Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,130 Posts
If you use the MBTI to predict behaviour, inclination or competence you're gonna have a bad time [a lot of the more popular, 'valid' personality tests do this and I'm not sure I agree with it]. If you use the MBTI to understand why someone does something you might have a slightly better time. If you use the MBTI in a vague, general sense as a tool to help you understand people more holistically you're gonna have a pretty good time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
If you use the MBTI to predict behaviour, inclination or competence you're gonna have a bad time [a lot of the more popular, 'valid' personality tests do this and I'm not sure I agree with it]. If you use the MBTI to understand why someone does something you might have a slightly better time. If you use the MBTI in a vague, general sense as a tool to help you understand people more holistically you're gonna have a pretty good time.
Would you not rather base your holistic knowledge of the world on a scientifically founded theory, rather than something thought up by a couple of people with no psychological background and with no empirical basis?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,130 Posts
Would you not rather base your holistic knowledge of the world on a scientifically founded theory, rather than something thought up by a couple of people with no psychological background and with no empirical basis?
Why either or? And has their been a scientifically valid theory that encapsulates all of personality?
 

·
Registered
INTP
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
Theoretical or not, it doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's about putting people into groups (types in this case) based on their preferred way of thinking. People do have a preferred way of thinking and it can be categorized just like their preference for food or sport or movie genre or anything else for that matter. Typology stems from human ability to recognize patterns. Does that mean that it's flawless? Fuck no. But it's not useless. I wasn't convinced that it has any uses until I had a conversation with a Ni user. That shit is so weird. It's funny. The least understood thing from MBTI is what convinced me that this theory, while imperfect, is sound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Why either or? And has their been a scientifically valid theory that encapsulates all of personality?
Big Five is scientifically based, MBTI is generally disregarded by psychologist.

But I doubt you could ever find anything that would successfully encapsulate all of personality.. Even if it existed, it would cause people to externalize to that framework, and conform to a high degree. I think not having a general framework on which to base your understanding but rather gathering experience from social interaction, improves your ability to understand.

When you identify with a label, you categorize your interaction through it, reinforcing a system that is inherently limited (or false).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
Would you not rather base your holistic knowledge of the world on a scientifically founded theory, rather than something thought up by a couple of people with no psychological background and with no empirical basis?
There is some empirical basis now. It isn't a coincidence that people from the same type have a lot in common with each other.

The article mentions that the tests can give different results each time you take it. I agree, the tests are mostly worthless, possibly only giving you some idea of which type to start researching first.

It also mentioned that real psychologists disregard MBTI. I should hope that someone who spent several years studying the human psyche isn't going to use something as general as MBTI.

However, I don't agree that MBTI is completely worthless. There are definitely some noticeable differences between types. You just have to understand that MBTI is very generalized and often quite inaccurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Such a facile article. The major misunderstanding is that the article purports that it's a binary system, when it is not - every personality has introverted-extroverted, thinking-feeling, sensing-intuition, etc functions. The author makes the assumptions that an assignment of T over F means you will never use F. All these criticisms are rendered moot if you take into account the function stacks of a personality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
MBTI, for me, it is just a way to categorize personalities. Not a scientific reserch.
Cathegoraizing something it is always arbitrary.
You can use certain parameters but they will be arbitrary too.
It is just a way to divide and encapsulate in 16 cathegories all the personalities, following a pattern.
It is a way to simplify them and to think in an abstract way to this issue.
This is why I appreciate it, it helps me in find a pattern in the world and schematizaing it. And it is always a good thing for me.
I would never use MBTI to choose a career, to find love or to make friends.
But it has been useful, for me, to understand why I have always felt so different from the most of the women I know and to understand people around me and to accept them, even if they don't see the world as I do.
That's all.

Oh. And I've find this site where there is this subforum where I feel at home and almost normal. Not a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
Big Five is scientifically based, MBTI is generally disregarded by psychologist.

But I doubt you could ever find anything that would successfully encapsulate all of personality.. Even if it existed, it would cause people to externalize to that framework, and conform to a high degree. I think not having a general framework on which to base your understanding but rather gathering experience from social interaction, improves your ability to understand.

When you identify with a label, you categorize your interaction through it, reinforcing a system that is inherently limited (or false).
I agree with this though. This is why I don't type people, I don't want to get any prejudices against someone just because I typed someone a certain way. I rather just get to know that person myself.

