Why MBTI is a fraud

[Black Rose]

The MBTI is a test that was developed to try and find the inherent cognitive motivations of the people who took it. These cognitive motivations are not arbitrary but because the test characterizes these motivations with words which have a subjective interpretation the method of distinguishing which type a person is becomes a conflation of those terms used. To understand why a person becomes focused internally or externally a clear realization must be had of one's personal mode of focus. It is not about predicting what people will do (sociology), it is about knowing who they are, who I am (psychology).

https://youtu.be/GXCnhWVC8yY

https://youtu.be/aG8ii-2hhEQ

 

[Hadoblado]

I wouldn't state it as a percentage.

I'd say that dichotomies are basically a priori in that categorisation isn't held to any standard bar utility. Of these, I've heard that some lack empirical backing, at least to the point where effect size is not as large as people seem to think. I personally find them all useful.

Profiles are also self-evident, but again, the effect size is often exaggerated.

Functions are dodgy and it's unlikely that their current iteration is that close to the truth at all. In my mind they represent an interaction of fundamental cognitive forces, but the only way I'll accept functions is if they are arrived at through empiricism. Until then people are just making it up because it sells or sounds right.

 

[Inquisitor]

I've only made eight posts here so far, Inquisitor, and in three of them — two of them replies to you — I've noted that I agree with James Reynierse that the so-called cognitive functions are a "category mistake." I don't subscribe to any functions model, I don't believe in "dominant" functions, and I don't believe in characterizing S and N as "perceiving functions" or T and F as "judging functions."

Nor would you, because as you correctly pointed out, type dynamics is not supported by the data. I have never met a single INTJ that is willing to believe in a scientific (and by scientific I mean any field of knowledge that gathers experimental/observational data) theory that does not have any data to back it up.

 

[Inquisitor]

How can anyone disagree with this? You can't. It's a good, clean thought. Respect.

However,
I have to point something out.

I think you have taken your turn at misinterpreting extraversion and introversion as it applies to thinking,

using reckful again as an example, I have this to say.

The primary difference in attitude as it pertains to the thinking function is whether the reasoning process starts with the subjective, briefly appeals to the objective idea, and returns once more to the subjective... or if its continual purpose is always to appeal to objective ideas at the expense of subjectivity.

I think that this particular poster has exemplified introversion in his thinking.

I understand that he refrains from discussing personal experience and the like,
but he is also impenetrable in his resolve. He appears to be well rehearsed and to have a complete understanding of the theories as he discusses them, no doubt, however he shows no allegiance to any one thing that doesn't make perfect sense, to him.

This individual is 100% organized in his thoughts and 100% confident in his assertions, and I think he's a perfect example actually of one who starts his reasoning with the subjective, appeals to "the data" or generally held notions, freely dismisses that which he deems inconsistent and freely synthesizes those which make sense to him, and then returns to his own subjective interpretations as supreme.

I think, with regards to introversion as seeking depth, we have a great example of someone who penetrates very deeply into thought, examines every idea for its merit, and callously discards whatever does not fit within his framework.

It can be argued that it's Ni at play to some extent, but that is no less consistent with the approach I'm taking anyway.

Disagree here. He made absolutely no mention whatsoever of any subjective/personal experience. There's a completely ruthless (and I mean that in the best sense) devotion to the evidence in his posts. He does not start from his own subjective theory and then proceed to dip a little here and there into the literature/data to back it up. The aim of his post is to clarify what Jung did or did not say, not to advance his own subjective theory. Instead, he starts his case with a very open mind about what Jung may or may not have said, and then gradually proceeds to build up an understanding of the whole issue by immersing himself entirely in the literature both Jungian/scientific. You're right that he is seeking depth of understanding (introversion), but in the end, he arrives at a possible theory of how type dynamics should look based on the data/literature, and then promptly says that he doesn't subscribe to it for lack of data!

An INTP would not do this because the theory is everything for him! The data may or may not accord with it, and that's why it's my belief INTPs in general are inferior to INTJs as professional academic researchers. The data for INTPs is only of secondary importance.

As far as I can tell, there are no flaws in any of his arguments. He's not ever going to accept type dynamics unless it is well-supported by experimental data, which as I now know (thanks to him), it's not.

In any case, I'm glad he posted, because I do have a better understanding of Jung and the MBTI both. I still think that type dynamics holds merit, and the stack for me of an INTP still starts with Ti. I am not, however, entirely convinced that the rest of the letters are in the order Ne-Si-Fe. I think the only thing we can say for certain is that given a dominant subjective J-function (T/F), the individual must be externally P, and given a dominant subjective P-function (N/S), the individual must be externally J. The reverse would be true for the extravert. This in fact does accord with the MBTI dichotomies (and reckful can correct me if I'm wrong) and also with what Jung believed (having made no mention of a 4 letter functional stack). I am open though now to the possibility of a dom/aux vs. tert/inf model: Ti-Ni/Se-Fe, or dom vs inf functions model: Ti/Ne-Se-Fe. The only thing that has to remain is the inferior Fe.

Ultimately I'm optimistic though that in the future we'll have the real-time brain scanning technology necessary to be able to get a definitive answer on whether or not this functional stack is accurate. Then we can revisit this whole issue.

 

[Miss spelt]

Here's the leap that he makes: He basically says that an MBTI P-dom individual must necessarily have a dominant perceiving function.

So who made this leap then??

It was me.

Disagree here. He made absolutely no mention whatsoever of any subjective/personal experience.

Are you being intentionally obtuse now?
That isn't what I said. I basically said the opposite.

Furthermore, I don't believe there is any requirement that introverted thinking references subjective/personal experience.

To paraphrase Jung, the requirement is to understand whether an individual starts his process with a subjective valuation, observes external conditions, and then returns once more to the subjective orientation.. or whether he primarily devotes his reasoning to the objective (i.e. generally held ideas and the like).

It is not sufficient to note that an individual utilizes objectively verifiable information to call his thinking extroverted. The underlying disposition of external focus must be forthright. With the individual in question [feels weird to talk about him in a thread he's now posting in], I simply don't believe this is the case.

The poster is extremely adept at referencing his information with objectively verifiable ideas, but it runs deeper than that. He doesn't simply state them as fact, and leave them to sit there as if their truth is self-evident. He analyzes the underlying ideas for legitimate validity and merit, based on his conceptual understanding, and shows allegiance only to that which makes complete sense.

But now I am repeating myself.

 

[Inquisitor]

So who made this leap then??

It was me.

Well you too, but he said that an INTP would be Ni dominant.

It's kind of a moot point in any case.

 

[Miss spelt]

Well you too, but he said that an INTP would be Ni dominant.

It's kind of a moot point in any case.

It's not a moot point as long as you continue to show that degree of disrespect.

What he said was that if we were to take a purist approach and merge the two, which he personally does not agree with, then I would be basically correct to suggest that the P and J dichotomy primarily reflects the irrational/rational dichotomy.

 

[Inquisitor]

It's not a moot point as long as you continue to show that degree of disrespect.

What he said was that if we were to take a purist approach and merge the two, which he personally does not agree with, then I would be basically correct to suggest that the P and J dichotomy primarily reflects the irrational/rational dichotomy.

How am I being disrespectful?

I understand what you said, but I don't think your interpretation is accurate. The fact that he made no a priori judgements is an indication of Ni, not Ti. An INTP makes an inner subjective judgement first, and then dips into the objective to see if it supports/refutes his ideas. Reckful did not do that.

Again, if you think observable differences between people are the only thing that counts, then your interpretation of the stack is correct, but I don't buy the premise to begin with. There are two equally valid realities, and each preference operates exclusively within that reality. Even Jung had great difficulty putting this into words because it's very difficult to describe an individual's subjective reality. Trait descriptions are a lot easier, and so is data gathering.

