[tigerman11]

I'm asking about all of them: Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Keirsey, Big 5 etc.


The reason I am asking is because I don't want to be wasting my time if this is astrological type stuff. I want to be able to feel confident that my results are accurate so I can use them to move forward with my life. Finding a direction in life has been a huge problem for me and I'm tired of spinning my wheels.

 

[kittychris07]

Well, they aren't exactly a science, but maybe a pseudo-science. They aren't jsut for fun, and they really do help you understand more about yourself and about others. I'd say MBTI has been the most helpful of all the tests. MBTI has been used in organziations to help them figure out more about their employees' personalitiesm and also to advise on careers.

 

[Liesl]

I'm asking about all of them: Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Keirsey, Big 5 etc.


The reason I am asking is because I don't want to be wasting my time if this is astrological type stuff. I want to be able to feel confident that my results are accurate so I can use them to move forward with my life. Finding a direction in life has been a huge problem for me and I'm tired of spinning my wheels.

None of the 'tools' that you mentioned is complete (or even entirely accurate) in its description of the enormously complex concept that is 'personality.' The reality is that differing neurological patterns and differences in the structure of the brain amongst individuals do determine our 'personality.' It's a matter of finding a way to discern what those patterns are and then accurately describing them. There are aspects of all of these 'tests' that hint toward underlying ideas which have a basis in science. But I would be wary of making decisions based on 'personality type' until you have a pretty thorough understanding of it.

 

[vocalist]

tigerman--

The following test is parallel to MBTI, but explains personality based on "brain type" and explaining your personality based on which parts of your brain are more active and dominant. So if you're interested in a more "scientific" approach, this might help:

BrainTypes.com - Questionnaire

I came up with FEAL, which is parallel with ESFJ, so it works...

 

[Loke]

I'm asking about all of them: Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Keirsey, Big 5 etc.


The reason I am asking is because I don't want to be wasting my time if this is astrological type stuff. I want to be able to feel confident that my results are accurate so I can use them to move forward with my life. Finding a direction in life has been a huge problem for me and I'm tired of spinning my wheels.

Big 5 has a lot of science behind it. Try google scholar.

Enneagram is to a large extent astrology. It makes a lot of ungrounded claims.

Myers Briggs doesn't need science really, it makes no claims. You see, all the types generated by a MB test are like codes for the answers given. Now, the second step, attatching a personality description to that code, is actually something you should do yourself, but perhaps with the help of some insightful people.

Example: If I say my friend and my boss are both ESFPs, I am in essence saying that they would answer similarily to a certain set of questions. Now I can learn about stuff they have in common. When I meet a third person who I think is an ESFP, I have good grounds to assume that this person will also have the traits shared by my friend and my boss.

This is something you most likely already do, you already meet people with personalities you recognize and on those grounds assume to know something about the person. The only thing myers briggs does is put a name on the personalities which allows us to categorize and discuss personalities. So in this way, scientiific handling of relationships requires tools like MBTI, but MBTI does not require scientific proof, because it makes no claim, its only a framework. Atleast, that's how you should look at the myer briggs system, I know a lot of people try to take it further into astrology lane, so always think about what you're reading.

 

[ThoughtProcess]

Tools are tools. Their effectiveness is entirely dependent on how you use them.

 

[The Great One]

I'm asking about all of them: Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Keirsey, Big 5 etc.


The reason I am asking is because I don't want to be wasting my time if this is astrological type stuff. I want to be able to feel confident that my results are accurate so I can use them to move forward with my life. Finding a direction in life has been a huge problem for me and I'm tired of spinning my wheels.

They teach mbti in colleges; it works quite well. Enneagram is not really that credible and is more for fun. Big five is very credible as well and also taught in colleges.

 

[SPtheGhost]

well mbti in particular is based on analytical psychology
like someone said it doesnt really make a claim but rather takes into account how one would answer certain questions(solve certain problems, resolve certain conflicts etc) to derive a general template on how they see things and how they may process their thoughts

mbti at least is much more grounded in observational analysis relative to something like astrology , (which literally makes claims based on chance)

with that said , it isnt a bunch of dogmatic rules, but just that.. observations ,so its not infallible

 

[ThoughtProcess]

well mbti in particular is based on analytical psychology
like someone said it doesnt really make a claim but rather takes into account how one would answer certain questions(solve certain problems, resolve certain conflicts etc) to derive a general template on how they see things and how they may process their thoughts

mbti at least is much more grounded in observational analysis relative to something like astrology , (which literally makes claims based on chance)

with that said , it isnt a bunch of dogmatic rules, but just that.. observations ,so its not infallible

Horoscopes are to astrology what the Weekly World News is to news. Actual astrology is based on thousands of years of human observation (sociology) in correlation to the positions of the bodies in our solar system. Similar to MBTI, a natal chart will tell you how you're more prone to act given the location of various aspects in your chart. This goes far beyond "your sun sign is X, you'll have a great day today!".

