Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 134 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alright I'm not trying to be a douche, but lately I've seen people using Myers Briggs, and using it a lot to dissect personalities and things, and I think it's doing harm than good.

Guys I'm going to be straight up. There isn't any Fe, Ti or Sx or whatever dominance. Yeah different humans are different, but we're still all human. We all experience every type of feeling, emotion, and whatever and trying to correlate us to Myers Briggs in a serious manner I think is doing more harm than good.

So I'm a physics and math major, and I do deal with statistics both in my math classes and my research specifically. I looked up some Myers Briggs studies and it has a correlation coefficient of .3 for many of the functions.



Correlation Coefficient -- from Wolfram MathWorld

That is a really, really low correlation coeffiicent. It pretty much says "None of this really matches up and if it does it's just lucky/a coincidence"

And there are tons of publications on Myers Briggs and its validity(mostly say it isn't):
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs

I mean Myers Briggs is cool and all and fun, but none of it's taking seriously in the psych community. My friend does research in grad school with the bio department for MRI/brain research and I asked him how seriously he takes MBTI and he says he doesn't at all.

Which why is why I made this topic. I think personality tests are fun and all but none of it's real and I think scaling back on using it seriously would be a good thing. We're all humans and we all have an entire spectrum of things and emotions and none of the specific things like Ni, Ti, or whatever are actual functions and just derivations of humans traits we all have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

I saw that thread and the biggest flaw is that there isn't a normal distribution for Myers Briggs and my articles show that. I can find more from PubMED but Myers Briggs does not have a normal distribution and that leads to the exceedingly low correlation coefficient.

I scanned the articles but I don't really consider this a research article by any means:
17 Reasons That Joseph Stromberg’s Critique of the MBTI Is Uninformed | CelebrityTypes

And the ones I do find say that there isn't a normal distributed curve.

I especially think this line is misleading:
has concluded that there is some validity to the MBTI, while there is no validity to astrology.

That's great the correlation coefficient isn't 0 but .3 is still really, really low. That's really hardly anything to build a statistical significance by and it's usually just cherry picking to find things that match up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I saw that thread and the biggest flaw is that there isn't a normal distribution for Myers Briggs and my articles show that. I can find more from PubMED but Myers Briggs does not have a normal distribution and that leads to the exceedingly low correlation coefficient.

I scanned the articles but I don't really consider this a research article by any means:
17 Reasons That Joseph Stromberg’s Critique of the MBTI Is Uninformed | CelebrityTypes

And the ones I do find say that there isn't a normal distributed curve.
I failed stats. Can you speak in plain English please?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Statistically there isn't any significance in any of these tests in the way they're used to analyze things.

A .3 correlation coefficient is significant in the sense that there is some correlation, but it's also very weak. A correlation coefficient is a recursive number that shows how well the data is uniformly distributed among the curve.

Basically yeah there's some overlap but most of it's really a lot of coincidence and you'll need something much higher and much for fitting to the curve to say "yeah this works"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
I agree(if I'm understanding your point correctly).

Is MBTI scientifically based? Nope. But it's inarguable that there are certain personality traits and preferences people have and not everyone has the same ones. Does that mean we can be defined and have out entire essence as a human contained by a 4 letter code? Also no.
Some people are more feely and openly emotional, some aren't. Some people like being around others and some prefer time alone. Regardless, we all possess the ability to go the opposite way as well.

Should results be taken as gospel and something to build your life around/use as an excuse? Hell no. People's types change over time, and a variety of factors play into what type you may come out as... mood that day, what algorithms or w/e are used on the particular test you're taken, wording of the questions and how you interpret them, etc.

All the results mean are that in THIS circumstance, the way you answered THESE questions on THIS test at THIS point in time, you display similarities to certain recognized patterns of preference and tendencies as seen in other people.

Nothing to take too seriously. But knowing one's own habits and tendencies vs. other peoples(and any conflict that may arise due to the difference between the two) is never a bad thing, in my opinion.


