Another MBTI "debunking" - Page 3

Another MBTI "debunking"

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81
Thank Tree81Thanks

This is a discussion on Another MBTI "debunking" within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; I actually agree with the article in that the current tests and the way it's handled by organizations is problematic. ...

  1. #21

    I actually agree with the article in that the current tests and the way it's handled by organizations is problematic. I don't think that invalidates the theory though.

  2. #22

    You can't debunk something like MBTI for the same reason you can't prove it's true.
    Something that doesn't occupy any definitive solid positions/definitions and is forever malleable subject to everyone's personal interpretation cannot be debunked or proved.
    It's like trying to debunk God.
    Person A: "God doesn't exist!" ("because I don't believe in a bearded flying spaghetti monster)
    Person B: "I believe in God!" ("because I feel we are all connected by some universal force")
    Person C: "I'm an agnostic!" ("because I have no idea what the hell the word God even means")

  3. #23

    Dude you can't measure Jung's functions. Not one, and that's where the discussion ends. It was never "scientific", nor did it claim itself to be. It's entirely descriptive and intuitive, as is most of psychology. The disasters of it appear exactly when it tries to be scientific about something too broad.

    I respect the Big 5 because it doesn't overreach, so it's banal, works and can be measured.
    But MBTI doesn't overreach either, because it's not a precise scientific tool to have a specific scope of domain it could overreach in the first place.

    I personally believe MBTI did simplify Jung's work, but what it did stands as a direct product of Jung's theory and is thus "unscientific". Read Jung, he is not even trying to be scientific. In fact, he low key mocks all the intellectuals of his time for overemphasizing the 5 senses and the intellect.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by miuliu View Post
    Dude you can't measure Jung's functions. Not one, and that's where the discussion ends. It was never "scientific", nor did it claim itself to be. It's entirely descriptive and intuitive, as is most of psychology. The disasters of it appear exactly when it tries to be scientific about something too broad.

    I respect the Big 5 because it doesn't overreach, so it's banal, works and can be measured.
    But MBTI doesn't overreach either, because it's not a precise scientific tool to have a specific scope of domain it could overreach in the first place.

    I personally believe MBTI did simplify Jung's work, but what it did stands as a direct product of Jung's theory and is thus "unscientific". Read Jung, he is not even trying to be scientific. In fact, he low key mocks all the intellectuals of his time for overemphasizing the 5 senses and the intellect.
    Puh-leeze. It sounds like I'm not the one who needs to spend some more time actually reading Jung.

    Believe it or not, and although he hardly believed that science had all the answers, Jung believed in applying scientific methods and standards to the field of psychology to the extent possible.

    In one of the articles included in the Collected Works edition of 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 explained, "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."

    Jung broke with Freud largely because of what he viewed as Freud's shortcomings in the scientific-conscience department. As Jung described it:

    There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious, and all signs of his normally critical and skeptical manner vanished. ...

    I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me, "My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakeable bulwark." ... First of all, it was the words "bulwark" and "dogma" that alarmed me; for a dogma, that is to say, an indisputable confession of faith, is set up only when the aim is to suppress doubts once and for all. But that no longer has anything to do with scientific judgment; only with a personal power drive.

    This was the thing that struck at the heart of our friendship. I knew that I would never be able to accept such an attitude. ...

    When ... Freud announced his intention of identifying theory and method and making them into some kind of dogma, I could no longer collaborate with him; there remained no choice for me but to withdraw.

    Jung's original concepts of extraversion and introversion involved multiple personality characteristics that Jung's model said would co-vary — and co-variation of personality characteristics is unquestionably an aspect of that model that's susceptible to testing by quantitative scientific means. And Myers put that model to the test and discovered, as McCrae and Costa (the leading Big 5 psychologists) have rightly noted, that various aspects of extraversion (and introversion) that Jung's model grouped together did not co-vary.

    As they explain:

    Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

    Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.

    Faced with those facts, I really don't think there's any question that Jung would have accepted Myers' adjustments to his typology — rather than, say, rolling his eyes and "mocking" her (as your post suggests) for presuming to subject his model to empirical testing.

