This is just one of those stupid idle curiosities, so indulge me if you will. I was wondering about personality types here, and if perhaps there might be some patterns among us. I’ve never taken an actual Meyers-Briggs test, but I’ve done one of the “based-on” kind that puts me as an INTJ. Apparently this is a rare personality type, but I was wondering if there might be more here. Anyhow, I’d be interested in knowing how others of you score; it might be interested to se what type of bunch we are. I suppose there might be those of you out there who think that such tests are bunk, but I’ll say that reading an INTJ description was very revealing about myself.

For those of you who don’t know your Meyers-Briggs personality type, there is a “based-on” test at http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

You got an ENTP over here...

INTP

Edit:

Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.

Sound familiar?

Ditto (INTP)

- Trevor

ISTP

ENTJ..

Myers-Briggs is complete bullshit, no better than horoscopes, numerology, or tarot.

Have you ever read through one of the MBTI type descriptions for someone other than yourself? I have. I've read through many of them, and just like horoscopes, they all sound like they accurately describe me. They all fail the same simple horoscope test that James Randi gave to that college class on his Nova special (everyone rates their horoscopes as being 99 percent accurate, only to find that the entire class was given the exact same horoscope reading).

From the Skeptic's Dictionary Entry on MBTI:

The people at CPP aren’t too concerned if the list doesn’t seem to match your type. They advise such persons to see the one who administered the test and ask for help in finding a more suitable list by changing a letter or two in your four-letter type. (See the report CPP publishes on its Web site.) Furthermore, no matter what your preferences, your behavior will still sometimes indicate contrasting behavior. Thus, no behavior can ever be used to falsify the type, and any behavior can be used to verify it.

Keep in mind that this is based on Carl Jung's concepts, a man who believed in some pretty weird and unscientific shit.

Myers-Briggs is complete bullshit, no better than horoscopes, numerology, or tarot.

Ah, come on. There's more to it than that. It's at least based on how you perceive yourself, not arbitrary data like the time you were born or how your parents named you or total randomness.

On the other hand, I don't think that anyone is really going to base their lives on this stuff. It's just for fun.

Edit: Oh, and to refute, I've read some of the other types (though not all), and none of them seem to describe me remotely as well as INTP does. OTOH, some people have more significant tendencies than others (M-B terminology aside). Mine are fairly significant. Perhaps yours are not.

ENTP, apparently.

It's just for fun.

Some companies make hiring or promotion decisions based on MBTI. Now what's fun?

I've never seen any such thing. Basing any such promotion on any sort of psychological test is asinine, regardless of it's accuracy.

But if that's the case, I understand where you're coming from. At least it's better than an E-Meter or an Oxford Personality Test.

INTJ

Oh, and if you have read the Jargon File, it is amusing to note their discussions on the matter.

Ditto. ENTP

Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of "toys"--physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better.


Ah. That explains it.

ENTP.

The one VW audi teaches in their training classes is much more useful. If I get another minute free from my tards, I'll post it.

INFP.

Some companies make hiring or promotion decisions based on MBTI. Now what's fun?

I'd say that's fairly silly, though so are interviews and resumes if you get right down to it. Anyone who believes they can make solid hiring decision based on one conversation (except perhaps marketing-sales people for whom making a good first impression is part of the job) is naive at best. The same goes for looking at few sheets of paper, although at least the information there is more substantial. Still, I’d agree the Meyers-Briggs probably shouldn’t be used for those kinds of decisions.

For my money, though, Meyers-Briggs is useful, not for observing absolutes but for tendencies. And it’s just fun between “friends”.

On the other side of things, I do remember a Dilbert cartoon a couple of weeks ago in which the HR person said something to the effect of, “your personality does not fit within the parameters of our test, therefore you have not personality and one will be assigned to you.”

Apparently I'm INTJ as well. Guess you're not the only one.

I'd have to say, I think Tony is right on this one. Not because of anything the result tells me, but because the questions are so totally bogus and touchy-feely. I really had no idea how to answer half of those questions, and with the only possibilities being Yes or No, I can't think it's very accurate.

On the other hand, I don't really mind being called a "Mastermind"

On the other hand, I don't really mind being called a "Mastermind"

Yes, that does lend the test some credibility.

