Is MBTI a valid instrument?

[Jennifer]

Well, since we don't talk much about MBTI here anymore anyway, what's keeping you here, Ath?

I assume the general discourse and/or the people you care about or like.

As far as "more valid" theories, I wish Gatsby was here, he was very knowledgeable in the theories that had more actual statistical validation. I know the Big Five traits have been tested and verified much more... so that provides a partial cross-link to related MBTI traits. But MBTI is much more of an experiential/theoretical framework, built on an intuitive basis, and thus is not necessarily correct.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Well, since we don't talk much about MBTI here anymore anyway, what's keeping you here, Ath?

I assume the general discourse and/or the people you care about or like.

Up to now? The hope of discussing it when the discussions swing back around to it again. I was biding my time, and the inertia/habit of posting here just stuck with me.

Are you saying that you believe caring about the people who post there is a valid reason to stay at a message board? Just curious.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by MetalWounds

The key is not to take it too seriously. Don't try to make MBTI something it's not. (I know this conflicts with many peoples' beliefs).

QUOTED FOR TRUTH.

If you take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

MBTI is a pretty theory that can work sometimes but it often just doesn't hold water against things demonstrated through empirical and scientific testing. And even things demonstrated through testing won't hold true for everybody. Through study we find trends, not laws, especially in nonconcrete subjects like human psychology.

It may be pretty new-agey, but calling it a 'religion' is going a bit too far.

[Edahn]

MBTI's validity, imo, depends on how you interpret its significance. If you realize that the test is one way, of many, to describe people along certain exclusive dimensions, you're still okay. Once you move beyond that to think that a configuration at one point in time (when you take the test) is constant, you get into trouble. No one is always N, always T, etc. Second, I think the definitions behind each function are pretty nebulous. So, in the end, MBTI is kind of like a grid you superimpose on someone's personality. But it's just one grid of many. Personality psychology and clinical psychology is filled with alternative classification systems (more grids). They're not exclusive of one another and some have better application in certain situations than others.

Originally Posted by Athenian200

So my question is... if MBTI is invalid, what do we do? Just leave? Give up? What's left here for us? You seriously make me contemplate whether I have any business staying here because of my own doubts about it...

This place is a community brought together by interest in personality. There's no rule that says you have to believe every little bit to stay here. As I tried to say above, the instrument isn't completely worthless, but it can be abused. At time I think the test is complete crap, but that doesn't mean the friendships aren't real, ya?

Anyway, do you have any ideas about what might be superior to MBTI?

I'm a psych-junkie. I get lots of insight from studying primate behavior (Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape) from Buddhist psychology (Alan Watts: The Wisdom of Insecurity, Chapter 1-5 or so) and from modern psychology (currently reading Masterson: The Search for the Real Self, I think you'd dig it).

[Nocapszy]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

QUOTED FOR TRUTH.

If you take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

MBTI is a pretty theory that can work sometimes but it often just doesn't hold water against things demonstrated through empirical and scientific testing. And even things demonstrated through testing won't hold true for everybody. Through study we find trends, not laws, especially in nonconcrete subjects like human psychology.

It may be pretty new-agey, but calling it a 'religion' is going a bit too far.

I really hope we're able to make the distinction between Jung's typology and MBTI.

They are not the same.

MBTI's goal is to make what Jung did available to the masses. Or rather I should say, those who employ it's powers use them for this reason. Because most people are stupid, and for the sake of empirical relevancy for those same customers, they had to simplify every last bit of what Jung did.

Additionally, it requires that the subject has studied himself intensely, a feat that's next to impossible given what introspective abilities we have as mammals.

Originally Posted by This sums up quite nicely what the system Jung designed is capable of

Even though it doesn't bother us to talk about types of roses or pine trees or human blood, there is something in the very idea of typing people that makes us feel uneasy. Types threaten us from two directions. First, we are afraid that they will pigeonhole us, deny our uniqueness, and replace it with a superficial label. Secondly, we feel they are somehow undemocratic and could lead to prejudice and repression.

Typology is the study of human differences. C.G. Jung's psychological types are not based on set descriptions that real people must be fit into, but on basic elements which, when combined together, can be used to describe the differences among people. A type is a group of characteristics that stands midway between the universal traits common to us all and those which are uniquely our own. For example, we all have eyes. Yet our own eyes are unlike anyone else's. But between these two poles there are groupings of blue-eyed people, brown-eyed people, etc. Types are a bridge between the universal and the particular. Every typology can be abused in order to deny the universal or the unique in man, but a good typology is a powerful aid to a deeper understanding of who we are.