 

[SPtheGhost]

Horoscopes are to astrology what the Weekly World News is to news. Actual astrology is based on thousands of years of human observation (sociology) in correlation to the positions of the bodies in our solar system. Similar to MBTI, a natal chart will tell you how you're more prone to act given the location of various aspects in your chart. This goes far beyond "your sun sign is X, you'll have a great day today!".

i never even mentioned horoscopes...i know what astrology is...
and it still makes claims based off of chance

 

[alionsroar]

The theories seem to be true to me. I continue reading about them because they seem to match what I observe in real life.

I think sometimes the problem is that tests don't give accurate results especially if people are under great stress and not acting how they would if they were healthy. Sometimes they test your behaviour, and not your actual thinking patterns. They test how you see yourself and not how you actually are. This leads people to think that they are other than they are - especially if they read and believe everything other people say when those people are not exactly knowledgeable. (A case of the blind leading the blind.)

For some people, it may be more helpful for them to read up on the different cognitive functions instead of taking tests if they wanted to discover what type they were.

I believe sometimes people run into problems in life when they overuse their dominant function, or try and use their shadow functions. In order to become more balanced they probably should use their auxiliary (second most used function) more. The auxiliary function of people whose personality type is of the form ISXP is Se. Sometimes those people think that if they use their dominant function Fi or Ti enough, with their tertiary function Ni, they will eventually work out a solution. No. Those people need new information in order to progress. They need to develop their Se more. So I'm suggesting they think less and do more, try and exercise your perceiving function without making judgments.

 

[ThoughtProcess]

i never even mentioned horoscopes...i know what astrology is...
and it still makes claims based off of chance

Elaborate.

 

[madhatter]

Ah, the astrology debate! It seems to have followed the ISTPs in here, like a stray cat.

 

[HannibalLecter]

Why does everybody feel the need to compare psychology and related disciplines to astrology? MBTI is a series of personality types. Either you are an Extrovert or an Introvert - an iNtuitive or a Sensor - a Feeler or a Thinker - a Judger or a Perceiver. Put them together, and you've got your MBTI type (pretty much). This is not science. This is typology - which many view as being pseudoscience.

 

[madhatter]

Why does everybody feel the need to compare psychology and related disciplines to astrology? MBTI is a series of personality types. Either you are an Extrovert or an Introvert - an iNtuitive or a Sensor - a Feeler or a Thinker - a Judger or a Perceiver. Put them together, and you've got your MBTI type (pretty much). This is not science. This is typology - which many view as being pseudoscience.

That is true. But, someone uses typology correctly, it is akin to using the scientific method. You observe someone's behavior, you form a hypothesis in regards to their type, you perform social experiments to gather more data, you test your hypothesis, and you go back to observation if you're proved wrong. However, with human behavior, I believe we should never stop observing.

 

[Psilo]

It can't be scientific because results can neither be verified nor falsified.

It is more useful that astrology and the like because it is based on observation rather than arbitrary dates and numbers.

MB is a tool and a language. It divides common observable traits and labels them to make it easier to identify and talk about. It is inclusive, and not exclusive, which I believe most wople get hung up on this. Saying a person is INFP, for example, does not define them. It's not a box, and every individual INFP will exhibit the traits differently. What it does say is that a person understand best abstract ideas and intrapersonal information. What that means and how useful it is is up to you.

 

[Introspiritual]

I'm asking about all of them: Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Keirsey, Big 5 etc.

MBTI has had extensive statistical testing performed on it. CAPT probably has done the most, with their continuous refinements to the test.

Enneagram is likely not scientifically or statistically verifiable, but can still be useful if you find you identify with one of the (arche)types.

With regards to the KTS, David Keirsey has actively avoided going through the statistical validation process. However, third-party studies over time show a high correlation to MBTI results, so it could be seen as an analog to the MBTI.

Big 5 has been extensively studied and tested, and is still somewhat common in psychological studies and usage. 4 of the 5 scales correlate to MBTI measurements.

Note that all of the above is for officially-administered tests only. This is not a reflection of the results you'll get by taking "just any test off of the internet." Also, all of the assessments involve their own theories of personality establishment and development, and Some New Finding(tm) may make these look like antiques in 10 years. If you have access to a college library as well, you can look up the results of third-party research on most of these assessments.

 

[madhatter]

It can't be scientific because results can neither be verified nor falsified.

That's why it's only akin to it. But this systematic method can be applied to MBTI.

But you're right, it can't be falsified by a third party, there's no control group, etc.

 

[tigerman11]

I feel the biggest problem with these assessments is that it is sometimes difficult to accurately type yourself. If this is ever going to be considered a true science, there needs to be a method that is foolproof of mistakes. That may be a difficult task, but what is the point of doing these things if you are unsure of its accuracy?

 

[ThoughtProcess]

I think it's funny how one method of observation that's about 100 years old is considered so different and "better" from one that's several thousand years old. :crazy:

All of these tools are meant as overviews to help you understand yourself better and hopefully understand others better. If you meet someone who's XXXX, you don't automatically know that person but you do know how they're prone to act. I know that an INFP will quickly tire of me playfully picking on them and that an ENTJ will get frustrated with how I do things. I know that a Taurus will tend to be stubborn and a Gemini will tend to be flirtatious. I can also look at myself to see what areas I need to improve, find out what possible motivations could be, and generally seek to improve who I am. I can take all of that and use it to better interact with my environment.