(The thing that really gets me, though, is people who take the test then interpret their results like it's a personal attack on their character.... smh...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
This is taken from the theory of it

Statistical inference for Pearson's correlation coefficient is sensitive to the data distribution. Exact tests, and asymptotic tests based on the Fisher transformation can be applied if the data are approximately normally distributed, but may be misleading otherwise. In some situations, the bootstrap can be applied to construct confidence intervals, and permutation tests can be applied to carry out hypothesis tests. These non-parametric approaches may give more meaningful results in some situations where bivariate normality does not hold. However the standard versions of these approaches rely on exchangeability of the data, meaning that there is no ordering or grouping of the data pairs being analyzed that might affect the behavior of the correlation estimate.

The only good thing is that Myers Briggs doesn't have a negative correlation which would be really bad. But with how low its positive one is, a lot of the jumps people make with it seem to be really stretching things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Statistically there isn't any significance in any of these tests in the way they're used to analyze things.

A .3 correlation coefficient is significant in the sense that there is some correlation, but it's also very weak. A correlation coefficient is a recursive number that shows how well the data is uniformly distributed among the curve.

Basically yeah there's some overlap but most of it's really a lot of coincidence and you'll need something much higher and much for fitting to the curve to say "yeah this works"
I still don't quite get it. But that's my problem.

I did a quick search in the articles you posted and I don't see anything about a .3 correlation coefficient. What study are you referring to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aendern

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I agree(if I'm understanding your point correctly).

Is MBTI scientifically based? Nope. But it's inarguable that there are certain personality traits and preferences people have and not everyone has the same ones. Does that mean we can be defined and have out entire essence as a human contained by a 4 letter code? Also no.
Some people are more feely and openly emotional, some aren't. Some people like being around others and some prefer time alone. Regardless, we all possess the ability to go the opposite way as well.

Should results be taken as gospel and something to build your life around/use as an excuse? Hell no. People's types change over time, and a variety of factors play into what type you may come out as... mood that day, what algorithms or w/e are used on the particular test you're taken, wording of the questions and how you interpret them, etc.

All the results mean are that in THIS circumstance, the way you answered THESE questions on THIS test at THIS point in time, you display similarities to certain recognized patterns of preference and tendencies as seen in other people.

Nothing to take too seriously. But knowing one's own habits and tendencies vs. other peoples(and any conflict that may arise due to the difference between the two) is never a bad thing, in my opinion.


(The thing that really gets me, though, is people who take the test then interpret their results like it's a personal attack on their character.... smh...)
Yeah I agree. What bothers me is when people say "YOU'RE AN ENTP. DUE TO YOUR TI/FE YOU WILL ASK OUT THE GIRL INFP LIKE ETC ETC"

when it's like we're human just ask her out to coffee like a normal date
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I still don't quite get it. But that's my problem.

I did a quick search in the articles you posted and I don't see anything about a .3 correlation coefficient. What study are you referring to?
Second article:
Somewhat reminiscent of the field dependence-independencedistinction, for the T-F dimension, thinking involves logical reasoning and decision processes, whilefeeling entails a more subjective, interpersonal approach. Thomas (1983) reported a correlationbetween field independence and thinking of 0.37, suggesting a small amount of commonality.

N/S is even lower and reaches the lower .3s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,085 Posts
I don't care if it's scientifically valid honestly. I don't think everything about humanity can be explained by physically-derived science, and I think human personality may be one of those scientifically unexplainable things.

Then again, I have inferior Ti and unrealistic Ni, so I mean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I don't care if it's scientifically valid honestly. I don't think everything about humanity can be explained by physically-derived science, and I think human personality may be one of those scientifically unexplainable things.

Then again, I have inferior Ti and unrealistic Ni, so I mean
I agree with you on the fact that human personality isn't really that scientifically explainable but I don't think Myers Briggs really does a good job at explaining things at all.