It is not sufficient to note that an individual utilizes objectively verifiable information to call his thinking extroverted. The underlying disposition of external focus must be forthright. With the individual in question [feels weird to talk about him in a thread he's now posting in], I simply don't believe this is the case.

Agree with the above, and it's precisely the fact that he's dedicated to the data that makes him a subjective perceiver. His judgements are all operating "out there" (if that makes any sense) as opposed to being confined to the philosophy of typology, as you see with me. It's the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

If you are indeed an ENTP, this is going to be very difficult for you to relate to because you are an extroverted perceiver...hence why you are labeling me as "obtuse." All you see is what's out there, and the inner subjective world is just not as conscious for you.

While introverts obviously can relate to other introverts more than they do extraverts, there still exist wide differences between dom J (T/F) and dom (N/S) types. For example, I cannot understand/grasp the mental landscape of a subjective P. The concept is just too difficult for my mind to envision because it would entail a complete restructuring of everything I know. The best description I can relate to of what being a subjective P would be like is that I would no longer be trying to strictly define a single "best" answer to every question. Instead, I would be comfortable with not having that one answer. This prospect makes me really uncomfortable.

The poster is extremely adept at referencing his information with objectively verifiable ideas, but it runs deeper than that. He doesn't simply state them as fact, and leave them to sit there as if their truth is self-evident. He analyzes the underlying ideas for legitimate validity and merit, based on his conceptual understanding, and shows allegiance only to that which makes complete sense.

I can tell you for a fact, that for an INTP, the theory is what counts, not the data. You're right that he does interpret the data, but the direction is what's important: What did Jung believe? -----> Literature/data ----> possible idea -----> literature/data again -----> refining the idea ------> back to data ---->....repeat over and over ----> possible new theory -----> no contravening data -----> belief.

For me, it goes: new theory -----> literature/data -----> update theory/chuck it ------> back to data (if I'm not too lazy) ------> update theory over and over by mentally attacking it from every angle to detect possible flaws -----> belief. Which one would make the better scientist? Which would be the better philosopher?

In any case, I think our discussion of typology is an excellent illustration of what Jung talked about when he said introverts and extraverts don't understand each other. It's just too difficult for an introverted mind to grasp an extraverted outlook on life and vice versa. The landscapes we primarily inhabit are just too different.

 

[Miss spelt]

How am I being disrespectful?

Because you are repeatedly misrepresenting his content, apparently to make a stronger point for yourself.

I understand what you said, but I don't think your interpretation is accurate. The fact that he made no a priori judgements is an indication of Ni, not Ti. An INTP makes an inner subjective judgement first, and then dips into the objective to see if it supports/refutes his ideas. Reckful did not do that.

He is an INTJ. . . . .
And I think what you're observing is interplay between Ti and Ni.

Again, if you think observable differences between people are the only thing that counts, then your interpretation of the stack is correct, but I don't buy the premise to begin with. There are two equally valid realities, and each preference operates exclusively within that reality. Even Jung had great difficulty putting this into words because it's very difficult to describe an individual's subjective reality. Trait descriptions are a lot easier, and so is data gathering.

It's not important to me whether you agree or not. We should have this discussion in the other thread before either of us is accused of a derail.

 

[Inquisitor]

Because you are repeatedly misrepresenting his content, apparently to make a stronger point for yourself.

Read the very last paragraph in my latest post. I also edited quite a few things in case you're interested.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Because you are repeatedly misrepresenting his content, apparently to make a stronger point for yourself.

He is an INTJ. . . . .
And I think what you're observing is interplay between Ti and Ni.

It's not important to me whether you agree or not. We should have this discussion in the other thread before either of us is accused of a derail.

Just as a fyi the reckful person never sided with your theory though. Just want to get that out there. All he did was retort the historical aspect of MBTI and how Jung himself would align the orders- though the orderings were mostly based on his interpretation of Jung's writing. I can't speak for reckful, (I doubt he'll respond to this post either), but that's how it was laid out.

 

[Miss spelt]

Just as a fyi the reckful person never sided with your theory though. Just want to get that out there. All he did was retort the historical aspect of MBTI and how Jung himself would align the orders- though the orderings were mostly based on his interpretation of Jung's writing. I can't speak for reckful, (I doubt he'll respond to this post either), but that's how it was laid out.

And what exactly about my post doesn't acknowledge this?

 

[Miss spelt]

Read the very last paragraph in my latest post. I also edited quite a few things in case you're interested.

Ok yes.
It makes more sense.

I'm not really paying much attention to this anymore. I've literally said everything that needs to be said from my end.

You're still operating from the most basic premise that an INTP is a Ti-dominant, so all of your reasoning stems from this primary axiom.

Every bit of your refutation is anchored to that belief.

@onesteptwostep

Don't start a new discussion without making sure you fully understand the old one or else I'm going to get pissed off that I have to repeat myself just for your benefit.

 

[Analyzer]

What's wrong the idea that INTP = Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and INTJ = Ti-Ni-Se-Fe?

 

[Inquisitor]

What's wrong the idea that INTP = Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and INTJ = Ti-Ni-Se-Fe?

Because in the subjective realm, an INTP has a low degree of openness (falls into the J category) and strives for total inner control. The processing of information is fundamentally binary, much like a CPU. Externally, however, in the objective realm, an INTP comes off as a P-dom N-type. INTJ's on the other hand have a much higher degree of subjective openness due to the dominant Ni and so are much more inclined to come off as objective J types. This is why the functional stack IMO should not be reorganized. It has a specific order for a reason, even if that reason is not empirically validated.

I basically explained everything in detail above, but it all depends on whether or not you believe there exist two fundamental realities (subjective and objective) or only one (objective). This is a major issue for Jung that he discusses at length. If you fall in the latter camp, as Miss Spelt clearly does, then you might feel inclined to re-order the functional stack as Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

That said, because she is an extravert and is relatively less conscious of her own subjective reality, it's easy to see why she would make what I think is a mistake.

In any case, it was a great discussion. Helped me refine my ideas.

 

[Analyzer]

Ok got it.

I do think though that the dynamic of Ti-Ne-Se-Fe for INTP and Ni-Te-Fe-Se for INTJ could be possible. Jung also mentions how the inferior functions should be opposite in attitude from dominant. Ti-Ni-Se-Fe couldn't work because there needs to be some sort of way for introverted judgement to gain information from external as the auxiliary. Same thing for INTJ and Ni-Ti-Fe-Se. Ni needs its internal perception to be systematized externally.


*The more I think about this the more Type dynamics seems to be a sort of tautological system similar to geometry, where certain axioms(dominant functions as an example) are assumed for it to work. Can subjective experiences and motivations prior to human action be treated like math?

 

[Tannhauser]

Because in the subjective realm, an INTP has a low degree of openness (falls into the J category) and strives for total inner control. The processing of information is fundamentally binary, much like a CPU. Externally, however, in the objective realm, an INTP comes off as a P-dom N-type. INTJ's on the other hand have a much higher degree of subjective openness due to the dominant Ni and so are much more inclined to come off as objective J types. This is why the functional stack IMO should not be reorganized. It has a specific order for a reason, even if that reason is not empirically validated.

I basically explained everything in detail above, but it all depends on whether or not you believe there exist two fundamental realities (subjective and objective) or only one (objective). This is a major issue for Jung that he discusses at length. If you fall in the latter camp, as Miss Spelt clearly does, then you might feel inclined to re-order the functional stack as Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

That said, because she is an extravert and is relatively less conscious of her own subjective reality, it's easy to see why she would make what I think is a mistake.

In any case, it was a great discussion. Helped me refine my ideas.

The subjective/objective reality dichotomy seems even more speculative than the rest of MBTI. What does "subjective reality" even mean? I grant there are purely subjective phenomena, like the feeling of hunger, or tinnitus. No observer can tell that a person experiences tinnitus unless the said person self-reports it. But nonetheless, there are objective answers to whether a person experiences tinnitus or not. However if you assume that a subjective interpretation of the objective world is an acceptable way of generating beliefs, then any belief is justified, be it religion, or belief in astrology, ghosts etc.

There has also been a misconception that a lack of data is what stands between us and the corroboration of MBTI. This is giving MBTI a lot more credence than it deserves: the critique is that it cannot, by its own nature, even generate statements which can be tested by data.

Even if we are talking about generating statements which hold only up to subjective judgement: if it cannot generate precise statements in this domain (for example in contrast to tinnitus: "you experience tinnitus if you have a ringing in your ear"), then there is no way to distinguish it from pure self-delusion about reality, or conclusions purely based on cognitive bias like confirmation bias.

 

[Inquisitor]

The subjective/objective reality dichotomy seems even more speculative than the rest of MBTI. What does "subjective reality" even mean? I grant there are purely subjective phenomena, like the feeling of hunger, or tinnitus. No observer can tell that a person experiences tinnitus unless the said person self-reports it. But nonetheless, there are objective answers to whether a person experiences tinnitus or not. However if you assume that a subjective interpretation of the objective world is an acceptable way of generating beliefs, then any belief is justified, be it religion, or belief in astrology, ghosts etc.

There has also been a misconception that a lack of data is what stands between us and the corroboration of MBTI. This is giving MBTI a lot more credence than it deserves: the critique is that it cannot, by its own nature, even generate statements which can be tested by data.

Even if we are talking about generating statements which hold only up to subjective judgement: if it cannot generate precise statements in this domain (for example in contrast to tinnitus: "you experience tinnitus if you have a ringing in your ear"), then there is no way to distinguish it from pure self-delusion about reality, or conclusions purely based on cognitive bias like confirmation bias.

1) MBTI measure observable differences between people. There is no lack of data in this regard. It has also been correlated with the Big 5.

2) What is your MBTI type?

3) Your tinnitus metaphor is not subjective at all. If you hear a ringing in your ears, that is something that can be quantified. You can ask someone yes/no if they experience that ringing sound and furthermore to rate it on a scale of 1-10. You can also then correlate that piece of diagnostic information with other information about the person to generate an overall diagnosis. Not subjective whatsoever.

4) MBTI generates loads of data. It uses self-reporting to quantify how a person chooses to approach the externals in their life. These things are easy to ask about, there are relatively definitive answers in people's minds, and the questions refer to concrete traits/behavior in objective reality.

5) Everything that is related to the subjective reality of an individual is very difficult to test. Basically you're dealing with the opposite of what I underlined in 4).

6) Again, everything comes back to whether or not your mind is capable of grasping/understanding what I mean by subjective reality. Unless you are an introvert, this will seem like a bs concept because for an extrovert, their entire reality revolves around what is objective, and hence they are largely incapable/find it impossible to accept that there exists an equally valid reality that is entirely subjective and that exists within them. They are basically not consciously aware of it.

This is what Jung described in his book, and even as an Ni-dom (INFJ) he had trouble putting this concept into words so it would be intelligible to everyone. The fact is that it's very difficult to describe because it's so abstracted from reality that extraverts have no frame of reference. For that matter, introverts also struggle to put it into words (because we're talking about something here that operates without reference to anything in reality) but they basically find the concept to be valid because they can relate to it on some level. The best anyone can do is roughly describe how this manifests in terms of behavior/traits. Because extraverts can't really grasp the notion of a subjective reality, they assume it's nonsense (confirmation bias, superstition, delusion, etc.) and reject it. Notice that those things that I put into parentheses are in themselves objective because it's possible to relate those words to a concrete object. Generally though people tend to label something they can't understand as delusion/superstition.

Now I don't know that you are an extravert, but even if you are not, then the disagreement we have here is likely about values as opposed to lack of understanding.

 

[Tannhauser]

1) MBTI measure observable differences between people. There is no lack of data in this regard. It has also been correlated with the Big 5.

2) What is your MBTI type?

3) Your tinnitus metaphor is not subjective at all. If you hear a ringing in your ears, that is something that can be quantified. You can ask someone yes/no if they experience that ringing sound and furthermore to rate it on a scale of 1-10. You can also then correlate that piece of diagnostic information with other information about the person to generate an overall diagnosis. Not subjective whatsoever.

4) MBTI generates loads of data. It uses self-reporting to quantify how a person chooses to approach the externals in their life. These things are easy to ask about, there are relatively definitive answers in people's minds, and the questions refer to concrete traits/behavior in objective reality.

5) Everything that is related to the subjective reality of an individual is very difficult to test. Basically you're dealing with the opposite of what I underlined in 4).

6) Again, everything comes back to whether or not your mind is capable of grasping/understanding what I mean by subjective reality. Unless you are an introvert, this will seem like a bs concept because for an extrovert, their entire reality revolves around what is objective, and hence they are largely incapable/find it impossible to accept that there exists an equally valid reality that is entirely subjective and that exists within them. They are basically not consciously aware of it.

This is what Jung described in his book, and even as an Ni-dom (INFJ) he had trouble putting this concept into words so it would be intelligible to everyone. The fact is that it's very difficult to describe because it's so abstracted from reality that extraverts have no frame of reference. For that matter, introverts also struggle to put it into words (because we're talking about something here that operates without reference to anything in reality) but they basically find the concept to be valid because they can relate to it on some level. The best anyone can do is roughly describe how this manifests in terms of behavior/traits. Because extraverts can't really grasp the notion of a subjective reality, they assume it's nonsense (confirmation bias, superstition, delusion, etc.) and reject it. Notice that those things that I put into parentheses are in themselves objective because it's possible to relate those words to a concrete object. Generally though people tend to label something they can't understand as delusion/superstition.

Now I don't know that you are an extravert, but even if you are not, then the disagreement we have here is likely about values as opposed to lack of understanding.

1) As an example, here is what we can say about the precision of MBTI's taxonomy:

For example, MBTI researchers theorized that scores on each MBTI scale would show a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus dividing people into either, e.g., an extraverted or an introverted personality type. However, most studies have found that scores on the individual scales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither a clear introvert or extravert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Psychometric_deficiencies

So even the fundamental dichotomy of the MBTI, seemingly the concept it rests on, is a dodgy concept empirically.

2) I believe my tendencies would have the highest correlation with the description of a typical INTP.

3) We are clearly in 100% disagreement about what subjective means. If you were to diagnose tinnitus in a person, how would you do it in any other way than ask the person about his/her subjective experience of it? You seem to be talking about subjectiveness as a epistemological concept -- i.e. that subjective interpretation of reality is simply a preference and an alternative to using objective observations. As mentioned, this makes any discussion about reality pointless because now, belief in ghosts is placed alongside the theory of relativity.

4) Again, we have to distinguish between mere taxonomy in terms of behavioural traits and the statements MBTI generates based on its theory. I have seen the job-suitability "study", which gave no description of its methodology nor source of the data, moreover it showed nothing more than what you could infer from just grouping people roughly into introverts and extroverts.

5) Same point as the post I wrote above.

6) I think I do understand what you mean by subjective reality. It is the construction of a system in your mind of how reality works. But if that system cannot hold up to any objective test, then it amounts to mere day-dreaming (as an interesting aside: doesn't this statement make me both an INTP and INTJ simultaneosly?)

