# Stop typing, mbti is not even 40% accurate.



## rhoynarqueen (Dec 12, 2014)

> makes up statistic on the spot with nothing to back it 
> cites no sources 

LOL. 

Have you read the works by Myers and Briggs? Have you read Jung? Have you read academic journals, or at least the free abstracts, supporting and opposing the use of MBTI in the field of personality psychology? 

Here are some free abstracts supporting the use of MBTI: 
Construct Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Measure of Sociability and Impulsivity 

Most academic critiques of the system come from practical standpoints of it being implemented in business settings: 
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-19665-001 

But MBTI is pretty consistent, studies have shown, and correlates with other scales (such as the Five-Factor Model, which is more widely used, and is actually being considered as a test for personality disorders, and has been known to out-perform the MMPI-II.) 

-A person who has taken a personality psychology class and has worked in a psychology research lab, and plans on pursuing graduate degrees in psychology. 

Please do cite sources next time.


----------



## 1yesman9 (Jul 10, 2014)

@Foxefde

No, you just thought that various online tests constructed by random people and their inconsistency, ( of which is a product of both the taker's incapacity to self-analyze and the creator's incapacity to display the facets of the function in their purity ) somehow disproved the actual MBTI/Jungian theory.

Hey. If I go on 16personalities and get INTP, you do realize that's based on one specific group's assessment of I vs E N vs S T vs F and P vs J based on behavioral and physical manifestations.

Hey. If I go on a cognitive function test and get Ni - Te, you do realize that's based on one specific group's assessment off cognitive functions based on behavioral and physical manifestations right?

You do know that cognitive theory isn't about behavioral manifestations, but about the cognition that leads to various behavioral manifestations. In other words, Ti + Ne ( as has been discussed plenty of times ) can manifest in the world similarly to Ni when working together, but will never be Ni. Ni may come to the most probably conclusion. Ne may come to a bunch of conclusions with equal probability. But if Ti see's which of the Ne possibilities is the most logical, then Ti + Ne may come to the same conclusion as Ni.

But oh wait, tests cannot measure cognition, they can only measure behavioral manifestations. So yes, obviously tests ( especially third party tests that have nothing to do with the actual core theory ) of which are not fit to take into consideration the variety of ways in which a specific cognition can manifest in reality cannot accurately gauge the cognition behind the behavioral manifestations that they measure. In other words, when a test asks a question that relates to Ni, a Ti + Ne user may answer highly on it, because Ti and Ne manifested in the same way as Ni would.

But according to you, the innate incapacity that a test has to perfectly and consistently gauge the cognition of a person from examples of behavioral manifestation, somehow debunks the theory that describes the cognition? Aha, no. What happened was, when you saw these inconsistencies, instead of delving deeper to see why the inconsistencies were there, and consequently understand the theory in it's purity, you decided the theory was inaccurate. Typical of the lazy-minded.

debunk this: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
debunk this: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/9648-types-brain-pseudo-science-behind-mbti.html


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Foxefde said:


> Nah, I'm just surprised that you haven't realized that. Perhaps you should dig deeper?


You need to work on your sass.


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)




----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Foxefde said:


> 2. MBTI test is nearly never correct, if you are below 20, as it can't even correctly assess whether you are:


Anyone seriously interested in MBTI don't view online tests as a substantial way of typing someone. The application of online tests is merely a few minutes of entertainment. 



> I/E(we have lots of shy extroverts, and extremely social introverts, the questions are like: "Do you have many friends?", so by its logic extroverts must be very popular, and have many friends?...It's just one of many examples.)
> N/S(usually mbti test is taken by students who've recently started thinking about their future, so I'd say they usually score N, while they are much more related to S)
> T/F(better situation with this, but most will simply score T over F, because they can't really understand their feelings, so I'd say if you scored F- you are F, if you scored T- your dominant function is not FE/FI.)
> J/P(likely to be mistyped too, J's might get P because questions like "Do you usually do your tasks just before the deadline?" leads to P, but a lot of J's have this trait too, because of laziness(our generation^^), and P's might score J if they have realized that they have to plan to achieve something.)


And this is why online tests are the source of numerous mistypes. 



> 3.Back to number 1, there is no pure "ENTP" or "INTJ" or any other. ALL OF US develop the functions we find interesting to use living our life. Why our brains choose particular functions is too hard to explain for us, but genes definitely plays a role in this. I would say this XXXX things is pretty logical, but mbti tests are horrible, therefore you can't rely on the score you get completing one. Next things- functions for every type is somewhat logical, in case of completing a quiz, or analyze your answers to questions, you score obviously dominant two functions, which fit one of the type's top 2- very likely it's correct, doesn't matter what are the other scores then, I've heard that the creators never really thought people have 4 functions, only 2. But that happens rarely, all of us are more or less a mix.


Is this supposed to be an argument? 



> Maybe it sounds crazy, but you might score INTJ, but for real according to functions, you are ESFP


So you do agree the functions themselves are accurate? Sounds like your grievance is with the tests, not the MBTI system. 



> All in all:
> 
> You are unique, our function orders are totally different, there should 8! = 40320 different functions orders. If you get very into this mbti thing, you will finally realize that all of us are very similar, we develop different functions, we have same weird behavior, *our brains simply choose what we need at the particular moment.*


I like the theory you propounded at the end, but it isn't corroborated _at all_ earlier in the post. You expressed your distaste for online tests as most educated MBTI advocates do. Good job. People have written books on the theory of MBTI; this purported "debunk" has only graced the surface of that material.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Best rating of a thread. 1/5


----------



## Compounds (Dec 26, 2014)

I get your point but half of your criticisms don't make much sense.

Which tests are you talking about? Are they free tests you've taken online? The free tests you can find online are very different from each other so you can't put the same stock in all of them because their quality varies so much, several of them don't ask enough questions to judge certain functions correctly and a bunch of them are made by bored people who haven't studied anything like this. Some tests are professional tests but usually they're shorter, sample versions of a more complete test that you have to pay for. There are good tests but even those are more of a starting point than an answer. Two people with different functions can sometimes answer the same thing but their thoughts that led them to that answer were different.

Your age probably plays a role but that's not a flaw of the MBTI. There's a bunch of legitimate studies that show that teenagers (I use the term loosely) don't have a fully developed brain yet and there are many factors at play at that age such as life experiences. I wouldn't have been able to even narrow down my type when I was a teenager. 

When you're reading descriptions you also need to notice what the description says and where it's coming from. Lots of descriptions are based on stereotypes. 

If you want to learn more about the MBTI and the descriptions and tests aren't working for you, ignore those. Focus on understanding what the functions do and how they work. 

I agree that everyone uses most or all of the functions to an extent, I think that's included in most MBTI material as shadow functions and the way they're developed. You just need to look at the ones that are strongest in you and that come naturally when you're gathering information about the world around you and making decisions.

I don't believe that the MBTI is completely accurate and I suspect that most people who are interested in it don't use it as the ultimate answer to everything. It's just fun to think about and a good way to start thinking about your personality and that of others. There are many criticisms that could be made to it but the accuracy of unspecified tests you've taken online isn't it.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

AKA -- MBTI tests are crap.

I agree with that.

MBTI itself, however, once you study the functions, you can start identifying both in yourself and in other people, so it is a plausible theory.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

I think this video is rather apt for our current thread. It describes my feelings perfectly, at any rate.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Versatility said:


> Did you guys know 82.4% Of statistics are made up on the spot?


it's actually 94%


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Ow, another internet-thing, one "professional" posts that she disagrees, here we go a crowd agreeing on that after that. Also, you are another one who didn't get I'm not even trying to prove anything, have you read what I said, or you just went to the bottom of the thread and critiqued the title of this thread?

1yesman9, it seems like you think I've said that "mbti is bs, test questions are random", no need to show your intelligence. But you said a few good points, that's a good thing.

Grain of sugar, noticed that many disagree, so decided to say that too? Wise.

You don't get it people, do you?

My first post was more of a critique to the surface of mbti which is easily found on the internet. People do these tests, read descriptions and believe that, that might lead them to suffering from consequences like pretending being someone else, or believing that he should study a particular subject in a university, because in the internet they find that it's a perfect for their "type". If you have any idea what is mbti, you should agree on that, and that must be changed.

The second one was a short one, but it has the main point that it's based on what's most likely. 

I agree that mbti is pretty consistent, but not as you think. Statistics is one of the thing which increases believability of it, most of them are a joke, like seriously. Another thing, how can a person who's studying psychology say that's it's not accurate, while he's overwhelmed with a tons of information gained from reading books, articles? They read tons of information which looks very logical, but is not proven, so they automatically believe in that. Future psychologists, use your logic, use more of your thinking, instead of believing almost everything that makes 70%+ sense.

Back to most likely thing. About the half are 50/50, 60/40, 90/10 etc, cases.

Whatever how you answer to some question, it won't be like okay, it's definitely NE(90%+), not only because functions may have the same role, but that nobody really knows themselves that well, they might be wrong answering a question. If you take a professional tests, perhaps there is a something around 80% it will be correct, but the point is that we all are more or less different, we had different experiences, we have different goals, so different ennegreams, we have differently developed functions. We just simply choose what kind of behavior/thinking works best for us, genes also have an effect cuz you get them from those who have already developed their functions, chose what works best. That kinda explains why the theory that most of us have NE+TI, or NI+TE is logical, it's because if we sum up two functions descriptions together, we can understand that one is needed for another. The other two functions are more likely based just on what's most likely, what functions do, let's say, ne+ti, develop for assistance. But everyone deeply inside realizes that it's not perfect, so they start developing other functions, and if they find them useful, they'll become just as strong, as dominant. 
What's type of a person with this functions order? Ne>se>ti>fe>si? You probably thought entp(based on what's most likely, again, it's everywhere.), but for real it's none of the 16, just a short example that there should be 8! "types", if be believe in functions theory. 

Functions is something that is really logical and pretty accurate, but nearly everything else is a bullshit.

Mbti is fine only because the process lets you understand people much better, but using it in your real life is more likely to be harmful rather than helpful.

*All in all, I would say mbti is 60-70% accurate, logical, and 30-45% useful/helpful*

8! Different types? Perhaps it would break 80% after years or centuries of analyzing.

More critique, please.


----------



## KeroPanda (Jan 8, 2010)

Within the function theory, there are loads of ideas that arent avaliable to a person who skims the theory. This is no different to pretty much most social sciences, people apply theories to their lives without studying things more indepth.

A person with different function orders according to the theory would simply mean they are a subtype of a type. The 16 types merely represent archtypes.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

wait hold up

are we talking typing as in assigning types to people or typing as in pressing keys on a keyboard to make virtual letters appear on your screen?


----------

