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

High level of compliance - MBTI

#1  Postby Pudendum » Dec 16, 2010 3:48 pm

I have noticed that there seems to be an unexpectedly high level of participation in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Not very surprising on its own, but when discussing this (bunkum) pop-psychology test with others, most of them HATE it.

Most of them do it anyway.

The test itself is voluntary, so why do so many folks who dislike it do it anyway? I resisted because psuedo-science makes me hate. When I used every opportunity to speak against it (we had a 'mandatory' staff retreat where the whole morning was dedicated to 'voluntary' MBTI) the facilitator (and my boss) said that in his 20 years of facilitating the MBTI, he had NEVER run into anyone so firmly opposed to it.

The 'type indicator' is clearly full of shit, but I do believe him when he says he has never had such firm opposition. So why not?

I asked the room who would volunteer for the upcoming MBTI (just before it started) and about 6 or 7 (out of about 50) put their hands up. When the testing started, however, I was the only one who didn't participate at first. I was told I could leave after a short time, (I did!) and I understand that one other person declined participation later, but that seems really odd to me.

So why the high level of compliance, and how could one move to erode this compliance? :ask: Any thoughts?
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

#2  Postby Gallstones » Dec 16, 2010 6:52 pm

I just voted for cheese. In memoriam.

That doesn't really count as thoughts. Sorry.


Bump?
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#3  Postby chairman bill » Dec 16, 2010 6:56 pm

I also voted cheese.

Myers-Briggs is a heap of shit. But I'm a psychologist, so what would I know?

BTW, can we call this particular OP 'a cunt', without falling foul of the FUA? ;)
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28319
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#4  Postby Pudendum » Dec 16, 2010 7:14 pm

chairman bill, I would be honoured if you would call me that. I don't think it is allowed here, though. The administration insists on cunt being derisive.

I vehemently disagree. It is pretty, evokative, aromatic, self-lubricating and many other nice things.

Myers-Briggs IS a heap of shit, and most people, around the dinner table agree. So why do they comply when brought into a group (say, for work) and why don't more people opt out?
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

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#5  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2010 7:26 pm

I'm curious about the MBTI shit heapedness. If it's so shit heapy, how is it that it is so repeatable? Every time I take the thing, the results are the same.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

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

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#6  Postby Pudendum » Dec 16, 2010 7:33 pm

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.

That and it has no accountability. If your 'facilitator' was completely unethical about his testing methods, and you were to advise the body who certified him (often type resources), they would tell you that they do not take back certifications. The lady who I asked had never heard of it happening.
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

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#7  Postby chairman bill » Dec 16, 2010 7:38 pm

Pudendum wrote:chairman bill, I would be honoured if you would call me that. I don't think it is allowed here, though. The administration insists on cunt being derisive.
Not in all cases. Fortunately.

Pudendum wrote:Myers-Briggs IS a heap of shit, and most people, around the dinner table agree. So why do they comply when brought into a group (say, for work) and why don't more people opt out?
Peer pressure. Not wanting to be seen as being outside the group. Compliance with perceived authority. All sorts of things.

The_Metatron wrote:I'm curious about the MBTI shit heapedness. If it's so shit heapy, how is it that it is so repeatable? Every time I take the thing, the results are the same.
But that isn't the case for a great many people. Many find that their type changes with a re-test a few weeks/months after the initial test.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28319
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#8  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2010 7:53 pm

chairman bill wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:I'm curious about the MBTI shit heapedness. If it's so shit heapy, how is it that it is so repeatable? Every time I take the thing, the results are the same.
But that isn't the case for a great many people. Many find that their type changes with a re-test a few weeks/months after the initial test.

Pfftt. People who don't know what they think about things.

This is fairly popular (or at least was) in the American Air Force professional military schools. I've taken the thing at least three times over a span of some 20 years, and the results were always nearly identical.

Still, psychometry seems an awfully grey area to me, an electronic engineer. My world makes much more sense. Things I deal with are easily and readily measured with great accuracy.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

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

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#9  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 18, 2010 2:10 am

Pudendum wrote:The test itself is voluntary, so why do so many folks who dislike it do it anyway? I resisted because psuedo-science makes me hate. When I used every opportunity to speak against it (we had a 'mandatory' staff retreat where the whole morning was dedicated to 'voluntary' MBTI) the facilitator (and my boss) said that in his 20 years of facilitating the MBTI, he had NEVER run into anyone so firmly opposed to it.

The 'type indicator' is clearly full of shit, but I do believe him when he says he has never had such firm opposition. So why not?

I asked the room who would volunteer for the upcoming MBTI (just before it started) and about 6 or 7 (out of about 50) put their hands up. When the testing started, however, I was the only one who didn't participate at first. I was told I could leave after a short time, (I did!) and I understand that one other person declined participation later, but that seems really odd to me.

So why the high level of compliance, and how could one move to erode this compliance? :ask: Any thoughts?


I imagine the reason that he has never run into someone who firmly opposed it (assuming he's telling the truth) is: 1) it sounds "sciency", 2) people have heard of it in relation to psychology, so they assume it's a valid test, and 3) people love mystical prediction stuff, so someone filling out an MBTI test on you is like someone offering to read your palm. People eat that shit up.

But yeah, the MBTI is absolute bullshit and that's why nobody with training in psychology accepts it as a valid measure. The wiki page gives a good overview of its problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_briggs#Criticism. Basically the main points are:

1) It's based on an extremely weak conceptual foundation - Jung's ideas were insane and have no empirical support.

2) Unlike most psychometric tests (which account for biased self-reporting and weight responses, or counterbalance questions), the MBTI doesn't do this. In other words, the MBTI tells you exactly what you think about yourself, and nothing more. So it's unsurprising that people often comment on how accurate it is, because they've simply described themselves to somebody and they've repeated back what they just said.

3) As pointed out above, it has extremely low test-retest reliability - over the space of 9 months, over 65% of people will have significantly different personalities according to the test. By one year, almost everybody is an unrecognisable person compared to the beginning of the year. There is also some criticism over its split-half reliability; this means that your scores on the same question within the same test will often differ significantly.

The_Metatron wrote:Still, psychometry seems an awfully grey area to me, an electronic engineer. My world makes much more sense. Things I deal with are easily and readily measured with great accuracy.


Psychometry is a bit less certain than what I like dealing with too, but in tests like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, you find much more replicable results. They also can be used to make accurate predictions about other aspects of a person's life, and can be used successfully in therapeutic situations. All of which cannot be said about the MBTI, which is less useful and predictive than a horoscope.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#10  Postby Gallstones » Dec 18, 2010 3:27 am

I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#11  Postby Delvo » Dec 18, 2010 3:37 am

I've never objected to it because it's harmless, there's been nothing else to do at the particular time it was being done, and it's sometimes at least been something interesting to talk about, even if only to poke holes in.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It's based on an extremely weak conceptual foundation - Jung's ideas were insane and have no empirical support.
What ideas is it based on? I don't see a hypothesis/theory or any particular assertions for it to be "based on". It's just description.
User avatar
Delvo
 
Posts: 971

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#12  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 18, 2010 5:09 am

Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.


It depends on what kind of psychology you're looking at, it obviously gets less rigorous as you move away from the experimental research towards the clinical areas, but the psychometric stuff is pretty good - backed by empirical and scientific evidence. In other words, the tests used to investigate personality are scientific, but their application in therapeutic settings is less so.

Delvo wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:It's based on an extremely weak conceptual foundation - Jung's ideas were insane and have no empirical support.
What ideas is it based on? I don't see a hypothesis/theory or any particular assertions for it to be "based on". It's just description.


It's based on Jung's four "cognitive functions" (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuition), with each of them falling into "introversion" or "extroversion". So the 8 possible personality types in the MBTI are directly, and explicitly, based on these Jungian notions. The only aspects of the "cognitive functions" that have any empirical support are the introversion and extroversion qualifiers, and incidentally these are the only aspects that aren't exclusive to Jungian or MBTI theory.

If they were simply describing, then they'd do it the same way other psychometric tests do; by asking a series of questions and seeing which traits or characteristics lump themselves together, and then they'd apply a label to it. Instead, the creators of the MBTI assumed that Jung was correct and started with these 8 personality types, and then tried to fit people into these groups - even though the personality types had no validity or empirical support.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#13  Postby Gallstones » Dec 18, 2010 5:16 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.


It depends on what kind of psychology you're looking at, it obviously gets less rigorous as you move away from the experimental research towards the clinical areas, but the psychometric stuff is pretty good - backed by empirical and scientific evidence. In other words, the tests used to investigate personality are scientific, but their application in therapeutic settings is less so.


Clinical.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#14  Postby Festeringbob » Dec 18, 2010 7:31 am

Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.


you mean you're doctors have no idea? :lol:

i know the feeling
Liberty Prime is online. All systems nominal. Weapons hot. Mission: the destruction of any and all Chinese communists.
User avatar
Festeringbob
 
Posts: 2626
Age: 34
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#15  Postby Pudendum » Dec 18, 2010 7:40 am

Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.

Psychology strikes me as one of the largest wastes of resources for the individual, and one of the greatest boons to advertising.

As an example, I looked up the Canadian Psychological Association factsheet on alcoholism (because I have taken a bit of time to learn about it) and found this steaming nugget:
What psychological approaches are used to treat alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence?

