# if MBTI is pseudoscience then why does it work?



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

ok so for 

ex: surely all not INTP's have the same traits, but they surely all think the same way .

so if MBTI is successful in grouping people into their rightful personality types then doesn't that mean it must be doing something right?

i mean nearly all of us can agree that our MBTI type fits our personalities (maybe not completely but like i said we all think the same way)

so even if MBTI cannot be proven by the scientific method, we can all agree on that MBTI theory is DEFINITELY DOING SOMETHING RIGHT? 

RIGHT?


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

No, because the theory is too personal. There is no universal standard, thus it is impossible to eliminate biases to determine if one's understanding is universally correct.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

Because psychologists are dumb. Well, in reality, MBTI was considered a pseudoscience because at the time it was examined, it was considered impossible to test for and anything that defies empirical examination is by definition a pseudoscience.

One of the bigger failings of psychology but yes, you're right. MBTI is technically unscientific. However, the US Army used it to great effect during WW2, and as everyone knows 'Merica kicked major fascist and imperialist ass using the MBTI to sort types with corresponding military and civilian jobs. I'd say that's a more noteworthy accomplishment than having some small minded psychs branding it pseudoscience. Oh and also, the Big 5 is based on the MBTI and is in fact scientifically validated.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

The Big 5 and other five factor models (which are actually based on the MBTI):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

Expy said:


> No, because the theory is too personal. There is no universal standard, thus it is impossible to eliminate biases to determine if one's understanding is universally correct.


hmmmm can you explain what you wrote in a more simplified way.?


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

@the401 it doesnt work for everybody nor does everyone believe in it.

some people don't believe this whole system is correct or find flaws too big to consider it worthy of study and implementation.

For example you may say Si, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, Pi, Pe, ......... is x way but someone else says it's y way, you may both be right but your perception of how you experience or see XYZ is different, so it's not a universal, set in stone kind of thing. It can't be proven since there's not a consensus.

I think that's a simplified version of what Expy said? (dey just bein fancy with their smart talk *dreamy sigh*)


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

There is no way to empirically prove that it works and surely there is no way to show it works every time and every person even if we had found a way to plug wires to one's brain and exactly measure it. Today's technology is nowhere near to make a direct relation of brain and MBTI. 

Just because something works most of the time does not make it right, sure there is a pattern that works for the most but it is not the whole. Even Jung himself warns people against using his theories to label people. 

But sure it is difficult to ignore when there is a lack of randomness which still makes it a choice and that is probably because we don't have another.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

What Is The Current Thinking About Myers Briggs? - Forbes


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

nichya said:


> There is no way to empirically prove that it works and surely there is no way to show it works every time and every person even if we had found a way to plug wires to one's brain and exactly measure it. Today's technology is nowhere near to make a direct relation of brain and MBTI.
> 
> Just because something works most of the time does not make it right, sure there is a pattern that works for the most but it is not the whole. Even Jung himself warns people against using his theories to label people.
> 
> But sure it is difficult to ignore when there is a lack of randomness which still makes it a choice and that is probably because we don't have another.


 ok here is something on found on this site a person member named "Nitou" said it, i want to know what you think of this.

"The role of science is to explain and predict. MBTI can do that, eg. there is a correlation between type and career preference, and function theory can help explain why people behave the way they do. I don't know how reliable it is or how reliable it has to be before it can be considered scientific. People who are in the matchmaking business have an interest in developing reliable personality measures to make good matches. It isn't necessarily MBTI, but if they are successful then it shows there is some validity to their system. If it can be shown that there is a correlation between brain activity and personality type (I'm not too familiar with this area of study) then that would lend more credence to it. 

On the other hand, psychology isn't a true science like the physical sciences. There is some overlap between psychology and science in neuroscience. You cannot observe or objectively measure the mind, only the brain."

do you think he has a point?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

the401 said:


> ok here is something on found on this site a person member named "Nitou" said it, i want to know what you think of this.
> 
> "The role of science is to explain and predict. MBTI can do that, eg. there is a correlation between type and career preference, and function theory can help explain why people behave the way they do. I don't know how reliable it is or how reliable it has to be before it can be considered scientific. People who are in the matchmaking business have an interest in developing reliable personality measures to make good matches. It isn't necessarily MBTI, but if they are successful then it shows there is some validity to their system. If it can be shown that there is a correlation between brain activity and personality type (I'm not too familiar with this area of study) then that would lend more credence to it.
> 
> ...


