# Is it accepted here that Myers Briggs has no scientific validity?



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

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.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I recommend looking at this thread by @reckful:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/283457-another-mbti-debunking.html


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> I recommend looking at this thread by @_reckful_:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/283457-another-mbti-debunking.html



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 Strombergâ€™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


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> 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 Strombergâ€™s Critique of the MBTI Is Uninformed | CelebrityTypes
> ...


I failed stats. Can you speak in plain English please?


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

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"


----------



## zanah0dia (Apr 8, 2015)

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...)


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

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.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> 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?


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

zanah0dia said:


> 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> 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


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

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


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

alittlebear said:


> 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.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> 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.




Nightmaker81 said:


> 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... 

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.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

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


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

alittlebear said:


> 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.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

alittlebear said:


> 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. 

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.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Then I don't know what you are seconding, because I completely disagree with the first half of this sentiment.
> 
> 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.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

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.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Again, it's not so much universal acceptance as it is universal applicability that's important - that someone finds it makes sense to them is simply not sufficient to support a theory that's intended to apply to people at large. Of course there can be knowledge beyond the realm of the scientific. But my point is, something cannot be a valuable tool if it doesn't accord with the reality said tool is to apply towards. If the theory says things that are wrong about reality, then it is a poor tool - and it is here where I think people's personal experience proves an unreliable means for evaluating whether the theory's claims are wrong, instead seeing what "confirms" the viewpoint they're seeking to prove right and ignoring the flaws. The issue is not so much personal knowledge vs. shared knowledge as it is a caution against believing without good reason to believe. That's why I've framed this primarily in terms of accuracy rather than the scientific method, because it goes beyond what is or isn't scientifically sound.
> 
> The inherent subjectivity of personality is obviously a problem that any quest for objective information on personality has to deal with. But keeping it wholly on the personal/subjective realm means it can't reasonably be applied to anyone else save the self, since you can't truly examine the mind of another - and then how are we to know if what I call introversion matches up with what you call introversion, for instance? The point being, the claims that form MBTI theory are ones about what people are actually like - that people with a T preference "use cause-and-effect reasoning", for example, or that Si-dominant types "have a storehouse of internal data" which is "fresh and complete, ready for retrieval as needed" (both claims from Introduction To Type). The relative merit of the theory, then, hinges on how true such statements are - it's a question of whether these people _actually do the things the theory says they will_. That's a matter for objective evaluation; the realm of the subjective is simply insufficient for the purpose of testing those claims.
> *
> ...


You summarized that point really well


----------



## dracula (Apr 5, 2015)

StunnedFox said:


> Again, it's not so much universal acceptance as it is universal applicability that's important - that someone finds it makes sense to them is simply not sufficient to support a theory that's intended to apply to people at large. Of course there can be knowledge beyond the realm of the scientific. But my point is, something cannot be a valuable tool if it doesn't accord with the reality said tool is to apply towards. If the theory says things that are wrong about reality, then it is a poor tool - and it is here where I think people's personal experience proves an unreliable means for evaluating whether the theory's claims are wrong, instead seeing what "confirms" the viewpoint they're seeking to prove right and ignoring the flaws. The issue is not so much personal knowledge vs. shared knowledge as it is a caution against believing without good reason to believe. That's why I've framed this primarily in terms of accuracy rather than the scientific method, because it goes beyond what is or isn't scientifically sound.
> 
> The inherent subjectivity of personality is obviously a problem that any quest for objective information on personality has to deal with. But keeping it wholly on the personal/subjective realm means it can't reasonably be applied to anyone else save the self, since you can't truly examine the mind of another - and then how are we to know if what I call introversion matches up with what you call introversion, for instance? The point being, the claims that form MBTI theory are ones about what people are actually like - that people with a T preference "use cause-and-effect reasoning", for example, or that Si-dominant types "have a storehouse of internal data" which is "fresh and complete, ready for retrieval as needed" (both claims from Introduction To Type). The relative merit of the theory, then, hinges on how true such statements are - it's a question of whether these people _actually do the things the theory says they will_. That's a matter for objective evaluation; the realm of the subjective is simply insufficient for the purpose of testing those claims.
> 
> ...


Of course one person is not enough to support a theory, but for example this forum has almost 90,000 registered users and if my somewhat existent photographic memory isn't entirely wrong, the test results of the 16personalities online test have been shared on Facebook about 415,000 times. Of course some of those people might not find the results accurate but we can argue that a large proportion likely does as I doubt many would share something they find totally inaccurate. In addition, the comments I've read on that mostly praise the accuracy. Thus the sample is still large enough to give the theory _some_ support. Moreover, I never claimed it was scientific anyway so obviously there are flaws as you've been saying - however, it does show that the theory is applicable. Getting my support from personal experience once again (which I know has its disadvantages), I made two people who know me incredibly well and are not communicating with each other on a regular basis type me and they got ENTP. One of those people had heard of the MBTI that very same day. You referred to this issue as "a caution against believing without a good reason to believe" and I find that accepting the theory _to some extent_ is acceptable by using one's personal knowledge. Only those who think of a theory as The Truth or even somewhere near that should certainly have proper scientific evidence to back up their claim as it will no longer pass as a subjective opinion. 

