MBTI Compatibility Theory ..Accurate!?????

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If two people with the same Big 5 results have no meaningful correlation in their personality then that's a failure of the model.

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

[Asayake]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

While not really disagreeing with you, what do you think about the fact that most of the science that's ever been done would be classed as pseudo science today. The literal "founder" of science, Aristotle is a pseudo scientist by todays standards, yet still referred to as the founder of science (atleast in Swedish universities).

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

No, it's not.  It's not meaningful in the slightest.  It tells your absolutely nothing about how effective of a leader someone might be, or what kind of a personality someone may have.

If I'm not compatible with someone in some way, I can often attribute it to the fact they're a sensor, for example.  Sensors will think I'm impractical or naiive if I use Ne around them, so it benefits me to know their type when going into a conversation.  This alone is invaluable, and gives me deep insight most never have access to.  Most people would conclude that e.g. someone is "just stupid" or "just too different from me" or "just can't be reasoned with".  But MBTI accounts for all the differences, without you having to judge anyone, or feeling superiority in some way.

 

If I'm an employer and want to hire a team leader, none of the Big 5 results will tell me anything of value.  The same, however, can not be said for MBTI types.  Any affiliative, and non-systematic types (i.e. all the NFs) can immediately be culled, as MBTI allows you to easily identify anyone suitable/unsuitable for a given task, like leadership.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Asayake said:

While not really disagreeing with you, what do you think about the fact that most of the science that's ever been done would be classed as pseudo science today. The literal "founder" of science, Aristotle is a pseudo scientist by todays standards, yet still referred to as the founder of science (atleast in Swedish universities).

100 years ago, we had horses and MBTI. Today, we have Teslas and Big 5. Yes, science vs. pseudoscience is defined relative to the current scientific paradigm, so it's constantly changing. It's nevertheless a useful distinction, because it tells you how to best explain and predict how nature behaves.

[Carl-Richard]

@thisintegrated

Here is our disagreement in a nutshell: you're placing value on postulated explanatory power over validity/reliability, while I do the opposite. In other words, MBTI seemingly is able to explain a lot of things (arguably more than Big 5), but when you actually test it through statistical methods, it doesn't add up. Therefore, when I look at it, I see a broken model. When you look at it, you see a broken statistical method. I'm at odds with one model, and you're at odds with the fundamentals of quantitative social science. You don't care about this, because you value the abilities of your own human mind over the statistical methods that are designed to eliminate flaws of the human mind. You also value your own individual abilities over the abilities of a thousand scientific geniuses.

[Asayake]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

100 years ago, we had horses and MBTI. Today, we have Teslas and Big 5. Yes, science vs. pseudoscience is defined relative to the current scientific paradigm, so it's constantly changing. It's nevertheless a useful distinction, because it tells you how to best explain and predict how nature behaves.

300 years ago we had Mozart, today we have Cardi B 

My point is just that there would be no science without pseudo science so clearly pseudo science has more potential than it is given credit for?

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Asayake said:

300 years ago we had Mozart, today we have Cardi B 

My point is just that there would be no science without pseudo science so clearly pseudo science has more potential than it is given credit for?

That which is considered pseudoscience today could revolutionize science tomorrow. However, you're not going to do that by simply clinging to an outdated 100 year old model, unless you're able to develop it.

[Asayake]

20 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That which is considered pseudoscience today could revolutionize science tomorrow. However, you're not going to do that by simply clinging to an outdated 100 year old model, unless you're able to develop it.

I frankly don't know enough about MBTI to be able to tell whether it's accurate or not myself. But just like with spirituality there could be many reasons for why it's difficult to prove it's validity with the modern scientific model. Maybe MBTI relies more on skillful subjective interpretation to be useful, where as it's easier to objectively observe the traits of big 5.

But it wasn't long ago meditation was frowned upon as woo woo in western countries. Yet it had been around for a very long time, it was nothing new. So from a certain perspective it could be regarded as an outdated method, the spiritual ideas surrounding it as outdated models? Outdated is only outdated because you don't believe it works. The fact that it's older than big 5 really is irrelevant isn't it?

[Yog]

@Carl-Richard  I think "Objective Personality" upgraded the system to a big degree. It also works in a double blind fashion.
 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Yog

[thisintegrated]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@thisintegrated

Here is our disagreement in a nutshell: you're placing value on postulated explanatory power over validity/reliability, while I do the opposite. In other words, MBTI seemingly is able to explain a lot of things (arguably more than Big 5), but when you actually test it through statistical methods, it doesn't add up. Therefore, when I look at it, I see a broken model. When you look at it, you see a broken statistical method. I'm at odds with one model, and you're at odds with the fundamentals of quantitative social science. You don't care about this, because you value the abilities of your own human mind over the statistical methods that are designed to eliminate flaws of the human mind. You also value your own individual abilities over the abilities of a thousand scientific geniuses.