 

[reckful]

In other words, MBTI is almost like a tautology: I can observe that some person is an introverted, logical person, and then I say "since you do Y, that means you are type X". Then we extrapolate what these introverted, logical people typically do, and then say "since you are type X, you tend to do things Y". And this is exactly what makes it so deceptively precise. Note that this is similar to what a psychic does: he/she makes you reveal things about yourself to him/her, and then feeds back the information to you in different form.

Well... assuming there are four (or five) real, relatively hardwired personality dimensions and you're designing a self-assessment test to tap into them, of course the test items are going to reflect various of the characteristics that your model associates with those dimensions. But that kind of "circularity" doesn't (necessarily) mean you're not tapping into something real. That's basically what the "validity" issue is about for a personality typology, and contrary to the impression that someone reading your posts might get — and as the leading Big Five psychologists (McCrae and Costa) long ago acknowledged — all four of the MBTI dichotomies have been found to pass muster in the validity department based on decades of studies.

And in that regard, I'll just briefly and oversimply note here that, among the things that help establish a theoretical personality dimension's validity is (1) when it involves not just one characteristic but a multifaceted "cluster" of characteristics that are consistently found to co-vary in a statistically significant way, (2) when that cluster of characteristics is also found to correlate in a statistically significant way with other characteristics that the relevant test doesn't ask the subjects about, and (3) when it turns out that twins (and especially identical twins raised in separate households) are substantially more likely to match up on that dimension than less genetically-related pairs.

 

[reckful]

First of all, in my opinion it is easy to show why MBTI is not a scientific theory: it does not make falsifiable statements. It says a lot about what people tend to do, but it never makes a statement which can be used to prove the theory wrong.

There has also been a misconception that a lack of data is what stands between us and the corroboration of MBTI. This is giving MBTI a lot more credence than it deserves: the critique is that it cannot, by its own nature, even generate statements which can be tested by data.

Here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from bottom to top) ES-IS-EN-IN.

That's the kind of evidence that psychologists have been using to establish the "validity" of personality dimensions for many years now. And that's just one example pulled from 50 years of MBTI data pools that have respectably established the validity of all four of the MBTI dichotomies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like 30 times more likely than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

Hopefully needless to say, no personality typology aspires to be able to reliably predict what career any particular individual is going to choose, but whether a typology has validity in the first place is a very different issue from that. One of the things that makes personality typology a "soft" science is the fact that, regardless of how valid any particular typology might be, it's hardly going to cover the waterfront when it comes to possible influences on someone's personality or behavior. That's one reason type can't be used to make "falsifiable" predictions about what any particular individual is going to do in any particular circumstance — and that's just one of several serious complications that come into play when you're trying to apply a (valid) typology to a particular person.

Another complication is middleness. As I understand it, there's quite a lot of data (Big Five especially) that suggests that a large percentage of the population may be close to the middle on one or more of the Big Five and MBTI dimensions.

Another complication is the fact that the aspects of personality that tend to co-vary in the kinds of broad "clusters" reflected in the MBTI and Big Five dimensions may not cluster all that tidily. Biological males are sexually attracted to biological females, right? Well, except when they're not. And there's currently no reason to think that the substantially genetic underlying dimensions that the MBTI is tapping into are any tidier than the substantially genetic "biological maleness" cluster.

Contrary to what you sometimes hear, and notwithstanding that there are important distinctions to be made between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences," the four MBTI dichotomies now have decades of data in support of their validity and reliability — and a combination of meta-review and large supplemental study in 2003 concluded that the MBTI was more or less in the same category (if not on a par) with the Big Five in terms of its psychometric respectability.

Anyone who's interested can read more about that — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this PerC post.

Among the issues discussed in that linked post is the "bimodal distribution" red herring you mentioned in your last post.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five.

Buuut it's also worth noting that, contrary to what some of the function aficionados would have you believe, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side — and the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that regard. The functions — which James Reynierse (in "The Case Against Type Dynamics") rightly characterizes as a "category mistake" — have barely even been studied, and the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies, and as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes: "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

 

[scorpiomover]

Mixing metaphors, conflating 'correctness' and probability. What is incorrect here? Take a gander at Personality Types in Software Engineering, isn't it making precise predictions? Just a small sample, some 100 people, but this predicts that you will find an INTP in software engineering at 2.5x the rate at which you'll find them in the general population.

You know what I find interesting about this study? When we consider the R values, which (I think) are meant to represent the per-type ratio, and thus the likelihood of a person of a certain MBTI type going into software engineering, the order is as follows, from most likely to least likely:

INTJ (3.40), INTP (2.46), ENTJ (2.23), ENTP (2.19), ISTJ (2.08), ESTP (1.87), ESTJ (1.73), ISTP (1.49), INFJ (0.68), ISFP (0.57), INFP (0.46), ENFJ (0.41), ENFP (0.37), ESFJ (0.33), ISFJ (0.14), ESFP (0.12).

We can thus observe the following:
1) ALL the Ts are far more likely to be software engineers than ANY of the Fs.
2) They fit into the groupings of NT > ST > NF > SF, with only one exception (ISFPs, who are far more likely to be in software engineering than suggested by the general patterns in the study's results).
3) Within each grouping, they fit into IJ > IP > EJ > EP, with only 2 exceptions (ESTPs and ISFPs, who are more likely to be in software engineering than suggested by the general patterns in the study's results).

This goes against conventional wisdom of MBTI afficionados, who generally seem to of the opinion of views of the following:
1) INFJs and ENFPs are far likely to be software enginners than most STs.
2) Software engineering is an intellectual topic, that is more likely to attract NTs and NFs than SJs or SPs.
3) Software engineering is far more likely to attract introverts of all types than extroverts.
4) INTPs are are far more likely to be drawn to software engineering than any other type.
5) Software engineering is something that people do because it interests them and thus would draw Ps far, far more than Js.
6) ESxx types would be the least likely to be in programming, including ESTPs and ESTJs.

Clearly, general beliefs on forums like this regarding software engineering and MBTI is contradicted by this study.

I'll guess you're having trouble with the descriptions, such as "INTP's like logic", without an accompanying specific prediction "90% of the time INTP's will counter a discussion with a logical rebuttal". Well, so what? The data doesn't exist because nobody has paid for it. But one billionaire could easily spent a small fortune collecting such data, and over millions of INTP's would find that > 50% of the time, INTP's counter arguments with logical rebuttals.

You just cited a study that shows that ESTJs and ESTPs are almost twice as likely to be in software engineering than the average person. If INTPs like software engineering because INTPs like logic, then ESTPs and ESTJs have to really like logic.

 

[Tannhauser]

@reckful

I have read through your arguments but I find it hard to see exactly what we disagree on. I have agreed that MBTI "works" insofar as it simply groups people in terms of traits, and that it is "valid" in the sense that some of these traits are fairly stable in individuals. The example with the Cal Tech science majors shows this: people with certain traits are more likely to succeed in science subjects.

As an aside: although you didn't provide any measure of variability in the data, it seems to me that the distinction between the subtypes appears to be insignificant.

Another complication is middleness. As I understand it, there's quite a lot of data (Big Five especially) that suggests that a large percentage of the population may be close to the middle on one or more of the Big Five and MBTI dimensions.

I think this is very interesting because if the distribution of, say, extroversion/introversion is unimodal and approximately Normal, this says something very significant about the validity of the theory behind MBTI: namely that the theory of dichotomy of preferences is simply wrong. Also, the fact that such a characteristic is approximately Normally distributed indicates that this characteristic is an aggregate effect of a large number of variables (by Central Limit Theorem). Hence the claim that one is somehow close to identifying some particular component of the human psyche via these dichotomies is highly dubious.