There is obviously the problem of subjectivity, as you said. Introversion is a brilliant example, actually, as some people think of it as shyness or social awkwardness and some (including the MBTI theory) simply as getting one's energy from occasional isolation from people. In this case I think that to find a theory applicable one should definitely research what the terminology means in the immediate context which it has been placed in. At least when it comes to the MBTI the terms have, to my best knowledge, been explained sufficiently enough to be understood by those who are interested enough to research them. 

Naturally examining the theory objectively is encouraged and obviously a valid way of proving something - otherwise there would not be such a thing as diagnosing people for mental disorders, for example. However, the context still remains somewhat important - both the cultural one and smaller ones such as in what kind of a family one has been raised. For example, it has been demonstrated by Earley in 1993 (had to look up the name from my psychology book) that the level of conformity depends on the group the individual is placed in. In addition, for example personality/anxiety/affective disorders I briefly mentioned also play a role in one's behavior. We can only assume that these apply to all or most of the MBTI types, depending on the person of course, and when investigating the theory objectively all these kinds of aspects should be taken into account. Thus objective analysis becomes more difficult as one should distinguish between situational factors and dispositional factors (the MBTI type, in this case). In a longitudinal study eliminating the situational factors is obviously not an option and they are definitely not the same for each individual observed so just because gaining scientific validity for the theory is not the easiest job imaginable it doesn't mean the theory should be immediately disregarded. 

I'll take my turn to apologize if I'm not making enough sense or if I'm by accident ignoring something you said, I'm off my meds today so my attention span is a bit better than that of a goldfish.


----------



## TimeWaster (Apr 26, 2015)

That's why I'm a Keirseyan. 

MBTI and it's Jungian functions are plagued by the Forer affect.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

Another great article. I didn't post it before since it wasn't a research article but I think it has some relevance now: 
The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless | Smart News | Smithsonian

The issue that I have with MBTI is that scientific studies do come short on it. There is some correlation but the way people use it is what troubles me.

It's an extreme but what if I started using tarot cards to determine who I should marry because some tarot card got something vaguely right about me. 

The level with MBTI is used is what bothers me. It's really not that scientific, it's fun to look at results and talk about psychology on a deeper level, but to use it as an actual method to analyze personality and to define functions when many of them come up short in correlations is imo a bad thing. We shouldn't do that and be realistic with MBTI and that it's not really valid and it's also some huge industry that makes a lot of money so they do a good job of trying to put out it's believable.


----------



## MisterDantes (Nov 24, 2013)

Do you get anything from telling us about the lack of statistical evidence of MBTI in it's own forum? 
All who have even the slightest knowledge about MBTI and cognition will know there aren't much raw data to back things up with. Yet why do we care? Well one reason you stated yourself: It's fun.
But there's also the fact that people actually find use of it in everyday life. Even if the theory itself might not hold mathematical validity, people still might learn perspective, critical thinking and/or self-awareness then they do get something valuable out of it. 
Then it does serve a valid purpose, even if the theory does not. 
Placebo is a pill of nothing, but it still serve it's purpose, right?

It doesn't matter if graphs and numbers disproves something if it actually does exist and is right in front of you. if it works, it works, regardless if it's proven (or disproven) by abstract figures or by your own observations.
If MBTI shits on your data or make ugly, asymetric curves, then you can discard it and move on. If you find some intuitive value in it's theory then its all good for you.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Hotaru said:


> MBTI, Socionics, Temperaments and especially the Enneagram are not a scientific theory.
> 
> Anyone flailing to convince you otherwise is just deluding themselves as this is not something valued by the psychological and scientific community. ...
> 
> It can be taken seriously if people stop considering the four letters dichotomies as valid. ...


As explained (with copious citations) in the posts I've already linked to — notably this one and this one — the MBTI's scientific validity and reliability now have decades of studies behind them, conducted by many respectable members of the "psychological and scientific community."

Among those members are McCrae and Costa, the leading Big Five psychologists, who long ago acknowledged that the MBTI passed muster in the validity and reliability departments, and also acknowledged that each typology might have things to teach the other.

You're free to have your own _opinions_ on various aspects of the MBTI, Hotaru, but the foregoing statements are _facts_.

And meanwhile, it's the eight "cognitive functions" that have almost no scientific support. As noted in the linked posts, 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.


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

just so you know the psych community is all pseudoscience. lmao

just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean it is untrue.

after all this is the "mind" that we are studying, which is not something that exist physically. (so how do you study it?, well as of right now we still aren't too sure.( not even sure if we ever will understand it)

Dr Nardi's research proves that there is a difference between the "types"

Call it whatever you want but there is a difference in how the brain works according to the "types" ( call it whatever you want)

go do a test with the "big five" which is all data no theory, i highly doubt it would get anything close to this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

TimeWaster said:


> That's why I'm a Keirseyan.
> 
> MBTI and it's Jungian functions are plagued by the Forer affect.


In the spoiler is the section of my previously-linked post that addresses the Forer charges.


* *




I think anyone who points to the MBTI as a good example of the Forer effect can't be very familiar with the MBTI. To go all the way back to its roots, Jung viewed temperament as, to a substantial degree, the source of people's _crazinesses and difficulties_ as much as their strengths. And I'd say all the respectable modern MBTI sources devote a significant amount of attention to the common weaknesses associated with each type.

What's more, because of the MBTI's dichotomous structure, deciding that any particular MBTI preference fits you well involves, by definition, a corresponding decision that the opposite pole _doesn't_ fit you that well. When I read MBTI profiles, I recognize myself in INTJ descriptions, yes, but in reading descriptions of some of the other types, my reaction — far from a Forer effect — is often more along the lines of, yes! those are those people who drive me up the wall, or feel alien to me.

I'm not saying that someone looking to discredit the MBTI as a Forer phenomenon couldn't locate some websites where the descriptions tend to be on the vague and/or rosy side. But that's not typical of MBTI sources, in my experience, and it certainly wasn't Myers' perspective.

_Close to half_ of each type description in the third (most recent) edition of the MBTI Manual is devoted to "Potential Areas for Growth" — i.e., typical _weaknesses_ — for each type. As one example, here's that portion of the INTJ portrait:

Sometimes life circumstances have not supported INTJs in the development and expression of their Thinking and Intuitive preferences.


If they have not developed their _Thinking_, INTJs may not have reliable ways to translate their valuable insights into achievable realities.
If they have not developed their _Intuition_, they may not take in enough information or take in only that information that fits their insights. Then they may make ill-founded decisions based on limited or idiosyncratic information.
If INTJs do not find a place where they can use their gifts and be appreciated for their contributions, they usually feel frustrated and may


Become aloof and abrupt, not giving enough information about their internal processing
Be critical of those who do not see their vision quickly
Become single-minded and unyielding in pursuing it
It is natural for INTJs to give less attention to their non-preferred Sensing and Feeling parts. If they neglect these too much, however, they may


Overlook details or facts that do not fit into their Intuitive patterns
Engage in "intellectual games," quibbling over abstract issues ad terms that have little meaning or relevance to others
Not give enough weight to the impacts of their decisions on individuals
Fail to give as much praise or intimate connection as others desire
Under great stress, INTJs can overindulge in Sensing activities – watching TV reruns, playing cards, overeating – or become overly focused on specific details in their environment that they normally do not notice or usually see as unimportant (housecleaning, organizing cupboards).​


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

It's embarrassing how seriously some people take MBTI.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> You're free to have your own _opinions_ on various aspects of the MBTI, Hotaru, but the foregoing statements are _facts_.


Just because there's been studies about it, doesn't mean it's a validated theory.
Feel free to discuss your ideas in any psychological circle, they won't be acknowledged as significant or valid.

From your source:

"The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has become the most widely used personality instrument for *nonpsychiatric populations*."

As long as the system you and your two favorite theorists defend won't explain anything in depth, keeps on distorting Jung's theory and uses shallow factors like "hypersensitivity = F" or "being planned and responsible = J" I will pay no mind to it. You can continue to quote me to oblivion but the only valid cognitive dichotomies are those indicated by the functions and unless you're able to explain why a Fi user and a Fe user are miles apart despite being only one letter away, I won't listen to your reasons.

I respect your right to have an opinion but your posts don't convince me.

I prefer facts that explain how an individual's mind works rather than a stubborn defense of the validity of a test whose first two questions are "Are you the first to react to the telephone ringing?" and "Do you get involved with TV soaps?".


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Am I the only one who sees the obvious flaw with putting any weight in the "correlation coefficient" ? 


@Nightmaker81 Did you even read those articles you posted? I've never seen worse "science."


----------



## Tom Soy Sauce (Jul 25, 2013)

A better question is do people actually _care_ if there is no scientific validity? Or even validity among psychologists? If you're actually trying to pass MBTI off as scientifically valid I think you're missing the point. 

Arguing over which method is more valid and consistent (cognitive function approach vs dichotomous approach) in a system that is at best somewhat observable in people, and at worst a pseudoscience, is like arguing over whether which stories in the Bible are the most likely to have actually happened. There's consistencies and inconsistencies in both methods and people will continue to use them incorrectly.


----------



## gmaslin (Feb 28, 2015)

*This guy* seems to think the MBTI has value. If you track through his earlier posts on the subject *like this one* and others, he sounds like he might have some cred. He also explains the possible reasons when and why it might not be conclusive. Check him out.


----------



## Tom Soy Sauce (Jul 25, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> 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


Just because people misuse the cognitive function approach in such a manner does not invalidate it's relevancy. You're insinuating that stupid things people say about the theory means the theory itself is bogus. The same could be said for those who say "He used logic in that conversation = Thinker. She cried in front of me and wanted emotional support = Feeler." 

You will always have people misinterpreting theoretical observations as things that can be analyzed in real life. A lot of people on here simply don't understand that the MBTI framework cannot be used in every instance. Most of the things people discuss here have more to do with personal tastes or interests. I legitimately saw a thread once asking "Which type is the most likely to be able to do 100 push-ups?" Like, are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Am I the only one who sees the obvious flaw with putting any weight in the "correlation coefficient" ?
> 
> 
> @_Nightmaker81_ Did you even read those articles you posted? I've never seen worse "science."



Could you elaborate


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Hotaru said:


> From your source:
> 
> "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has become the most widely used personality instrument for *nonpsychiatric populations*."


