RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
I know many of you do not buy into MBTI. Unfortunately you're wrong and that's that. :cigar:

Those of you that have tested as ENTPs, please indulge my question. What are the pros and cons?

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayola227

Crayola227

The Oncoming Storm
5+ Year Member
Oct 22, 2013
15,937
17,754
All of Time & Space
7 year member listed as a pre-med with 3 posts to their name, comes waltzing into the psych forum with a cigar to tell all the experienced psychiatrists they're wrong right before asking a question

TROLL

brah, I love the MBTI, so that's not why I'm calling you out

you acknowledge being aware of the controversy, and want people to engage with you, yet your very approach makes people who agree with you not want to engage

what do you think it will inspire in opponents of the MBTI?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahmadmz
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
7 year member listed as a pre-med with 3 posts to their name, comes waltzing into the psych forum with a cigar to tell all the experienced psychiatrists they're wrong right before asking a question

TROLL

brah, I love the MBTI, so that's not why I'm calling you out

you acknowledge being aware of the controversy, and want people to engage with you, yet your very approach makes people who agree with you not want to engage

what do you think it will inspire in opponents of the MBTI?
Did you not see the cigar? It was meant to be a joke...oh well, I guess w/o non-verbal communication cues things can get lost in translation. I primarily said that b/c I don't want to hear anything about how the MBTI "should be taken with a grain of salt" or "it's nonsense" or "it's no different from astrology" or "don't put too much stock in it" yada yada yada. I like it. I think it's valid. That's not the point of this discussion, and I'm not going to change my mind about that. The topic of this thread is aimed at psychiatrists who have at one point tested as ENTP or who identify themselves as such. I hope this clears things up. :cigar:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayola227

wolfvgang22

15+ Year Member
Jun 15, 2004
1,340
1,655
Status
Attending Physician
Started med school as an "ENTP", didn't finish as one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayola227

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Did you not see the cigar? It was meant to be a joke...oh well, I guess w/o non-verbal communication cues things can get lost in translation. I primarily said that b/c I don't want to hear anything about how the MBTI "should be taken with a grain of salt" or "it's nonsense" or "it's no different from astrology" or "don't put too much stock in it" yada yada yada. I like it. I think it's valid. That's not the point of this discussion, and I'm not going to change my mind about that. The topic of this thread is aimed at psychiatrists who have at one point tested as ENTP or who identify themselves as such. I hope this clears things up. :cigar:
If you are this committed to believing in theories of human behavior that have zero evidentiary support simply because it jibes with your experience...

I don't know, man. We have enough of that already. Psychiatry closed. No more psychiatry
khalass.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Started med school as an "ENTP", didn't finish as one.
So what do you test as now? I gather you don't put much stock in Jungian analytical psychology.

If you are this committed to believing in theories of human behavior that have zero evidentiary support simply because it jibes with your experience...

I don't know, man. We have enough of that already. Psychiatry closed. No more psychiatry
khalass.
Not sure what that means. Also, please read my 2nd post.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
So what do you test as now? I gather you don't put much stock in Jungian analytical psychology.



Not sure what that means. Also, please read my 2nd post.
You can say all you want that you don't want responses from naysayers, but if you post about nonsense, I'm gonna call it nonsense. What it means is that the attitude that clinical judgment or personal experience trumps evidence is endemic and poisonous enough in our specialty and does not need reinforcement.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Also the attitude "I know there is no evidence but I find it valid and meaningful anyway" contained in the second post is fine for your personal spiritual or religious experience, but not so much where the rubber of theory hits the road of making empirical truth-claims about the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smalltownpsych
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Also the attitude "I know there is no evidence but I find it valid and meaningful anyway" contained in the second post is fine for your personal spiritual or religious experience, but not so much where the rubber of theory hits the road of making empirical truth-claims about the world.
Someone's sensitive. Ok fine. You wanna have a debate on this, I'll bite. Here is my starting assertion: You cannot in good faith say that the MBTI or Jungian analytical psychology is "nonsense" or "invalid." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page here as to our initial stances: you did in fact assert that the MBTI was "nonsense" and you implied that it was "invalid" in your second post.

First of all, we have to disambiguate the MBTI from the theory of psychological types as put forth in the foundational works written by Carl Jung, JH Van der Hoop, and Marie-Louise Von Franz. It's also important to read Isabel Myers' Gifts Differing, but I would lump this together with the MBTI. If you have read these books, then please proceed directly to the next paragraph. If not, then you really know nothing about the underlying theory or how the MBTI was developed, and the most you can in good conscience assert is that you are "agnostic," meaning it could be true, or it could be false, but you are not well-informed enough to be able to make an "empirical truth-claim" on the matter.

