3 ms·

MBTI differs significantly from astrology in that it's posited mechanism of action (genetics/early life experiences) is actually plausible, unlike astrology whi

MBTI differs significantly from astrology in that it's posited mechanism of action (genetics/early life experiences) is actually plausible, unlike astrology which suggests that differences in personality are due to astral bodies. It's pretty unsurprising that we're unable to measure the cognitive processes the MBTI posits given how limited our ability is to measure the brain in general. So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence (yet). I've been able to observe the difference between what the MBTI calls "Judgement" (slow thinking) and what the MBTI calls "Perception" (fast thinking) in real life. The example I always give is my high school "Further Maths" class. There were 4 people in my class and it happened that we always ended up working in pairs. However the way in which each pair worked was entirely different: - Pair 1 (me and my partner) worked independently, rushing through the questions by intuiting answers to each step. We'd then compare answers as a kind of checksum. If our answers differed, often one of us would immediately notice a mistake. And if not then we'd fall back to slowly working through the problem together step-by-step. - Pair 2 (the other two students) defaulted to this approach of slowly working through each problem step-by-step together. This took longer up front, but produced more accurate answers. Interesting, both approaches actually ended up taking a similar amount of time overall and yielding a similar accuracy of answer. But there is a huge qualitative difference in the kind of thinking that took place in each approach, and each person in the class also demonstrated a clear and stable preferrence for a specific approach. There is also a vast body of literature on "Dual-process theories" like this one, popularised by Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow.

bombolo 4y ago
> So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that are now considered scientific fact initially went through a period where they were lacking in conclusive experimental evidence. > I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that. I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the theory is important. There's a difference between saying "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people think in way A or way B is determined by the position of the planets at the time they were born". I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive science and behavioural economics tend not to have studied the MBTI specifically, but have found experimental evidence for theories that are substantially similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do count as some evidence. Specifically there is experimental evidence that: - There are qualitatively different ways in which people can think and process information. - People can have a stable preference for a given thinking process. And that such preferences follow a bimodal distribution. - People can have a preference towards either introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction) - People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast, intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P distinction) That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs. descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton" (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research questions.
  - Tainnor 4y ago
    The test-retest reliability of the test is bad, meaning that people who retest very often get different scores. I think this is a very good indicator that the whole thing is bogus.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      I'm of the opinion that the test itself is bogus, but that the theory it is attempting to test has merit and is worthy of investigation with better tests. Test-retest reliability doesn't distibguish between those two possibilities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JohnBooty 4y ago
unlike astrology which suggests that differences in personality are due to astral bodies Tangential, but: I wonder if astrology might have been accidentally correct in some ways. Clearly astrological bodies have no actual influence on us. I'm not that crazy. However, mightn't the time of year of birth have a big influence? The amount of sunlight received, activities undertaken, and foods eaten by the expectant mother and newborn baby will vary based on time of year. The differences may be minor today, but would have been pretty profound in antiquity. Imagine being born two thousand years ago in the northern latitudes during the deep winter. Mother and child experience six months of darkness, eating preserved and salted foods. Now imagine the opposite. You are born during summer. Mother and child get lots of sunlight and fresh food. Surely there are effects! I think it would be surprising if there were none.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Astrology is almost certainly right in some respects (a stopped clock is right twice a day after all). Other than time of birth thing, I suspect some of the personality traits astrology describes are genuinely traits that humans can have (although, I'm not actually familiar with what astrology describes), they just don't correlate to birthdate/planet as claimed. Astrology was after all created by humans are familiar with human behaviour. Regarding birth date, I would speculate that one of the most significant effects it has on modern children is how far through the school year they are born (and thus whether they are one of the older children or one of the younger children in their cohort). As you say, it's likely that there's some effect. I personally somewhat doubt it's causes differences in personality anywhere near as drastic the kind that astrology claims.

bombolo 4y ago

> So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.

nicoburns 4y ago
> That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that are now considered scientific fact initially went through a period where they were lacking in conclusive experimental evidence. > I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that. I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the theory is important. There's a difference between saying "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people think in way A or way B is determined by the position of the planets at the time they were born". I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive science and behavioural economics tend not to have studied the MBTI specifically, but have found experimental evidence for theories that are substantially similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do count as some evidence. Specifically there is experimental evidence that: - There are qualitatively different ways in which people can think and process information. - People can have a stable preference for a given thinking process. And that such preferences follow a bimodal distribution. - People can have a preference towards either introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction) - People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast, intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P distinction) That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs. descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton" (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research questions.
- Tainnor 4y ago
  The test-retest reliability of the test is bad, meaning that people who retest very often get different scores. I think this is a very good indicator that the whole thing is bogus.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    I'm of the opinion that the test itself is bogus, but that the theory it is attempting to test has merit and is worthy of investigation with better tests. Test-retest reliability doesn't distibguish between those two possibilities.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JohnBooty 4y ago

unlike astrology which suggests that differences in personality are due to astral bodies Tangential, but: I wonder if astrology might have been accidentally correct in some ways. Clearly astrological bodies have no actual influence on us. I'm not that crazy. However, mightn't the time of year of birth have a big influence? The amount of sunlight received, activities undertaken, and foods eaten by the expectant mother and newborn baby will vary based on time of year. The differences may be minor today, but would have been pretty profound in antiquity. Imagine being born two thousand years ago in the northern latitudes during the deep winter. Mother and child experience six months of darkness, eating preserved and salted foods. Now imagine the opposite. You are born during summer. Mother and child get lots of sunlight and fresh food. Surely there are effects! I think it would be surprising if there were none.

nicoburns 4y ago
Astrology is almost certainly right in some respects (a stopped clock is right twice a day after all). Other than time of birth thing, I suspect some of the personality traits astrology describes are genuinely traits that humans can have (although, I'm not actually familiar with what astrology describes), they just don't correlate to birthdate/planet as claimed. Astrology was after all created by humans are familiar with human behaviour. Regarding birth date, I would speculate that one of the most significant effects it has on modern children is how far through the school year they are born (and thus whether they are one of the older children or one of the younger children in their cohort). As you say, it's likely that there's some effect. I personally somewhat doubt it's causes differences in personality anywhere near as drastic the kind that astrology claims.