Just FYI, there's a big difference between "psychological" and "psychiatric." That reference to "nonpsychiatric populations" means _people without psychological disorders_.

Now you know.



Hotaru said:


> I prefer facts that explain how an individual's mind works rather than a stubborn defense of the validity of a test whose first two questions are "Are you the first to react to the telephone ringing?" and "Do you get involved with TV soaps?".


The online test with the "TV soaps" question is the HumanMetrics test.

The test that has decades of studies in support of its scientific reliability and validity — including a very large (11,000-subject) recent study (previously linked to and quoted) that concluded that it was basically on a par with the Big Five in terms of its psychometric respectability — is the official MBTI.

Did you really not know that?


----------



## gmaslin (Feb 28, 2015)

*This guy* seems to think the MBTI has value. If you track through his earlier posts on the subject *like this one* and others, he sounds like he might have some cred. He also explains the possible reasons when and why it might not be conclusive. Check him out.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Yeah MBTI so far doesn't have the most stellar record of scientific validity. That is because the indicator itself has a pretty high rate of mistype...... that's why it is just an indicator, it kind of tries to tease out your cognitive profile in a roundabout way but it's really just a sophisticated educated guess. 

That doesn't make the theory behind it in any way invalid. Research into cognitive functions is actually becoming closer to becoming scientifically verifiable than the Big 5/OCEAN type tests. There is at least one researcher, Dario Nardi, who is beginning to show that when people's types are decently verified, people of the same type have significantly similar neurological patterns. And that the cognitive functions themselves tend to show signature patterns in brain activity. 

I haven't finished my undergraduate, let alone my graduate studies, in the cognitive sciences. But when I do I will likely have my own research to add in the matter. Because of a ton of people like you who throw away the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

oh man this is comedy


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

_Moving onto the bigger issue with the Myers-Briggs: Decision consistency. The Myers-Briggs proclaims a reliability (calculated using coefficient alpha) of between .75-.85 on all of its scales (see Myers-Briggs testing manual). These are general, industry standard reliability coefficients(indicating that if you were to retest, you would get a similar score, but not exact). However, the Myers-Briggs makes additional claims about bucketing individuals into 1 of 16 possible personality types. That you can shift up or down a few points if you were to retake the test on any of the four distinct scales means that you may be higher on one scale than another simply through retaking the test due to measurement error. In fact, literature shows that your personality type will change for 50% of individuals simply through retesting. (Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Brigg Type inventory, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and research, summer, 2005). This result indicates very low decision consistency. The low decision consistency is also a mathematical inevitability given 16 personality profiles using 4 scales and scale reliability around .8.

...
The best correlations between job performance and personality assessments is about .3 (indicating about 9% of the variance in a persons job performance can be accounted for by a personality assessment). That is the BEST personality assessments can do in terms of job performance... and a correlation of .3 is not worth very much (considering that tests like ACT or the SAT can correlate upwards of .7 with first year college GPA under ideal circumstances).

_http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cg...sdt=0%2C5#search="myers briggs psychometrics"_
_Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. - ResearchGate
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

I honestly can't believe I'm arguing for using the correlation coefficient. It's like the basics of all statistics. It feels like I'm arguing against anti-vaxxers at this point. At least this isn't causing the spread of measles. 

Here guys, a bunch of articles detailing a lot of stuff that's been addressed in this topic. Some may not be full accessed because PhD students want money but the abstracts all say the same thing in terms of Myers Briggs research.

The only research article that has supported this posted by that one dude is from people who do research specifically with personality tests. I'd want to put something favorable out too so I wouldn't lose my funding and income either, and not only the article the only thing the entire article says is "Hey guys MBTI is as good as Big 5! That doesn't really follow a bell curve or have a high coefficient either, but at least it's not astrology LOL"

Guys no one in academia takes this seriously. If I'm going to get into the discussion of why the correlation coefficient is something useful and not some fancy devil number that doesn't capture emotions I'm not going to argue. Psych goes hand in hand with statistics, and it's what helps make it a valid field of study. It's what helped us stop doing exorcisms for Emily Rose and instead prescribe anti psychotics.

But whatever you guys do you. The articles and research is all out there and I've talked to several people who are in research in psych, and from the gist I get with this, nobody takes this seriously and for good reason. It's not only the fact it isn't repeatable, but it's also the fact the cognitive functions don't do a good job at explaining things.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> The only dichotomies that have any good correlations are E and I and the rest are like .3 correlations. The dichotomies themselves don't directly relate to the functions but they share some stuff since that's the functions build a dichotomy. Like an ENTJ and an ENTP the J/P dichotomy directly leads to a Te VS Ti dichotomy.
> 
> If we're throwing out all the functions and making this a dichotomy based test, we're throwing out like a lot of the theory of Myers Briggs. I honestly don't know if it's any Myers Briggs anymore and the only high correlation is E and I. So the only lead useful interpretation I get is that extroverts act one way introverts act another way but we intuitively knew that for a while. While the T/F, N/S, and J/P dichotomies hold low values.


If you're one of those people who thinks that, because it's _just an internet forum HAW HAW_, it's OK to just make shit up, you should think again. Lying to us in forum posts shouldn't be any more acceptable to you than lying to acquaintances of yours in meatspace.

