High level of compliance - MBTI

Discuss the high level of compliance in the MBTI

Discussions about society in general and social activity.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Have you ever been administered the MBTI in a group?

Yes
2
20%
No
4
40%
Yes and I am a facilitator
0
No votes
No and I am a facilitator
0
No votes
Cheese (in memory)
4
40%
 
Total votes : 10

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#21  Postby Mr.Samsa » May 15, 2012 9:49 am

godel wrote:
Pudendum wrote:I think Mr. Samsa (and a few others) can explain it more clearly than I. My biggest problem with it is that it is based on flawed science. Jung was a nut-case.


Your professional assesment that Jung was a "nut case" is interesting, Pudendum.

What is your belief around the terms extravert and introvert?

Is it a real dichotomy that occurs naturally in the population with statistical significance, or not?

Looking forward to your feedback...


Whilst Jung was one of the first to popularise the notions of intro and extroversion, he obviously didn't come up with the concept, and the way he (and the MBTI) conceived of the characteristic is now seen as demonstrably false. That is, the concept itself is valid, but Jung and the MBTI-ers view the categories as being more discrete, whereas we know that they are continuous.

In other words, the validity of introversion and extroversion doesn't help the MBTI because they characterise them incorrectly (and, perhaps more importantly, it's only a quarter of the personality categories that it proposes, with no evidence at all that the other categories exist).
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#22  Postby The_Metatron » May 15, 2012 10:23 am

Well anyway, we INTJs rule the world. The rest of you may bow down and despair.

It's for your own good.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21080
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#23  Postby Mr.Samsa » May 15, 2012 10:31 am

The_Metatron wrote:Well anyway, we INTJs rule the world. The rest of you may bow down and despair.

It's for your own good.


Nah, Scorpios are way cooler, and your MBTI result says that your outlook is bleak, so who's laughing now?!
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#24  Postby The_Metatron » May 15, 2012 10:51 am

Pfft. INTJ as well as being Aries.

You're doooomed, I tell you. Dooooomed.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21080
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#25  Postby JoeB » May 15, 2012 11:08 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
In other words, the validity of introversion and extroversion doesn't help the MBTI because they characterise them incorrectly (and, perhaps more importantly, it's only a quarter of the personality categories that it proposes, with no evidence at all that the other categories exist).

What would constitute evidence for the existence of the four categories?

I'm a bit confused by the antipathy towards MBTI, it's said that it only tells you what you put in, but isn't that its entire purpose, to describe what type of person you are?

I've done the test several times and it's quite consistent (INFP) and in other persons its quite consistent as well.
User avatar
JoeB
RS Donator
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 1463
Age: 34
Male

Country: European Union (NL)
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#26  Postby godel » May 15, 2012 12:54 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Whilst Jung was one of the first to popularise the notions of intro and extroversion, he obviously didn't come up with the concept, and the way he (and the MBTI) conceived of the characteristic is now seen as demonstrably false. That is, the concept itself is valid, but Jung and the MBTI-ers view the categories as being more discrete, whereas we know that they are continuous.


Ok, so let's assume Carl Jung was a "nut-case" popularist for a minute.

It would be good to know where one can find the authoritative definition of "Extraversion", and who is responsible for it in a psychological sense.

Perhaps you can enlighten us?
godel
 
Posts: 2

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#27  Postby Pudendum » May 15, 2012 1:02 pm

godel wrote:
Pudendum wrote:I think Mr. Samsa (and a few others) can explain it more clearly than I. My biggest problem with it is that it is based on flawed science. Jung was a nut-case.


Your professional assesment that Jung was a "nut case" is interesting, Pudendum.

What is your belief around the terms extravert and introvert?

Is it a real dichotomy that occurs naturally in the population with statistical significance, or not?

Looking forward to your feedback...

It's not my professional assessment (which is why I eschewed professional terminology)

My belief around the terms extravert and introvert? I believe that using a term so easily confused (extravert/extrovert) was ill-advised.

I don't think it is a real dichotomy. I think people wriggle around that 'scale' their whole lives, and this MBTI places them squarely on an average.

An average is usually something invented between real data points to use for math. It isn't real in the sense that a shade of hair is real.
Maybe I'll stop back in when there is more than one political opinion represented respectfully here.
User avatar
Pudendum
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 86

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#28  Postby Mr.Samsa » May 15, 2012 1:42 pm

JoeB wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
In other words, the validity of introversion and extroversion doesn't help the MBTI because they characterise them incorrectly (and, perhaps more importantly, it's only a quarter of the personality categories that it proposes, with no evidence at all that the other categories exist).

What would constitute evidence for the existence of the four categories?


There are a number of ways to assess whether they exist, but essentially they need to be demonstrated to be consistent, reliable, and foundational across individuals - but only introversion/extroversion is. The wiki page has a good discussion on the construct validity of the test here.

JoeB wrote:I'm a bit confused by the antipathy towards MBTI, it's said that it only tells you what you put in, but isn't that its entire purpose, to describe what type of person you are?


That's a common understanding of how personality tests work, but it's false. This test, as it is, describes what kind of person you think you are - in other words, there's no point even doing the test as you could simply just ask a person to describe themselves, and you'd get the exact same results. A lot of personality tests don't rely on self-reported data because it can be faulty, but when they do use self-reported data (through the use of tests like this) they include a number of methods and techniques that are designed to reduce cognitive biases and common mistakes people make (e.g. presenting themselves in a more positive light, or answering a question in the way they think is appropriate rather than in the way that is most accurate).

JoeB wrote:I've done the test several times and it's quite consistent (INFP) and in other persons its quite consistent as well.


That's good for you, but you're an exception. The MBTI is notorious for having no reliability; for most people, when they retake the test months later we find that their "personality" has shifted dramatically across most MBTI measures, and there are also reliability problems within the test itself (i.e. if you take the results from one half of the test, and compare them to the results of another half of the test, you can get vastly different personality type results, and this should never occur).

godel wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:

Whilst Jung was one of the first to popularise the notions of intro and extroversion, he obviously didn't come up with the concept, and the way he (and the MBTI) conceived of the characteristic is now seen as demonstrably false. That is, the concept itself is valid, but Jung and the MBTI-ers view the categories as being more discrete, whereas we know that they are continuous.


Ok, so let's assume Carl Jung was a "nut-case" popularist for a minute.

It would be good to know where one can find the authoritative definition of "Extraversion", and who is responsible for it in a psychological sense.

Perhaps you can enlighten us?


The modern form of the I-E scale is that which is utilised with Costa and McCrae's "Big Five". The main difference between that, and the outdated rejected form that Jung used, was that current theories view I-E as a continuous scale and not a dichotomous category.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Sociology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest