4 ms·

I thought Myers-Briggs was obsoleted by the Big Five, anyway.

• disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  Hardly, they occupy different spaces. Big 5 is the current faith in academia, while MB is the current cult within business. In any case, the Big 5 has little more of a scientific basis than the MBTI, but as most psychologists don't understand the importance of statistics (and what factor analysis can and can't tell you) it still survives, zombie like. I hate the big 5, but I hate myers briggs more.
  • wisty 14y ago
    Big 5 isn't particularly good, and hopefully no-one says it is (except when they follow up with a "compared to MB"). And unlike MB, it doesn't claim to be anything deep or fundamental. It is just a lens which might be useful, and that's what it says on the tin. The most important part of Big5 (IMO) is that it gets away from archetypes. Changing "introvert / extrovert" to "level of introversion / extroversion" is very important.
    • disgruntledphd2 14y ago
      Well the constant refusal of Costa and McCrae to accept the results of confirmatory factor analyses is what gets me. To argue that personality must necessarily have a different method because the current method does not agree with your (essentially qualitative) conclusions is not science in my view. Certainly in my areas (social especially) there's a lot of flag waving for the Big 5 which really upsets me. Then, when I told my lecturers during the course of my PhD that all psychologists should have to learn a little matrix algebra i was essentially laughed at. Unfortuntately, until they do, stupid over interpretations of flawed statistical models are likely to remain commonplace.