Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).--http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/03/iq-and-personality.html
This and other similar correlations exist not because the traits are inherently related to intelligence, but because they are correlated closely with traits the MBTI cannot measure, that is, the absolute development and abilities of one's mind. While the majority of MBTI "extroverts" (often spelled extraverts in psychological literature) are active and controlling in a conversation or group of people, this need not be the case. Similarly, someone who prefers concrete facts over abstract thoughts, that is, an MBTI S, may still have a highly developed intuitive mind.
Thus I am proposing an extension to the four-letter MBTI type designation, adding subscripts to represent these correlated traits, enabling people to more easily see in what ways they differ from their MBTI archetype. For instance, an ENTP whose "correlated traits" line up exactly with his or her MBTI traits would be an EENNTTPP. An ENTP who differs from the E archetype by virtue of being generally passive in conversations, and differs from the P archetype by virtue of being somewhat of an overachiever (this would be me) would be an EINNTTPJ. Reading off one's subscripted trait designations, one produces what I will call the "secondary type", which in this case denotes "for an ENTP, I act an awful lot like an INTJ".
Of course there's also the fact that the woman who created Myers Briggs based it off of basically nothing other than her own observances and it has no scientific basis...
ReplyDeleteNonetheless it has helped a lot of people recognize their strengths and weaknesses better, and enabled people to understand others at a more direct psychological level. Whether it has a scientific basis is moot if it works. (whoa I never thought I'd say anything like that)...
ReplyDelete...actually if it works it must have a scientific basis, it just hasn't been discovered yet. It does already have a significant statistical and intuitive basis, though.
Ok so I want to show you this book I've been reading (which obviously has an agenda in its presentation about the MBTI, but I still think it makes some valid points). Because I don't think that MBTI has actually helped me at all, whether or not it has others... I mean it's cool because when you read the ENTJ profile, it's like "whoa! I _do_ seem to get angry when I'm actually just excited! This test is SCIENCE!" but then at the same time, if you read any of the other profiles, I'll see other stuff that is similar to how I act; for instance, in this website (www.personalitypage.com/ISFP.html)'s profile of an ISFP (the MBTI opposite of me), it says "They have a strong set of values, which they strive to consistently meet in their lives." Well...yeah, I have values. But doesn't everyone? I mean how is that specially defining about ISFPs? And really all I've seen use/knowledge of MBTI do in any of our social circle that (to put it mildly) obsesses about it is help people put other people in little boxes and then a) define them solely based on 4 letters and b) ignore any bits of personality that don't fit in those boxes. There's also this whole area of explaining away any reactions as "well that's just because you're an INTJ [or whatever]," which frankly, I think is BS.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, your proposed edit to MBTI profiling basically just goes "oh, well, the test defines me as an ENTP, but actually a lot of me is like an INTJ, in fact I guess this test really doesn't cover all the facets of my personality. That's too bad, I guess it isn't comprehensive at all, but I'm going to stick to it because I think that personality tests _should_ be effective, and I _like_ the MBTI letters and such." Or at least that's what it seems like to me.
Thalia your argument makes so much sense :)
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the MBTI that concerns me is that there are so many parts of each trait that if each assessment puts more weight on certain parts of a trait, especially if one is borderline (but not exclusively to that case), then the tested will be get different results due to many loosely defined traits. For example, sometimes I get tested as an extrovert (lack of focus, acting before reflecting, energized by conversations, value collaboration), and usually I test as a thinker, although according to the official MBTI I'm an introverted feeler. When you think about it, everyone has characteristics of an I, E, S, N, T, F, J, and P (although people usually have more of one than the other). And since I don't think there is (or will be) an exact agreement on which certain characteristics deserve what amounts of importance, we can only rely on approximations. But there are also many people who believe that everyone must be either one or the other, either a J or a P, and so on. The lack of agreement on the fine details makes the MBTI less than reliable, imo (oh there goes my uncharacteristic love of order again).
I also don't like how it combines with the Forer effect. Too many times people look at their type and only look at the times and places where their personality fits the description, or vice versa.
I would also go into the fact that it doesn't biologically make sense. But lots of parts of psychology are like that.
Also, James, you seem very ENTP to me (to me they are the innovative type)... but like the kind of perceiver without the ADD.
"ENTPs are basically optimists"
"ENTPs are as innovative and ingenious at problem-solving"
(http://typelogic.com/entp.html)
Judgers tend to like to do only one thing at a time. But, as I said before, it really depends on what aspect of the P/J dichotomy you're looking at.
Oh my god
ReplyDeleteTime to defend my favorite labeller :( I believe most of what the two last comments have said were incorrect, I guess I'll go through point by point and say why
ReplyDelete@thalia
- What do you use MBTI for? If you use it to take it, then go to websites that "profile" you and go "oh wow these are nice things people say about people like me.... AND THEY'RE TRUE!" Those general vague positive blurbs are not the point of MBTI, although they're what it's been turned into for most people. "o hai another personality test"
It just depends if it helps you, really -- if it doesn't then don't care about it?
