This is a discussion on Another MBTI "debunking" within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; Originally Posted by reckful As I noted at the end of the OP, I am definitely not a functions person, ...
Meh, let's see the truth:
Jung was interested both in astrology and in psychology right? Those two things are intrinsically connected, is it so? Therefore...
Does it even slightly surprise you that the both things on which Jung left a huge imprint are equally flogged? Both of them are being constantly attacked for reasons yet unknown to me.
"Live and let live eh?"
First of all, as explained in the OP, the MBTI can now point to decades of data in support of its validity and reliability. The last I heard, there was no school of astrology with any similar body of empirical support behind it.
And second, although it's true that Jung was "interested in astrology" (and ESP, for that matter), that's not to say that he ever claimed that anyone had managed to come up with anything like a respectably supported system for matching someone's date and time of birth to their personality.
In the appendix to Psychological Types, Jung brought up astrology — along with several other "age-old" typologies — solely to dismiss it as unacceptable as a tool for psychological analysis. "As for the astrological type theory," Jung wrote, "to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue." By contrast, Jung explains, "our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the needs of science."
As you probably know, Jung believed in a "collective unconscious" — by which he meant that the human psyche was far from a blank slate, but instead contained all kinds of primordial archetypes and ways of thinking/feeling/etc. that were essentially products of our evolutionary history. He made extensive studies of historical myths and religions of many kinds, and it was his view that there were lots of characters, structures and other elements that tended to be common to many of these belief systems. He studied alchemy extensively at one point — not because he thought it was literally going to teach him how to convert other metals to gold, but because he thought the elaborate alchemical "mythology" was a rich source of material reflecting aspects of our "collective unconscious."
And Jung clearly viewed astrology as a similar potential source of insight. He called it "a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations." He says, "The starry vault of heaven is in truth the open book of cosmic projection, in which are reflected the mythologems, i.e., the archetypes. In this vision astrology and alchemy, the two classical functionaries of the psychology of the collective unconscious, join hands." And also: "Astrology has actually nothing to do with the stars but is the 5000-year-old psychology of antiquity and the Middle Ages."
It's true that Jung had a pretty strong mystical streak, and I agree that, over the course of his long career, he also made some statements that indicate that he was open to the idea that astrological forces might exert some kind of influence over human affairs — but he clearly didn't subscribe to any kind of established astrological personality typology. And I'd also note that the index to Jung's autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections) includes multiple references to alchemy but no references to astrology. His collected works fill 18 volumes, and include a substantial amount of writing on alchemy, myths, religions and various other human belief systems — but little to nothing about astrology.
Forer effect... No I don't think so.
Of course, descriptions aren't accurate, and you can recognize yourself in some types.
MBTI is about preferences.
I also want to add that data are hard to gather. A lot of people use MBTI a bit like astrology, giving their own interpretation of types and functions. All those things are mixed up, and then you have confused definitions and descriptions. And when you are confused, you cannot know what is wrong and what is right.
MBTI types are archetypes, and that why you could think of Forer effect. But it's not.
I thought that it was logical that astrology would take precedence over alchemy over anything else, but I shouldn't project as much. I should let the world speak for itself. Projections are dangerous the last I heard.
You are really keen on links and stuff like that aren't you?
Big Five has much more problems than MBTI. Big five is dichotomy-based, MBTI function based, and so, MBTI is more concrete. People who say MBTI is flawed usually don't know anything about functions, and treat MBTI as a dichotomy system.
Also, Big Five says nothing about intuition or thinking/feeling. The MOST necessary and clear differences. It only compares neuroticism to thinking/feeling. Totally not the same. And it says absolutely nothing about intuition. I totally dislike Big Five for it's ambiguousness. It's not totally flawed, but it's totally incomplete. MBTI is more scientific and specific in my opinion. MBTI + Enneagram together work even better. And there's also Socionics.
MBTI works, guys!
Thank you for your posts and interest about MBTI. The beginning post is rather long, and I didn't finish reading it, though just to let you know that the MBTI, which unlike Big Five traits, Zodiac, and similar personality systems like Enneagram, is completely observable in how people look, and how they act or move. This makes it categorizable, without asking people questions they have not carefully thought about the answers to, like personality tests. While personality tests allow people to start considering certain aspects about themselves, it's really important that they see how they compare with others as well, on a relative scale, and MBTI allows this. You can check out visual typing using the MBTI here: mbti-typings.my-free.website. It's a work in progress, though give sa good idea of how to use the MBTI in daily life; sort of an introductory course to using MBTI in daily interactions with people.