The best known treatment for alcohol abuse/dependence is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The AA approach is consistent with the medical model and includes a strong spiritual component. Abstinence (no drinking at all) is the treatment goal. Research has shown AA is effective for those who stick with it. One of its strengths is peer support and encouragement. However, AA has high dropout rates."


I can't begin to tell you how wrong this is...fuck...oh wait, I can.

If you ask AA, you will be told that they are NOT treatment (and they certainly AREN'T!). That first line still bugs me because the majority of people still think of it as treatment. Such people include Judges, Bosses and others who can force participation in this religious horseshit.
Abstinence is not the 'treatment goal', either. Step 12 is the treatment goal (prosyletizing) as highlighted in the 1st 'tradition' (from the 12 traditions)
Research has shown that AA is effective for those who stick with it...well, I also have a program. If you want to quit drinking, you simply masturbate every time you get a craving until the craving goes away. Nice simple program, and only one step to remember.
Research has shown that my masturbatory program is effective for those who stick with it.

I love how they tack on that AA has high dropout rates (making their 'successes' pretty meaningless, statistically)

This, coupled with the practicing psychologists I have met, convinces me that I would be better off talking to my dog if I thought I had psychological problems.

I have, however, had great respect for some psychologists (my niece, who just graduated from a cog-psy program is one, Philip Zimbardo, who made an interesting video is another - I'll tack in onto the bottom) and I think what they are aiming to do is important. Hell, I should admit that I considered it as a kind of education to pursue...probably be worth more to keep working and stay under-educated...
----------------------------

Delvo wrote:I've never objected to it because it's harmless, there's been nothing else to do at the particular time it was being done, and it's sometimes at least been something interesting to talk about, even if only to poke holes in.

Harmless? I think all psuedo-science is harmful - to reason.
----------------------------

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]
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

#16  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 18, 2010 11:14 am

Pudendum wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.

Psychology strikes me as one of the largest wastes of resources for the individual, and one of the greatest boons to advertising.

As an example, I looked up the Canadian Psychological Association factsheet on alcoholism (because I have taken a bit of time to learn about it) and found this steaming nugget:


If it makes you feel any better, I had never heard of the CPA. Most psychologists, across the world, are members of the American Psychological Association which is generally recognised as the authority in the area. And whilst their website does still list AA as a treatment for alcoholism (and I'm not sure why they do..) it is listed after two other more empirically sound methods. But substance abuse is a difficult area to study and I don't think there is any real "treatment" in the area, which technically makes AA one of the "best" treatments by default.

Pudendum wrote:I have, however, had great respect for some psychologists (my niece, who just graduated from a cog-psy program is one, Philip Zimbardo, who made an interesting video is another - I'll tack in onto the bottom) and I think what they are aiming to do is important. Hell, I should admit that I considered it as a kind of education to pursue...probably be worth more to keep working and stay under-educated...


Phew! You almost had me in tears, I'm glad that there's still a chance you might have respect for me. :tongue:

As for Zimbardo, I'm half convinced that his popularity is almost entirely the result of the fact that he looks like Satan. For some more serious psychologists though, you might be interested in this link: SQAB Tutorial Videos. Free videos from some of the leading scientists in memory, behavior, choice, etc. A free education from some of the leading scientists in the world in those areas.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#17  Postby Pudendum » Dec 18, 2010 8:00 pm

OOOHHHH!!! FUCK YA! Thanks for the link, Mr. Samsa!

I have to go sledding right now, but I will look at some when I get back.

By the way, to pick a nit - AA is not the default best treatment because it is not treatment.
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

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#18  Postby The Damned » Dec 18, 2010 8:05 pm

I tend to think of it as an extremely blunt tool. It's useful to start a discussion but it really shouldn't end one unless its with wtf is that all about, man we aint that simple!
If you can't beat them kick them.
User avatar
The Damned
Banned User
 
Posts: 1363
Age: 48

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#19  Postby The Damned » Dec 18, 2010 8:07 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Gallstones wrote:I think psychology is.....uhm.....bullshit.
Psychiatry hasn't impressed me either.


It depends on what kind of psychology you're looking at, it obviously gets less rigorous as you move away from the experimental research towards the clinical areas, but the psychometric stuff is pretty good - backed by empirical and scientific evidence. In other words, the tests used to investigate personality are scientific, but their application in therapeutic settings is less so.


Clinical.


Clinical psychology implies treatment by scientifically valid research at the least. So yeah lets not make it about your childhood and sex and voodoo and MBTI.
If you can't beat them kick them.
User avatar
The Damned
Banned User
 
Posts: 1363
Age: 48

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: High level of compliance - MBTI

#20  Postby godel » May 15, 2012 5:51 am

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...
godel
 
Posts: 2

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

Next

Return to Sociology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest