The Validity of MBTI

[toonia]

Another thread examining astrology got me to thinking about the usefulness of critically examining the MBTI system. This has always seemed to be an important activity for any MBTI based site. It is easy to get caught up in the system and its interrelationships, but what about its underlying assumptions? In what ways is it valid? In what ways potentially flawed and/or limited?

Have at it...

[GOD]

Another thread examining astrology got me to thinking about the usefulness of critically examining the MBTI system. This has always seemed to be an important activity for any MBTI based site. It is easy to get caught up in the system and its interrelationships, but what about its underlying assumptions? In what ways is it valid? In what ways potentially flawed and/or limited?

Have at it...

It’s flawed on a number of bases "Intuitively" *;D they would revolved around the assumptions upon which it's constructed.

1) As it’s based on observation of traits then these traits might be a reflection of the time that it was constructed. I think the F and the T are big gender based assumptions.
In the INTJ some of our "I's" might be somewhat indicative of the F function. Just that the T suppresses it even though the I shows it.

2) The system does not consider the variability in the trait. Or the ability to use conscious thought to mitigate underlying tendencies (which are mistyped in the questions).

3) The MBTI seems to be a very nice matrix, with equal proportions. I think I can see the INTJ as two very specific categories as shown up on the enangram (sp) those that are the natural INTJ (scientist type 5) and those that evolve to the INTJ way of thinking but are a different breed all together, e.g. the type 8's. Lets say an INTJ (adult) might have become very I as a child through some aspect such as depression and then used the T (significantly) to understand, which led to the N and in turn this type of very judging personality. Maybe more children are xSFx generally and as they grow up can become more ISFx which becomes ISTx and then INTJ. (Notably, a person could stop at any point along the continuum). Isn't the MBTI really a pyramid with the NT's at the apex?

There's probably other aspects I could think of... but that’s enough for the moment..

Regards
GOD.


*

[imoutofhere]

I think my biggest issue with it has got to be all the tests/quizzes. This is too serious of a personality system to be flinging around. Certian individuals misrepresent themselves in such tests/quizzes, and then are going to run around calling themselves the wrong type and making that type look very different to those not already knowing. Some kind of verification should be required for a person to actually call themselves by a type, such as a WRITTEN quiz/test that is computed by a group of actual people. That way they can judge by the way the person says things. i.e. There's an ENTP running around right now who is too blatantly extraverted (lots of energy), and overly non-Thinking, non-Feeling to be a J. It's very clear in what she says and how, but the current tests can't catch things like that and are easily lied to. (Maybe this board should create such a test and make new members take it to confirm they're really INTJ, and to help determine they're real type if they're not.)

[GOD]

Another thread examining astrology got me to thinking about the usefulness of critically examining the MBTI system. This has always seemed to be an important activity for any MBTI based site. It is easy to get caught up in the system and its interrelationships, but what about its underlying assumptions? In what ways is it valid? In what ways potentially flawed and/or limited?

Have at it...

It’s flawed on a number of bases "Intuitively" *;D they would revolved around the assumptions upon which it's constructed.

1) As it’s based on observation of traits then these traits might be a reflection of the time that it was constructed. I think the F and the T are big gender based assumptions.
In the INTJ some of our "I's" might be somewhat indicative of the F function. Just that the T suppresses it even though the I shows it.

2) The system does not consider the variability in the trait. Or the ability to use conscious thought to mitigate underlying tendencies (which are mistyped in the questions).

3) The MBTI seems to be a very nice matrix, with equal proportions. I think I can see the INTJ as two very specific categories as shown up on the enangram (sp) those that are the natural INTJ (scientist type 5) and those that evolve to the INTJ way of thinking but are a different breed all together, e.g. the type 8's. Lets say an INTJ (adult) might have become very I as a child through some aspect such as depression and then used the T (significantly) to understand, which led to the N and in turn this type of very judging personality. Maybe more children are xSFx generally and as they grow up can become more ISFx which becomes ISTx and then INTJ. (Notably, a person could stop at any point along the continuum). Isn't the MBTI really a pyramid with the NT's at the apex?