well you don't need something to be science to make use of it. See your facebook ads? They make a guess on your demographics, on the keywords you talk with your friend, or words you search for. So facebook does see you as a classifiable entity in its own terms and it can quite predict things actually but well you see how that works, sometimes makes sense sometimes doesn't. But for them it makes a quite difference rather than to serve totally random ads to you or say ads that you are %20 more likely to click on because they are correlated with your personal choices. For it to be science there is no room for this, sure it doesn't have to work 100% of the time but you need to know how accurate it is. You should be able to say it works on a wide range of study with 80% accuracy or something like that. I don't know psychology though, so I wouldn't like to argue what is considered science in psychology. I am assuming you can say if a person had childhood trauma they are -more likely to- develop multi personality disorders?? And you can give numbers, and it would be science I guess? Hmm, otherwise people with no common lives, have this one thing in common then maybe yes, I don't really know but I can still see it being more clear because it is a diagnosed disease we are talking about and a common history. I dunno, I was taking things as more natural sciences. I am sure there is word preferences to refer these. I study computer science, go figure out (I do agree though most of grad students are INTPs ) ). I don't think you can easily cross out behaviors and environment of people. For example I find enneagrams more telling about another person as it is more about their motivations and fears in life, when I find function stackings and MBTI less and less likely to be able to tell me about others. 

Well even a broken clock shows the time correctly 2 times a day  I know that in the most basic sense to show something has potential or correlation you need to beat the factor of randomness so in that sense yea I would believe MBTI is correct for more than a rolling dice with 16 faces. 

However I also think that making a mistake and guiding people wrong sounds too awful. Sure they use it in military and even job applications because it might work most of the time but testing everyone without careful observation and guiding a kid with their career sounds terrible to me, it may do more damage even. We need different people in different studies and they might come up with more creative ideas. 

Maybe you can check how things go in psychology, might worth the research


----------



## Black Lotus (Aug 5, 2014)

nichya said:


> There is no way to empirically prove that it works and surely there is no way to show it works every time and every person even if we had found a way to plug wires to one's brain and exactly measure it. Today's technology is nowhere near to make a direct relation of brain and MBTI.


Actually, I recently spoke to Mary Mcguiness, who's been teaching the MBTI typing theory to other professionals for 20 odd years, and she said she recently spoke to a neuroscientist that tested brain activity by attaching electrodes to different parts of the brain. The subjects were INFP and ESTJ. They got the two people to do a series of activities from playing with a ball to mathematics all the way to some creative activities. The results were, the brain activities mirrored each other, with certain parts of the brain activating quicker and more efficiently with certain activities in one party while the same part of the brain in the other subject was sluggish at responding - and vice versa.

In a nutshell, this seems to coincide with he fact that both INFPs and ESTJs have the same cognitive function but backwards in order. Pretty cool.


----------



## Slagasauras (Jun 26, 2013)

Hm, I don't know that much about it besides a smidge, but I asked my friend who is studying for a Psy.D (therapy based Ph.D) what a clinician would think of it. She said that "The functions aren't really well defined and too hard to really define." and that, "It has some truth to it, but I wouldn't use it for an assessment".
Think what you want.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Black Lotus said:


> Actually, I recently spoke to Mary Mcguiness, who's been teaching the MBTI typing theory to other professionals for 20 odd years, and she said she recently spoke to a neuroscientist that tested brain activity by attaching electrodes to different parts of the brain. The subjects were INFP and ESTJ. They got the two people to do a series of activities from playing with a ball to mathematics all the way to some creative activities. The results were, the brain activities mirrored each other, with certain parts of the brain activating quicker and more efficiently with certain activities in one party while the same part of the brain in the other subject was sluggish at responding - and vice versa.
> 
> In a nutshell, this seems to coincide with he fact that both INFPs and ESTJs have the same cognitive function but backwards in order. Pretty cool.


That is kind of cool. Well I have actually read a study that shows INFPs brain is very active for the listening related functions, which makes INFPs good listeners or say Ne users like INFPs ENFPs ENTPs have their whole brain activated and Se-doms even at rest are kind of are in a state resembling to a tennis player, you know just stretching and jumping in place to respond to the ball quickly. But we know very little about brain and which part does which exactly. I think we only know more about thinking regions.
So most of the studies are pattern observing and scientists get hyped when they do see a pattern but this kind of does not apply to every human. To be honest at this point I could believe there is a relation simply and I do belive in Jungian function preferences but I don't know how one could measure it enough to make it science. Also I have recently begin to see many many flaws in the system, it is not that I think it doesn't make sense but thinking in patterns might lead you wrong, there are just too many exceptions, like Jung says ) everyone is an exception. I do think MBTI is precious for one-self but on the other hand this might be because I am a Fi-dom because I see many INFJs for example struggling to know their type.