 

[Inquisitor]

@reckful

I have read through your arguments but I find it hard to see exactly what we disagree on. I have agreed that MBTI "works" insofar as it simply groups people in terms of traits, and that it is "valid" in the sense that some of these traits are fairly stable in individuals. The example with the Cal Tech science majors shows this: people with certain traits are more likely to succeed in science subjects.

As an aside: although you didn't provide any measure of variability in the data, it seems to me that the distinction between the subtypes appears to be insignificant.



I think this is very interesting because if the distribution of, say, extroversion/introversion is unimodal and approximately Normal, this says something very significant about the validity of the theory behind MBTI: namely that the theory of dichotomy of preferences is simply wrong. Also, the fact that such a characteristic is approximately Normally distributed indicates that this characteristic is an aggregate effect of a large number of variables (by Central Limit Theorem). Hence the claim that one is somehow close to identifying some particular component of the human psyche via these dichotomies is highly dubious.

I believe this addresses your concerns. See the part about "Human traits are distributed on a bell curve, not as two camel humps."

Again, the questions that ask about introversion and extraversion on the MBTI try to measure it by asking about traits/behavior ie objectively verifiable information. But Jung predicated a major part of his ideas on the idea that in general people either give primacy to the subject or to the object. One or the other. Hence, even though someone may be typed as an ambivert by the MBTI, it's very likely that they do tend to direct their psychic energy in one direction or the other. I really can't fathom that someone could be completely straddling that line 50/50. I can imagine, and in fact do believe that someone could exhibit behavior that is equally balanced between what we might consider to be extraverted or introverted. The distinction is subtle, but important in my mind.

 

[Inquisitor]

You know what I find interesting about this study? When we consider the R values, which (I think) are meant to represent the per-type ratio, and thus the likelihood of a person of a certain MBTI type going into software engineering, the order is as follows, from most likely to least likely:

INTJ (3.40), INTP (2.46), ENTJ (2.23), ENTP (2.19), ISTJ (2.08), ESTP (1.87), ESTJ (1.73), ISTP (1.49), INFJ (0.68), ISFP (0.57), INFP (0.46), ENFJ (0.41), ENFP (0.37), ESFJ (0.33), ISFJ (0.14), ESFP (0.12).

We can thus observe the following:
1) ALL the Ts are far more likely to be software engineers than ANY of the Fs.
2) They fit into the groupings of NT > ST > NF > SF, with only one exception (ISFPs, who are far more likely to be in software engineering than suggested by the general patterns in the study's results).
3) Within each grouping, they fit into IJ > IP > EJ > EP, with only 2 exceptions (ESTPs and ISFPs, who are more likely to be in software engineering than suggested by the general patterns in the study's results).

This goes against conventional wisdom of MBTI afficionados, who generally seem to of the opinion of views of the following:
1) INFJs and ENFPs are far likely to be software enginners than most STs.
2) Software engineering is an intellectual topic, that is more likely to attract NTs and NFs than SJs or SPs.
3) Software engineering is far more likely to attract introverts of all types than extroverts.
4) INTPs are are far more likely to be drawn to software engineering than any other type.
5) Software engineering is something that people do because it interests them and thus would draw Ps far, far more than Js.
6) ESxx types would be the least likely to be in programming, including ESTPs and ESTJs.

Clearly, general beliefs on forums like this regarding software engineering and MBTI is contradicted by this study.

You just cited a study that shows that ESTJs and ESTPs are almost twice as likely to be in software engineering than the average person. If INTPs like software engineering because INTPs like logic, then ESTPs and ESTJs have to really like logic.

Software engineering is a very broad field dude. Everything from user experience/graphic design (which probably attracts more SF types) to designing AI/robotics...but I'll let Archie address this if he feels so inclined. That study also stated that INTPs are more likely to be found in cutting-edge stuff like R&D as opposed to maintaining existing systems. This makes perfect sense to me, and in fact, after I'm done with my CS degree, I'm going to aim for a position that places a high value on innovation. I can't compete with ISTJs that are basically walking libraries with every API committed to memory. But coming up with new ways of doing something...absolutely, that's going to be where I have a competitive advantage...at least I hope so...

 

[scorpiomover]

Software engineering is a very broad field dude.

IT is a very broad field.

Everything from user experience/graphic design (which probably attracts more SF types) to designing AI/robotics...

I know. I'm in it. Design occupies far more of modern software development, than the logical coding that would attract people who love logic and have the stereotypes of INTPs. If the study focussed on all those areas, then it would follow that SFs would be far more represented than the study's results indicated. So I am inclined to think that they're only focussing on the stereotypical coding that would attract stereotypical INTPs.

Even if it was all-inclusive, the study still goes against conventional MBTI, which is my point.

but I'll let Archie address this if he feels so inclined.

I'm curious to see what he would respond.

That study also stated that INTPs are more likely to be found in cutting-edge stuff like R&D as opposed to maintaining existing systems. This makes perfect sense to me,

From the study:

From previous results, it is believed that INTPs perform better in scientific programming. In effect, INTP, consistent with their reputation, are likely to be the ones with the skills critical in the early phases of an innovative project or a new field.

The authors appear to be stating this as their opinion, based on stereotypical views of INTPs. So it's bound to make perfect sense to you. But it doesn't appear to be based on empirical data. So it appears to be coming from the same basis as your own. So I suspect that it has as much chance of being true, as if they never said it, and you decided that anyway, off your own back. So, nothing to back up your claim.

and in fact, after I'm done with my CS degree, I'm going to aim for a position that places a high value on innovation. I can't compete with ISTJs that are basically walking libraries with every API committed to memory. But coming up with new ways of doing something...absolutely, that's going to be where I have a competitive advantage...at least I hope so...

It's not quite so cut-and-dried. Programming new functions is built on utilising existing functions. ISTJs tend to be workhorses of productivity. They also tend to break things down into more stages, and test each stage. So they are often MORE productive than INTPs in new areas, simply because they write so much damn code, that they can break it down into lots of smaller stages that they are happy to advance with.

Where INTPs tend to shine more, is that ISTJs will take a typical no-nonsense approach to make things. Their solutions work, but tend to be not that elegant. INTPs tend to see a clever way to do the same thing, but much, much quicker, and often, with much more power and capability, usually because they've read up more on the architecture and technical details, intuitively grasped what's going on behind the scenes, and so are able to work out how to make the system work to their advantage.

So usually, we're much better at figuring out how to write the libraries that offer the new functionality that ISTJs will then use in new software.

I know an INTP who is doing this. He's employed by an image-processing company. He's writing the new framework stuff that the other programmers will be using in the future.

It's more about the role that you take within a company, rather than the company itself. Although, a company that focusses on innovation would have more of those roles.

Incidentally, I and my boss were also working with 2 Microsoft guys. We were making a new web app using Microsoft Azure. My boss signed us up to attend a Microsoft workshop to learn Azure. Microsoft assigned them to us, to help us get our web app up and running, so they could put us on their list of success stories. I'm fairly sure that one was an INTP, and the other was probably either an INTP or an ENTP. They got paid just to come up with solutions to other programmers' problems. A really cool job for an INTP.

 

[Architect]

When we consider the R values, which (I think) are meant to represent the per-type ratio, and thus the likelihood of a person of a certain MBTI type going into software engineering

No it's the ratio of the study population density to the general population density. If it's 1 then you find that type as frequently in software as you do on the street. That relates to probability of going into the field but is not the same.

This goes against conventional wisdom of MBTI afficionados, who generally seem to of the opinion of views of the following:
1) INFJs and ENFPs are far likely to be software enginners than most STs.

First, job listings in MBTI profiles are mostly bullshit. They look like lists that somebody picked out of the air. Especially for the introverts and N's they're usually way off. And no wonder, hooking a person up with a job is more difficult then just making a simple list, a lot of factors go into it.

