# MBTI and Confirmation bias?



## MiGoreng (May 10, 2011)

A friend keeps arguing 'Confirmation bias' when I mention MBTI. I am too tired and too uneducated on the topic to think of a good come-back argument to support MBTI. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## kittychris07 (Jun 15, 2010)

You can't call MBTI a science. But maybe if you argue that it's a tool for growth and that it's not all about your type (you can epedn time refecting on what you need to do to improve yourself).


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

ask him if he has noticed things like some people being really oblivious about details and some other people are more concentrated on seeing the details. some people seem to make decisions with how they feel about something and almost disregarding what the logical thing to do. some people are more outgoing and others are less. some people are more organized and need schedules, but some are more laid back and just tend to go with the flow.

after he says, "yes ofc" or something like that, then tell him that there is MBTI for you and ask him why doesent he believe in it if he sees it in people..

after that you could start teaching about functions, and tell him that these function differences is what makes those differences in people, that he just confirmed seeing in people. imo the simplest way to teach the essence of functions is saying that functions seeking answer to these questions:

Perceiving:
S = is there something there?
N = where did it come from and where is it going?
Judging/decision making:
T = what is it that is there?
F = what is it worth?

also you should tell him that all of these can be oriented to external world or inner world. everyone uses all 4 functions, but choose either one or another orientation to each and the two J functions are oriented differently, so are the two P functions, so Ti comes with Fe, not Te or Fi and Ne comes with Si, not Se or Ni. Ji pairs with Pe(Ti Ne) and Pi pairs with Je(Si Fe) in function hierarchy, first two functions are more conscious and other two are less conscious.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

oh yea and tell him that there is evidence for brain activity differences for different types. I types have more idle activity than E types, thats most likely(at least partially) due to more active dopamine system. this greater idle activity for I, makes them more comfortable inside their own heads and E types need to get the activity from external world or they get bored. on the other hand, I types get uncomfortable because of too much activity when they get too much activity from external world, since for them its that external activity + high idle activity.

when measured with EEG, Se causes activation(doesent mean that the function is on whole brain, it just causes activity) on pretty much the whole brain, but on lower frequencies, Ne causes activation on bit smaller area(almost as big), but activity is greater on higher frequencies.

i dont remember how it went with T-F, but its obvious that there is some emotional system more in charge with F types on decision making.

when it comes to J-P, lesions in different brain hemispheres cause different response bias on memory tasks. study shows that lesion in left hemisphere is giving response bias where memories are not taken into account properly in memory tasks, so the functions of left hemisphere is including what has already been processed, that suggests that Si and Ni comes from left hemisphere. lesion on right hemisphere on the other hand gives response bias where too much of memories are taken into account/too little of what is currently perceived is taken into account, that would suggest that Se and Ne come from right hemisphere.
it has been suggested before(this study) that left side(J types) is reductive and right side(P types) is including.
and yes, this is the opposite of what this study says, but heres the trick. J types are reductive in decision making, but including of what has been decided(Je reduces things to facts and Pi includes them to form an understanding). P types on the other hand are including what is perceived and reductive from all that has been perceived when trying to make a decision.


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

I do take a somewhat different view from your friend even though I am not as avid a supporter of the MBTI system as some here. If my position causes any offense, I do apologize, but it is just my opinion and not one of an expert. 

If his position is an absolute, then he is wrong outright -- MBTI is a classification system meant to define certain personality types, and hence confirmation bias cannot be adequately brought forth in that regard. However, when it comes to people finding their own definition, the statistical significance and generalized grouping types described within literature does, at time, give me pause, and his assertion regarding confirmation bias cannot be ignored, since it is a relevant problem (although if he is dismissing the entire MBTI system outright, than that is a problem on his part, as he would need evidence describing confirmation bias as rampant in regards to MBTI). 

Most fields accept that there is a certain level of bias or error in their results. It's why we use statistics to find out the confidence level of our results and so forth in the sciences. In psychology, these errors are described in a few ways, and many of them can impact such things as MBTI. Things such as the Forer effect can have a real impact on how the MBTI works and to what level it does. In the past, I have made threads suggesting that the questions are worded in such ways at times that people could be miscategorized, especially if they were told that a certain way is better than another way (or using bad terminology; thinking with your heart carries some negative meanings these days). 

However, for all it's weaknesses, the MBTI system is a broadly used and accepted system when applied to specific situations. It does hold comparable standings in statistical validity as some other forms of psychoanalyses and hence is used in such situations as company management. It does have the working support of a sizeable portion of the psychology community, even if there is some controversy over the efficacy of this test. The dangers with MBTI is that people make it sound like something it is not, and often others are willing to use it incorrectly. For example, someone may test out as an INTJ and inherently assume that they are logical, even though MBTI is a test of preference, not aptitude. 