Secondly, we have to discuss the MBTI's validity as a psychometric assessment. Contrary to your initial assertion, which is frankly groundless, there does in fact exist plenty of evidence suggesting that the MBTI is a valid psychometric instrument. The following link is a very good summary of the arguments against the MBTI and the corresponding rebuttals, and there is a lot of information in that post, so make sure you read it in its entirety along with all the links before you come back and tell me I'm wrong:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/283457-another-mbti-debunking.html

The primary article you need to read is this one by the leading Big 5 psychologists, Rob McCrae and Paul Costa: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality

Once you've read all of those links feel free to come back and tell me again why my attitude about this is not fine for making "empirical truth-claims about the world."

Oh, and I spent about 20-30 minutes writing this even though I really didn't want to derail this thread :hijacked: ...so you're welcome. Hopefully you find this information useful and come away with a better understanding of the MBTI and personality psychology as described by Carl Jung.
 
Mar 24, 2014
4,393
3,841
Rural Area Medical Facilty
Status
Psychologist
I'm a cancer. Meyers-Briggs can be fun and relatively harmless IMO, but it is not a sound psychometric tool that a consensus of psychologists would support. I have reviewed 1000s of psychological assessments and have never seen it used once. Sentence completion test is a more useful tool. Categorizing people with these broad dimensions is inherently problematic even when more soundly researched such as the Big 5 and the Big 5 is not an assessment tool and I don't think we even have one for it. So even if the MBTI can correlate with Big 5 measures, that still doesn't mean that it is a useful tool. Jungian thinking is great and so is Freudian thinking or many other type of philosophical thoughts about the human condition, the problem is when people overvalue these thoughts and go way beyond any kind of evidence. No one needs to invalidate any of Jungs theory, it is the Jungians job to validate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clausewitz2

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Howes and Carskadon (1979) showed that in their sample, the test-restest reliability at an interval of five weeks was 50%. The only way that is consistent with the idea that MBTI measures anything is that it is measuring something that undergoes significant dynamic change and is maybe even situational.

You will note that this interpretation makes the title and purpose of this thread almost incoherent and definitely as pointless as asking "Psychiatrists who have worn shoes, how do you like your job?"
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Howes and Carskadon (1979) showed that in their sample, the test-restest reliability at an interval of five weeks was 50%. The only way that is consistent with the idea that MBTI measures anything is that it is measuring something that undergoes significant dynamic change and is maybe even situational.

You will note that this interpretation makes the title and purpose of this thread almost incoherent and definitely as pointless as asking "Psychiatrists who have worn shoes, how do you like your job?"
It's clear to me that you care more about being right than about reviewing the evidence I provided. There's no way you read everything in that thread as well as the dozens of articles linked from it. Also, please be respectful of the topic of the thread and see my second post. Around 50 million people have taken the MBTI, and it's apparently the most widely administered personality assessment in the world. It's not exactly a fringe movement when 89 of the Fortune 100 have used it. I would hardly call such a test "nonsense." If it were completely invalid, nobody would use it. That's the bottom line. You have your opinion, it is noted, but it is not relevant to the topic. Please stop trying to derail.

I'm a cancer. Meyers-Briggs can be fun and relatively harmless IMO, but it is not a sound psychometric tool that a consensus of psychologists would support. I have reviewed 1000s of psychological assessments and have never seen it used once. Sentence completion test is a more useful tool. Categorizing people with these broad dimensions is inherently problematic even when more soundly researched such as the Big 5 and the Big 5 is not an assessment tool and I don't think we even have one for it. So even if the MBTI can correlate with Big 5 measures, that still doesn't mean that it is a useful tool. Jungian thinking is great and so is Freudian thinking or many other type of philosophical thoughts about the human condition, the problem is when people overvalue these thoughts and go way beyond any kind of evidence. No one needs to invalidate any of Jungs theory, it is the Jungians job to validate it.
I don't care that you disagree that the MBTI is a useful or valid psychometric instrument. As far as I'm concerned the evidence is clear that it is useful and valid, you just haven't bothered to review it. Please see the links I referenced. If you've "never seen it used once," then in all honesty, you're not very well-informed because it's administered 1.5 million times a year and furthermore how can you then pretend to know how valid or effective it really is? No experience = no understanding. I don't doubt your qualifications and experience as a psychologist, but I don't believe based on what you've just said that you're qualified to make any judgments about the test. This thread is aimed at those psychiatrists/psychologists that do believe it is a useful tool and furthermore, the ENTPs among those.
 
Last edited:

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
It's clear to me that you care more about being right than about reviewing the evidence I provided. There's no way you read everything in that thread as well as the dozens of articles linked from it.



I don't care that you disagree that the MBTI is a useful or valid psychometric instrument. As far as I'm concerned the evidence is clear that it is useful and valid, you just haven't bothered to review it. Please see the links I referenced. If you've "never seen it used once," then in all honesty, you're not very well-informed because it's administered 1.5 million times a year and furthermore how can you then pretend to know how valid or effective it really is? No experience = no understanding. I don't doubt your qualifications and experience as a psychologist, but I don't believe based on what you've said that you're qualified to make any judgments about the test. This thread is aimed at those psychiatrists/psychologists that do believe it is a useful tool and furthermore, the ENTPs among those.

There is a fundamental problem if the test-retest validity is that low. You are right, I did not read all of those links, because you still have not addressed that fundamental issue.


As a general note, it is not reasonable to expect people to read your preferred body of literature in lieu of addressing their objections to your pet theory.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
"Has been used many times" has also a poor independent indicator of validity or usefulness in the history of medicine generally and psychiatry specifically. Orgone therapy is the very first of many examples that occur to me in this very moment. If you have not heard of this, there is a very good reason! But it was wildly popular for some time.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Now if there is one specific paper that you think adequately addresses the reliability problem, that would be reasonable to suggest someone read and I would be willing. Still, rhetorically, best to at least attempt to summarize the argument along with the link.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
"Has been used many times" has also a poor independent indicator of validity or usefulness in the history of medicine generally and psychiatry specifically. Orgone therapy is the very first of many examples that occur to me in this very moment. If you have not heard of this, there is a very good reason! But it was wildly popular for some time.
There is a fundamental problem if the test-retest validity is that low. You are right, I did not read all of those links, because you still have not addressed that fundamental issue.
As a general note, it is not reasonable to expect people to read your preferred body of literature in lieu of addressing their objections to your pet theory.
No it is reasonable to expect that when I provide you with evidence, that you take the time to review it. The point about Orgone therapy is noted. I've never heard of it until now. In any case, the point is that when there is so much evidence in favor of the MBTI, and businesses year after year continue to use it and spend millions on it, for you to label the whole thing as being "nonsense" and "invalid" is at the very least extreme and in my view patently false.

Here is the answer to your objection btw, which you would have found had you taken the time to review the links I sent you.

Reliability

Stromberg said:
We could accept the fact that the Myers-Briggs is limited in defining people in binary categories, but still theoretically get some value out of it because it accurately indicates which pole of any category we're closest to.

But that idea is tough to swallow given the fact that the test is notoriously inconsistent. Research has found that as much as 50 percent of people arrive at a different result the second time they take a test, even if it's just five weeks later.

That's because these traits aren't the ones that are consistently different among people. Most of us vary in these traits over time — depending on our mood when we take the test, for instance, we may or may not think that we sympathize with people.
Here is the rebuttal:

The idea that the Big Five is substantially superior to the MBTI in the test/retest reliability department is another canard that periodically pops up in these kinds of articles. And claims to that effect are often accompanied by statistics that confuse retest rates on single dimensions with retest rates for a complete four-letter type.

I once corrected a forum poster who'd noted that the MBTI "has a test-retest rate of some 60%, meaning two out of every five people get different results when retaking the test," while the NEO-PI-R's "levels of consistency are incredibly high (N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90)." In my reply, I explained:

That 60% MBTI statistic relates to a retest standard that says you got a different result if any one of the four dimensions is different. That corresponds to an average test-retest rate of 88% for the individual dimensions.

If you apply the same test-retest standard to those Big Five statistics you gave us, you get .92 * .89 * .87 * .86 * .90 = a 55% test-retest rate (or 60% if you leave out Neuroticism).

It's probably also worth noting that if you assume (as previously discussed) that most or all of the MBTI and Big Five dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, and if you assume (accordingly) that a large portion of the population is in or near the middle on at least one dimension, and if you add to that the many potential sources of error in self-assessment personality tests — from the fact that personality type is a relatively young science and psychologists are quite a long ways from nailing down exactly what the temperament dimensions consist of, to flaws in particular tests (including items that tap into more than one dimension), to multiple kinds of misunderstanding and other human error on the part of the individuals taking the test — it would strain credibility if the test-retest statistics for any personality typology didn't indicate a significant percentage of cases where at least one of the dimensions came out with a different preference on retesting, and one letter change is all it takes to constitute an MBTI retest "failure."

As a final note, it should also be kept in mind that a typical MBTI test-taker is someone with little or no familiarity with the typology who simply takes the MBTI test along with a group of fellow employees or students. It's reasonable to assume that, to the extent that a person actually has four reasonably-well-defined preferences, they're likely to come up with a result that's considerably more accurate if, rather than just accepting the test result, they spend some time reading about the preferences and the types — which is something the MBTI Manual (among other sources) has always encouraged people to do.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Now if there is one specific paper that you think adequately addresses the reliability problem, that would be reasonable to suggest someone read and I would be willing. Still, rhetorically, best to at least attempt to summarize the argument along with the link.
At the very least, you should google "mbti test retest reliability" and click on the pdf in the second link for all the evidence. Here's one of those studies:

http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/MBTI reliability validity.pdf
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I note that that rebuttal says that most people are near the boundaries of the various categories and so it is not surprising that they might bounce between them on different occasions.


What then is the utility of the typology and separating people into sharply defined categories?


The Big Five does not really purport to be a complete representation of personality types and generally is discussed and understood as containing five independent and continuous variables. The MBTI framework is not set up like this because it makes categorical claims.