How does it not add up?

Some types might be tricky to tell apart at first glance.  But some, like ESTJs, can be obvious before they even say a word.

And some types are clearly systematic or non-systematic, or affiliative or pragmatic.  Which aren't useless distinctions.

Edited June 13, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

How does it not add up?

The official MBTI assessment on the Myers and Briggs website (the one you have to pay for, not the quack knock-offs), has among other things poor reliability and validity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

This is how you do quantitative social science: you take a concept or model, and you create a standardized measurement for it (a.k.a "operationalization"), like a self-assessment test. This is the bottom line of modern personality theory. If you've gone through the effort of creating such a measurement (which MBTI has), and it doesn't hold up, then it's by definition pseudoscience. You bringing up examples that "make logical sense" doesn't change that fact, because again, it's an appeal to postulated explanatory power, not standards of empirical research.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Asayake said:

I frankly don't know enough about MBTI to be able to tell whether it's accurate or not myself. But just like with spirituality there could be many reasons for why it's difficult to prove it's validity with the modern scientific model. Maybe MBTI relies more on skillful subjective interpretation to be useful, where as it's easier to objectively observe the traits of big 5.

Things start to get a little fuzzy when you start blending spirituality, hermeneutics and dry quantitative science. The fact of the matter is that MBTI presents itself as a rigorously scientific personality model with all the modern chops of quantitative measurements, but it simply isn't that. It's a very specific thing I'm saying.

 

5 hours ago, Asayake said:

But it wasn't long ago meditation was frowned upon as woo woo in western countries. Yet it had been around for a very long time, it was nothing new. So from a certain perspective it could be regarded as an outdated method, the spiritual ideas surrounding it as outdated models? Outdated is only outdated because you don't believe it works. The fact that it's older than big 5 really is irrelevant isn't it?

It's true that science often progresses through things like sheer luck or happenstance (like suddenly discovering the therapeutic potential of meditation), things that have really nothing to do with structured methodology, but this still doesn't devalue the very way which we evaluate our current scientific models (which is what the criteria around reliability and validity of measurement instruments in the quantitative social sciences are about). When I say that a model is outdated, it has to have been through the scientific machinery first and then deemed insufficient. That doesn't apply to meditation, as it was just recently discovered by science and then given a warm embrace.

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The official MBTI assessment on the Myers and Briggs website (the one you have to pay for, not the quack knock-offs), has among other things poor reliability and validity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

This is how you do quantitative social science: you take a concept or model, and you create a standardized measurement for it (a.k.a "operationalization"), like a self-assessment test. This is the bottom line of modern personality theory. If you've gone through the effort of creating such a measurement (which MBTI has), and it doesn't hold up, then it's by definition pseudoscience. You bringing up examples that "make logical sense" doesn't change that fact, because again, it's an appeal to postulated explanatory power, not standards of empirical research.

Hol' up.. did you just suggest that Big 5 ISN'T a "pseudoscience"?!?!?!?

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Hol' up.. did you just suggest that Big 5 ISN'T a "pseudoscience"?!?!?!?

It's the leading model in personality theory, so by definition, it isn't. If you had actually read about how the model was made, you would think it was pretty genius (the Lexical hypothesis). I think the Lexical hypothesis is a big reason why the self-assessment tests are so accurate, because the 5 traits were actually found using data from self-assessment tests.

[integral]

Any MBTI type can have any Big 5 score. MBTI and Big 5 are on different axis. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral

[integral]

On 2022-06-11 at 3:18 AM, Carl-Richard said:

 

Any MBTI type can have any mix of these traits.

We should merge the models.

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral

[Carl-Richard]

34 minutes ago, integral said:

Any MBTI type can have any Big 5 score. MBTI and Big 5 are on different axis. 

E/I and Extroversion, and N/S and Openness are actually somewhat correlated (0.72 and 0.74). The problems of reliability and validity mostly arise when MBTI says that these things occur in specific dichotomies and combinations, i.e. 16 types.

[integral]

@Carl-Richard how do the functions in MBTI align with big five? Also what are functions? lol

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, integral said:

@Carl-Richard how do the functions in MBTI align with big five? Also what are functions? lol

Actual correlation coefficients? No idea.

[Carl-Richard]

Fun fact: Jordan Peterson (and some other person) co-authored that paper with DeYoung, which produced the 10 facets. The dude has made big historical contributions to personality psychology.