One last thing -- I don't blame Meyers and Briggs for the regrettable reception their test ended up with. It's not their fault so few noticed that the I in MBTI stands for INDICATOR.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

I really hope we're able to make the distinction between Jung's typology and MBTI.

They are not the same.

MBTI's goal is to make what Jung did available to the masses. Or rather I should say, those who employ it's powers use them for this reason. Because most people are stupid, and for the sake of empirical relevancy for those same customers, they had to simplify every last bit of what Jung did.

Additionally, it requires that the subject has studied himself intensely, a feat that's next to impossible given what introspective abilities we have as mammals.

Oh, yes, of course.

But the point is that anything like this in psychology, these theories, are just that, theories. As theories, they shouldn't be applied in ways that they were not meant to be. That was just my point. It's really not exclusive to any theory in particular, even in any subject.

(And wasn't the OP talking about MBTI in particular in the first place?)

[Nocapszy]

You could say that each function is a theory in itself. Jung designed a system that would cover every way we can take in information, and every way we can deal with it. Mathematically he covered every base. The only one I'll say that doesn't NECESSARILY apply for is Thinking and Feeling. I imagine there's another way to sort information than just personal decisions vs. logical decisions.

As far as intuition and sensing goes... information is either concrete or abstract. There's not really any middle ground. Same with introverted and extraverted.

The problems don't come from improper or inappropriate application, but in having too narrow an idea of the functions' capabilities, and how they interact with one another. Both of these two problems are usually rooted in assuming that the superficial RESULTS of the functions, are the functions themselves, rather than figuring out what the mind is 'doing' and understanding that what we see is only the manifestation of what's happening in the brain. It's likely that no two people express their function combinations the same way.

On top of all that I'd wager at least 50% of anything any person does can be traced back to more than just one function. It's highly complicated, but all the bases are covered.

And yes, the OP was talking about MBTI specifically, but a lot of people don't really know the difference between the two, and I'll take any venue to explain their differences.

[Hotherym]

I have never fully understood why anyone would take the MBTI as law, rather than a loose, fun guideline for finding out about themselves and how they interact with others and their environment. It's not neuroscience, nor has it ever claimed to be.

Nevertheless, I see many people taking it very seriously, applying it methodically and obsessively, and seemingly advocating it as factual. Why? When I first learned about it, I thought it was tons of fun and useful, and certainly a good tool to get to know people and connect to others such as myself.

The problem is, if you're seeking ultimate truths or digging for scientific theories, I think it's fairly obvious that MBTI isn't going to hold up under a lot of pressure. Hell, best I can tell, it was never supposed to. As I said, it's not neuroscience -- it's four letters that stand for the behavioural functions you use regularly.
It would be interesting to see how they correlate with actual brain functions, however. If there's anything that's been done on that, I'd love to see.

I have more to say, but no time. I'd love to see where this thread goes. What I will say is that Victor's original posts were pretty out-there themselves, filled with logical fallacies, and did seem troll like (and not in the fun way, either :(). At least it fired up a good argument.

[sriv]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Everything has self fulfilling purposes.

Exactly. MBTI is self-fulfilling to some, and not to others. However, MBTI may be more self-fulfilling to more people than would humping a fire hydrant.

[nightning]

In science/psychology... we say there are two types of validity. Face/content validity and criterion validity.

Measurement Validity Types

Basically MBTI has one but not the other type of validity.

In terms of content validity... That the scale is measuring traits that actually exists in people... MBTI fails badly. It's like a self-fulfilling hypothesis. There has been no prove that these 16 types do exist... this remains true despite numerous experimental studies conducted by the scientific community. In this process, what they noticed was a different pattern appearing. That people's personalities can be broadly categorized into 5 different traits and that these traits are normally distributed across the population (which completely goes against the idea of having 16 distinct types). This system developed by McCrae et al is the five factor model: Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the test instrument for MBTI have is the other type, criterion validity... or more specifically test, re-test reliability. After so many version of MBTI... consistency between testing of the official test is up to some impressive 80+%. However this means nothing if what's being measured is incorrect.

It's like throwing darts... it doesn't matter whether you get all of them at the same spot... if they don't land on target, you get no points.

</ of rambling>

So why am I here? While I believe types are artificially imposed, the system does provide a structural framework as a way of looking at the vastly complex behavioral responses and interactions in people.

Theory's wrong... but it's still nonetheless useful.