Pretty much the only way I have used MBTI is to find some like-minded people on this forum. At least it was useful for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
940 Posts
Big Five is scientifically based, MBTI is generally disregarded by psychologist.

But I doubt you could ever find anything that would successfully encapsulate all of personality.. Even if it existed, it would cause people to externalize to that framework, and conform to a high degree. I think not having a general framework on which to base your understanding but rather gathering experience from social interaction, improves your ability to understand.

When you identify with a label, you categorize your interaction through it, reinforcing a system that is inherently limited (or false).

What I find frustrating in the Big Five-theory, is that when Myers-Briggs theory has 16 types, the Big Five has only.. Well, five, thus making 16 types personality theory of a more definitive one.

If we choose the Big Five-theory, we might as well use the Occam's razor to just cut it down to theory of "Extroverts and introverts".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,288 Posts
Big Five is scientifically based, MBTI is generally disregarded by psychologist.

But I doubt you could ever find anything that would successfully encapsulate all of personality.. Even if it existed, it would cause people to externalize to that framework, and conform to a high degree. I think not having a general framework on which to base your understanding but rather gathering experience from social interaction, improves your ability to understand.

When you identify with a label, you categorize your interaction through it, reinforcing a system that is inherently limited (or false).
Are you serious? Nothing has come close to describing me, and everyone I've given the test to, as close as MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Are you serious? Nothing has come close to describing me, and everyone I've given the test to, as close as MBTI.
Well I am overstating it a bit.

One of the things in this article, is that it is made to have you feel good (like astrology or religion can), so it might very well describe a good part of you perfectly well, but it wont encompass your being, nor should it define it. Within type there are great deviations, as I have seen in an INTP chat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
Well I am overstating it a bit.

One of the things in this article, is that it is made to have you feel good (like astrology or religion can), so it might very well describe a good part of you perfectly well, but it wont encompass your being, nor should it define it. Within type there are great deviations, as I have seen in an INTP chat.
One of the bigger problems is that you can't know for certain that somebody is a certain type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
One of the bigger problems is that you can't know for certain that somebody is a certain type.
Right, like with astrology or religion, you cannot really know you just have to feel it. Which is something you shouldnt base anything on in my opinion. As such I agree with the title of the thread, that it is just useful for entertainment until further proven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
"Apart from the introversion/extroversion aspect of the Myers-Briggs, the newer, empirically driven tests focus on entirely different categories" - that the categories have different names doesn't make them different categories, and I do find it funny that articles like the one in the OP slate the MBTI and then spruik the Big Five when four of the five Big Five dimensions correlate to the MBTI; indeed, McCrae and Costa (who developed the Big Five) studied the correlation between the two and S/N correlates to the Openness dimension almost exactly as much as Extraversion and I/E do.

I certainly don't intend to suggest that the MBTI is without flaws - far from it - but claims that it's "entirely meaningless" are as problematic as those who continue to pretend it lacks issues. "About as much scientific validity as your astrological sign": would love to know how they substantiate this, given the MBTI works in a manner analogous to "respected" personality theories (and, as mentioned above, correlates to a meaningful degree with the supposedly superior Big Five) whilst astrology's tying of personality and date of birth is demonstrably unreasonable.

I feel sure I wrote a more detailed criticism of this article on the forum at some point, but I can't seem to locate it. I did find this criticism of a similarly-themed article, though, which probably hits upon some of the same themes I'd want to bring up anyway, so I'll link that here...

What I find frustrating in the Big Five-theory, is that when Myers-Briggs theory has 16 types, the Big Five has only.. Well, five, thus making 16 types personality theory of a more definitive one.

If we choose the Big Five-theory, we might as well use the Occam's razor to just cut it down to theory of "Extroverts and introverts".
Eh? The Big Five doesn't have "types" at all; what it does have is five different personality dimensions, which means that type-based theories built on the Big Five (such as SLOAN) have 32 (i.e., 2^5) types. Though really, deciding which theory is more definitive on the basis of which has the most "types" is itself a highly questionable approach - and evaluating people solely on whether they're an introvert or extravert is not without its merits, though obviously it omits a lot of other relevant factors of personality.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top