From the sounds of it, your friend is skeptical, which is good. From the sounds of it, your friend might also be pseudo-skeptical, which is bad. There is a line in skepticism, where you cross into a place where you use the scientific process incorrectly. Here is a short article on it. In short, if he has made a claim opposing yours, then the onus is equally on him to back up his viewpoint. It might be harder to provide support for a negative, but it is not impossible -- if I was asked to, I could likely argue from that position (since, as I mentioned before, he is right, if not to the correct extent of the problem), just as I could argue from yours. 

I would suggest that the problem here is more about differences in how you guys argue than MBTI, and even if you disagree on MBTI, the way two people argue can be a roadblock to any progress on the topic. It is very easy for someone to take the scientific-sounding position in a very superior manner, even if he has misused the position he is in. He can call into question MBTI through the potential bias inherent to the test -- he cannot dismiss it outright from the evidence at hand (the scientific process derives conclusions based on testable predictions via available data), especially given academic evidence available via such bodies as _Ovid_, a psychology database (may require academic credentials to access).

The simple conclusion for me is that, in a way, supporters and non-supporters are often right in their arguments. The MBTI is a sound psychoanalytical process. The MBTI has bias and significance issues. The MBTI is supported by some psychologists. The MBTI is not supported by some psychologists. MBTI is a useful means of classification to identify personality traits. MBTI lacks the accuracy that other forms of testing may provide. These statements could all be considered true, and I have seen positions which supported all of these -- even amongst professionals. The best way to clean this all up is to continue research.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Confirmation bias is (in a brief nutshell) where you fixate on data that supports your theory while ignoring data that either rejects it or renders your supporting data uninteresting.

MBTI is applied to a wide variety of people. What MBTI tests for is very specific, it carefully excludes certain personality traits that are NOT covered under MBTI. MBTI also has a very consistent track-record, statistics show that people repeatedly test the same way across several years (just like MBTI expects).

One of the things that helps MBTI avoid confirmation bias is that it's a _complete_ system that strives to be _consistent_. (My vocabulary in relation to pure logic and is pretty much coincidental -- no one mention Godel.) This means that it classifies everybody into mutually exclusive categories and there is only one category that best fits you. We can't have exceptions and we can't have contradictions. If people were allowed to fit multiple categories and then pick the one they felt worked the best, confirmation bias would be a much greater concern.

In systems that are ripe with confirmation bias, there is often open-endedness and vagueness that allows multiple things to be true depending on a point of view or some arbitrary black-box that the system doesn't define. If MBTI were plagued with confirmation bias, given that it is a closed system, we should have many people constantly finding that they don't fit any of the types or that they fit multiple types equally. If we allowed that and then claimed to fit these people, we'd be giving ourselves undeserved credit. We have to objectively classify, which MBTI does quite well. MBTI is also not very open-ended, each of the 4 dichotomies is very strictly defined. MBTI types are also given compare-and-contrasting, pro and con, etc, reviews. Confirmation bias is harder when the results force you to confront both sides of the same coin.

Now we do find people claiming not to fit well into MBTI, and perhaps they're right, but they're the minority. MBTI isn't perfect and doesn't pretend to describe every axis of human individuality that may exist.

As an example: Assume you are an ISTP reading an MBTI description for an INTP. You may have some confirmation bias for it as you read lots of good descriptions of yourself, but since N and S are on opposite sides of a scale you will eventually start reading things that are dead _wrong_ about you. The article will mention INTP strengths and weaknesses, and examine the personality from multiple angles. If you have an objective helper who understands MBTI, he won't let you classify yourself as an INTP because he'll see the description is too inaccurate.

And we have plenty of those objective tests. Plenty of objective people have taken MBTI and been classified very accurately. Considering that 16 types so well describe the millions who've taken it, that's good evidence of a working theory.

Key point: One nice thing about MBTI -- again that combats confirmation bias -- is that it's "extrapolative", not explanatory. Conspiracy theories, which thrive on confirmation bias, usually seek to explain why (for example) the moon landing was faked. They don't actually explain anything beyond just the final result. MBTI doesn't explain things, it extrapolates new things. Ie, tell me four things about you and I'll tell you another 10. If you agree with 9 of those, I've shown that my model does a decent job of mapping basic preferences to more subtle personality preferences. *That's all MBTI really is: 1) a theory that small preferences influence our large preferences and 2) a complete system of small preferences, and 3) a map from those to larger preferences.* MBTI doesn't tell us why we're (for example) introverted, it just uses that to deduct other things about us.

So, bottom line: MBTI strives to be complete, consistent, and "extrapolative"; those all combat confirmation bias. Now, MBTI isn't a science so we can't say it's objectively perfect, but no one does. It's just a decent model for mapping small preferences to larger ones. It is NOT immune to confirmation bias, but is designed in such a way that reduces a lot of the common confirmation bias pitfalls.

If someone is afraid that MBTI is mostly confirmation-bias, tell them to read on the 8 functions and read the 16 types. If he fits one of the types but later decides he fits a different type, it's probably because he made a bad initial decision that could've been avoided. If not, he may have a case.


----------

