Aleph-One
09-13-2007, 07:33 PM
I was actually a little surprised when I learned that the MBTI is hotly contested among my scientist friends. *I don't doubt that it has its pitfalls and shortcomings, but I tend to think of it as useful and accurate, at least in certain respects. *I'd like to start a tread where everyone can weigh in with their own support of the MBTI (or other typology or personality tests, for that matter), or their own dislike for the thing. *Here are some of my responses to the critiques of the test:
1) The test is not scientific.
I think this claim, when deployed in discourse, tends to be a conflation of the words "scientific" and "accurate". *Of course the two are closely related, but need not be the same thing. *Therefore, I'll return to the question of accuracy momentarily. *Most scientists demand that a theoretical construct is a novel, falsifiable model of a particular phenomenon, and I will demand the same. *I believe that the MBTI satisfies this demand to at least a certain degree. *The MBTI claims to model temperament and personality, so there is little to be gained by contesting its status as a model. *I believe it to be novel -- it purports to provide a prediction of general traits and temperament, and is used in industry to match candidates to jobs (keeping in mind that the accuracy or reliability of a model's prediction does not undermine the status of the model as a novel one). *The novelty of the model lends great support to its status as a body of falsifiable claims and predictions, but does not ensure this. *It is possible that the MBTI suffers from the same drawbacks of astrology (and, indeed, this is often stated by critics of the MBTI). *It is often remarked that the test suffers a confirmation bias in much the same way as astrology. *I do not agree at all. *Bertram Forer demonstrated this personal validation bias by giving (alleged) findings of personality tests to his students, and asked them to rate its accuracy. *Of course, he gave the same set of vague results to all of the students. *They were:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
I don't think that the MBTI suffers the same drawback. *For beginners (and I'll grant that this is anecdotal), I doubt very much that an INTJ would agree that he/she has any of the general traits described here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example. *In fact, I'd strenuously disagree with any assessment that labeled me as adventurous, outgoing, or novelty seeking (and I stay far, far away from people who are, and typically regard them as petty or relying mostly on shock value over substance). *It doesn't need to be the case that the MBTI describes only desirable or positive aspects of a personality, either. *NTs could be described as possessing a higher degree of autistic traits than most other personalities, INTJs are prone to developing a schizoid personality disorder, INTJs are not patient with other peole, and the intuitive thinking with the organizational capacity makes us very likely to jump, half-cocked, to conclusions which we may adhere to even in the face of contrary factual evidence. *We could say similar things about INTPs... whatever we might say about their creative capacity (which is without peer), the combination of intuitive thinking with the open ended perception is also a deadly cocktail that makes the INTP more prone to endorse fringe theories. *Summarily, I don't think that the MBTI (if properly composed and administered) is likely to suffer from personal validation. *One could, however, launch an attack against its scientific value from a very important standpoint: the test is not blind in any respect, and is able to be manipulated by both the administrator and the subject, and so is always tied to the expertise and subjective judgement of the administrator. *If this undermines the scientific value of the test, then so be it -- forensic psychiatry suffers the same drawback, and we need only be mindful that it is a possibility.
2) The test erects false dichotomies.
This critique is often bundled with statistics which show normal distributions of the traits tested by the MBTI among the public. *It is often remarked that the test, if it is indeed modeling a real distinction, should give rise to a bimodal distribution, rather than a normal distribution. *I am of the mind that setting the requirement of a bimodal distribution is a bit of a straw man. *There is, after all, an essential continuum of temperatures, yet we tend to think in terms of "hot" or "cold". *That isn't particularly quantitative, but whether it is a useful mode of measurement depends largely on the application. *With respect to certain threshholds, activation energies, and capacities, we can define "hot" and "cold" in terms of what we would like to have happen, so the question becomes meaningful when we qualify it a little further: "With respect to the functions and purpose of this apparatus, is it hot or is it cold?" *There is nothing intrinsic to questions of this format that demands a bimodal distribution. *This has not dispensed with the critique, however. *Even sufficiently qualified, one might ask "Does it make sense to call something 15% introverted? *What does that mean?" *This is a non-question. *All measurement is arbitrary, as are the units. *15% introverted simply means that the measurement apparatus detected a predisposition to extroverted behavior as defined by the test, so the real question should be "Does the test provide a range of results that correlates with typical behavior?". *Because the test results carry a normal distribution with mean values centered at the border between the dichotomies, I am inclined to say, "yes". *If this is not enough, we could return to the engineering comparison and ask, "Is this apparatus hot or cold?". *In computer problems, such questions are often answered with fuzzy logic, and carry the form of "15% hot" (and this is possible because the question has been sufficiently qualified).