I don't really mind being called a "Mastermind"

Green, Green, Blue, Red.

Green, Green, Blue, Red.

two white pegs and one black peg.

INTJ here, too...

Yet another INTJ, weren't those supposed to be rare ... ?

weren't those supposed to be rare ... ?

Yes, and that was one of the reasons I started this. Either the profile was wrong (which is possible), and/or this board doesn't represent an even distribution of personality types. Certainly the latter is true at least as we've only had one "S" so far in my counting (sorry Meatballman, you're the odd man out!).

Maybe my googlism is right....maybe I am a woman...

I'd say there's a large percentage of geeks here (especially those posters that are likely to respond within a few hours), which would tend to skew things towards INT*, if you are to believe the literature on such things.

Edit: The Keirsey web site provides some statistics.

Yet another INTJ, weren't those supposed to be rare ... ?

empegs are also rare

Another INTJ here...

/Michael

It's at least based on how you perceive yourself, not arbitrary data like the time you were born or how your parents named you or total randomness.

Yet, as was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, many of the questions aren't easily answered and the process essentially amounts to pseudo-random selection.

And anyway, the selection method is just a red herring. What's important is the end-result. And in this case, the end result is a set of descriptions which are vague enough to apply to anyone... just like horoscopes.

I think the main problem with horoscopes, or MBTI, or any other similar system, is that it tries to make a blanket judgment about something as complex as the human psyche, claiming that a few paragraphs can sum up a personality. They try to split it up into sections, but do you really believe there are only a dozen personality types on this planet? Okay, horoscopes have 12, MBTI has 16, but my point is that the granularity is still too large. With such extreme variation among personalities that I see in this world, even a thousand detailed personality classifications wouldn't be granular enough.

I think there is some value in the concept of having an axis for various facets of your personality. I think MBTI's problem is in assuming that there are only four axes, and that one must choose whether they fall at either end of a given axis to fit their cookie cutter. Because the resolution isn't granular enough, they have to generalize too much in their descriptions of each of the 16 possible results. Hence, the horoscope-like flavor to their types.

I see human tendencies more like a multi-band equalizer, with many many different and subtle traits (Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?), and a wide variation of balance among those traits. Unfortunately, that metaphor doesn't work into a packageable, saleable product with a simple quick-and-easy multiple-choice test.

Hmm... Then again, with the right marketing, the TFEQ personality system could one day supplant MBTI as the most accurate personality test ever devised. And then... I shall rule the world... and everyone on this BBS will get a piece. But remember, I still have dibs on New Zealand...

iStP or "Top Gun"

Highway to the Danger Zone.

iStP or "Top Gun"
Highway to the Danger Zone.

So is that the personality type that enjoys bad eighties-era manufactured-pop songs?

On the other hand, I don't really mind being called a "Mastermind"

Yes, that does lend the test some credibility.

Ouch!

nah, I agree

I agree with all of that, but I do feel that I have to point out that all the M-B tests I've taken (usually because I'm bored, and to see if I always get the same result -- I do), they always list the degree to which your test result exists along each axis. For example, my test was listed at 11% iNtuitive and Thinking, but 56% Introverted and 78% Perceiving, which, IIRC, was about accurate with most of the other ones I've taken.

And to some extent, the vagueness of the questions forces you into more of an existential mode of thought, rather than focusing on specific incidents.

But again, no one should make any sort of life-altering judgements based on this sort of bean-counting armchair psychology.

bean-counting armchair psychology.

Ah, so you do see my problem with it.

Yes. But just because it's not precise doesn't mean it's wildly inaccurate, either.

A real-life example of how this kind of evaluation can help. My Pastor (now ex-pastor since I’ve moved) is an extreme extrovert. I don’t remember the rest of his attributes, but I do know the extrovert part was a problem as it made the difference between being a vision-caster who never followed through vs. a vision-caster who would finish and excel at what he did. After taking the Meyers-Briggs test and reading the two different personality profiles (I and E), he made the conscious choice to avoid not following through with things and was able to be very successful. To this day I still see him fight this battle, but by being aware of the “traps” inherent in his particular profile he is able to be a more productive person.

That being said, I don’t think you can pigeonhole people, especially with a test of this sort. Like anything else, the results of Meyers-Briggs must be taken in moderation.

To this day I still see him fight this battle, but by being aware of the “traps” inherent in his particular profile he is able to be a more productive person.

Okay, that's a good example. But do you really think that this trait was only detectable by the MBTI test? Decades ago, when I was still a child, I recognized the exact same trait in my father, and I personally try to avoid it in my life because (like most people I suppose) I don't want to turn into my parents.

And here's a question: Because I recognize a bad tendency in myself and fight to correct it, does that mean I fall on the corrected end of the axis or the tendency end of the axis?

And here's a question: Because I recognize a bad tendency in myself and fight to correct it, does that mean I fall on the corrected end of the axis or the tendency end of the axis?

I don't think "corrected" is really an issue. For my pastor, it wasn't that being an extrovert was incorrect; it's just that it yielded undesired results in certain situations. He is still very much the extrovert, but he does take time to force himself to work in solitude when it’s required.

One thing I’ll say about the particular version of the test I linked is that it is particularly obvious in how it works. If you know what the eight letters mean it is very hard not to answer the questions the way you “think” you are, especially since they’re grouped together. I can only assume the real Meyers-Briggs test is a little craftier; I know other’s I’ve taken have been.

As for tendencies detectible by other methods, certainly they are. My pastor happened to realize it through this test (or actually the real Meyers-Briggs test) instead of one of the other ways available, so that was good for him. It’s just a tool, and like a hammer it’s good for a certain purpose . . . but don’t try to use for everything.

ISTJ

Just the facts, Ma'am

For my pastor, it wasn't that being an extrovert was incorrect; it's just that it yielded undesired results in certain situations.

I wasn't referring to the extrovert tendency. I was referring to the tendency to start big projects and never finish them.

I wasn't referring to the extrovert tendency. I was referring to the tendency to start big projects and never finish them.

Ah, I understand. So you're saying he no longer fits his "profile". His knowledge has now altered the outcome of the test (hmmm, sounds like a short story I recently read, not to be confused with it's movie counterpart of the same title but inferior plot). Yes, that’s true. But where he benefited from the test was not only recognizing that he had trouble finishing things, but also that this was due to his lack of spending time in solitude. There are many reasons why people don’t finish what they start: lack of drive, lack of time, lack of ability, etc. He discovered that by forcing himself to get away from people (not a natural thing for an extrovert) he was able to be much more productive.

I only read it because of that post, actually, so I am forever in your debt.

Well, fairly rare among the general populace, but this BBS is going to be highly self-selective with INT* types.

I took a full Myers Briggs test back perhaps 15 years ago, and scored near the extreme end of the scale for each of I * N * T * P -- kinda shocked the training facilitor who was administering the test.

Since then, I've lost a few IQ points and drifted more towards the middle on a couple of the four letters (not saying which couple of them though).

Cheers

There are many reasons why people don’t finish what they start: lack of drive, lack of time, lack of ability, etc. He discovered that by forcing himself to get away from people (not a natural thing for an extrovert) he was able to be much more productive.

Interesting. If true (if it's not just confirmation bias), then it's an example of how something like MBTI can truly be helpful. My dad was a bit of a loner, so his reasons for not finishing project were different ones. So I see how recognizing the reasons for this sort of thing can be helpful in some cases.

Then again, it's just one testimonial.

Okay, okay, I've exceeded my quota for skepdic.com links, I'll stop now.

MBTI is not bullshit. Who wrote the descriptions that you are talking about, Tony? I have read all of the type descriptions from a number of different sources. (I've also studied the theory.) Some of them are quite good and some of them are terrible. If you thought they sounded like horiscopes and could apply to everyone then what you read was not written by a good author.

If you want to read good type descriptions then try "Please Understand Me" by Kiersy, Bates. If you want a more academic background then read "Types Differing" by Myers, Briggs.

I haven't looked in a while, but last time I want looking on the net for MBTI information I found the descriptions and tests to be poor. Don't make judgements based on what you read online.

Of course, 16 personality types is too broad to describe people. It would require [insert world population] types to be accurate. But these 16 types aren't arbitrary or based on mystical voodoo like horoscopes or the enneagram. It's very possible that you don't have a strong preference on one or more axis. If so, then the descriptions of a particular type will tend to be less accurate. If you read the books I mention above you'll also learn that the theory is deeper then distilling it down to a single type for each person.

The point is not to perfectly describe people with one of sixteen different descriptions. Myers, Briggs and all the others who have created, refined and researched these theories aren't idiots. Unfortunately, the application of their theory is sometimes practiced by idiots - such as making hiring decisions based on personality type.

I have found an understanding of MBTI to be quite useful in my life. I can accurately peg sometime's type without a lot of difficulty. It's useful in giving me a broad understanding of what motivates them, predicting how they are going to act, and allowing me to be effective in interacting with them. You are the one who is losing out on a richer understanding of yourself and others if you dismiss it.

I'm an INFP, BTW.

-Dylan

And not to forget.. the letters don't mean much without knowledge of how polarized each was. If someone scores one point off of center on each category, well of course they're going to find that most of the type descriptions fit them -- they're too centrist to be pigeonholed.

But for someone (like me) with a 10-20 point polarization on each of the four axis, only a few of the descriptions will fit accurately.

Cheers

Taken the test 3 times in 10 years - Always an ESTJ

But for someone (like me) with a 10-20 point polarization on each of the four axis, only a few of the descriptions will fit accurately.

Or, depending on how you look at it, all of the descriptions will seem to fit equally, at least to a certain extent. Sure, some of them will say things that contradict your behavior, but they'll also say things that match your behavior. Then again, even the ones that seem to fit pretty well will contain contradictory statements...

yet another INTP here.

--dan.

I'll provide a simple application of personality types that is probably relevant to a lot of people on this board.

Most of us are on this board are N's - which is an iNtuitive as opposed to a Senser. This axis has a lot to do with how you absorb information about the world and how you learn. How many of you have had this situation:

Someone asks you how to do something on the computer. This same person has asked you how to do something similar in the past. You don't understand why you have to give them step by step directions for every little task. Don't they understand that it's like the other programs and this thing they want to do is in the File menu or is a right click or whatever. On the other hand, this person asking you the question is annoyed that you can't just give them easy step by step directions. Why do you have to give them a dissertation on how something works just to answer a question?

This is an illustration of N vs. S. The iNtuitive tends to learn by understanding how something how something works. Then, from that understanding, the iNtuitive can figure out how to do a specific task. The Senser tends to be proceduraly oriented and learns from sensory input and repetition.

I used to have tremendous difficulty in teaching my mom how to use her computer. The scenerio above is lifted out of my dealings with her. Then I realized the failing was that I was trying to teach her the way I learn. But my mom is a strong S and it only frustrated her. Now I walk through things with my mom giving her step by step directions. We're both a lot less frustrated now and she's much more adept at using the computer. She's not stupid and now she is capable of seeing how a procedure in one app relates to another. But she had to get to that point in her way - not mine. It was an understanding of personality types that led me to this realization.

What I wrote above isn't rocket science and many of you have probalby encountered similiar situations and resolved it with common sense. My point is to show the application goes beyond putting people into sixteen buckets. Recognizing archetypes and recognizing behavior patterns can allow you to quickly resolve situations such as above without months of frustration as my mom and I endured.

-Dylan

You are the one who is losing out on a richer understanding of yourself and others if you dismiss it.

This sounds like the old "skeptics have closed minds and therefore live unenlightened lives" argument, which I'm not going to contest here because it's already been contested a million times elsewhere.

I did check out MBTI and spent a lot of time looking into it before finally dismissing it. I will concede that perhaps I looked at the "crappy" versions of it instead of the "good" versions of it. Unfortunately, I don't have a way of knowing the difference. And I'll try not to let myself be swayed by seeing a parallel between that and similar claims by psychics: "oh, that other psychic is a phony, but I'm for real".

I'll provide a simple application of personality types that is probably relevant to a lot of people on this board.

I think that people who have trouble learning a computer task may have a multitude of different reasons for it, not just a position on one end of an MBTI axis. I see that your choice of step-by-step instructional style worked for teaching your mom, but a step-by-step instructional style works well for a lot of people. Most people, in fact.

(I happen to work at a company that writes computer training, so I've got a lot of real-world experience to back this up.)

By saying that "MBTI told me she was an S, and I changed my teaching style to step-by-step, therefore MBTI is useful", you're simply showing confirmation bias via a testimonial. There's nothing scientific or testable to back up your claim that the N/S axis is the reason that she responded well to a step-by-step teaching style.