Also, oh man, if the argument now is that corporate HR uses the test so it must be good, we are on shaky ground indeed. The incentives of corporate HR types are not really aligned with scientific rigor. I would simply point out that unstructured job interviews are still a thing that happens all over the country all of the time, despite pretty clear evidence that interviews must be highly structured to be useful predictors of job performance.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
At the very least, you should google "mbti test retest reliability" and click on the pdf in the second link for all the evidence. Here's one of those studies:

http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/MBTI reliability validity.pdf
So I just read that paper, and the authors note that the vast majority of MBTI papers they found for their meta-analysis don't breathe a mumbling word about reliability.

So we have a small minority of papers, most of them from one research group (going by the names of the authors) that do report reliability, and when you generalize across those, it is fairly high (except for the TF dimension).

What do you think the odds are that at least some of those papers silent on reliability don't mention it because it turned out low?

Your answer will probably vary depending on how much time you have spent working in academia.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
So I just read that paper, and the authors note that the vast majority of MBTI papers they found for their meta-analysis don't breathe a mumbling word about reliability.

So we have a small minority of papers, most of them from one research group (going by the names of the authors) that do report reliability, and when you generalize across those, it is fairly high (except for the TF dimension).

What do you think the odds are that at least some of those papers silent on reliability don't mention it because it turned out low?

Your answer will probably vary depending on how much time you have spent working in academia.
That's purely conjecture on your part. If we go by the evidence alone, then it's clear that reliability is good.

I note that that rebuttal says that most people are near the boundaries of the various categories and so it is not surprising that they might bounce between them on different occasions.


What then is the utility of the typology and separating people into sharply defined categories?
If you read the rebuttal in the link, you'll find the answer to that question.

Discrete, bimodal types

Stromberg said:
The test claims that, based on 93 questions, it can group all the people of the world into 16 different discrete "types." ...

With most traits, humans fall on different points along a spectrum. If you ask people whether they prefer to think or feel, or whether they prefer to judge or perceive, the majority will tell you a little of both. ...

But the test is built entirely around the basis that people are all one or the other. ...

Actual data tells psychologists that these traits do not have a bimodal distribution. Tracking a group of people's interactions with others, for instance, shows that as Jung noted, there aren't really pure extroverts and introverts, but mostly people who fall somewhere in between.

Rebuttal:

Pew! Pew! Pew! And another straw man crumples to the ground...

The notion that the MBTI claims to assign people to "pure" all-or-nothing categories is probably the silliest of the memes that regularly recur in MBTI debunkings, and it has the dual charm of being bothan inaccurate characterization of the MBTI and — in its misplaced emphasis on the shape of the distribution curve — a red herring.

Nobody knows for sure at this point but, as I understand it, the existing studies suggest that it's likely that most or all of the MBTI dimensions — like the four Big Five dimensions they basically correspond with — exhibit something like a normal distribution, with substantially more people near (or in) the middle than near the extremes. For what it's worth, Jung thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four dimensions — so the in-the-middle possibility really goes all the way back to the MBTI's roots.

Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies was truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the spectrum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best. And since then, as I've said, quite a lot of evidence has accumulated that seems to suggest that most or all of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something more like a normal distribution.

In at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference.

The "Step II" version of the MBTI includes five "facets" for each dimension — just as the NEO-PI-R has six facets for each Big Five dimension — and allows for the possibility of being, for example, on the T side of three of the facets and the F side of the other two.

More importantly, I'd say, there was really no doubt in either Jung's or Myers' minds that people on either side of the dimensions fell along a notably wide spectrum from mild to strong preferences. So, regardless of where anybody wants to come down on the "exact middle" possibility, if they take the position that, e.g., all introverts are equally introverted, their perspective is way out of line with Jung, Myers and every respectable MBTI source I've ever encountered.

As a final note: At this point nobody really knows how close to the middle how many people are on the MBTI (and Big Five) dimensions, because the current state of both the MBTI and Big Five is such that it really isn't possible to determine exactly where anybody falls along whatever the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) spectrums may be. So it seems to me that anybody who thinks that the existing data on either the Big Five or MBTI has clearly established the shape of the distribution curves is very much overestimating the ability of the existing tests to accurately quantifystrengths of preferences.

But the main point to keep in mind is that, at the end of the day, the worth of the MBTI and Big Five is mostly going to hinge on how good a job those typologies do in nailing down what personality-related characteristics tend to be associated with the corresponding preferences, and not on how many people turn out to be at any particular point on any of the relevant spectrums. And in any case, the MBTI certainly doesn't stand or fall depending on whether any of its dimensions exhibit a "bimodal" distribution.

The Big Five does not really purport to be a complete representation of personality types and generally is discussed and understood as containing five independent and continuous variables. The MBTI framework is not set up like this because it makes categorical claims.
Answered above.

Also, oh man, if the argument now is that corporate HR uses the test so it must be good, we are on shaky ground indeed. The incentives of corporate HR types are not really aligned with scientific rigor. I would simply point out that unstructured job interviews are still a thing that happens all over the country all of the time, despite pretty clear evidence that interviews must be highly structured to be useful predictors of job performance.
I'll repeat what I said before.

In any case, the point is that when there is so much evidence in favor of the MBTI, and businesses year after year continue to use it and spend millions on it, for you to label the whole thing as being "nonsense" and "invalid" is at the very least extreme and in my view patently false.
But I guess you know something that 89 of the Fortune 100 don't, despite the fact that you're almost completely uninformed about the test and have no knowledge whatsoever about Jungian psychology.

The bottom line is that the MBTI has been wrongly shunned by academia and not wrongly embraced by the business community. Again, a lot of your objections are answered in the PerC link, and the test is and always was meant to be a tool for greater self-understanding. Isabel Myers developed it because she was a fan of Jung's Psychological Types. But if you've read that book (I have, and I take it you have not), it's extremely dense and somewhat inaccessible, and the test was written to help people get a better understanding of their "type". It's a first step on a much longer road of self-exploration, and it's not sufficient, but in my view, probably necessary in the beginning. The whole idea is to take the test, read about your type, see how well it describes you, read the Jungian literature, and then hopefully nail down your type and use that to assist you in having a more satisfying career and healthier relationships. No psychometric instrument is perfect, but it's clear that as far as those go, the MBTI is pretty good.

The fact is that you made a false claim about this, and if you have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, you should retract your initial statement and just say that you are agnostic until you have a better grasp of the facts.
 

clausewitz2

10+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,973
2,171
Status
Resident [Any Field]
You are surprisingly quick to go to telling me I lack intellectual integrity and stating that I am making false claims because someone on the internet wrote several paragraphs sort of talking about the point I made. This does not really make me want to continue this discussion.


I intend to disengage now, but I will leave you a final thought: insisting that people call themselves "agnostic" when they do not entirely accept your preferred set of facts and continue to hold a different opinion even after you link your favorite Internet forum at length is not a strategy that has convinced anyone of just about anything.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
You are surprisingly quick to go to telling me I lack intellectual integrity and stating that I am making false claims because someone on the internet wrote several paragraphs sort of talking about the point I made.
You have no rebuttal. Therefore, you must remain agnostic about the test's reliability and validity even if you don't believe in it.

And I beg to differ, it wasn't "sort of." Your criticism of the test was completely addressed by that link on both counts of reliability and bimodality.

This does not really make me want to continue this discussion.
Good! This thread was never about the validity of the MBTI. I made that explicit from the start.

I intend to disengage now, but I will leave you a final thought: insisting that people call themselves "agnostic" when they do not entirely accept your preferred set of facts and continue to hold a different opinion even after you link your favorite Internet forum at length is not a strategy that has convinced anyone of just about anything.
Look, your initial claim was patently false. The MBTI cannot in good conscience be entirely dismissed as "nonsense" and "invalid." I think anyone will agree that is an inaccurate representation of the facts and the evidence. I respect your opinion. I respect your right to not believe in the test. However, it is now my turn to tell you: "if you post about nonsense, I'm gonna call it nonsense." You can say that you "disagree" with how the test is being used, or that you don't think the evidence is satisfactory enough for you, or that you are agnostic as to its utility and effectiveness. I don't have an issue with any of those. However, your initial claim, I'm sure you'll agree, was much different. The lesson for you here is don't ever make a categorical judgment about something unless you really know what you're talking about.

As for the link on the forum, the reason I sent you that is because it's an excellent, short summary of common criticisms of the MBTI and their rebuttals. He does a good job of linking to the outside studies for anyone who is interested in doing more research. Ultimately though, it's up to you to actually do it. ;) ...And my intent in starting this thread was never to convince you of the worth of the MBTI. Read the thread title.
 

wolfvgang22

15+ Year Member
Jun 15, 2004
1,340
1,655
Status
Attending Physician
More of an INTJ now. I got no beef with Jung, it's entertaining stuff. Not much practical use.
 

Doctor Bagel

so cheap and juicy
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Sep 26, 2002
10,919
1,122
from the ministry of information
Status
Attending Physician
More of an INTJ now. I got no beef with Jung, it's entertaining stuff. Not much practical use.
I have nothing of substance to add to this conversation, but I've had the same MBTI results since high school aside from a brief, brief period where my F tipped into T range for a year or two although I've always been near the border with that one anyway. Of course my perception of myself (and what I know my results are) might affect how I answer questions. I did read some bogus book about MBTI and careers a long time ago that divided MBTI primarily into 4 groups -- NF, NT, SJ and SP. There were no citations for anything but as someone who is an NF (almost a T), it drove me crazy because they kept on suggesting polar opposite types of careers for NFs and NTs when I'm kinda both.
 
Mar 24, 2014
4,393
3,841
Rural Area Medical Facilty
Status
Psychologist
It's clear to me that you care more about being right than about reviewing the evidence I provided. There's no way you read everything in that thread as well as the dozens of articles linked from it. Also, please be respectful of the topic of the thread and see my second post. Around 50 million people have taken the MBTI, and it's apparently the most widely administered personality assessment in the world. It's not exactly a fringe movement when 89 of the Fortune 100 have used it. I would hardly call such a test "nonsense." If it were completely invalid, nobody would use it. That's the bottom line. You have your opinion, it is noted, but it is not relevant to the topic. Please stop trying to derail.



I don't care that you disagree that the MBTI is a useful or valid psychometric instrument. As far as I'm concerned the evidence is clear that it is useful and valid, you just haven't bothered to review it. Please see the links I referenced. If you've "never seen it used once," then in all honesty, you're not very well-informed because it's administered 1.5 million times a year and furthermore how can you then pretend to know how valid or effective it really is? No experience = no understanding. I don't doubt your qualifications and experience as a psychologist, but I don't believe based on what you've just said that you're qualified to make any judgments about the test. This thread is aimed at those psychiatrists/psychologists that do believe it is a useful tool and furthermore, the ENTPs among those.
I said that I have never seen it used in a psychological assessment and I mean one that is conducted by a psychologist for clinical purposes. Cosmo puts out interesting personality surveys too, it doesn't mean it yields any useful or interpretable data. I glanced at your study and all it really said is that some of the info correlates with the Big 5. So what? Personality psychology is much different from clinical psychology and there is no clinical support that I am aware of for making any type of predictions from this measure. Just take introversion verses extroversion, for example. Okay we all know that people vary along this dimension. It's patently obvious and has been well researched, but in order for something to be a useful tool it needs to first have reliability and second have some criterion or predictive validity. Otherwise what is the point? MBTI does not meet any of the most basic standards of other assessment tools so we, psychologists who are the acknowledged experts in assessment, just don't use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ceke2002
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
I have nothing of substance to add to this conversation, but I've had the same MBTI results since high school aside from a brief, brief period where my F tipped into T range for a year or two although I've always been near the border with that one anyway. Of course my perception of myself (and what I know my results are) might affect how I answer questions. I did read some bogus book about MBTI and careers a long time ago that divided MBTI primarily into 4 groups -- NF, NT, SJ and SP. There were no citations for anything but as someone who is an NF (almost a T), it drove me crazy because they kept on suggesting polar opposite types of careers for NFs and NTs when I'm kinda both.
Would you mind telling me your type? The book you're referring to I believe is by Keirsey. He came up with the idea of "temperaments." In Jung's typology, these don't exist. For sure, every type is present in every career, and many careers are appealing to many types, but the opposite is also true, namely that a few careers are really appealing to only a few types. The usefulness of the MBTI, in my view, stems from the fact that relative to their prevalence in the general population, some types are highly represented in certain careers but not others. In any case, I think that Keirsey was onto something with his temperaments, but they really aren't that useful, and like you said, there's not much in the way of citations, whereas for the MBTI, there are literally millions of data points. I actually have a fair amount of the official data on this, so if you tell me your type, I can tell you how that compares with psychiatrists and a few other kinds of psychologists in general.

I said that I have never seen it used in a psychological assessment and I mean one that is conducted by a psychologist for clinical purposes. Cosmo puts out interesting personality surveys too, it doesn't mean it yields any useful or interpretable data. I glanced at your study and all it really said is that some of the info correlates with the Big 5. So what? Personality psychology is much different from clinical psychology and there is no clinical support that I am aware of for making any type of predictions from this measure. Just take introversion verses extroversion, for example. Okay we all know that people vary along this dimension. It's patently obvious and has been well researched, but in order for something to be a useful tool it needs to first have reliability and second have some criterion or predictive validity. Otherwise what is the point? MBTI does not meet any of the most basic standards of other assessment tools so we, psychologists who are the acknowledged experts in assessment, just don't use it.
I think you should look at some other studies. Check out this pdf for an initial list: https://www.opp.com/~/media/Files/PDFs/Technical information/MBTI_reliability_and_validity_info.pdf

Furthermore, I actually think psychometric assessments like the Big 5, while arguably having better empirical support, are not as predictive for normal people. If you tell me I have "X" score on introversion and "Y" score on neuroticism, so what? All it does is quantify my introversion and neuroticism, and not much more. The MBTI on the other hand, does make predictions based on my type that I would not have thought of on my own. For clinical purposes (meaning sick people), you are right. I have no idea how useful the MBTI is in that realm, but it was never designed to be a clinical assessment. Myers created it precisely because Jung focused too much on the crazies and not enough on type in the context of normal people. She wanted people to have a better understanding of type in order to improve communication and parenting and help people have better careers and marriages. What psychological assessments do you know of that are highly predictive for normal people? For those assessments, which ones help individuals achieve Myers' goals?
 
Last edited:

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
I wouldn't bother Clausewitz. People love this thing, you can show them the mountains of evidence showing how terrible it is, but they can always point to a handful of studies with terrible methodology that "support" the instrument.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
I wouldn't bother Clausewitz. People love this thing, you can show them the mountains of evidence showing how terrible it is, but they can always point to a handful of studies with terrible methodology that "support" the instrument.
Maybe the question you need to ask then is why do people keep using this "thing" if it's so terrible? I'm skeptical that you've even reviewed the evidence against it much less for it, let alone that you know anything about Jung's ideas. Simply being a psychologist doesn't make you an authority on the subject. You actually have to devote time and energy to doing the research. Your post is petty, condescending, and adds nothing to the conversation, and furthermore the authors of the MBTI fully acknowledge that the test is frequently wrong on a single dimension. That's why it's just a starting point. It's up to the individual to then delve further into the Jungian literature. Few people take the time to do this though, professional psychologists (that means you) included. Personality psychology is both quantitative and qualitative after all. If you want to throw out an entire school of thought simply because the MBTI is not 100% accurate (and by the way, it is about as reliable as the Big 5), then that's the definition of confirmation bias.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
Maybe the question you need to ask then is why do people keep using this "thing" if it's so terrible? I'm skeptical that you've even reviewed the evidence against it much less for it, let alone that you know anything about Jung's ideas. Simply being a psychologist doesn't make you an authority on the subject. You actually have to devote time and energy to doing the research. Your post is petty, condescending, and adds nothing to the conversation, and furthermore the authors of the MBTI fully acknowledge that the test is frequently wrong on a single dimension. That's why it's just a starting point. It's up to the individual to then delve further into the Jungian literature. Few people take the time to do this though, professional psychologists (that means you) included. Personality psychology is both quantitative and qualitative after all. If you want to throw out an entire school of thought simply because the MBTI is not 100% accurate (and by the way, it is about as reliable as the Big 5), then that's the definition of confirmation bias.
People use things that are useless all of the time. Millions of people around the world use homeopathy? Does that make it efficacious? I urge you to speak with someone who has their doctorate in I/O or personality/Social psychology. My university also had those programs and I have very close friends in each. They could go into hours long lectures with you about how terrible this thing is. As for delving, go nuts. Delve into the MBTI, delve into astrology, delve into all of the pseudoscience you want, they'll all take you to the same place.
 

thoffen

Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,323
650
Status
Attending Physician
Did you not see the cigar? It was meant to be a joke...oh well, I guess w/o non-verbal communication cues things can get lost in translation. I primarily said that b/c I don't want to hear anything about how the MBTI "should be taken with a grain of salt" or "it's nonsense" or "it's no different from astrology" or "don't put too much stock in it" yada yada yada. I like it. I think it's valid. That's not the point of this discussion, and I'm not going to change my mind about that. The topic of this thread is aimed at psychiatrists who have at one point tested as ENTP or who identify themselves as such. I hope this clears things up. :cigar:
You invited a discussion about the merits of the MBTI. I wonder why your unconscious did that when it was clear your conscious intent was not to.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
People use things that are useless all of the time. Millions of people around the world use homeopathy? Does that make it efficacious? I urge you to speak with someone who has their doctorate in I/O or personality/Social psychology. My university also had those programs and I have very close friends in each. They could go into hours long lectures with you about how terrible this thing is. As for delving, go nuts. Delve into the MBTI, delve into astrology, delve into all of the pseudoscience you want, they'll all take you to the same place.
This shouldn't be too hard to understand: Until you do the research on this topic for yourself, you know nothing. Invite your friends to join the discussion if you really think they have something to add and are knowledgeable about Jung. But I would need to see evidence, links to actual papers.

You invited a discussion about the merits of the MBTI. I wonder why your unconscious did that when it was clear your conscious intent was not to.
I didn't. I wanted to hear from practicing physicians who do believe at least somewhat in the merits of the MBTI. Instead I've been criticized by a bunch of naysayers, including you, who have no clue what they're talking about but are fond of denying the validity of the MBTI on no grounds whatsoever and lumping it in with astrology.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
You don't want evidence, son. You've already clearly stated that "I'm not going to change my mind about that." If I cared enough to take the time, I could compile no fewer than three digits of papers outlining the dubious qualities of this instrument.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
You don't want evidence, son. You've already clearly stated that "I'm not going to change my mind about that." If I cared enough to take the time, I could compile no fewer than three digits of papers outlining the dubious qualities of this instrument.
Very convincing. Thanks for your input! What use are your opinions if you base them on hearsay?
 

hamstergang

may or may not contain hamsters
7+ Year Member
May 6, 2012
1,898
1,800
NJ
Status
Attending Physician
Maybe the question you need to ask then is why do people keep using this "thing" if it's so terrible?
People use astrology and fortune tellers, so clearly this argument is flawed. The MBTI gets used so much since it's very positive so makes people feel good. It essentially allows you to pick the traits you like so it fits what you expect.

Simply being a psychologist doesn't make you an authority on the subject.
Actually, it does. What do you think qualifies you to understand this field better than people who have doctorates in it?
 

thoffen

Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,323
650
Status
Attending Physician
I didn't. I wanted to hear from practicing physicians who do believe at least somewhat in the merits of the MBTI. Instead I've been criticized by a bunch of naysayers, including you, who have no clue what they're talking about but are fond of denying the validity of the MBTI on no grounds whatsoever and lumping it in with astrology.
That is quite an awful thing to say considering I said nothing about my feelings on the merits of the MBTI.