- "ignore any bits of personality that don't fit in those boxes" Where do you see any evidence of this... I think all of us are welladjusted enough to know that 4 letters do not in reality define a person, as much as we may joke. (We meaning me.)
- Wait you just argued that 1) MBTI doesn't cover all facets of a personality geez guys, then 2) it doesn't cover all facets of a personality therefore it is invalid?
Honestly MBTI's not a science, it is a personality test... while your personality is not going to be encapsulated in four broadly-defined qualities you possess, _some_ of it is bound to be. It's not completely valid and it's not completely invalid. I use it to generalize about people when I don't know them well, or sometimes to help me loosely understand people. I don't think it is the be-all end-all of my life or anything.
@jackie
- What is this "testing" you speak of... You don't take a "what college should you go to" poll on Facebook to determine what college you should probably go to, right? Ignore that godawful analogy; what I'm trying to say is that one should be able to diagnose one's own MBTI (if one wants accurate results, anyway). No online poll can say as much about your own personality (and how best to characterize it in 4 letters) as you can?
- Personalities are relative?? NEWS. What is "official MBTI"? Everything about it is relative. Everyone is E/I, N/S, T/F, P/J to different degrees because those letters approximately measure things that aren't absolutes?
- "But there are also many people who believe that everyone must be either one or the other, either a J or a P, and so on." I don't understand your point here; MBTI has 4 letters, each is a two-letter dichotomy, therefore you must be a J or a P? I don't believe many people really think that YOU CANNOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST TRACE OF DISORGANIZED PERCEIVER IN YOU or vice versa with judging or anything. If they do, they're missing the point... which can't really be taken as a fault of MBTI itself.
- Biologically? I'm confused here, too... personalities aren't inherited as far as I know? "perhaps humanity is merely in hardy-weinberg equilibrium. IN THE HEAD"
Okay I'm done maybe? To clarify, I am not a hopeless MBTI fanatic -- "oh wait" -- but I do think that most of your opinions are based off things that were not the original intent/purpose of MBTI, much less this blogpost.
Everything above may be wrong. Or right. What a disclaimer! Warned you have been.
"You don't take a "what college should you go to" poll on Facebook to determine what college you should probably go to, right?"
ReplyDeleteUm actually... :| (that really was a godawful analogy I won't even tell you). Maybe I like tests gosh darn it they're so much fun.
Also I completely forgot that there's already an "official" MBTI... the one they make you pay for... but anyway.
*summons Jackie-logic in attack mode*
The point is that the MBTI is used to help people find out what their types are. As you can see I never said anything about it being useless or invalid, but that it's unreliable. If we all have to resort to self-diagnosis (wow that makes it look like a set of diseases... you have ENTP now go take your pills), then that would mean that the tests themselves are unreliable.
I don't believe I said anything about "covering all facets of a personality," I mentioned "agreeing on the importance in which exact factors of each part of the personality that is being measured." In other words, it's vague. Possibly too vague.
Also I don't think I explained the "relativity" thing clearly enough. What I was talking about was like... if you took the test on Vulcan then you would most likely be scored/assessed as a feeler. Opposite if I was tested in some parallel universe where everything was a soap opera. That's because you would be considered more "caring" than the average Vulcan, and I would be considered more reasonable and indifferent than the average drama queen (...I guess?). Same goes with self-diagnosis. One would naturally ignore the parts of personality that are common with 99% of the surrounding population, and that's the very reason nobody asks "can you add 10+10" or "do you know what a hand looks like" in an assessment. Obviously. So you can see that there's bound to be some people in the world that are like "no wai i can't be a sensor i'm more imaginative than everyone i know" when they are... actually a sensor, and that would show some unreliability.
Actually this is something that happens to me a lot... I see relativity in everything. :|
"Which can't really be taken as a fault of the MBTI itself."
- Where I see the problem with the MBTI here is that there are a lot of unqualified non-professionals answering the tiniest details in FAQ pages, since the creators themselves aren't answering them. No set standards due to so many people making up their own theories.
Theoretically types are "destiny" and you are "born with your 'true' personality" according to some MBTI fanatics (http://www.thembtiblog.com/2008/08/does-personality-type-change.html these people are actually really annoying and this is not the only one... but it's not like I'm going to list them all), not that I really agree to that. And a lot of people (psychologists, articles, go look it up) are saying that personality is genetically influenced.
Now I am done...
Wait no I'm not done... I think my original intent with that first comment was that you can't have an official type that you "appear to be" or "act like" because everyone has such different perspectives and people tend to act differently in front of certain people anyway... but then I got majorly sidetracked... wow.