Second, I've never seen it said that INFJ's/ENFP's would make good software engineers, but if so obviously they got it wrong. Certainly the theory wouldn't predict it.

2) Software engineering is an intellectual topic, that is more likely to attract NTs and NFs than SJs or SPs.

NT's and ST's in my experience

5) Software engineering is something that people do because it interests them and thus would draw Ps far, far more than Js.

I don't get that logic at all

6) ESxx types would be the least likely to be in programming, including ESTPs and ESTJs.

This either.

The problem is that most discussions about careers and type are done by people who know nothing about the career. Separately I could tell you why this particular study actually is extremely representative of the population, and why MBTI theoretically supports that, but it's another post.

I used the example because of its accuracy and veracity, it nails the point. We could have a discussion why theoretical MBTI predictions of people oriented toward software engineering agree with the study.

 

[Architect]

They got paid just to come up with solutions to other programmers' problems. A really cool job for an INTP.

Yes, and a bit of a dangerous path to take too (been there). INTP's need to eat their own dog food too.

 

[Inquisitor]

IT is a very broad field.

I know. I'm in it. Design occupies far more of modern software development, than the logical coding that would attract people who love logic and have the stereotypes of INTPs. If the study focussed on all those areas, then it would follow that SFs would be far more represented than the study's results indicated. So I am inclined to think that they're only focussing on the stereotypical coding that would attract stereotypical INTPs.

Maybe, maybe not.

Even if it was all-inclusive, the study still goes against conventional MBTI, which is my point.

It's one study. It confirms NT types are commonly found in software engineering. The rest is interesting, but I don't find it to be personally relevant.

From the study:The authors appear to be stating this as their opinion, based on stereotypical views of INTPs. So it's bound to make perfect sense to you. But it doesn't appear to be based on empirical data. So it appears to be coming from the same basis as your own. So I suspect that it has as much chance of being true, as if they never said it, and you decided that anyway, off your own back. So, nothing to back up your claim.

Referring to this:

He was the first to observe that R&D
organizations and companies that do a lot of state-of-the-art development attract
and hire more Ns than Ss. The opposite occurs in large organizations where the bulk
of the work involves maintaining and enhancing production systems.

It's not quite so cut-and-dried. Programming new functions is built on utilising existing functions. ISTJs tend to be workhorses of productivity. They also tend to break things down into more stages, and test each stage. So they are often MORE productive than INTPs in new areas, simply because they write so much damn code, that they can break it down into lots of smaller stages that they are happy to advance with.

Where INTPs tend to shine more, is that ISTJs will take a typical no-nonsense approach to make things. Their solutions work, but tend to be not that elegant. INTPs tend to see a clever way to do the same thing, but much, much quicker, and often, with much more power and capability, usually because they've read up more on the architecture and technical details, intuitively grasped what's going on behind the scenes, and so are able to work out how to make the system work to their advantage.

So usually, we're much better at figuring out how to write the libraries that offer the new functionality that ISTJs will then use in new software.

I know an INTP who is doing this. He's employed by an image-processing company. He's writing the new framework stuff that the other programmers will be using in the future.

It's more about the role that you take within a company, rather than the company itself. Although, a company that focusses on innovation would have more of those roles.

Incidentally, I and my boss were also working with 2 Microsoft guys. We were making a new web app using Microsoft Azure. My boss signed us up to attend a Microsoft workshop to learn Azure. Microsoft assigned them to us, to help us get our web app up and running, so they could put us on their list of success stories. I'm fairly sure that one was an INTP, and the other was probably either an INTP or an ENTP. They got paid just to come up with solutions to other programmers' problems. A really cool job for an INTP.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Tannhauser]

I believe this addresses your concerns. See the part about "Human traits are distributed on a bell curve, not as two camel humps."
mind.

Thanks. They seem to agree:

The flaw has been known for quite some time and no empirical solution has yet been found.

I actually had not hoped for such strong evidence against MBTI.

It basically falsifies the whole theory, and what is left is the taxonomy which we have discussed in this thread.

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks. They seem to agree:

I actually had not hoped for such strong evidence against MBTI.

It basically falsifies the whole theory, and what is left is the taxonomy which we have discussed in this thread.

You must not have read everything in that link then.

 

[reckful]

Thanks. They seem to agree:

I actually had not hoped for such strong evidence against MBTI.

It basically falsifies the whole theory, and what is left is the taxonomy which we have discussed in this thread.

Um, no. As discussed at some length in the "Discrete, bimodal types" section of this PerC post (which I already linked you to), the MBTI certainly doesn't stand or fall depending on whether any of its dimensions exhibit a "bimodal" distribution.

 

[Tannhauser]

You must not have read everything in that link then.

Well, this is essentially their comeback:

As we have said, the MBTI fails to account for the fact that human traits fall on a continuum (on a bell curve rather than as two camel humps). But the Big Five also has a major weakness and that is the so-called lexical hypothesis. Unlike the MBTI, which is based on the cognitive theory of C.G. Jung, the Big Five was literally derived by looking up adjectives in a dictionary. Again, the Big Five describes personality traits but does not explain them. The strength of the Big Five approach is that you get a high level of empirical validity. But the downside is that, without a cognitive theory to fall back on, the Big Five is essentially inductive and relies on circular logic (e.g. “he is conscientious because he delivers his work on time, and he delivers his work on time because he is conscientious”). By contrast, the MBTI, for all its flaws, was developed deductively.

The first sentence is an artifice. Saying that it "fails to account for" the bell curve is an attempt at divert your attention from the fact that it is built on the assumption of the dichotomy. The bell curve is not some empirical phenomenon it has not accounted for, it is an empirical fact which runs completely contrary to its basic postulates.

Interestingly, they are correct about one thing: the MBTI attempted to create a cognitive theory. But now that that part has proven to be incorrect, its only remaining utility is the same as that of the Big Five -- which they correctly label as circular logic.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Um, no. As discussed at some length in the "Discrete, bimodal types" section of this PerC post (which I already linked you to), the MBTI certainly doesn't stand or fall depending on whether any of its dimensions exhibit a "bimodal" distribution.

Doesn't that interpretation make it just a nerfed Big5 with confusing connotations?

You know i read about a proposed "Big 1" due to high correlations between all desirable traits. I would go with that one if i were to travel light.

 

[Miss spelt]

Openness is the Big one if you ask me.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yup.

 

[Analyzer]

...They got paid just to come up with solutions to other programmers' problems. A really cool job for an INTP.

Yes if only I could find a sort of position like this. The difficulty of this has prevented me from going further in the field. Most web development jobs I have encountered are either being a code monkey doing CRUD apps all day or needing to have some sort of design skillet for front end stuff, which blows.

 

[Architect]

Yes if only I could find a sort of position like this. The difficulty of this has prevented me from going further in the field. Most web development jobs I have encountered are either being a code monkey doing CRUD apps all day or needing to have some sort of design skillet for front end stuff, which blows.

Working for a big company, Google etc.

 

[redbaron]

Thread in summary:

"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Zank Frappa

 

[Tannhauser]

Um, no. As discussed at some length in the "Discrete, bimodal types" section of this PerC post (which I already linked you to), the MBTI certainly doesn't stand or fall depending on whether any of its dimensions exhibit a "bimodal" distribution.

In my opinion, the Normality is at least a good indication that the theory of MBTI is invalid: as we seem to agree, the lack of bimodality shows that there is no such thing as clear preferences in terms of the dichotomies MBTI proposes. But then the 'dimensions' become just like any other trait you can think of, even including physical traits like height. Which again, leads us back to the taxonomy discussed earlier.