In reply to:

---

I think that people who have trouble learning a computer task may have a multitude of different reasons for it, not just a position on one end of an MBTI axis.

---

I didn't say that every person in the world who had difficulty learning a computer task was due to where they fall in the MBTI S vs. N scale. I gave a specific example where that was true.

In reply to:

---

I see that your choice of step-by-step instructional style worked for teaching your mom, but a step-by-step instructional style works well for a lot of people. Most people, in fact.

---

The majority of the population are the S type. Your experience supports that. You say most people learn better with step by step instructions. That's a way of classifying people. Why is that any different then classifying them as an S? Don't you believe that this need for step by step instruction could be part of larger model of thinking that some people have?

In reply to:

---

By saying that "MBTI told me she was an S, and I changed my teaching style to step-by-step, therefore MBTI is useful", you're simply showing confirmation bias via a testimonial. There's nothing scientific or testable to back up your claim that the N/S axis is the reason that she responded well to a step-by-step teaching style.

---

Of course it's a testimonial. That was the point of my post. I wanted to take it away from being a way of labeling people into 16 buckets and showing real world applications. Then again, being that you clearly fall into the T axis I should have realized that this would be an ineffective argument for you. Being that I'm an F, shared experience and relationships tend to carry more weight then less personal arguments. I did suggest some books to read for T's like you. You'll find it more to your liking then my anecdotes I'm sure.

-Dylan

You say most people learn better with step by step instructions. That's a way of classifying people. Why is that any different then classifying them as an S?

Okay, you have a point. That is a classification.

The difference is: I'm not drawing an inference that "because they learn better with step-by-step instructions, then they will also have other specific but unrelated personality traits that go with it". I think that such inferences are dangerous when dealing with something as complex as the human brain.

In reply to:

---

And I'll try not to let myself be swayed by seeing a parallel between that and similar claims by psychics: "oh, that other psychic is a phony, but I'm for real".

---

I fail to see the parallel. If the topic were calculus and the question was one author's ability to explain it vs. another would you still drawl the same parallel?

Specifically, what did you read?

-Dylan

In reply to:

---

The difference is: I'm not drawing an inference that "because they learn better with step-by-step instructions, then they will also have other specific but unrelated personality traits that go with it". I think that such inferences are dangerous when dealing with something as complex as the human brain.

---

That's a very good argument. I agree that it's dangerous and I wouldn't trust an uneducated inference. But this isn't a personality test to determine if you are an Amiga or a Mac. There is a lot of research and accepted theory behind it. I don't know why you've lumped it into the same category as Miss Cleo.

-Dylan

I fail to see the parallel. If the topic were calculus and the question was one author's ability to explain it vs. another would you still drawl the same parallel?

Good point, I see what you're saying, but...

Bad analogy, though, because we're not talking about an instructor's ability to teach a scientific subject. We're talking about the end-result classification details, not the ability to teach the system.

A better example, using your same analogy, would be... What if all calculus teachers got different answers to the same equations? Which teacher would be the right one? And how would you know? And more importantly, how would you test to be sure which one was right?

Specifically, what did you read?

I have deleted most of my links, but I recall spending a lot of time reading stuff at http://keirsey.com , and a few other places.

I don't know why you've lumped it into the same category as Miss Cleo.

Because both Miss Cleo and MBTI use non-scientific methods to back up their claims.

ENTJ... And I seem to be quite rare too. I knew I was special !

Because both Miss Cleo and MBTI use non-scientific methods to back up their claims.

Ah, what a refreshing digression from invasion! The MBTI-Miss Cleo thread!.....

....I'm having nostalgic flashbacks to when we'd sit around on the graveyard shift on the psych ward at Fort Gordon, shuffle the cards, and play to see who could score the highest on the femininity-masculinity scale on the MMPI (and what was that question about _Alice in Wonderland_ all about???)

I tend to view these tools as adjuncts to anything else that is going on. It *is* interesting to me that the MBTI reduces things to something akin to "Earth, Air, Fire, Water". This does *not* inspire confidence!

One of the most interesting (most circumspect?) articles on MBTI I found was at: http://www.du.edu/~psherry/mbti2.html. Not sure of the provenance of this (like, what is the author's background? is this the author's work?) but it seemed to cover MBTI pretty well.

I am wary of *all* sorts of management fads that promise to reduce management to a simple set of jazzy tools. We've just *been* through a period where companies like Enron presumed that a focus on individual qualities could provide a substitute for a solid organization and a plan. As such, I tend to view things like MBTI -- or at least the popularity of same -- with some suspicion.

Anyhow, my opinion leans toward Tony's. I took the sample test in that link, answered all the questions as frankly as I could, then was quite amused at my personality type. Twenty bucks to anyone who can guess *both* my MBTI and my astrological sign in the first go!

[edit: provenance-wise, I think I found that gent Zenke's web site: ]http://www.socksoff.com/index.html]

ISFJ here.

INTJ

Every time I take it, and even taking different versions of the test, I always get INTJ. Although, I usually take it here.

ISTJ here.

I’ve done one of the “based-on” kind that puts me as an INTJ.

Me too.

Since INTJ's are supposed to represent about 1% of the general population, it's rather surprising to find four or five of them in the 50-odd posts in this thread. That's about 10x greater than would be expected.

tanstaafl.

>ISFJ here.

I knew that one already!

Oh really!! Am I that transparent?

>Oh really!! Am I that transparent?

Naw, but I am. And at the meet it was obvious to me that you & I are nearly complete opposites, except that we're both introverted. So..

Cheers!

One more INTP here. I think these tests have some validity although I wouldn't be foolish enough to make hiring decisions based on them. I took the real MB in college with a class of about 30. After we got the results we spent some time guessing what other people in the class would be and just discussing the results. It was interesting and most people felt the results where pretty accurate.

Even if they aren't perfect knowing the different personality types MB defines gives you some advantage in dealing with others. I was a resident assistant for a couple of years which kind of forces you to be outgoing. Being able to categorize somebody and use some of the MB guidelines for how to interact with them can make that easier for us introverts.

Anyway, interesting stuff as long as you don't take it too seriously.

-Mike

Apparantly, I'm a "slightly expressed" ENTP.

ISTP here - it's difficult to answer some questions because I want to pick one answer, but I know I am really the other. Eg. I would like to be on time for things but it never works out :-)

Gareth

In reply to:

---

Myers-Briggs is complete bullshit, no better than horoscopes, numerology, or tarot.

---

INTP / Taurus

I'm an ENTJ - very expressed (over 75%) all 4 areas. Which seems silly as I know I'm an introvert with some extrovert tendencies. I reckon it's the poor questions. No room for 'maybe' answers.

Tony,

I'm not sure I agree with your "non-scientific" position and putting the MBTI into the same box as astrology. Remember, the MBTI never claims to be anything other than a model of trends or tendencies. My understanding is that the model was derived from the multidimensional analysis of experimental data and observations. It is, in that sense, a hypothesis, or theory if you like, that was developed to structure and organize the observed phenomenon. Astrology has been shown quite extensively to have little or no correlation with observed phenomenon. This is definitely not the case with the MBTI.

Does it model the observations with 100% fidelity or accuracy? No. Neither does Newton's Law of Gravitation (hence, Relativity), though one would be hard-pressed to call it unscientific. Both are useful, though limited. It is important to keep in mind the context of the hypothesis and the data. As Robert Persig says beautifully, it is not correct to discuss whether these systems are "true", but only if they are *convenient*. That is, are they helpful models.

I think it is important to remember what "scientific" really means. It doesn't mean 100% predictable, or 100% accurate, or even True (whatever that means). It just means that it follows a specific system of development, validation, and invalidation called the scientific method. That's all.

I'm not saying that I don't sympathize with some of your concerns. I see concerns about the MBTI and any other psychological model as follows:

1. Misuse and/or misinterpretation. Yes, the MBTI is often used for employment screening, mediation, promotion evaluation, etc. This is very concerning.

2. Confusion about general population tendencies vs. applicability of a model to a specific individual. Our culture is filled with these problems, which result from a logical mistake and are a personal pet peeve of mine. Simply put, people ascribe results of a large statistical sample to individuals (within or even ouside of the sample) and come to conclusions that are not rationally sound. It can be true that the MBTI is very accurate and scientific and sound for large population samples and trends, but that doesn't mean that it is applicable for every individual. We see this everywhere, as another example, USDA recommendations (which are population averages and *never* intended to be interpreted as recommendations for individual diet). Many of the so-called "implications" of medical research reported by the media are flawed in this very way. This "category error" is similar, but not the same issue as:

3. Confusion of causality and correlation. Lay followers of science (especially medicine) are more often confused by this than scientists, but media specializing in science make this mistake often, and the general media make it almost every time. Most of the members of this bbs have some formal scientific training and know what I'm talking about, but for completeness I'll give an example. If people who live under high voltage power lines have higher incidence of cancer, that is correlation. It is not correct (knowning only that fact) to assume that high voltage power lines *cause* cancer. They might. They might not. There may be other things that occur in environments that have high voltage power lines (more pollution, for instance) that is the "real" cause. It might be a combination of causes. This one you see every day: obesity and diabetes, etc. I could go on and on. People make similar comments regarding MBTI or other personality results. One of the most dangerous, IMHO is the confused interpretation of the MMPI, which is a test which *correlates* with so-called "mental illness" in certain population groups. The problem is many people give this test as a screen to large populations making this error and the category error described above at the same time.

4. Most importantly, people fail to see this system (and often any other system) as a *model*. That's all it is: a model. The actual individual may fit this model more or less accurately, depending on many, many factors. Technologists, (though often not research scientists) often make this error in thinking, for example, Hooke's Law, or Ohm's Law, or whatever, are True. They forget that these are merely models which experience has validated as particularly useful. They are, at best, descriptive and predictive of reality. They are not the reality itself (except, of course, to the extent that the ever expanding sphere of rational understanding, or the noosphere as Ken Wilber calls it, is a *part* of reality). Note that I am not falling into "constructivism" and saying that all reality is simply a construction, nor am I claiming that all models are equally valid. They are not. Some are more *convenient* than others.

I think the MBTI is convenient in some circumstances, though not all of those in which it is employed. For one thing, it makes the important statement that not everyone is (or should be) the same. That there *are* different types of people and that it is OK if not everyone is, for instance, an extravert. As an "I" myself, I have experienced (as a younger man) feelings of inadequacy because I didn't feel as comfortable in certain social situations. I saw these as defects or shortcomings in me. Maybe the MBTI can help people to move past social conventions. It was a *start* for me along that path many years ago. It wasn't the final model for me, but it was a start. If it can help people in that way, I'm all for it.

Jim
INTP

Jim,

Thank you. That was very well written and is what I wanted to say but didn't know how to articulate.


Since this debate is about personality types I think it's interesting how the arguments presented by Tony, Jim and myself are exemplary of our types.

Dylan (INFP) - Argument focused on how understanding of types has helped in relationships with people. Gave personal experience. Claimed that model isn't perfect but that it has practical applications.

Jim (INTP) - Academic and well supported explanation for validity of MBTI. Claims model is imperfect but useful.

Tony (INTJ) - Makes strong statements of judgement. Seeks scientific explanation. Unimpressed with personal anecdote. Adheres strongly to prior judgements but makes rational and fair arguments. Argument centers around lack of scientific basis and MBTI's imperfections.

Does it model the observations with 100% fidelity or accuracy? No. Neither does Newton's Law of Gravitation (hence, Relativity), though one would be hard-pressed to call it unscientific.

Newton's law of gravitation can be tested empirically. It can be falsified by experiment. MBTI can't. That's the definition of science and non-science.

Confusion of causality and correlation.

Exactly. MBTI is all based on correlation, not causality. Correlation and statistics can be useful in giving someone the idea for a testable scientific theory. But until you posit a causality and can test it empirically, it's isn't science yet.

I sure wish I knew how to quote nicely like you. I bet that's in a FAQ somewhere... :-)

"Newton's law of gravitation can be tested empirically. It can be falsified by experiment. MBTI can't. That's the definition of science and non-science."

Depends upon what you mean. Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations. It just isn't the be-all end-all of Truth.

"Exactly. MBTI is all based on correlation, not causality. Correlation and statistics can be useful in giving someone the idea for a testable scientific theory. But until you posit a causality and can test it empirically, it's isn't science yet. "

Not true, as my example of gravitation demonstrates. Gravity is an extremely reliable model that *correlates* with the ordinarily observed behavior of what we call "mass". Not in all situations, but in many useful and regularly encountered (by humans) situations. However, nobody knows what *causes* gravitation. In fact, causality was never part of the "Law". That doesn't make it unscientific.

If you accept the existence of a non-material aspect of reality (which I believe I can demonstrate using examples of language, zero, love, beauty, etc, etc), then it is reasonable to be interested in correlations and models of that aspect of reality. As reasonable, I believe, as being interested in creating models of the correlations we observe in the physical world.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

There are many directions to take the conversation:

- I can suggest (as I have) that the physical, material aspect of reality is not the whole story and "science" should not be constrained by that demonstrably false assumption.

- I can propose that science isn't concerned with finding Truth, but only *approximations*, or models that *explain* reality after the fact, as Feynman, Einstein, Scroedinger and many others have stated.

- Or, I can suggest that whether something is "scientific" is not the ultimate condition of something being useful or good. To pick an example somewhat relevant to the bbs: music.

To the extent that something claims to make claims of fact that can be demonstrated to be false (as in astrology) I agree with you, Tony. I don't think that is the case with the MBTI. I think it is intended only to be a general model showing trends of groups of people.

To the extent that it makes claims of percentages of populations, etc, it *is* verifyable and falsifyable, and it has been validated consistently, to the best of my understanding. That makes it totally different than astrology.

Please keep in mind, I agree with you that most people don't think about using these models. But let's understand exactly what it is *claiming* and base the discussion on that.

Jim

Quoting is easy... just put a q and /q around the text. With [] around them. I'd show you, but it just quotes the space between. Better yet, go to the FAQ and scroll 'to the bottom. (well, about 75% of the way down)

Well, Tony us quoting with:

[ q ][ orange ][ i ] text [ / i ][ / orange ][ / q]

I'm usually too lazy to go to all that, so I usually just make it orange.

ps- why doesn't the [ code ] tag work with BBS tags?

Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations.

I was trying to say something different than that. What I was trying to say was: The definition of a scientific theory is something that can be tested via experimentation. Whether or not Newton's theories of gravitation were partially disproved isn't the point. The point is that they could be tested with experimentation, therefore they were scientific theories. In science, that which is disproved by experimentation is discarded, and work begins on coming up with a new theory to explain the observations.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

No, I'm simply defending my statement that MBTI isn't scientific. I agree that just because something isn't scientific doesn't mean it's not real or not valuable. I was just defending my statement.

I think my main problem with MBTI is that it's a pseudoscience that's trying really hard to look scientific, when it's not really science. That happens to be one of my hot buttons. MBTI isn't a science, it's just a set of copyrighted multiple-choice tests based on some of Jung's ideas. That's why I'm lumping it in with astrology. I agree that it's got a lot more real research under its belt than astrology ever will. Its origins are based on observations and statistical correlation, not on carnival tricks like the Forer effect. I'll give it that. But in the end, it still reads like a set of horoscopes, Forer effect and all, and it's still not genuinely scientific.

Well, Tony us quoting with:
[ q ][ orange ][ i ] text [ / i ][ / orange ][ / q]

Actually, I'm just using [ q ]....

ps- why doesn't the [ code ] tag work with BBS tags?

Because it's meant for HTML code, not BBS code. The code could do the logic checks to disable BBS code inside [code] tags, but that would be more work then I'm willing to do right now.

To quote bbs tags, you can do this:

[cod[i][/i]e]

Typing in the above to show the workaround was a pain

INTP

The percentages are pretty important, though. Mine were:

Introvert 6%
Intuition 60%
Thinking 30%
Perceiving 1%

So as an INTP I have a similar personality to some INTJs, ENTJs and ENTPs.

I like quoting BBS tags like this: [q] text [/q]

Cheers

this is text

interesting! the last time I tried quoting I thought it just indented it.

the last time I tried quoting I thought it just indented it.

The old [quote] tag would, and also it threw a "in reply to" up. I added the [q] tag in about a month ago, after getting tired of manually typing out the old orange code. I access the BBS from too many different systems, so a server side "macro" was more efficient then loading macro programs on all my systems.

Then I thank you, sir! That is quite helpful.