There is a potential objection that the normal distribution with mean values at the trait distinctions could undermine the novelty or meaningfulness of the model, but I don't agree with this objection. *We could interpret ambiguous results as reflecting a wide degree of versatility, and predispositions in any direction will obviously yield descriptions of disposition.
But, that's just my nine cents.
1) The test is not scientific.
I think this claim, when deployed in discourse, tends to be a conflation of the words "scientific" and "accurate". *Of course the two are closely related, but need not be the same thing. *Therefore, I'll return to the question of accuracy momentarily. *Most scientists demand that a theoretical construct is a novel, falsifiable model of a particular phenomenon, and I will demand the same. *I believe that the MBTI satisfies this demand to at least a certain degree. *The MBTI claims to model temperament and personality, so there is little to be gained by contesting its status as a model. *I believe it to be novel -- it purports to provide a prediction of general traits and temperament, and is used in industry to match candidates to jobs (keeping in mind that the accuracy or reliability of a model's prediction does not undermine the status of the model as a novel one). *The novelty of the model lends great support to its status as a body of falsifiable claims and predictions, but does not ensure this. *It is possible that the MBTI suffers from the same drawbacks of astrology (and, indeed, this is often stated by critics of the MBTI). *It is often remarked that the test suffers a confirmation bias in much the same way as astrology. *I do not agree at all. *Bertram Forer demonstrated this personal validation bias by giving (alleged) findings of personality tests to his students, and asked them to rate its accuracy. *Of course, he gave the same set of vague results to all of the students. *They were:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
I don't think that the MBTI suffers the same drawback. *For beginners (and I'll grant that this is anecdotal), I doubt very much that an INTJ would agree that he/she has any of the general traits described here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example. *In fact, I'd strenuously disagree with any assessment that labeled me as adventurous, outgoing, or novelty seeking (and I stay far, far away from people who are, and typically regard them as petty or relying mostly on shock value over substance). *It doesn't need to be the case that the MBTI describes only desirable or positive aspects of a personality, either. *NTs could be described as possessing a higher degree of autistic traits than most other personalities, INTJs are prone to developing a schizoid personality disorder, INTJs are not patient with other peole, and the intuitive thinking with the organizational capacity makes us very likely to jump, half-cocked, to conclusions which we may adhere to even in the face of contrary factual evidence. *We could say similar things about INTPs... whatever we might say about their creative capacity (which is without peer), the combination of intuitive thinking with the open ended perception is also a deadly cocktail that makes the INTP more prone to endorse fringe theories. *Summarily, I don't think that the MBTI (if properly composed and administered) is likely to suffer from personal validation. *One could, however, launch an attack against its scientific value from a very important standpoint: the test is not blind in any respect, and is able to be manipulated by both the administrator and the subject, and so is always tied to the expertise and subjective judgement of the administrator. *If this undermines the scientific value of the test, then so be it -- forensic psychiatry suffers the same drawback, and we need only be mindful that it is a possibility.
2) The test erects false dichotomies.
This critique is often bundled with statistics which show normal distributions of the traits tested by the MBTI among the public. *It is often remarked that the test, if it is indeed modeling a real distinction, should give rise to a bimodal distribution, rather than a normal distribution. *I am of the mind that setting the requirement of a bimodal distribution is a bit of a straw man. *There is, after all, an essential continuum of temperatures, yet we tend to think in terms of "hot" or "cold". *That isn't particularly quantitative, but whether it is a useful mode of measurement depends largely on the application. *With respect to certain threshholds, activation energies, and capacities, we can define "hot" and "cold" in terms of what we would like to have happen, so the question becomes meaningful when we qualify it a little further: "With respect to the functions and purpose of this apparatus, is it hot or is it cold?" *There is nothing intrinsic to questions of this format that demands a bimodal distribution. *This has not dispensed with the critique, however. *Even sufficiently qualified, one might ask "Does it make sense to call something 15% introverted? *What does that mean?" *This is a non-question. *All measurement is arbitrary, as are the units. *15% introverted simply means that the measurement apparatus detected a predisposition to extroverted behavior as defined by the test, so the real question should be "Does the test provide a range of results that correlates with typical behavior?". *Because the test results carry a normal distribution with mean values centered at the border between the dichotomies, I am inclined to say, "yes". *If this is not enough, we could return to the engineering comparison and ask, "Is this apparatus hot or cold?". *In computer problems, such questions are often answered with fuzzy logic, and carry the form of "15% hot" (and this is possible because the question has been sufficiently qualified).
There is a potential objection that the normal distribution with mean values at the trait distinctions could undermine the novelty or meaningfulness of the model, but I don't agree with this objection. *We could interpret ambiguous results as reflecting a wide degree of versatility, and predispositions in any direction will obviously yield descriptions of disposition.
But, that's just my nine cents.