Let me know if you would like to hear my thoughts on your stated question.
 

SeniorWrangler

7+ Year Member
Nov 9, 2010
913
525
Status
Attending Physician
ENTP is a good personality type for psychiatry! It is all about learning how to use your own interpersonal style to work effectively with different types of patients.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Any day, come on back if you have any other questions about psychometrics, I used to teach it.
Good for you. In any debate, the way it works is one side presents their arguments + evidence, and then the other side does the same thing. Once both sides have gone, a jury of some kind gives a verdict. Your qualifications are useful, but only if you've done your homework. So my first question to you is have you read the books that form the theoretical foundation of the MBTI (Jung, Myers, Van der Hoop, Von Franz)? Have you made an effort in good faith to read the studies supporting the MBTI's reliability and validity? I'll be impressed if you answer "yes" to even one of those.

People use astrology and fortune tellers, so clearly this argument is flawed. The MBTI gets used so much since it's very positive so makes people feel good. It essentially allows you to pick the traits you like so it fits what you expect.
You are being illogical. This argument can be easily debunked: People also use cars and airplanes by the billions so clearly cars and airplanes are also worthless. :)

The MBTI is primarily used by businesses for training and development purposes and career exploration. They keep using it year after year. There's more to it than just feelings. Certainly there's easier ways to make your employees feel good. ;)

Actually, it does. What do you think qualifies you to understand this field better than people who have doctorates in it?
Because I've spent time actually trying to understand the MBTI and its theoretical foundations. You haven't.

That is quite an awful thing to say considering I said nothing about my feelings on the merits of the MBTI.

Let me know if you would like to hear my thoughts on your stated question.
Your comment did not seem positive. I apologize if I was mistaken.

Perhaps this is the thread you were looking for: https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/
Been there done that.

ENTP is a good personality type for psychiatry! It is all about learning how to use your own interpersonal style to work effectively with different types of patients.
Are you an ENTP?
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
The answer to your questions, is yes, I actually have quite an extensive foundation on personality theory and measurement. I actually understand the statistics behind these measures, from the MBTI, to the NEO, to the PAI, to the MMPI, etc. This is part of what I do clinically now, and part of what I used to do in research. And honestly, the jury is already out, my friend, the trial came to a conclusion years ago.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
The answer to your questions, is yes, I actually have quite an extensive foundation on personality theory and measurement. I actually understand the statistics behind these measures, from the MBTI, to the NEO, to the PAI, to the MMPI, etc. This is part of what I do clinically now, and part of what I used to do in research. And honestly, the jury is already out, my friend, the trial came to a conclusion years ago.
Ok fine. So you understand the MBTI but not it's underlying theory, which is analytical psychology. So that's 1 out of 2. Please explain in a couple sentences what's wrong with the MBTI, and show me some studies.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
Oh, I understand the underlying theory just fine. The couple sentences have already been explained in this thread and others, it has no reliability and has no useful predictive validity. There are decades of this research. Someday after I get this current manuscript out and get a no-show, maybe I'll look up and give you a reading list of a few dozen studies. In the meantime, I would urge you to consider nothing a sacred cow, it's a good way to blindly follow pseudoscience and hurt your reputation as a clinician.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
As an aside, I'm gchatting with a friend who works in the applied corporate sector, here is his quote. "The only thing that the MBTI reliably identifies, is people who have no idea what they're doing when it comes to personality assessment."
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Oh, I understand the underlying theory just fine. The couple sentences have already been explained in this thread and others, it has no reliability and has no useful predictive validity. There are decades of this research. Someday after I get this current manuscript out and get a no-show, maybe I'll look up and give you a reading list of a few dozen studies. In the meantime, I would urge you to consider nothing a sacred cow, it's a good way to blindly follow pseudoscience and hurt your reputation as a clinician.
I hate to nitpick, but have you actually read the following books? I too thought I understood the theory. Boy was I wrong! The amount of bs circulating online dwarfs the respectable sources of information. So I can see why you might think that the MBTI is worthless, but it's widely misunderstood unfortunately.

Jung: Psychological Types
Jung: The Question of Psychological Types
Hoop: Character and the Unconscious
Hoop: Conscious Orientation
Von Franz: The Inferior Function
Myers: Gifts Differing

Also, since you're not willing to cough up the links, I will. These people summarize the major criticisms of the MBTI and offer some rebuttals better than I can. Before you dismiss it, take the time to read it, because I think you'll find your concerns are adequately addressed, and it should help eliminate any confusion. There are many links to studies in there as well.

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/283457-another-mbti-debunking.html
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/07/17-reasons-that-joseph-strombergs-critique-of-the-mbti-is-uninformed/
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/06/drake-baers-lazy-critique-of-the-mbti/
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/09/why-adam-grants-critique-of-the-mbti-is-useless/
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/02/is-jungian-typology-scientific/

The primary one you need to address is this one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality

smalltownpsych dismissed this one entirely, but I don't see how anyone can. It's the two leading Big 5 psychologists saying that the MBTI basically passes muster. