MBTI misunderstandings and Global/Big 5

[Artsu Tharaz]

So, it seems when people misinterpret MBTI, these are the basic errors:

- assuming that being I vs E is just about how social or outgoing you are
- assuming that S vs N is about being open to new ideas, preferring what is concrete rather than what is novel or interesting
- assuming that F and T is about how emotional you are, or about how much you like people or something
- assuming that J vs P is just about how organised/structured you are

Now, there may well be correlations between those things, but they are by no means the defining factors. Yet, clearly these are traits which are intuitively clear personality divides in the eyes of the average person, and since the MBTI tests don't exactly help counter misunderstanding, people assume this is what MBTI is about. However, the fact that this means of division is so readily apparent implies that we should have some test which measures it, so that discussions can continue as they usually would.

Fortunately, it just so happens that this is exactly what the Big Five test measures. It seems then to be a good idea, that whenever someone is misusing MBTI in such a way, that they be pointed to the Big Five test.

^_^

Problems I foresee:

Big Five dichotomies can be too non-neutral. The divisions need to be framed such that no side sounds like they are "better" than the other side.

Presumably being close to centre (within 1 STD perhaps) would be described as ideal, but even then it has to be noted that extreme scores can work well for certain purposes.

We need a reliable/valid test to point people to. Which will it be?

--

SLOAN Notation Key
--------------------------
Social or Reserved
Limbic or Calm
Organized or Unstructured
Accommodating or Egocentric
Non-curious or Inquisitive
__________________

 

[Lobstrich]

- assuming that being I vs E is just about how social or outgoing you are
- assuming that S vs N is about being open to new ideas, preferring what is concrete rather than what is novel or interesting
- assuming that F and T is about how emotional you are, or about how much you like people or something
- assuming that J vs P is just about how organised/structured you are

I basically agree that this is a misunderstanding. I find this to be true. But these are not the only factors that 'weigh in' to wether you are I/E, F/T or J/P. So I'd change it to "Popular belief that these are the only things that differ I/E, F/T and J/P"

But I'm not to savvy on MBTI to be honest, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Bryson]

Problem I foresee (you may wanna add this to the list):
Would people want to be classified as egocentric?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Problem I foresee (you may wanna add this to the list):
Would people want to be classified as egocentric?

Yeah, that's what I mean about the divisions not being neutral.

"Egocentric" doesn't even properly capture what that dichotomy is measuring.

"Limbic" is better than neurotic at least, but who the hell knows that Limbic means?

 

[Hadoblado]

I LA'd while reading this (laughing aloud, LOLing is for idiots).

Guilty of these things initially I was, and Limbic I know not what is.

 

[nexion]

"Limbic" is better than neurotic at least, but who the hell knows that Limbic means?

That's why there are dictionaries.

My main contention with the Big Five, as with mostly all typologies to some extent, is that it models personality based on behaviours rather than cognitive dispositions. The theory is more or less "objective," as the creators of it say it is, but according to my definition of core personality, behaviourism as a means of divining personality traits is a flawed method of doing so.

I have encountered the SLOAN dichotomies before on similarminds.com big five tests. I would assume that the real problem most people have with the previous OCEAN dichotomies (and even some of the SLOAN ones) is connotation more than anything else. "Nobody wants to be 'x'." Connotation should be disregarded when looking at the dichotomies, because the name of the dichotomy is merely an attempt of the author to capture all aspects of one trait of personality into one word. It doesn't work, and, as a result, the name should be merely seen as a means to an end, only useful for shorthand of something greater, much like the MBTI dichotomies.

But sometimes, there is no way to prevent a word or description from sounding bad. Limbic, Unstructured, Non-Inquisitive, and perhaps Egocentric will be received more often than not in a negative light, since they are not desirable in society. That is, it has nothing to do with any word used to describe the trait, but the trait itself, the innate tendencies of some people. Social/Reserved I think is more or less neutral, I think. There is a fair mix of both kinds of people in society. All I would say is that people on the extreme ends of either side of the dichotomy would probably be undesirable.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That's why there are dictionaries.

My main contention with the Big Five, as with mostly all typologies to some extent, is that it models personality based on behaviours rather than cognitive dispositions. The theory is more or less "objective," as the creators of it say it is, but according to my definition of core personality, behaviourism as a means of divining personality traits is a flawed method of doing so.

Well, I figure that if people are going to treat personality like this anyway (see: pretty much any new MBTI user) they may as well use a system that is based on this.

I have encountered the SLOAN dichotomies before on similarminds.com big five tests. I would assume that the real problem most people have with the previous OCEAN dichotomies (and even some of the SLOAN ones) is connotation more than anything else. "Nobody wants to be 'x'." Connotation should be disregarded when looking at the dichotomies, because the name of the dichotomy is merely an attempt of the author to capture all aspects of one trait of personality into one word. It doesn't work, and, as a result, the name should be merely seen as a means to an end, only useful for shorthand of something greater, much like the MBTI dichotomies.

It technically shouldn't matter, but it inevitably will, so neutrality is highly desirable.

But sometimes, there is no way to prevent a word or description from sounding bad. Limbic, Unstructured, Non-Inquisitive, and perhaps Egocentric will be received more often than not in a negative light, since they are not desirable in society. That is, it has nothing to do with any word used to describe the trait, but the trait itself, the innate tendencies of some people. Social/Reserved I think is more or less neutral, I think. There is a fair mix of both kinds of people in society. All I would say is that people on the extreme ends of either side of the dichotomy would probably be undesirable.

Well, there may be some bias in that you'll pick how you see yourself. I think limbic avoids this since the word is so obscure - but then, it's so obscure no one knows what it means so ehh. I think unstructured people might be just as happy not having structure as structured people are having it, though it probably is typically seen as desirable. Free-form might be an alright term to use. I don't really think inquisitiveness is valued all that highly by those who aren't inquisitive, generally speaking anyway. However, since non-curious is a negative trait rather than a positive one (negative in the "not" sense) a different term should be used, perhaps "grounded" or something. Egocentric is certainly a term that needs changing. I'm sure there are some who are pleased by being referred to as egocentric, but I doubt ~half the population would be so pleased. Something like "unbudging" perhaps? Or self-motivated?

Basically, both sides of the dichotomy should highlight positive aspects. We will need to create a nice alternative naming system to the one used.

 

[Bryson]

I foresse:
In a couple of years your signature will be '' [2A-Pi] [RCUAI] [e2k] [WxZ] [ZORG] [89w3] [OMG] ''

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

ehh I'm more of a WxY.

 

[scorpiomover]

The MBTI system is nice. But it really doesn't describe the full gamut of personalities, and leaves out much to be desired. It really makes a lot more sense as the sort of things that psychologists like Jung would have observed easily about patients. The most obvious observation would be if one goes out a lot or not. The second would be if one is a 'creative type' or not, which was a very well-known type in Jung's and Freud's time and place, and was clearly different to non-creative types. The third most obvious observation was if one talked in terms of reason and logic, or feelings and emotions. The fourth most obvious observation was if one was quick to decide and to judge, or if one was slow to decide things about decisions and about people.

I can understand why people want to say that the MBTI system is not about those 4 basic questions, as the system leaves much to be desired. But then, who ever said Jung, Myers or Briggs were perfect?

 

[pjoa09]

I am RCUEI and it turns out one of the first google listings are INTP! so ehhh.. doomed.