"here is no way to empirically prove that it works and surely there is no way to show it works every time and every person even if we had found a way to plug wires to one's brain and exactly measure it. Today's technology is nowhere near to make a direct relation of brain and MBTI."

Observing patterns is not always enough to empirically prove and like I said you need to show it works every time and with every person or you need to be able to put restrictions to whom it might apply and when to expect what exactly.


----------



## netfences (Feb 18, 2015)

Here's the straight dope on MBTI:
For measuring the core persona (ie: the cognitive functions closest to the brain stem) it is a damn good tool. Your MBTI is very like computer firmware in that other functions are built upon it. MBTI classification loses some importance to environmental conditioning over time and repeatable learned behaviors will begin to resemble core behavior (ie: cognitive firmware) so the behavioral lines get blurrier as people go through life and the brain gains complexity. This does not mean the core functions are gone but they are often subdued and/or overruled by higher order brain activity. In my experience, the people that are the most psychologically sound have environmental references that corroborate well with their MBTI. Those that have to perform in environments that don't correspond well with their MBTI will find themselves in perpetual inner conflict. It should also be noted that severe stress or drastic environmental change (positive or negative) will often cause people to manifest their core cognitive functions. I've assumed the test taker has answered completely honestly when relying upon the assessed MBTI. This is one of the major problems with MBTI disparity and your sense of self and a source of its unjust criticism.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

You could look at it like this; you have a test asking for people's preferences on certain kinds of behaviour, then it follows surely that one group of people giving similar answers would be at least superficially similar and appear to "identify" with each other on some level. That's looking at it pessimistically, if all the theory and everything else was wrong then that would be all MBTI is.

I don't know, personally, if all the science behind it is valid but anyway it's an interesting model to look at, discuss, speculate on, and it helps people to learn about others. For me, personally, it's helped me to understand (more than before) that not everyone thinks in the same way I do, and given me some things to think about and consider with dealing with and trying to understand others. Simply knowing that people think differently to each other promotes tolerance, and I think that's important.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

Just the fact that you're an INTP asking "what if mbti is pseudoscience" is proof enough. :laughing:

I don't know really, I think that it's a general description of temperamental functions, and a good general description of patterns of those functions in people, that's it pretty much. I think it's a very "perceptive" system and quite useful in analysing yourself. Also pretty fun.


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

the401 said:


> hmmmm can you explain what you wrote in a more simplified way.?


Basically, even though the dichotomies and functions have been defined, there is no neutral point in which a subject uses all of the functions to an equal degree (a control group), so nobody can truthfully determine what constitutes strong use of a function, weak use of a function, or no use of a function. With a bit of.....creative thinking, anyone could justify themselves being virtually any type and not be disputed or even incorrect because not everyone will agree on a single typing for anyone. The closest we come is just believing whatever type someone thinks they are because "they know themselves the best."


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

Expy said:


> Basically, even though the dichotomies and functions have been defined, there is no neutral point in which a subject uses all of the functions to an equal degree (a control group), so nobody can truthfully determine what constitutes strong use of a function, weak use of a function, or no use of a function. With a bit of.....creative thinking, anyone could justify themselves being virtually any type and not be disputed or even incorrect because not everyone will agree on a single typing for anyone. The closest we come is just believing whatever type someone thinks they are because "they know themselves the best."


With a bit of.....creative thinking, anyone could justify themselves being virtually any type and not be disputed or even incorrect because not everyone will agree on a single typing for anyone. The closest we come is just believing whatever type someone thinks they are because "they know themselves the best."

ok so they did agree on that you can change traits if you simply try to......... however your dominate trait will always remain the same.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Because pseudoscience >>>>>>>>>> cold hard soulless ISTJ science.


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

the401 said:


> Quote:
> 
> "With a bit of.....creative thinking, anyone could justify themselves being virtually any type and not be disputed or even incorrect because not everyone will agree on a single typing for anyone. The closest we come is just believing whatever type someone thinks they are because "they know themselves the best."
> 
> ok so they did agree on that you can change traits if you simply try to......... however your dominate trait will always remain the same.


Yes. The discrepancy arises when one tries to correspond their dominant trait to one of the functions. Blurry definitions of the functions (most of which end up left to interpretation anyways) + personal bias clouding one's perception of themselves = lots and lots of disagreement on the subject matter.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Psychology as a whole was thought to be hogwash because people could not properly prove its claims, but later people invented ways to prove it. Its not that MBTI is not true, its just people havent figure out ways to test it using the scientific method. xD gotta wait for that one smart cookie .