Like I said I think it's cool to go "yay I'm an ENTJ I work hard" but I don't think it's really that great to use it very seriously to analyze and dissect serious issues in our lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Second article:
Somewhat reminiscent of the field dependence-independencedistinction, for the T-F dimension, thinking involves logical reasoning and decision processes, whilefeeling entails a more subjective, interpersonal approach. Thomas (1983) reported a correlationbetween field independence and thinking of 0.37, suggesting a small amount of commonality.

N/S is even lower and reaches the lower .3s
Without understanding the jargon, I wonder if this correlation number is still a problem in the latest version of MBTI, especially given the study that this part of the article is based on something from 30+ years ago.


I agree with you on the fact that human personality isn't really that scientifically explainable but I don't think Myers Briggs really does a good job at explaining things at all.

Like I said I think it's cool to go "yay I'm an ENTJ I work hard" but I don't think it's really that great to use it very seriously to analyze and dissect serious issues in our lives.
Then I think you are taking away the wrong thing from MBTI... :p

If you're interested, here are some uses that I've had for it:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ng-cognitive-functions-mbti.html#post16874337

I agree that it should not be taken literally, but in my opinion, it is definitely a helpful guide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Without understanding the jargon, I wonder if this correlation number is still a problem in the latest version of MBTI, especially given the study that this part of the article is based on something from 30+ years ago.




Then I think you are taking away the wrong thing from MBTI... :p

If you're interested, here are some uses that I've had for it:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ng-cognitive-functions-mbti.html#post16874337

I agree that it should not be taken literally, but in my opinion, it is definitely a helpful guide.
I looked into the history of MBTI and ever since it started in the 1920s the base theory never changed that much. The 4 functions and the dichotimies between specific functions always existed.

Yeah I know it's 30 years ago but I can't really think of any factors that'd change the correlation coefficient. I asked my friends who are in serious psych research if they would use Myers Briggs for anything to build some kind of conclusion and they flat out said "No".

So at least in terms of people I know who are going for high level psych degrees they take most of this stuff with a grain of salt and you're free to prove me wrong but the coefficient will still stay really low because I don't know how much the covariance or really any of the factors can change.

But overall I think your experience is a positive one. I don't think Myers Briggs has any validity, but I do think it's good it helps people realize that personality is complicated and there's a lot more to a person's exterior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,085 Posts
I second @PaladinX. MBTI - as in, the Myers-Briggs Trait Inventory - is kind of useless crap (as in the E vs I, N vs S, P vs J stuff), but the cognitive functions many people find very relevant and useful when dealing with others
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I second @PaladinX. MBTI - as in, the Myers-Briggs Trait Inventory - is kind of useless crap (as in the E vs I, N vs S, P vs J stuff), but the cognitive functions many people find very relevant and useful when dealing with others
My articles also talk about the cognitive functions and type development. The dichotomy is derived in the cognitive functions because it was part of the base theory when it started way back when. IE: Ti opposes Te

I think it's cool Myers Briggs talks about the theory of personalities but I'm going to be straight up all of the actual science and functions is bullshit. Which is why I think it's cool Myers Briggs is great about imploring on personalities and makes you think, but when people start going

"Yeah man my Ti is the reason I have x issue or I don't get along with this person because their Fe too much" or whatever it is, I think that's where it becomes detrimental and we focus on functions that probably aren't real and try build some base off of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I second @PaladinX. MBTI - as in, the Myers-Briggs Trait Inventory - is kind of useless crap (as in the E vs I, N vs S, P vs J stuff), but the cognitive functions many people find very relevant and useful when dealing with others
Then I don't know what you are seconding, because I completely disagree with the first half of this sentiment. :p

What I find interesting about this point of view is when you compare it to something like red and blue is "useless crap," but you can really get it if you look at crimson, scarlet, navy blue, and royal blue. As if royal blue and navy blue or crimson and scarlet share no meaningful characteristics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Alright I'm not trying to be a douche, but lately I've seen people using Myers Briggs, and using it a lot to dissect personalities and things, and I think it's doing harm than good.

Guys I'm going to be straight up. There isn't any Fe, Ti or Sx or whatever dominance. Yeah different humans are different, but we're still all human. We all experience every type of feeling, emotion, and whatever and trying to correlate us to Myers Briggs in a serious manner I think is doing more harm than good.

So I'm a physics and math major, and I do deal with statistics both in my math classes and my research specifically. I looked up some Myers Briggs studies and it has a correlation coefficient of .3 for many of the functions.

Correlation Coefficient -- from Wolfram MathWorld

That is a really, really low correlation coeffiicent. It pretty much says "None of this really matches up and if it does it's just lucky/a coincidence"

And there are tons of publications on Myers Briggs and its validity(mostly say it isn't):
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs

I mean Myers Briggs is cool and all and fun, but none of it's taking seriously in the psych community. My friend does research in grad school with the bio department for MRI/brain research and I asked him how seriously he takes MBTI and he says he doesn't at all.

Which why is why I made this topic. I think personality tests are fun and all but none of it's real and I think scaling back on using it seriously would be a good thing. We're all humans and we all have an entire spectrum of things and emotions and none of the specific things like Ni, Ti, or whatever are actual functions and just derivations of humans traits we all have.
I believe you when you say you're not trying to be a douche, but you're woefully uninformed when it comes to the scientific status of the MBTI, as you'll learn if you actually read this post that @PaladinX has already linked you to.

It's true that the so-called "cognitive functions" have no respectable body of scientific support behind them, but that's emphatically not true of the MBTI dichotomies.

What's more, when it comes to both reliability and validity, the notion that the MBTI and the Big Five belong in substantially different categories in terms of their psychometric respectability is questionable. Here's a large-sample 2003 study that summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

Bess/Harvey/Swartz said:
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:

Bess/Harvey/Swartz 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 devicge in applied organizational settings.
Is the MBTI taken less seriously in academic circles than the Big Five? No question. Is at least some of that difference the result of misinformation (as the Bess/Harvey/Swartz study notes) and prejudice arising from the fact that the MBTI was developed outside the academy? Yep.

Are there various ways in which the Big Five can currently be said to be superior to the MBTI? There certainly are, and not the least of those is the fact that the MBTI doesn't include the Neuroticism dimension. But McCrae and Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) long ago acknowledged that each typology might have things to learn from the other, and as further discussed in the post @PaladinX linked you to, the MBTI has some serious advantages of its own for a lay person who's simply interested in getting a handle on the nature of the four personality dimensions that the MBTI is tapping into.

As a final note, you may want to think long and hard about whether you ever want to link again to that laughable Pittenger article from 1993. To call that article shoddy is an insult to shoddiness, and if you're interested, you can read about some of the reasons why in these two INTJforum posts: one | two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,085 Posts
Then I don't know what you are seconding, because I completely disagree with the first half of this sentiment. :p

What I find interesting about this point of view is when you compare it to something like red and blue is "useless crap," but you can really get it if you look at crimson, scarlet, navy blue, and royal blue. As if royal blue and navy blue or crimson and scarlet share no meaningful characteristics.
I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your statement. I meant that I agreed that the OP would probably appreciate the personality theory a lot more if they knew the background.

I was incorrect in my statement, yes, and exaggerated to an unfortunate extent. It's not "useless crap," I'm just not the biggest fan of the MBTI oversimplification of the functions. The MBTI dichotomies can be useful, but I don't find them nearly as useful and applicable as the cognitive functions and their dichotomies are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinX

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
I interpreted this thread to be about validity and not about use.

I also do not accept the MBTI as valid and no psychology course I have ever taken has respected it as a theory. It does not take neuroplasticity into account, it arbitrarily assumes many things and many descriptions are so ambiguous that its advocates have to rely on anecdotal evidence, which really amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning and bias.

People cannot be shoved into arbitrary boxes much less be expected to remain predictably consistent throughout their lives.
 
1 - 20 of 134 Posts
Top