So I ask you again, Nightmaker: The post of yours that I quoted in my last post referred to some kind of study where they supposedly focused on "the jungian functions" and "told a Ti user to think and to see if they'd think like a Ti person and from their studies the correlation between how they thought and approached the world was very low." *Can you point us to that study, or did you just make it up?*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> That's actually why the covariance was made. That's why a bimodal(two normal distributions for two modes for a time and size dependence) is very favorable. There are ways to make sure these factors are accounted for, but none really are with many of the Myers Briggs studies.
> 
> The whole field independence thing just means when they tried to test for Ti with Ti users or Fe or whatever sub function they found a low correlation. Unless they blatantly did the math wrong it should all line up and account for it in terms of all the factors. It's hard to describe the math without going into jargon and I'm not trying to be condescending here, it's just that statistics is a really legitimate subsection of math and there's a lot of ways it protects itself so it can work as a study.



The issue to me is that it seems like cherry picking in the sense that if 19 factors have a significant correlation, but the study is potentially focusing on the one factor that has a weak correlation.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> The only dichotomies that have any good correlations are E and I and the rest are like .3 correlations. The dichotomies themselves don't directly relate to the functions but they share some stuff since that's the functions build a dichotomy. Like an ENTJ and an ENTP the J/P dichotomy directly leads to a Te VS Ti dichotomy.
> 
> If we're throwing out all the functions and making this a dichotomy based test, we're throwing out like a lot of the theory of Myers Briggs. I honestly don't know if it's any Myers Briggs anymore and the only high correlation is E and I. So the only lead useful interpretation I get is that extroverts act one way introverts act another way but we intuitively knew that for a while. While the T/F, N/S, and J/P dichotomies hold low values.


All you're doing is continuing to display your ignorance. The psychometric support for the S/N, T/F and J/P dichotomies isn't substantially lower than for E/I — and again, I've already pointed you to stats that indicate that the validity and reliability of all four MBTI dimensions is more or less on a par with the Big Five dimensions they correlate with.

And as for your claim that "throwing out all the functions" somehow undercuts the scientific respectability of the _dichotomy-centric_ MBTI, you couldn't be more wrong about that. Below are links to the official MBTI "Manual Supplements" that talk about the validity and reliability support for the MBTI. As you'd see if you actually cared enough about the truth to take a look, _all_ of the support cited relates to the _four dichotomies_. The so-called "cognitive functions" are _not even mentioned_.

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

reckful said:


> If you're one of those people who thinks that, because it's _just an internet forum HAW HAW_, it's OK to just make shit up, you should think again. Lying to us in forum posts shouldn't be any more acceptable to you than lying to acquaintances of yours in meatspace.
> 
> So I ask you again, Nightmaker: The post of yours that I quoted in my last post referred to some kind of study where they supposedly focused on "the jungian functions" and "told a Ti user to think and to see if they'd think like a Ti person and from their studies the correlation between how they thought and approached the world was very low." *Can you point us to that study, or did you just make it up?*


It's literally Myers Briggs theory dude. I interpreted it because not everything has to be exactly spelled out in a research paper and it usually isn't. The ENTJ VS ENTP J/P dichotomy directly has a Te VS Ti dichotomy. That's just Myers Briggs itself. If we're ignoring that we're not really arguing Myers Briggs but a bunch of dichotomies. 



PaladinX said:


> The issue to me is that it seems like cherry picking in the sense that if 19 factors have a significant correlation, but the study is potentially focusing on the one factor that has a weak correlation.


I'm not really sure what 19 factors you are talking about though. There are factors but they're usually dealt for with a lot of tricks in stats. So could you define what exactly is being cherry picked. Among the 4 dichotomies T/F, N/S, and J/P all have weak correlation, E/I doesn't.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

reckful said:


> All you're doing is continuing to display your ignorance. The psychometric support for the S/N, T/F and J/P dichotomies isn't substantially lower than for E/I — and again, I've already pointed you to stats that indicate that the validity and reliability of all four MBTI dimensions is more or less on a par with the Big Five dimensions they correlate with.
> 
> And as for your claim that "throwing out all the functions" somehow undercuts the scientific respectability of the _dichotomy-centric_ MBTI, you couldn't be more wrong about that. Below are links to the official MBTI "Manual Supplements" that talk about the validity and reliability support for the MBTI. As you'd see if you actually cared enough about the truth to take a look, _all_ of the support cited relates to the _four dichotomies_. The so-called "cognitive functions" are _not even mentioned_.
> 
> ...


Ok that's great about the Big 5. Now does the Big 5 also follow a normal distribution.

The MBTI doesn't talk about cognitive functions then I'm not really sure if they can call themselves MBTI. You have your dichotomies but the whole reason they're there is to substantiate cognitive functions. It's literally within the theory of itself. The 4 letters don't mean something, but they lead to the functions beneath, and I'd imagine they have to incorporate that unless they're throwing away huge chunk of MBTI.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> It's literally Myers Briggs theory dude. I interpreted it because not everything has to be exactly spelled out in a research paper and it usually isn't. The ENTJ VS ENTP J/P dichotomy directly has a Te VS Ti dichotomy. That's just Myers Briggs itself. If we're ignoring that we're not really arguing Myers Briggs but a bunch of dichotomies.


