Adymus
Banned
There is an idea that I see perpetuated on the MBTI circuits, and this idea is essentially that Neuroscience will uncover all of the mysteries of MBTI. But to that I say nay, because as long as MBTI theory is dictating the hand that holds the magnifying glass, any data collected will be misplaced and misinterpreted, while critical data will be overlooked. This is of course is not due to the incompetence of Neuroscientists, but rather due to the incompetence of the theory that the research is based on.
Empirical data acquired through testing is not actually irrefutable. The validity of the data one is acquiring is dictated by the theory that is guiding the research taking place. What that means is that one is going to be collecting data in the places that the theory suggests they should be looking, and they will be interpreting this data based on their theory's assumptions. So in other words, if the theory itself is flawed, then all calculations based on the theory will also be flawed, and thus research data acquired within the scope of said theory will be irrelevant. There are a few key places that I expect are completely screwing up any attempts neuroscientists are having in trying to find the neurological source for the personality phenomenon:
A.) It is based on a shitty test
This factor, more than any other factor is why attempting to find empirical neurological correlations for MBTI types is going to produce useless data. The MBTI test is so inaccurate, that we don't even really know exactly how inaccurate it is, because MBTI currently has no constant or control to base it on. Personally I would say it is about 40% accurate, I couldn't know for certain (Accuracy also depends largely on what type you are, what gender you are, what culture you are coming from, and so on and so forth, but that is for another discussion), but for the sake of discussion, let's just say it is. If more than half of your specimens are not what you think they are, then that alone is going cause the majority of results to be irrelevant, make legitimate correlations seem more random, and at the very best validate erroneous correlations. It is for this exact same reason that statistics taken for how, for instance, what ratios MBTI types are distributed in genders and population. In those you will see things like, there are more thinking males than feeling males, but you are not actually measuring the truth of how the two genders are wired, you are measuring a cultural meme, and people have answered questions in their test based on how they think their mind actually works according to that meme, and not how their mind actually works.
B.) It is based on Misconceptions
The bane of MBTI is the fact that it makes simple something that is extremely complex. Occam's Razor suggests that something should not be made more complex than it should be, which is not to be confused with "The more simple something is, the better it is." There are some things that are by nature very complex, and if that complexity is not appreciated, then it will not be understood. MBTI easily falls into this category. There are many examples I can use, but the basic principle behind the vast majority of MBTI misconceptions is usually the same error; When a person is seen doing an activity (Associated with a cognitive function or dichotomy) often, then they must have a preference for said function or dichotomy. The most common example of this is probably the misconception that Extroversion is defined by a person who talks a lot, or is very confident about having a social presence. Extroversion simply means one has a dominant extroverted function, and there is sometimes a correlation to that and how much one is comfortable talking, but it actually not dependent on that alone, which is why there are a significant amount of exceptions. Far to many to simply say the simplification is "close enough."
C.) It is based on poorly defined concepts, specifically the cognitive functions
It is for this reason that I find what is currently being produced by neuroscientists in search of the MBTI-brain correlation to be garbage. The problem with the way Cognitive Function are being defined, is that not unlike the above examples, they are based on misconception. Cognitive functions are defined by the authorities in this field by the results, not by the source. So for example, you will see definitions such as: "Te is used for organizing and planning" or "Se is used for being aware of and present in the outside world." While both of these are technically true for people that actually use Se and Te, not everyone is using Te and Se for these same activities, for instance Planning and organizing can be done with Fe, and being present and aware of the outside world can be done with Ne. It all depends on what functions you have conscious use of. So if an ENFJ is being examined while organizing or planning, the researcher is going to think they are measuring their use of Te, but they are going to see activity in all sorts of regions of the brain because all sorts of cognitive functions such as Fe and Ti are being used, and they will be falsely documenting this as "Te activity." Thus any results produced using their current understanding as a basis are going to look like the Cognitive functions online test does, random cognitive functions being used all over the place with no inherent structure or form.
I am not suggesting that there is no hope when it comes to finding empirical evidence in favor of typology, I am suggesting there is very little hope of finding it if you are using MBTI as a basis. You see, you cannot expect to find what you are looking for if you do not have a complete understanding of what that is. Research without a solid theory to guide it is just blind research. A theory does not necessary need to be 100% spot on in order for it to be able to be properly researched, but it should at least be in the ball park. MBTI is sort of in the ball park when it comes to getting many people to agree that the phenomenon of personality type exists, but the actual phenomenon is so complex that being sort of in the ballpark is not going to cut it when it comes to discovering any neurological foundation through proper interpretation of neurological activity and being able to make reproducible results.
Empirical data acquired through testing is not actually irrefutable. The validity of the data one is acquiring is dictated by the theory that is guiding the research taking place. What that means is that one is going to be collecting data in the places that the theory suggests they should be looking, and they will be interpreting this data based on their theory's assumptions. So in other words, if the theory itself is flawed, then all calculations based on the theory will also be flawed, and thus research data acquired within the scope of said theory will be irrelevant. There are a few key places that I expect are completely screwing up any attempts neuroscientists are having in trying to find the neurological source for the personality phenomenon:
A.) It is based on a shitty test
This factor, more than any other factor is why attempting to find empirical neurological correlations for MBTI types is going to produce useless data. The MBTI test is so inaccurate, that we don't even really know exactly how inaccurate it is, because MBTI currently has no constant or control to base it on. Personally I would say it is about 40% accurate, I couldn't know for certain (Accuracy also depends largely on what type you are, what gender you are, what culture you are coming from, and so on and so forth, but that is for another discussion), but for the sake of discussion, let's just say it is. If more than half of your specimens are not what you think they are, then that alone is going cause the majority of results to be irrelevant, make legitimate correlations seem more random, and at the very best validate erroneous correlations. It is for this exact same reason that statistics taken for how, for instance, what ratios MBTI types are distributed in genders and population. In those you will see things like, there are more thinking males than feeling males, but you are not actually measuring the truth of how the two genders are wired, you are measuring a cultural meme, and people have answered questions in their test based on how they think their mind actually works according to that meme, and not how their mind actually works.
B.) It is based on Misconceptions
The bane of MBTI is the fact that it makes simple something that is extremely complex. Occam's Razor suggests that something should not be made more complex than it should be, which is not to be confused with "The more simple something is, the better it is." There are some things that are by nature very complex, and if that complexity is not appreciated, then it will not be understood. MBTI easily falls into this category. There are many examples I can use, but the basic principle behind the vast majority of MBTI misconceptions is usually the same error; When a person is seen doing an activity (Associated with a cognitive function or dichotomy) often, then they must have a preference for said function or dichotomy. The most common example of this is probably the misconception that Extroversion is defined by a person who talks a lot, or is very confident about having a social presence. Extroversion simply means one has a dominant extroverted function, and there is sometimes a correlation to that and how much one is comfortable talking, but it actually not dependent on that alone, which is why there are a significant amount of exceptions. Far to many to simply say the simplification is "close enough."
C.) It is based on poorly defined concepts, specifically the cognitive functions
It is for this reason that I find what is currently being produced by neuroscientists in search of the MBTI-brain correlation to be garbage. The problem with the way Cognitive Function are being defined, is that not unlike the above examples, they are based on misconception. Cognitive functions are defined by the authorities in this field by the results, not by the source. So for example, you will see definitions such as: "Te is used for organizing and planning" or "Se is used for being aware of and present in the outside world." While both of these are technically true for people that actually use Se and Te, not everyone is using Te and Se for these same activities, for instance Planning and organizing can be done with Fe, and being present and aware of the outside world can be done with Ne. It all depends on what functions you have conscious use of. So if an ENFJ is being examined while organizing or planning, the researcher is going to think they are measuring their use of Te, but they are going to see activity in all sorts of regions of the brain because all sorts of cognitive functions such as Fe and Ti are being used, and they will be falsely documenting this as "Te activity." Thus any results produced using their current understanding as a basis are going to look like the Cognitive functions online test does, random cognitive functions being used all over the place with no inherent structure or form.
I am not suggesting that there is no hope when it comes to finding empirical evidence in favor of typology, I am suggesting there is very little hope of finding it if you are using MBTI as a basis. You see, you cannot expect to find what you are looking for if you do not have a complete understanding of what that is. Research without a solid theory to guide it is just blind research. A theory does not necessary need to be 100% spot on in order for it to be able to be properly researched, but it should at least be in the ball park. MBTI is sort of in the ball park when it comes to getting many people to agree that the phenomenon of personality type exists, but the actual phenomenon is so complex that being sort of in the ballpark is not going to cut it when it comes to discovering any neurological foundation through proper interpretation of neurological activity and being able to make reproducible results.
