Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
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")
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
693 Posts
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)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
573 Posts
Dichotomies vs. functions

 
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
The issue may be with the threshold you put on it. How you define whether it's accurate or not?

You could have a hypothetical typology that randomly assigns people to X and Y type (two of them) and still get at least 50%. If you describe the types vaguely, you can get it to even 90% of people reporting to be accurately typed.

Some people are satisfied with their horoscopes. Don't forget that.

I'd never consider it scientific and I wouldn't like psychologist examining me to use this thing. Nah, it's far from good enough for such use. Too much variety within types and too much uncertainty between them.

The goal is the key here. For ordinary people for fun or casual use it can be good enough. Certainly better than horoscopes because it takes some meaningful input to throw output based on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UltimaRatio

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
It really irks me when people play the "uneducated professional" card. I've seen countless examples of highly intelligent, uneducated people proving to be more knowledgeable and concise than educated professionals, myself being one of those intelligent, uneducated people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
Why oh why must people always play the astrology card when discussing this matter. Astrology being a science thousands of years old. Somehow scientifically minded people conveniently ignore that Isaac Newton himself was an avid astrologer. Once, when his friend Edmund Halle was talking trash about astrology, he snapped something along the lines of, "I beg your pardon, I have studied the matter and you have not." So, for all of you who have not actually studied astrology, STFU.

Astrology totally satisfies these requirements:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
From sciencecouncil.org
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
Why oh why must people always play the astrology card when discussing this matter. Astrology being a science thousands of years old. Somehow scientifically minded people conveniently ignore that Isaac Newton himself was an avid astrologer. Once, when his friend Edmund Halle was talking trash about astrology, he snapped something along the lines of, "I beg your pardon, I have studied the matter and you have not." So, for all of you who have not actually studied astrology, STFU.

Astrology totally satisfies these requirements:



From sciencecouncil.org
studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
:laughing: What studies? How would you even conduct that study?

I suppose I do not possess a very scientific spirit, to the extent that that requires an objective stance. But I hold to the view that we are not even in a position as human beings to properly delineate what is subjective vs what is objective.

For me, the only way to confirm or debunk astrology is to go deep into it for yourself. Either be as informed and professional as you can, or pay up and have a professional do it for you. At that point, you would be in a position to credit or discredit it, and not one moment before.

Astrology is both universal and highly personal. If you don't explore the highly personal aspect of it, you will never know of its validity.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
These studies strike me as being highly superficial. Anyone who knows anything about astrology knows that a natal chart is a complicated web, with each factor (and there are hundreds) influencing every other factor. You can't take just the sun sign, or even the combination of the sun/ascendant/moon sign, and use the perceived lack of correlation with the personality as a means to debunk astrology as a whole.

It sure seems that the concept of intuition has been taken completely out of the "what is and isn't scientific" argument. Which is ironic, considering all great scientific discoveries had their beginnings in intuition.

Astrology is a highly intuitive science. Maybe that's where our difference of opinion lies. Plenty of people seem to think that if something is intuitive, it is invalid.

But, then again, theoretical physics is giving the hard sciences a run for their money, isn't it....
 

·
Registered
I Thimk INTP
Joined
·
14,145 Posts
studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
What doesn't work? Is it not the case that if something has value, it works for that value? Want to go scientific on that?

I'd say astrology, fortune cookies and the Book of XXX all have value. (I forget what XXX is.) For example when I get some fortune cookies, I throw them on he pile of rubber bands just below the displays on my desk. Here. I'll pull out and quote some:

1. Your ability to find the silly in the serious will take you far.
2. If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything.
3. Ideas you may believe are absurd ultimately lead to success!
4. While times may seem difficult, your future forecasts a quick turnaround.

Anything "scientific here? Sure. The first step in the scientific method is observation. Observe those ideas and pick out a tentative hypothesis. Great stuff. I say forget the accuracy of the above. I'm a specialist in spotting accuracy and accuracy is very rare.

@AnneM. You show promise of being a good debater.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnneM

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
@BigApplePi I'm not sure if I should thank you or take offense at the comparison to fortune cookies! :laughing: This is how you keep me:



That's MY job! That's what I'm supposed to do to other people! You give me a taste of my own medicine, for sure.

Anyway....I think people would be extremely surprised at the amount of mathematical calculation that is involved in astrology. Just wanted to throw that in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigApplePi

·
Registered
I Thimk INTP
Joined
·
14,145 Posts
@BigApplePi I'm not sure if I should thank you or take offense at the comparison to fortune cookies! :laughing: This is how you keep me:



That's MY job! That's what I'm supposed to do to other people! You give me a taste of my own medicine, for sure.

Anyway....I think people would be extremely surprised at the amount of mathematical calculation that is involved in astrology. Just wanted to throw that in there.
By all means take offense. (Fortunately there is no button for that as many would take it the wrong way.) When offense is taken, I get to see something I hadn't seen before. If you agree with me, it reinforces what I said but I learn nothing new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnneM
21 - 40 of 110 Posts
Top