----------



## Bassmasterzac (Jun 6, 2014)

Two simple words: Generalizations. The same concept that fortune tellers and quacks use.


----------



## Knight of Ender (Mar 30, 2014)

The problem with MBTI is it's focused on how a person inwardly thinks. However, science focuses on measurable external effects. If people could somehow test what's going on inside someone's head, it could be proven (or disproven). MBTI isn't science, but it's a useful tool in understanding how other people's thought process works.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

the401 said:


> ok so for
> 
> ex: surely all not INTP's have the same traits, but they surely all think the same way .


 that's the argument, and why most personality theories "don't work". You categorize 7+ billion people, with.. hundreds of different cultures, with a genome that is extremely high in terms of genetic variations, into.. like what? 3-20 categories?



> so if MBTI is successful in grouping people into their rightful personality types then doesn't that mean it must be doing something right?


 Just because it's something right, doesn't mean it's right. Just because it isn't right doesn't mean it isn't useful.



> i mean nearly all of us can agree that our MBTI type fits our personalities (maybe not completely but like i said we all think the same way)


 Eh. I know myself enough, but I guess I can understand people doing the soul searching thing and depending on an exterior source of intrapersonal stuff.



> so even if MBTI cannot be proven by the scientific method, we can all agree on that MBTI theory is DEFINITELY DOING SOMETHING RIGHT?


 Actualy it was, it's just that the types are the problem <see above>



> RIGHT?


LEFTRIGHTLEFTUPUPDOWNDOWNABSTART.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Science has a limitation of measuring subjectivity. It would be scientifically illiterate to associate MBTI with the likes of empirically supported assertions.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

the401 said:


> ok so for
> 
> ex: surely all not INTP's have the same traits, but they surely all think the same way .
> 
> ...



I think it's rather like a more sophisticated version of the "What disney character are you?" type of tests. Many people react like "Yeah, I'm definitly Jasmine!" but that doesn't mean that the test is scientific, just that the test gives back to you what you give in. 

Sure one can argue that the jungian functions correspond to central aspects of the personality. And perhaps it is true in some more general sense, but really I don't believe that the dichotomies exist and work in the way the theory postulates.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

MyersBriggs gives people something solid to point to for understanding that other people think in different ways.

Just because MB doesn't completely work doesn't mean that it completely doesn't work. Not everything needs to be 100% objective.


----------



## cain23_5 (May 23, 2014)

I see the MBTi as more of a taxonomy or classification system. Observable trait had been noticed in general behaviors. The traits had also been noticed to interact in certain ways with each other. The MBTi is a tool for noticing similar patterns in groups. Even the personality types can be subdivided again on some criteria (such as developmental age) if it is a generally accepted classification. 
The flaw in the system is the ability to accurately self report (extremely unreliable in those who have an inability to make self observations) or observational techniques introduce too many biases. Longer term observation may reduce some observational bias. Other flaws in reliability involve informational static or misinformation on the measurement itself.
Example: Measurements such as the time or distance where difficult to reliably reproduce until a reproducible standard had been agreed upon. Such measurements were still useful but the measurement used had to be understood in a reproducible way for it to contain any meaning.
Mostly, the MBTi is a tool for enhancing understanding of individual personalities.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whenever you have a system that measures variables in several dimensions simultaneously it necessarily becomes hard to prove. If the current value along each of those continuums being expressed is not near an arbitrarily defined point (like someone currently acting halfway between T and F) then the points seem to lose meaning. Since many conclusions that would be useful are drawn assuming a person mostly conforms to the arbitrarily defined point (either T or F), values more in the middle (a lotof them) are confusing to characterize.

The difficulty with allowing a great degree of unprofessional determination (a typical situation in pop psychology) confounds this mess even further. Clearly some types do not want to be their type or prefer to be seen as some specific other type and that as well with varying degrees of intensity. 

But as many have mentioned the MBTI is super useful in identifying patterns of thought that correspond to those arbitrary points. Since popular characterizations in stories and pop culture are in more direct alignment with those extreme arbitrary points than most of us real humans are, the patterns are more easily recognized and make for unusual situations that allow for better fantasy or stories. It is then fun to see those characterizations within yourself and fancy yourself a paragon or exemplar of that type. In such a way you connect to something greater. You find a place to belong. It's rarely a perfect fit but we all pretend the glass slipper fits for the most part. 

When the smoke clears though you still see the small print - artist's interpretation - and that ski slope nose or 100% N characterization has to be taken as hyperbole.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The problem is that it relies on intangible abstractions known as cognitive functions. There is no way to verify that such things exist or if they are just mental overlays of reality to help explain things. He who constructed functions did not indeed for it to be tested, it more of a manifestation of his own observed internal trends in people.


----------



## CosmicYeti (Dec 15, 2014)

Cloud types

Might as well.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Consolidated Potato said:


> Because psychologists are dumb.


LOL. Some of them sure are 

However, another factor might be that all of those different schools of thought are looking to sell their tests and use them commercially. So this isn't a question of pure science and objectivity, but it's about economic competition, as well. So, yes, of course the Big-5 guys would say MBTI is pseudo-science and unreliable. You find the same with different IQ tests.
I wonder what personality tests would look like if they couldn't charge horrendous amounts of money to sell their test kits and training courses.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

It's not pseudoscience, it just doesn't have very good reliability or validity compared to some other tests. Though it's still used in school or work related testing, many scientists prefer to use the so called Big Five for research purposes. Personality and Social Dynamics Lab | Sanjay Srivastava

I think the biggest problem with MBTI is the reliability issue. I've had INFP results but depending on the day and some other factors, I've also gotten INFJ, INTP, and INTJ, and on a rare instance S instead of N. I reasoned I'm right in the middle on some of those categories but I don't know, it certainly confused me quite a bit.


----------



## Shaolu (Jul 1, 2014)

Expy said:


> No, because the theory is too personal. There is no universal standard, thus it is impossible to eliminate biases to determine if one's understanding is universally correct.


Spoken like a true INTJ


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> What Is The Current Thinking About Myers Briggs? - Forbes


Thank you for the link

In the article, I find this quote that personally speaks to me:
_
how one cannot use oneself as a model to explain all other human beings. Perhaps this is why it has become so popular in career counseling and at the workplace.

Many people do take the test too literally, especially when they go around classifying people and assuming that they now understand the person because they have found a category. This post-MBTI error is the same as the pre-MBTI error: It’s another way of assuming that all people are the same._


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

All of psychology is a pseudoscience, none of it is truly variable beyond a reasonable doubt, largely subjective, and the conditions for it being empirical are not practical enough. It's not a genuine science of the mind, I don't think one can really study the human psychology, in a 1 dimensional way, there is a lot more to our functions, and it takes certain unique ways of verification,. Sure there are some results, I think some ideas are near to something, I think this typology is near to something, but I don't know how objective any of this can be, honestly.


----------



## the401 (Mar 1, 2015)

Pseudonymity said:


> All of psychology is a pseudoscience, none of it is truly variable beyond a reasonable doubt, largely subjective, and the conditions for it being empirical are not practical enough. It's not a genuine science of the mind, I don't think one can really study the human psychology, in a 1 dimensional way, there is a lot more to our functions, and it takes certain unique ways of verification,. Sure there are some results, I think some ideas are near to something, I think this typology is near to something, but I don't know how objective any of this can be, honestly.


yea, that' why i think that the MBTI is the closet thing you can actually do to know someone......... i mean it's like they say 

"you cannot study the mind only the brain............"

but then again INTP's and INTJ's would probably disagree and say something like "nothing is impossible" 
" xxxx years ago we thought something wasn't possible but now it is......."

but then again i don't think we will ever discover the origin of everything....... because "something cannot be created out of nothing" so it will be futile water way we try.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

FlaviaGemina said:


> LOL. Some of them sure are
> 
> However, another factor might be that all of those different schools of thought are looking to sell their tests and use them commercially. So this isn't a question of pure science and objectivity, but it's about economic competition, as well. So, yes, of course the Big-5 guys would say MBTI is pseudo-science and unreliable. You find the same with different IQ tests.
> I wonder what personality tests would look like if they couldn't charge horrendous amounts of money to sell their test kits and training courses.


I think the MBTI being commercialized was a result of being branded a pseudoscience in academia. It does flourish in the commercial world so it might not have been the worst for the theory. It has more practical value than academic anyway, so it's much better for work than school.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Because it cannot be quantified objectively so there is no way to seperate it from say astrology or any other way of categorizing or grouping people whose individual members all swear that their pet theory works.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Consolidated Potato said:


> I think the MBTI being commercialized was a result of being branded a pseudoscience in academia. It does flourish in the commercial world so it might not have been the worst for the theory. It has more practical value than academic anyway, so it's much better for work than school.


True, but you find the same with tests that are used in education, e.g. special ed. The tests themselves cost a fortune and the people who administer them charge a fortune as well. Which is weird, because if it's needed to assess pupil's learning needs, it should be free.


----------