  6. #25

    How demeaning of astrology mr. science. I'm a leo and my girl is an archer. Everything it says is true. (99% sex/intimacy, 80% compatible and worst on communication which is again true because we speak different language, so that was a very wtf moment for me :P)

  7. #26
  8. #27

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Dichotomies vs. functions

    [SPOILER]this long INTJforum post,[/URL] the few attempts to test/validate the functions — and, in particular, the functions model most often discussed on internet forums (where INTJ = Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP = Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) — have not led to a respectable body of supporting results.
    The trouble is that some start from the premise that intuitive means interested by the abstract domain rather than very imaginative approach. It's the current confinement. 16 personalities understood this partly in using the architect term rather than scientist for INTJ.

    16P about ISTJ:
    When facts and logic are out of place, ISTJ personalities swoop in as the accountants, auditors, data analysts, financial managers, business administrators and even doctors that identify, report and correct the issues at hand.

    All of this is abstract, but not especially theoretical or particularly focus on a futur vision in solving a problem.

    So imo some ISTJs type themself INTJ but never using Ni-Se as described by Jung. They have an incredible ability to absorb factual details but without heavy theorize or rarely even if oriented toward abstract. Even the metrics can't lead anywhere with an inaccurate understanding of function dynamics. The biggest stereotype is around interests and trades. It's the MBTI unconscious.

  9. #28

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Puh-leeze. It sounds like I'm not the one who needs to spend some more time actually reading Jung...

    ...

    Faced with those facts, I really ...
    There is no empiricism there. Any psychological study given how statistically significant it is can barely be called science. Any hard scientist would smack you over the head with the paper if your presented what psychology calls "science" to them. On top of that MBTI is far less so than other parts of psychology, even personality theory where Big 5 far outranks it. And you cherry picking Jung quotes doesn't debunk my overall understanding of his books. I'll keep studying but you give me no reason to change my mind, other than pointing to authority of people I respect less than Jung (given stuff I know from them) and that I have not studied as thoroughly to asses anyway. Meh.

  10. #29

    Quote Originally Posted by miuliu View Post
    There is no empiricism there. Any psychological study given how statistically significant it is can barely be called science. Any hard scientist would smack you over the head with the paper if your presented what psychology calls "science" to them. On top of that MBTI is far less so than other parts of psychology, even personality theory where Big 5 far outranks it.
    Did you read the OP? Very much contrary to your claims, the MBTI can actually point to decades of studies that essentially put it on a par (psychometrically speaking) with the Big Five.

    As one example (also cited in the OP), here's a large-sample 2003 study that summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

    In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.

    ...and the authors went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

    In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.

    Going all the way back to 1990, and making reference to an older version of the MBTI than the one in use today, the leading Big Five psychologists (McCrae & Costa, creators of the NEO-PI-R), in addition to finding the MBTI psychometrically respectable, approvingly referred to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the decades of MBTI studies that already existed at that time), and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the two typologies essentially share, as well as "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

  11. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Did you read the OP? Very much contrary to your claims, the MBTI can actually point to...
    I can quote "authority" too. But I won't. There is overwhelming articles, studies and piles of data that debunk "scientificness" of MBTI. If you cared to know, you would.
    I was in fact defending it by saying you can't cut air into pieces using a knife and call yourself the great divider. I find great value in MBTI, but worship of science as the ultimate court of value is what both Jung and I find ridiculous, so I don't want to engage in this anymore.


     
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Deep ocean" vs. "Outer space" and MBTI types
    By starvinginsomedeepmystery in forum Member Polls
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-15-2018, 03:17 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 06:28 AM
  3. [INFP] "childlike" .vs. "childish" , in this so-called "mature, adult" REAL-world..!
    By niki in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 08:07 PM
  4. Is it possible to be a socionics "E" and a MBTI/jungian "I"?
    By dulcinea in forum What's my Socionics type?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 02:29 PM
  5. Debunking the Myth, the contradiction in "Artistic INTPs".
    By Kohtumine in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 10-05-2012, 06:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:40 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0