I don't know if this has been done, but a good test of its validity would be to look at conditional distributions of the dimensions; e.g. preferences in terms of Intuition, given that the subjects have a preference in terms of Sensing. If such a conditional distribution would appear to be the same as an independent one, that would be very compelling evidence against the MBTI.

 

[Inquisitor]

In my opinion, the Normality is at least a good indication that the theory of MBTI is invalid: as we seem to agree, the lack of bimodality shows that there is no such thing as clear preferences in terms of the dichotomies MBTI proposes. But then the 'dimensions' become just like any other trait you can think of, even including physical traits like height. Which again, leads us back to the taxonomy discussed earlier.

I don't know if this has been done, but a good test of its validity would be to look at conditional distributions of the dimensions; e.g. preferences in terms of Intuition, given that the subjects have a preference in terms of Sensing. If such a conditional distribution would appear to be the same as an independent one, that would be very compelling evidence against the MBTI.

Dude I don't think you're going to win anybody over to your side with these arguments. Look at the title of the forum. Having said that, there are plenty of people here who do take issue with the MBTI or type dynamics or the preferences or putting people into little categories, but...I would venture most people here still value it to a greater or lesser degree all the same, or at least they. And even if they don't anymore, I think they'll probably tell you it was a useful phase to have gone through and they learned more about human nature in the process for better or worse.

I think your concerns are justified to a very small extent, but I've addressed them and so have other people. There's really nothing more to discuss. To label MBTI as a flat-out fraud because you don't find a bimodal distribution of I/E is pretty ridiculous. People are not 100% reliable test-taking machines. What they write down is not always true. I would venture that if you really pushed the issue, most people would actually go back and change some of their answers and come out either I or E. As I've said before, the test is just an indirect way of measuring your approach to life. It's a starting point for greater self-knowledge and awareness of the relationships people have with each other. You either find it has predictive value for you or it doesn't. Incidentally, and not trying to be a dick here, but your slavish devotion to the data smacks of INTJ...Either that or you're a hardcore skeptic. You're trying so hard to find a reason to discredit it in the face of loads of empirical data as well as people telling you that it works for them. Personally I have found it to be uncannily accurate. Now you can put me into the "deluded" category if that makes you feel better, but if you're wrong, then you potentially miss out.

BTW, are you an endomorph/mesomorph/ectomorph?

 

[Tannhauser]

Dude I don't think you're going to win anybody over to your side with these arguments. Look at the title of the forum. Having said that, there are plenty of people here who do take issue with the MBTI or type dynamics or the preferences or putting people into little categories, but...I would venture most people here still value it to a greater or lesser degree all the same, or at least they. And even if they don't anymore, I think they'll probably tell you it was a useful phase to have gone through and they learned more about human nature in the process for better or worse.

I think your concerns are justified to a very small extent, but I've addressed them and so have other people. There's really nothing more to discuss. To label MBTI as a flat-out fraud because you don't find a bimodal distribution of I/E is pretty ridiculous. People are not 100% reliable test-taking machines. What they write down is not always true. I would venture that if you really pushed the issue, most people would actually go back and change some of their answers and come out either I or E. As I've said before, the test is just an indirect way of measuring your approach to life. It's a starting point for greater self-knowledge and awareness of the relationships people have with each other. You either find it has predictive value for you or it doesn't. Incidentally, and not trying to be a dick here, but your slavish devotion to the data smacks of INTJ...Either that or you're a hardcore skeptic. You're trying so hard to find a reason to discredit it in the face of loads of empirical data as well as people telling you that it works for them. Personally I have found it to be uncannily accurate. Now you can put me into the "deluded" category if that makes you feel better, but if you're wrong, then you potentially miss out.

BTW, are you an endomorph/mesomorph/ectomorph?

I'm really more interested in truth than winning people over. The true cause of this thread was this annoying cognitive dissonance I have always had in relation to MBTI, which was: why does is seem to be precise despite not satisfying the rigour of scientific theories. A lot has been cleared up in this regard in this thread, at least for me: the sources of its precision, to what extent it is testable, in what regard it amounts to subjective interpretation and so on.

And I don't think it undermines the obvious utility it has, which is a tool of introspection. Even if a model is wrong, it can be useful. And maybe its most important utility, as Miss Spelt said: acceptance.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm really more interested in truth than winning people over. The true cause of this thread was this annoying cognitive dissonance I have always had in relation to MBTI, which was: why does is seem to be precise despite not satisfying the rigour of scientific theories. A lot has been cleared up in this regard in this thread, at least for me: the sources of its precision, to what extent it is testable, in what regard it amounts to subjective interpretation and so on.

And I don't think it undermines the obvious utility it has, which is a tool of introspection. Even if a model is wrong, it can be useful. And maybe its most important utility, as Miss Spelt said: acceptance.

Alright fair enough.

 

[scorpiomover]

No it's the ratio of the study population density to the general population density. If it's 1 then you find that type as frequently in software as you do on the street.

Then it's what I thought it was.

That relates to probability of going into the field but is not the same.

For an individual, with individual preferences, experiences and skills, it's not the same. But since we are just comparing types in general, without those extra characteristics that would only be true of specific INTPs, that would be far too specific for the study and would not constitute a study of MBTI types. It's probably more interesting to you, though, because you're an introvert, and introverts tend to focus very intensely on their own characteristics, even if it's not appropriate for a general study.

First, job listings in MBTI profiles are mostly bullshit. They look like lists that somebody picked out of the air.

They're not that different than the job listings that computers at my university produced.

Especially for the introverts and N's they're usually way off. And no wonder, hooking a person up with a job is more difficult then just making a simple list, a lot of factors go into it.

An introvert or an intuitive might be likely to think that, because they tend to have very specific personal bases for their choices. But that's highly impractical for a general category like INTPs.

Second, I've never seen it said that INFJ's/ENFP's would make good software engineers, but if so obviously they got it wrong.

Got it from INTJf. Several INFJs there scored in the 99-th percenile for mathematics, and there are several ENFP programmers.

Certainly the theory wouldn't predict it.

The general MBTI theory simply says that Fs are more in-touch with their feelings than Ts, not that they are incapable of reason.

NT's and ST's in my experience

The study pointed out that over 80% of programmers were Ts. But I suspect that it's the way programming is treated, rather than actual ability. At the end of the day, all programmers do, is write out instructions for very fast idiots that do exactly as they are told, like writing out training manuals and shopping lists for morons. No great intelligence required for that, is there?

I don't get that logic at all

MBTI theory suggests that Ps do things because they are interesting and enjoyable to them, while Js do things because they will allow them to achieve a personal goal.

This either.

ESxx types seem to be described as being very stupid and incompetent on MBTI-based forums. I recall reading posts of yours, that SJs are likely to be religious, because they only do as they are told, and don't think for themselves. Was I wrong? Would you like to correct me here on your views on SJs?

The problem is that most discussions about careers and type are done by people who know nothing about the career.

If we had people in each career talk about their careers, that would be much better. But they usually don't elect to spend a lot of time in a collaborative venture like that. Someone has to do it, to help people figure out what careers they would be better off choosing. So, some people do.

Separately I could tell you why this particular study actually is extremely representative of the population, and why MBTI theoretically supports that, but it's another post.

You COULD. But remember that I've also been in software a long time, and seen it from many different angles. So you might find that my experience has something to add here.

I used the example because of its accuracy and veracity, it nails the point.

It mentioned the point that you wanted to make, which is that you believe that software engineering is a great choice for an INTP. You happened to do well in your field. But you've also pointed out how this was due to you having a very good mentor. I can't exactly say that your point is valid, unless I have a valid proof, that doesn't just work for YOU, one INTP out of 360,000,000 worldwide, but for ALL those 360 million INTPs, whether or not they had a mentor.