No, it's not "Myers Briggs theory dude." What you're refusing to admit is that you TOTALLY FUCKING LIED to the thread readers by making up a STUDY THAT NEVER EXISTED and claiming that the researchers found that the "correlations" were "very low."

Here's what you said:



Nightmaker81 said:


> they took people out to see how they approached life based on the jungian functions. They told a Ti user to think and to see if they'd think like a Ti person and from their studies the correlation between how they thought and approached the world was very low.


That's not Nightmaker "interpreting Myers Briggs theory." That's Nightmaker demonstrating a TOTAL, DESPICABLE LACK OF INTEGRITY by making up a story that there were actual researchers who "took people out" and "told a Ti user to think and to see if they'd think like a Ti person," and telling us that "from their studies" — THEIR FUCKING "STUDIES," NIGHTMAKER — those nonexistent researchers found that "the correlation between how they thought and approached the world was very low."

I think it's fair to say that your credibility at PerC (at least) is gone.

And you should fucking well be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> It's literally Myers Briggs theory dude. I interpreted it because not everything has to be exactly spelled out in a research paper and it usually isn't. The ENTJ VS ENTP J/P dichotomy directly has a Te VS Ti dichotomy. That's just Myers Briggs itself. If we're ignoring that we're not really arguing Myers Briggs but a bunch of dichotomies.


Then I don't think you understand MBTI type theory. The way I see is that Jung is the originator of the main ideas, then there are 3 main branches from there: Socionics, MBTI (subsequently Keirsey), and Cognitive Functions (a la Berens, Nardi, et al). The J/P dichotomy has a meaning in and of itself. This is where criticisms of type dynamics and cognitive functions come in.

While MBTI does have a relationship to Jungian function-attitudes, it is primarily based on the four dichotomies.



Nightmaker81 said:


> Ok that's great about the Big 5. Now does the Big 5 also follow a normal distribution.
> 
> The MBTI doesn't talk about cognitive functions then I'm not really sure if they can call themselves MBTI. You have your dichotomies but the whole reason they're there is to substantiate cognitive functions. It's literally within the theory of itself. The 4 letters don't mean something, but they lead to the functions beneath, and I'd imagine they have to incorporate that unless they're throwing away huge chunk of MBTI.


This is inaccurate. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an assessment that helps indicate one's preferences based on four dichotomies (3 of which are based on Jung's Psychological Types). The results of the assessment are a hypothesis of which four preferences (letters, not functions) relate to the individual based on how they responded to the assessment items. Type dynamics is the part of MBTI type theory that tries to relate the letters to "cognitive functions." This is the part that has no scientific validity according to Reynierse.




> I'm not really sure what 19 factors you are talking about though. There are factors but they're usually dealt for with a lot of tricks in stats. So could you define what exactly is being cherry picked. Among the 4 dichotomies T/F, N/S, and J/P all have weak correlation, E/I doesn't.


The "19 factors" tie back into the earlier analogies.

Let's backtrack. If I'm understanding you right and continuing to focus field independence correlation, you are saying that Thinking is not scientifically valid because it only has 0.37 correlation to field independence. Is that correct? If so, is a correlation to field independence truly the deciding factor in whether or not Thinking is scientifically valid?


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

reckful said:


> No, it's not "Myers Briggs theory dude." What you're refusing to admit is that you TOTALLY FUCKING LIED to the thread readers by making up a STUDY THAT NEVER EXISTED and claiming that the researchers found that the "correlations" were "very low."
> 
> Here's what you said:
> 
> ...


I read the definition of field dependence and found examples of it in classrooms: 

Here is the definition of field dependence: 
_In the field-dependent/independent model of cognitive or learning style, a field-dependent learning style is defined by a relative inability to distinguish detail from other information around it. It can be compared to a field-independent learning style, which is defined by a tendency to separate details from the surrounding context.

_From there I looked at exampls of field dependence and saw how they did it in the classroom: 
http://www.academia.edu/6502873/Field_Dependence_and_Independence_in_English_as_a_Second_Language_ESL_

Deriving from that, is that you have a variable and you see how it matches up in real world situations. You have a variable you're testing and you're seeing how much it matches up to the described theory. In the sense of J/P you're going to have a Ti VS Te dichotomy. You test either dichotomy by going out and seeing how they match up when tested since that's the actual definition of field dependence and they used that word a lot. 

You're delusional dude. I didn't make huge jumps in logic, I read the definition of field dependence and how it actually happened in the real world. I don't have a problem backing up the things I researched, because I actually did research things. 

If you want you can tell me how you would test for field dependence with something like MBTI. Because I don't really see any other way then testing it in a setting where you can see how well a person matches up to the variable.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Then I don't think you understand MBTI type theory. The way I see is that Jung is the originator of the main ideas, then there are 3 main branches from there: Socionics, MBTI (subsequently Keirsey), and Cognitive Functions (a la Berens, Nardi, et al). The J/P dichotomy has a meaning in and of itself. This is where criticisms of type dynamics and cognitive functions come in.
> 
> While MBTI does have a relationship to Jungian function-attitudes, it is primarily based on the four dichotomies.
> 
> ...


