Hey @ned, sorry to tell you that but MBTI has no value whatsoever from both empirical/statistical and jungian perspective. I laid down 4 main reasons why it "sucks" in an article that I wrote some time ago: 4 Reasons Why MBTI Sucks
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I read your reasons and they do not “debunk” the value of the MyersBriggs scale. My gripe with the reasons: other than a few sentences in point four, the argument seemed highly preidcated on crediting Jung, whose science was also extremely based on personal experience and creativity.
At the end of the piece, it’s still clear to me, MyersBriggs has been validated by the market and provides an objective framework for personality discussions.
No it's not and there is a scientific consensus about that.
Is homeopathy objective because it is validated by the market?
Jung at least didn't try to provide a psychological test with measurements.
Your flaw is that it has in real life helped millions of people understand themselves more. Case closed.
Agreed, in the same manner as horoscope did ;)
Horoscope is just a little fun. Myers Briggs has a massive community and it helps others understand others better. Is is perfect? Of course not. But it provides a framework that works for majority of people.
Horoscope is not even close to that. If you have a look at forums where people discuss Myers Briggs types they go very sophisticated in depth. It actually has created real discussions between people.
There are horoscope forums and huge community claiming it helped them understand too. Personality psychologists regard MBTI as useless in describing personality. I provided literature on that in my article, but I guess further discussion is pointless.
Tacky pretentious middle class psychologists sure. But who cares about the middle class anyway. They are boring and don't like change or nuance. They lack a good taste of life.
This is a reply to saunter (above) but it seems to have landed in the wrong place. Anyway
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron and is by it's very nature un-scientific.
Even if 100% of scientists agree on something that doesn't mean it's true, correct or valid.
Science is based on evidence and a single piece of contradicting evidence is all that's needed to falsify any scientific claim.
You are right of course, but MBTI was dismissed in number of papers and there is no single one effectively defending it's psychometric characteristics and utility.
Well I wasn't defending the validity or otherwise of MBTI. In fact I never even heard of it before. But when I saw scientific consensus being brought up it was a red flag for me, since this misconception has been so widely used (misused) especially to convince the public that Global Warming is a thing when in fact there's little or no evidence to support it.
Besides, Psychology is not a science in any meaningful sense of the word. Just a mishmash of conjecture and opinion which could only be debunked by more of the same. Which is to say it can't be debunked. No more than pink unicorns or big-foot etc.