4 ms·
I don’t think anyone says MBTI is random. I think the doubt is in the predictive power of a whichever MBTI classification. The test for your MB label is pretty
by blovescoffee 3y ago
I don’t think anyone says MBTI is random. I think the doubt is in the predictive power of a whichever MBTI classification. The test for your MB label is pretty well designed to extract “some” information. Academics just don’t think the labeling is particularly valuable.
- Xcelerate 3y agoFair point. But are the “superior” systems like Big 5 (or more recent approaches that utilize independent component analysis) really that much more predictive than MBTI? It seems like there is a lot of squabbling over the difference of a few percentage points in information gain.
- pgeorgi 3y agoTo a layman, they're all useless, and in a dangerous way: they transport a sense of understanding a person/character/psyche that they don't support. A professional can gain _some_ information from all of them. Just that the Big 5 have much more literature behind them than MBTI, so there's more reference data for any given constellation. That's a reinforcement loop. Methodical differences and reliability and all that fluff can be used to argue in more detail in favor of one versus the other, but by now, it comes down to what folks are more familiar with. In the end, these are just a few out of many, many tools of the field. If you see somebody build their career on "(MBTI|Big 5|...) analysis" and nothing else, they're not a professional but a quack.
- kridsdale3 3y agoEveryone knows you can fully categorize humans using only two systems: Blood Type and Hogwarts House. Birth month is hogwash, of course.