There's probably other aspects I could think of... but that’s enough for the moment..

Regards
GOD.



Thinking about this a bit more... just imagine if the traits lined up with human growth and puberty.

Like.

Boys girls <5 years = xSFx

Guys +13years = x S/N T x
Girls +13years = *x *S/N F x
(However the I can mask the F by creating a strong T to compensate).

Please remember this is the theory of GOD *[smiley=idea.gif]. Like all INTJ's all the dots have been connected and the pattern organised.

S/N is connected with IQ & T/F.
The F&T is a function of societal expectations and underlying sex differences.

[thegnat]

Oh geez. Time for me to find faults in something else. Sigh. I'm too good at this for my own sake. My own worst critic and I can be everything's worst critic if I have the right knowledge.

MBTI focuses on
4 spectra. With 2 poles.
This gives us I/E N/S T/F and J/P spectra.

These spectra count on the fact that, yes, I/E *are* polar opposites, N/S *are* polar opposites, etc.

Is that true?
I/E pretty much if not an absolute resounding yes!
N/S I suppose it depends on your definition. If they are defined as being polar opposites than sure. Are they really? That is a question to ask ourselves.
T/F? Hmm. Are they really mutually exclusive? Probably. If this is saying how you base your decisions. One way is all emotional, the other way has no emotion, just thought. But are these the only things we base decisions off of?
J/P? Maybe. According to the definition by the test yes, but in reality?

I agree on the test thing too. People will represent themselves how they want to be in these tests. If they answer honestly it's probably more accurate.

Honestly I like to fool around with these tests to see if I can determine which questions correspond to which characteristic.

I think the biggest assumptions are a) That people are answering honestly and b) That these four spectra really do represent extremes on personalities.

perhaps another assumption is that they believe people use their personality in a way that they think uses the personality "the best" ie they call us scientists and 90% of us on this board are not scientists.

[toonia]

I think my biggest issue with it has got to be all the tests/quizzes. This is too serious of a personality system to be flinging around...
I definitely agree with this. I have taken quite a few MBTI tests over my lifetime, but never in a controlled setting. I've mostly come out as INFJ. Just recently I've come out as every variety of INXX. It's somewhat amusing. Many of the specific questions have various types of biases about word meanings, contexts for a particular function, etc. Another problem is that self-report is one of the most flawed forms of assessment. A former psychology professor of mine refuses to use any self-report in any assessment because her experience has proven it to be completely unreliable. This is true even when people answer honestly, because self-perception is basically always flawed to some extent.

Ideally there should be some type of cognitive skills MBTI test to measure an individual's relative skill at the various functions. Such a test would be significantly more difficult to design than the current ones, but could be far more useful. Still, it would have to be administered in a controlled setting or it too wouldn't mean much.

[toonia]

I've been thinking about the issue of the validity of the test questions for determining MBTI type and had an idea about developing a skills-based MBTI. I don't have the training to implement such a test professionally, but thought that the community of INTJs would enjoy having insight into possible designs along with me. Since Ni provides the skill of seeing an issue from multiple angles and is system based, then perhaps Ni-dominants would be a good choice to consider the overall design (with input from all types of course) These are some thoughts so far.

What if a series of scenarios were presented that were designed in such a way that the problem presented could be solved equally using any of the eight functions. The test taker would then answer a series of questions that best reflect their process for resolving the issue presented. The initial issue would need to be complete enough to minimize added assumptions from test takers. The scenarios would either need to be simplistic, or supplied with comprehensive detail. There would need to be multiple scenarios to show a generalized tendency, since a single scenario could be distorted by assumption.

In addition to this there are ways to measure Ti, Te, Se, and probably Si. The F and N functions would be more difficult to test because they seem more context based, but perhaps there are ways to design those questions as well.

It might even be an interesting project to attempt to design such a test in this thread just as a way to explore the possibility.