Yeah because a correlation coefficient means a high covariance. A low covariance makes a relationship linear which is why it's a really nice thing along with correlation coefficient. If you know the correlation coefficient and you know a lot of things and the study itself just comes back what I was saying the apple analogy. There is some correlation but it's so low I can't reasonably say that a worm in an apple is a common occurrence. Same thing here, and because it's a low correlation it's hard to justify that Myers Briggs theory translates well


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> Yeah because a correlation coefficient means a high covariance. A low covariance makes a relationship linear which is why it's a really nice thing along with correlation coefficient. If you know the correlation coefficient and you know a lot of things and the study itself just comes back what I was saying the apple analogy. There is some correlation but it's so low I can't reasonably say that a worm in an apple is a common occurrence. Same thing here, and because it's a low correlation it's hard to justify that Myers Briggs theory translates well


Ok, but what makes field independence the deciding factor of scientific validation? Is there no other way to measure its validity?


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Ok, but what makes field independence the deciding factor of scientific validation? Is there no other way to measure its validity?


I don't know. I'm not a psych major or do research in it. From what I can tell field dependence is used for classroom type things and has been used for things similar to this and it seems to have a history of reliability. There is a lot more going onto field dependence/independence but it seems to come down to field dependence and independence of being two sides of the same coin and being a different way of gathering information and they're both derived from observations and the accuracy with matching whatever variable you're testing.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> I don't know. I'm not a psych major or do research in it. From what I can tell field dependence is used for classroom type things and has been used for things similar to this and it seems to have a history of reliability. There is a lot more going onto field dependence/independence but it seems to come down to field dependence and independence of being two sides of the same coin and being a different way of gathering information and they're both derived from observations and the accuracy with matching whatever variable you're testing.


Fair enough. But then aren't you just assuming that because Thinking has a low validity with field independence that it is scientifically invalid. So how do we know that the researcher is accurate in his conclusions if other measures are not considered or at least explaining why that specific measure is the de facto measure of validity as it pertains to Thinking/Feeling?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> You're delusional dude. I didn't make huge jumps in logic, I read the definition of field dependence and how it actually happened in the real world. I don't have a problem backing up the things I researched, because I actually did research things.


I'm not delusional, and as anyone who's looked at the post of yours I'm talking about knows, you're a liar, pure and simple. And if there's anything worse than a liar, it's a liar who, after being called out on his fraudulence, tries to pretend he didn't say what he said.

Your lack of integrity and lack of respect for your fellow forumites couldn't be much clearer.

Once again, with feeling: _You should be ashamed of yourself._


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Fair enough. But then aren't you just assuming that because Thinking has a low validity with field independence that it is scientifically invalid. So how do we know that the researcher is accurate in his conclusions if other measures are not considered or at least explaining why that specific measure is the de facto measure of validity as it pertains to Thinking/Feeling?


You're going to have to look into the theory of field in/dependence itself. But from what I've seen there isn't any major arguments against using it in a classroom setting. So if field in/dependence is valid, then the correlation coefficient should be too and that should give a lot of indicators about the validity of the dichotomy or dipoles. 



reckful said:


> I'm not delusional, and as anyone who's looked at the post of yours I'm talking about knows, you're a liar, pure and simple. And if there's anything worse than a liar, it's a liar who, after being called out on his fraudulence, tries to pretend he didn't say what he said.
> 
> Your lack of integrity and lack of respect for your fellow forumites couldn't be much clearer.
> 
> Once again, with feeling: _You should be ashamed of yourself._


I admit what I said is what I said, but I said I gathered that from how field dependence/independence is done. Like I said I honestly don't know how else you're going to test a dichotomy like that and if you have an answer feel free to tell me.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> You have your dichotomies but the whole reason they're there is to substantiate cognitive functions. ... The 4 letters don't mean something, but they lead to the functions beneath, and I'd imagine they have to incorporate that unless they're throwing away huge chunk of MBTI.


Oh, yeah, right, I forgot. Those dichotomies are just "letter codes" that don't really mean anything by themselves. They just "lead to the functions beneath."

The Nightmaker Ignorance Parade marches on.

For your information, and for starters, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. And in the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X (the function descriptions) as the essence of the book, and noted that he'd stuck Chapter X at the back for a reason.

There's no question that Myers and the official MBTI folks have always given a certain amount of what I've often characterized as "lip service" to the cognitive functions, but there's also no question that the dichotomies have always been, and remain, what the official MBTI is really all about, and here's a long discussion of that — just in case you have any interest in knowing what's really going on — from this long INTJforum post:

Meanwhile, for anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total _22 pages_. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists _solely_ of a half-page table for each function, for a total of _four pages_. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers _ignored_ (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses _almost exclusively_ on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding _any results_ in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations _almost exclusively_ involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a _wide margin_) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So, on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was _really about_.

The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI _Step II_ test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." _All the rest_ of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.​
In light of all that, for anyone to take the position (as you have) that the functions are what the MBTI is really about is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly. That's the mythical version of the MBTI that the likes of Quenk, Berens and Nardi have been peddling for years now — where the dichotomies are mostly just "letter codes" that lead you to the more significant "cognitive functions." But Myers and the official MBTI materials have always been heavily dichotomy-dominated and, as Reynierse (among others) has rightly noted, there's now lots of respectable data in support of the dichotomy-centric MBTI, and virtually _no_ respectable body of support for "type dynamics."


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

You're still going to test the dichotomies the same way. If you're doing the J/P, N/S, T/F directly, you're going to see how many people match up to your variables.

The stats lead to saying it's a low correlation of coefficient. I don't think you'll be able to find a curve that really looks like a bell curve for this and that's a huge problem. You can say that it's more than just a bell curve and the theory is still valid otherwise, but I disagree big time on that, and I don't really see what's stopping me from using other things. If I were to find a small correlation between tarot cards somehow, I can use a lot of the same arguments. They're still tarot curds and going to have a really high divergence in results. In the same way if you're going to have a high divergence in results for these dichotomies and they don't follow a bell, their reliability is severely limited. 

I know you mentioned how it's as accurate as the Big 5, but I ask again, does the big 5 also follow a bell curve/a high coefficient?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nightmaker81 said:


> You're still going to test the dichotomies the same way. If you're doing the J/P, N/S, T/F directly, you're going to see how many people match up to your variables.
> 
> The stats lead to saying it's a low correlation of coefficient. I don't think you'll be able to find a curve that really looks like a bell curve for this and that's a huge problem. You can say that it's more than just a bell curve and the theory is still valid otherwise, but I disagree big time on that, and I don't really see what's stopping me from using other things. If I were to find a small correlation between tarot cards somehow, I can use a lot of the same arguments. They're still tarot curds and going to have a really high divergence in results. In the same way if you're going to have a high divergence in results for these dichotomies and they don't follow a bell, their reliability is severely limited.
> 
> I know you mentioned how it's as accurate as the Big 5, but I ask again, does the big 5 also follow a bell curve/a high coefficient?


I already pointed out to you how bogus your misguided "bell curve" criterion is. But you don't care, right? You're just making word salads.

And now you've said that, if you look at "J/P, N/S, T/F" and "see how many people match up to your variables" the "stats lead to saying it's a low correlation of coefficient."

Would you kindly point us to those "stats" that show a "low correlation of coefficient" for S/N, T/F and J/P?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Nightmaker81 said:


> It's not that they don't think thinking is measurable it's that from what I understand they took people out to see how they approached life based on the jungian functions. They told a Ti user to think and to see if they'd think like a Ti person and from their studies the correlation between how they thought and approached the world was very low.


Well, I have some questions now. 

However, I think looking at the study would be a less bothersome manner of answering them. Do you have a link anyplace? XD


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Uruk Hai said:


> Well, I have some questions now.
> 
> However, I think looking at the study would be a less bothersome manner of answering them. Do you have a link anyplace? XD


Just in case your question was serious... see this post and this post.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Just to be clear, isn't this the study in question (from the OP)?
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs

The quote there is this:


> Somewhat reminiscent of the field dependence-independence distinction, for the T-F dimension, thinking involves logical reasoning and decision processes, while feeling entails a more subjective, interpersonal approach. Thomas (1983) reported a correlation between field independence and thinking of 0.37, suggesting a small amount of commonality.


That reads to me as the author saying T/F is described in a fashion similar to field dependence/independence, and then going on to see how well the two line up. So firstly, @Nightmaker81, no J/P reference is made here - we're quite explicitly testing the T/F dichotomy, irrespective of any differences between Ti and Te that the MBTI theory might also assert. Secondly, as @PaladinX has rightly pointed out, I don't see why the validity of T/F depends upon how well it lines up with this other external concept - even the author here only believes it to be "somewhat reminiscent" of it, so we shouldn't necessarily expect a high correlation between the T/F dimension and field dependence/independence anyway. 
---------------------------
Not to cloud the discussion further, but I think it's worth reiterating a point I raised earlier. Both critical publications linked to in the OP base a good portion of their analysis on the predicate of dichotomies, rather than continuous scales, yet (if it wasn't the case in the '90s, when those articles were published) there's good reason, given the nature of the theory, for eschewing the purely dichotomous approach to understanding each dimension, in favour of seeing it as four continua: indeed, most of the theory (type dynamics included, whatever the evident flaws with it) depends upon the notion of degree of preference being true, which requires us to understand that, say, some are more E than others (or N, F, J, whatever). 

A second development I think worth noting is that the MBTI Step II canvasses, for at least some of the facets (is that the right MBTI term? I know that's the Big 5 term for their sub-categories...), the possibility of change over time, particularly in relation to people who score in the "midzone" on a given facet. I think that at least brings into question the criticisms pertaining to test-retest reliability - though really, those are questionable in light of the continuum view of each dimension anyway, and a worthwhile study (if one hasn't already been done) would be to see to what degree people's measures of clarity of preference vary between test and retest (since that's the closest we have to an approximation of the degree of preference, apart from type dynamics for S/N and T/F, which I think can be ruled out as a reliable source of information on that front). 
--------------------------- @draculaoverlord - it may be best to abandon our discussion from earlier, since we seem to be talking in circles around each other. Suffice to say, I don't think the accuracy of a theory has been sufficiently confirmed without a meaningful and rigorous scrutiny of its claims - something I don't think is available through subjective examination alone.


----------

