authors to the conclude that the factors found in the statistical analysis were inconsistent with the MBTI theory. In other studies, researchers found that the JP and the SN scales are correlated with one another. In sum, the statistical analysis of the test does not support the theory used to describe the MBTI.
>Finally, there is no evidence to show a positive relation between MBTI type and success within an occupation. That is, there is nothing to show that ESFPs are better or worse salespeople than INTJs are. Nor is there any data to suggest that specific types are more satisfied within specific occupations than are other types, or that they stay longer in one occupation than do others.
>In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument should not be used for career planning counseling. The Institute's analysis of the available research showed no evidence for the utility of the test.
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

>Why is MBTI so successful

It isn't.

youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M

Boy do I feel you.
How do they not get bored to death?

Debunk this

>the Barnum effect exists therefore this classification is wrong!
>personality can't change, that is how we gonna do it!
>typology therefore bimodal distribution ???, even though it sets two extremes to contain scores
>inconsistencies are inherent to the MBTI, not the students having different meanings for the questions in this specific test
>there is no research on MBTI types and job success, therefore MBTI is debunked, and any research in it should be discarded

I can't make this shit up

1) If you can make people believe a bunch of arbitrary personality types that were chosen at random are their own type then you've established the system is worthless and unreliable.
2) This leads into the next point which is that MBTI is absolutely shit at reliability given that literally 50% of people who have done retesting studies even after just a few weeks since their last test end up classified as a different personality type.
>typology therefore bimodal distribution
Take a statistics course, retard. MBTI is premised on the claim people fall into binary oppositions e.g. introverted or extraverted and thinking or feeling. This is demonstrably untrue because the actual results of testing show people fall along a normal distribution with most people in the middle of these two extremes, meaning people who test as I and people who test as E will frequently be more similar than others who actually received the same classification as them. This obviously also makes the system worthless.
>lol it was just that test, not MBTI
Except these aren't problems with just one test, these are results aggregated from all the data on MBTI tests in general.
>no research
Nobody said there was "no research" on occupations and MBTI. There is plenty of research, it just found that there's no evidence for any sort of relationship between MBTI and occupations. That means it's trash.