Myers-Briggs is bullshit -- but is there any real scientific equivalent?

[pecksniff]

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the sort of thing that seems more scientific than astrology, because one's type is determined by answers to a questionnaire. It is, in fact, widely used in the business world. I recently heard a piece on NPR about how it is completely unscientific, and was devised by non-psychologists with an interest in Carl Jung.

What I'm wondering is, is there any analogous system of general personality types that psychologists accept as scientific?

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

What personality are you? How the Myers-Briggs test took over the world

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ry-personality-types?utm_source=pocket-newtab



https://i.imgur.com/p74Cz9e.jpeg.1

 

[pecksniff]

Well, yeah, knew that.

 

[hobbit.]

its a complete load of bollocks. i once did the mother and daughter test (as its also known) and came out as a psychopath, i then gave the same answers in another test (diferent model fair enough) and came out as a creative sensitive type. I then had hours of fun in a corporate meeting pulling the exponent of this bullshit to pieces.

 

[pecksniff]

its a complete load of bollocks. i once did the mother and daughter test (as its also known) and came out as a psychopath, i then gave the same answers in another test (diferent model fair enough) and came out as a creative sensitive type.

Don't see any contradiction there. A conscience is one thing and creativity is another.

 

[rae121452]

i worked in the mental health field in the 90's and myers-briggs was already discredited, the psychiatrist i worked with told the patients that "it's bullshit". i can't believe that it is still being used. although, it gives a good basis for NOT hiring people.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Yes, in that a.) it uses the scientific method and b.) Meyers-Briggs results are highly replicable and c.) those results do demonstrate strong correlations with observed behaviors. So, it meets the definition of a science.

Now, is it "hard science" or "soft science". That depends, ultimately, on whether a person thinks psychology is a science per se. They and their collaborators were all scientists - just not psychologists. Their work definitely shows the Jungian bias, but those are typical in any of the Jungians.

Most often, what we see implemented in the business world is a.) Meyers-Briggs "Lite" or "Meyers-Briggs Inspired" and a lot that is "business consultant hoodoo" (LOL and I say that being a consultant).

For my personal experience in the business world, it's rarely implemented in any meaningful way and it's more often used in a "team building" type event, from which few, if any insights can be gleaned.

Again, personally, the most useful aspect of it I see (and use) is the I and E split, along with measuring how deeply a person is introverted or extroverted. That knowledge (whether a person is an I or an E) has significant implications and practical usefulness when managing a project, especially as it relates to communication and learning styles.

 

[pecksniff]

i worked in the mental health field in the 90's and myers-briggs was already discredited, the psychiatrist i worked with told the patients that "it's bullshit". i can't believe that it is still being used. although, it gives a good basis for NOT hiring people.

But, did they ever say -- and this is what the thread is about -- "This other personality-type system is more scientific"?

 

[rae121452]

But, did they ever say -- and this is what the thread is about -- "This other personality-type system is more scientific"?

no, he basically said that all mass testing of personality types is bullshit.

 

[pecksniff]

no, he basically said that all mass testing of personality types is bullshit.

I see no theoretical reason why it should be. This is a field psychologists need to explore.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The MMPI-2 incorporates a lot of the personality type testing in a more rigorous framework, but it's a complex assessment and takes hours (and skill) to administer. Sort of the like the difference between the Stanford-Binet IQ test and all all the other "lite" IQ tests.

 

[pecksniff]

Have Jung's theories themselves ever been scientifically tested?

That's the objection usually raised to Freud. The id-ego-superego model seems to make a certain sense, but other models are conceivable dividing the psyche into some smaller or greater number of components -- how to choose?

 

[Paul_Chance]

Have Jung's theories themselves ever been scientifically tested?

That's the objection usually raised to Freud. The id-ego-superego model seems to make a certain sense, but other models are conceivable dividing the psyche into some smaller or greater number of components -- how to choose?

Yes.

We'll ignore for a moment the various psychological tests that have confirmed Jungian theories and go to what I think you're asking.

In 2019 Professor Dario Nardi at UCLA published the results of his multi-year EEG studies of brain waves and came to the conclusion that the brain waves confirmed/correlated with the Jungian types (literally, that how our brains physically function correlates with the Jungian "types").

Even more to the subject here, his correlation was found with the MBTI (commonly called Meyers-Briggs) typology. There have been other "hard science" studies that looked at correlation. One of the most important (scientifically speaking) was Nardi's ability to "reverse the findings". That is, he was able to accurately predict a persons MBTI "type" from the EEG readings and apply the MBTI (to determine the type) and then "predict" the EEG results.

"Reversability" is a key component of a scientific proof - that's what pushes the scientific proofs forward. I don't know that anyone has replicated his study yet, but only because I haven't really looked.

So we can be confident in saying that the "types" exists at the level of brain function. On the more purely applied psychology front, the reason the MBTI use is widespread it that it have repeatedly been proven (as far as scientific proof goes) to have predictive value in behavior, to the point that a properly administered MBTI is valid job qualification. (None of this removes controversy, but that's whole other discussion I think - knowledge of the type is NOT successful application of the type, so that's led to the controversies in the field.)

 

[pointless]

i see a lot of words with very little proof.

 

[JohnnySavage]

its a complete load of bollocks. i once did the mother and daughter test (as its also known) and came out as a psychopath, i then gave the same answers in another test (diferent model fair enough) and came out as a creative sensitive type. I then had hours of fun in a corporate meeting pulling the exponent of this bullshit to pieces.

I once did a mother and daughter as well. Not at the same time though.

 

[hobbit.]

Don't see any contradiction there. A conscience is one thing and creativity is another.

it mattered in the context of it stopped the application of such shit in the workplace, and i got to mess with a practioners head.