If it's nonsensical, the data can't be valuable anyhow.
What's Your MBTI?
- Thread starter jbfrady
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
There's already enough data collected on the internet in regards to how we spend our time on it. Why give anyone the chance to sell your data that may or may not be useful in a marketing situation?
You know, in Korea and Japan, they believe personality is directly associated with blood type. Then there are those who believe zodiac, Chinese zodiac or western or whatever. Throwing chicken bones were once popular along with gutting small animals. I prefer tea cup reading. No waste in time nor resources.
Don't get me wrong, I don't go around handing out my financials willy-nilly, but I don't perceive any real risk when the information isn't sensitive.
Jungian-based personality typology like the MBTI aren't totally without merit... but their biggest pitfalls is what people do with them or think it means, reducing them to being essentially a horoscope.
That said, personality typing/inventory is also not totally sound either, and some of it's issues are internal within the basis of the typing itself and their own official descriptions that are borderline-horoscope, as well as being pseudoscientific in much of it's approach and testing implementation.
For example, look at how many people don't even understand what introversion is. Many still assume it's shyness or social anxiety.
Go to any dumb online group for personality types and it's nothing but psychosomatic-induced social anxiety (in "introvert groups"), and all the memes are about social anxiety, and a lot of their posts are self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense and a bunch of circle-jerking about how special they are, and a bunch of people making themselves ridiculously exaggerated caricatures of what their results say they should be. "OMG, that's SUCH an ENFP thing to do!" or "I don't think you're 1 wing 9, you're more like a 2 wing 5" (Enneagram). Personality typology doesn't translate directly to external behavior, it's strictly internal tendencies and more interpersonal style that sometimes influences (but not necessarily dictates) external behavior.
While personality typing as a whole is theoretical, the only aspect of any of them that has consistency and a clear basis is introversion vs extroversion, neither of which is what people often make them out to be, and also isn't a dichotomy where you're either one or the other, but more like a sliding scale where most are in the middle. You cannot get to know a person and accurately guess their personality typology, to include just determining introversion and extroversion.
The Big Five personality inventory has a little more merit to it, but that also has problems like many others. Nobody actually studying the psychology of personality can even agree beyond introversion and extroversion, what the various other aspects, qualities, dimensions, whatever would even be, and there's no agreement how to properly measure them. Hell for that matter, there's no agreement to even how to define "personality" itself (in the context of psychology).
For what it's worth, any time I've done one of these, I've always been pegged as an INTJ.
That said, personality typing/inventory is also not totally sound either, and some of it's issues are internal within the basis of the typing itself and their own official descriptions that are borderline-horoscope, as well as being pseudoscientific in much of it's approach and testing implementation.
For example, look at how many people don't even understand what introversion is. Many still assume it's shyness or social anxiety.
Go to any dumb online group for personality types and it's nothing but psychosomatic-induced social anxiety (in "introvert groups"), and all the memes are about social anxiety, and a lot of their posts are self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense and a bunch of circle-jerking about how special they are, and a bunch of people making themselves ridiculously exaggerated caricatures of what their results say they should be. "OMG, that's SUCH an ENFP thing to do!" or "I don't think you're 1 wing 9, you're more like a 2 wing 5" (Enneagram). Personality typology doesn't translate directly to external behavior, it's strictly internal tendencies and more interpersonal style that sometimes influences (but not necessarily dictates) external behavior.
While personality typing as a whole is theoretical, the only aspect of any of them that has consistency and a clear basis is introversion vs extroversion, neither of which is what people often make them out to be, and also isn't a dichotomy where you're either one or the other, but more like a sliding scale where most are in the middle. You cannot get to know a person and accurately guess their personality typology, to include just determining introversion and extroversion.
The Big Five personality inventory has a little more merit to it, but that also has problems like many others. Nobody actually studying the psychology of personality can even agree beyond introversion and extroversion, what the various other aspects, qualities, dimensions, whatever would even be, and there's no agreement how to properly measure them. Hell for that matter, there's no agreement to even how to define "personality" itself (in the context of psychology).
For what it's worth, any time I've done one of these, I've always been pegged as an INTJ.
Last edited:
Agreed down the line. It's intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If it helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses in a meaningful way, then it's a good tool. If it gives the excuse to wallow in self pity or excuse yourself from adhering to social norms, then it's toxic. Either way, it's not the tool that's to blame.
No, it's not the tool that's to blame generally.
But MBTI specifically is partially to blame in this case. It's very basis is almost purely pseudoscientific and built on very shaky foundations and using a lot of presumptions. It has no merited evidence to support its foundations or its conclusions, like even that the questions asked indicates what they say it indicates, or that the things indicated themselves are even real or relevant.
To be fair, that's the accusation that's been leveled against all forms of psychology for a little over a century.
All psychology, if considered scientific, is more like a scatter chart. You can't make a line that touches every point when points abound. In the same way, psychology is subjective by default. Everybody is different, which is why no psychological principles should be accepted as blanket fact.
We're all unique, and yet the law of averages applies too. We share similar traits, whether that's by personality type, generation, region of birth, or what have you.
As someone who has benefited greatly from studying personalities, I can say I've formed my own subjective evidence. I've learned more about myself and I've become rather adept at reading people quicker and knowing how to better engage with - and relate to - others. As a tool, it's quite handy. But do I think any educational institution should offer a masters of mbti? Hell no.
The sad and, possibly dangerous, part is that many people put weight to the findings. There are a lot of folks in the world who trust this type of thing to the point that they may try to make changes to "measure up" as it were, meeting their expectations or even how they want others to perceive them. Sadly, preying on people's weaknesses, ignorance and self-esteem is often part and parcel of the interweb. Very sad indeed!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Lots and lots of pseudointellectual drivel, conspiracy BS, extreme diets etc out there today, which spreads like never before. The snake oil salesmen of these days are certainly busy. Some get awfully rich too.
I'd rather read the classics or the philosophers than modern day self help-gurus.
If you legitimately think that's happening here and you're concerned about it to this apparent degree, why not take the test and provide wrong answers only to screw them out of their precious and valuable data?
Well, in all my life I do not believe I have ever taken one of these types of tests and that's a long time!
So, I took one of those you provided links for - 16 Personalities
What I scored:
Commander
ENTJ - A
60% Extraverted
67% Intuitive
58% Thinking
76% Judging
81% Assertive
I hope that's at least average or better as I do not have a clue what it means!
So, I took one of those you provided links for - 16 Personalities
What I scored:
Commander
ENTJ - A
60% Extraverted
67% Intuitive
58% Thinking
76% Judging
81% Assertive
I hope that's at least average or better as I do not have a clue what it means!
Having done one a thousand years ago I know I'm typed as a Architect, same as Hoosier but it's wrong. I know that I am really a squirrel and instead of hoarding acorns I hoard tobacco.
Being both a Missouri resident and an Applied Psychologist who develops assessments for a living I can say without reservation that I agree with everything you said in your post.
The Myers Briggs should not be used for selection purposes. It was never meant for that. It has very little predictive validity re job performance or anything else and it is unclear how mood effects its reliability (state vs trait assessment).
That said I take an on line Myers Briggs type assessment every once in a while for fun. But I have a pretty good idea what the outcome will be given they are self report measures
Really, who gives a rat's ass? Might as well add in a little more mysticism and ask about Enneagrams.
Everybody's welcome to their own interpretation, but applied psychology is to MBTI as interior design is to roofing. Adjacent, sure.