4 ms·
MBTI are pseudoscience -> This. It absolutely fails to make predictions, except that people who describe themselves as liking to think are people who like to th
by a3w 4y ago
MBTI are pseudoscience -> This.
It absolutely fails to make predictions, except that people who describe themselves as liking to think are people who like to think, and other obvious ideas. It is very hyped in actual application, though. As is homeopathy and astrology.
<edit>
Big Five Personality traits and the HEXACO model exist, and they seem to have more a more positive scientific review history. “Your boss is probably someone more likely to have qualities from the dark triad” is still bad news when looking at the real world versus an ideal world, but this seems to be a checked fact.
</edit>
There is some evidence to suggest that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) may not be as reliable and valid as its proponents suggest. In fact, some studies have found that the MBTI does not consistently yield the same results for individuals who take it multiple times, which raises questions about its reproducibility and the reliability of the results.
For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that only about half of individuals who took the MBTI twice received the same result both times. This suggests that the MBTI may not be a reliable measure of personality traits.
In addition, other studies have found that the MBTI does not reliably predict job performance or other real-world outcomes, further questioning its validity as a psychological assessment tool.
- nicoburns 4y agoThe questionaire is bullshit (how on earth would we expect to measure thinking processes through a questionaire), but the underlying theory is a lot more interesting. It's terms (like "thinking") are technical jargon that don't correspond to their usual meanings though. For example "thinking" is really "descriptive judegement" (cognition focussed on whether things are true/false/possible/impossible), to be contrasted with "feeling" (which is actually also a rational cognitive process!) just focussed on "value judgement" (cognition focussed on whether things are good/bad/should happen/shouldn't happen). It is also not supposed to measure personality traits in the same sense that other models do. It is two steps removed: 1. It attempts to measure interal cognitive processes rather than external behavoural traits (how you think, not what you think) 2. It attempts to measure people's natural personality baseline (cf genotype) from which their actual personality (cf phenotype) develops as modified by their life experiences and the context in which they live. Both of which make it even more difficult to measure with a questionaire that tends to only ask about current behaviours. But IMO also make it a much more interesting and much more plausible theory.