Yes, and a bit of a dangerous path to take too (been there). INTP's need to eat their own dog food too.

Would be a problem, if they were in charge, and telling other people what to do. INTPs benefit from their indecisiveness, by it stopping them from being too impulsive with their decisions. However, since they are advising others, who have to program themselves, and their business-owners, who aren't just going to roll over and accept what others say like a good lap-dog, not a problem. It's just advice, not an order.

It's one study. It confirms NT types are commonly found in software engineering. The rest is interesting, but I don't find it to be personally relevant.

Personally, I found that to be rather irrelevant. IT is a growing field. New challenges all the time. So at the moment, there's bound to be lots of Ns in IT. As to T, the way programming and computers are treated, is in a very impersonal way, and a way that would probably make anyone with feelings rather uncomfortable. So it's bound to drive away a lot of Fs. So to me, it would be a trivial matter to say that lots of NTs are in programming. If that was the only element relevant to you, then you really did NOT need the study at all to know that.

Probably be better off getting to spend a few days in a software company, making coffees, and seeing what it's really like. It's not like the field has only winners. There's much more to software engineering, than simply being clever. As Architect said before, a mentor will be extremely beneficial to your career.

 

[scorpiomover]

Working for a big company, Google etc.

I've been reflecting that I did much better at big companies. Got better treatment, work that better fitted my skills, better promotion prospects, etc.

Good point.

 

[Inquisitor]

I've been reflecting that I did much better at big companies. Got better treatment, work that better fitted my skills, better promotion prospects, etc.

Good point.

How long have you been in the software industry? Are you an INTP? Where did you find the best jobs?

 

[scorpiomover]

How long have you been in the software industry?

First proper job in software programming was in 1996.

Are you an INTP?

I fit so many stereotypes of INTPs, I could be a poster boy.

Where did you find the best jobs?

Reflecting on it, the big software houses, with at least a hundred employees, and big companies, with a few hundred employees.

They came through IT recruitment agencies. But they were the jobs with professional big companies, where I had to sit a "very difficult" test, that was intended to weed out the weaker candidates.

I put "very difficult" in quotes, because although most applicants probably found them very hard, for me, they were right up my street. Stuff like very complex logic tests, where I only managed to answer half the questions, but other more confident people didn't even get past question 1. On another test, it was using some very arcane ancient computer skills that were based on older computer architecture, that I just so happened to have learned about 10 years before, to better understand computers at the time.

For most people, the skills such tests check for, are way outside of their skill-set. But for INTPs, I gather it's what we like to do.

In those sorts of jobs, they valued my skills highly, and had enough work to be able to assign me plenty of work that I found enjoyable, challenging and within my capability. They paid well, and had a good health and pension scheme, and there was a good social life with the other programmers, particularly the women.

 

[Inquisitor]

First proper job in software programming was in 1996.

I fit so many stereotypes of INTPs, I could be a poster boy.

Reflecting on it, the big software houses, with at least a hundred employees, and big companies, with a few hundred employees.

They came through IT recruitment agencies. But they were the jobs with professional big companies, where I had to sit a "very difficult" test, that was intended to weed out the weaker candidates.

I put "very difficult" in quotes, because although most applicants probably found them very hard, for me, they were right up my street. Stuff like very complex logic tests, where I only managed to answer half the questions, but other more confident people didn't even get past question 1. On another test, it was using some very arcane ancient computer skills that were based on older computer architecture, that I just so happened to have learned about 10 years before, to better understand computers at the time.

For most people, the skills such tests check for, are way outside of their skill-set. But for INTPs, I gather it's what we like to do.

In those sorts of jobs, they valued my skills highly, and had enough work to be able to assign me plenty of work that I found enjoyable, challenging and within my capability. They paid well, and had a good health and pension scheme, and there was a good social life with the other programmers, particularly the women.

Good to know. How old are you roughly? If you had just graduated with a BS in CS, where would you go for the launchpad?

 

[Attreyu]

After a few posts in Architect's "MBTI takedown" thread, I began thinking about the paradox that MBTI seemingly makes surprisingly precise descriptions of individuals once you know his/her type, while at the same time not being a scientific theory.

That's how astrology works --> Experiment

You are right, the MBTI is broadly used by the industry because of convenience, but it is not an accepted measure.

Usually I do not quote wiki, but in this instance the page is well referenced:
---> MBTI Criticism

 

[reckful]

That's how astrology works -->
...
You are right, the MBTI is broadly used by the industry because of convenience, but it is not an accepted measure.

Usually I do not quote wiki, but in this instance the page is well referenced:
---> MBTI Criticism

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they long ago acknowledged that the MBTI passed muster in the validity and reliability departments, and that each typology might have things to teach the other. And contrary to what you may have read in poorly informed sources, the validity and reliability of the official MBTI have been found to be basically on a par with the leading Big Five test (the NEO-PI-R).

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, based on thousands of studies that have been done over the past 50 years, and that continue to be done — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this PerC post.

Take a look at the self-selection ratios for Cal Tech science majors in post 71. The correlations with an N preference and introversion are dramatic, and as I note in that post, that's what validity looks like in the field of personality psychology. And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population.

The way astrology "works" is largely by way of Forerism, and for your convenience, I've put the section of the linked post that addresses the Forer rap in the spoiler.

Spoiler

I think anyone who points to the MBTI as a good example of the Forer effect can't be very familiar with the MBTI. To go all the way back to its roots, Jung viewed temperament as, to a substantial degree, the source of people's crazinesses and difficulties as much as their strengths. And I'd say all the respectable modern MBTI sources devote a significant amount of attention to the common weaknesses associated with each type.

What's more, because of the MBTI's dichotomous structure, deciding that any particular MBTI preference fits you well involves, by definition, a corresponding decision that the opposite pole doesn't fit you that well. When I read MBTI profiles, I recognize myself in INTJ descriptions, yes, but in reading descriptions of some of the other types, my reaction — far from a Forer effect — is often more along the lines of, yes! those are those people who drive me up the wall, or feel alien to me.

I'm not saying that someone looking to discredit the MBTI as a Forer phenomenon couldn't locate some websites where the descriptions tend to be on the vague and/or rosy side. But that's not typical of MBTI sources, in my experience, and it certainly wasn't Myers' perspective.

Close to half of each type description in the third (most recent) edition of the MBTI Manual is devoted to "Potential Areas for Growth" — i.e., typical weaknesses — for each type. As one example, here's that portion of the INTJ portrait:

Sometimes life circumstances have not supported INTJs in the development and expression of their Thinking and Intuitive preferences.

• If they have not developed their Thinking, INTJs may not have reliable ways to translate their valuable insights into achievable realities.
• If they have not developed their Intuition, they may not take in enough information or take in only that information that fits their insights. Then they may make ill-founded decisions based on limited or idiosyncratic information.

If INTJs do not find a place where they can use their gifts and be appreciated for their contributions, they usually feel frustrated and may

• Become aloof and abrupt, not giving enough information about their internal processing
• Be critical of those who do not see their vision quickly
• Become single-minded and unyielding in pursuing it

It is natural for INTJs to give less attention to their non-preferred Sensing and Feeling parts. If they neglect these too much, however, they may

• Overlook details or facts that do not fit into their Intuitive patterns
• Engage in "intellectual games," quibbling over abstract issues ad terms that have little meaning or relevance to others
• Not give enough weight to the impacts of their decisions on individuals
• Fail to give as much praise or intimate connection as others desire

Under great stress, INTJs can overindulge in Sensing activities – watching TV reruns, playing cards, overeating – or become overly focused on specific details in their environment that they normally do not notice or usually see as unimportant (housecleaning, organizing cupboards).​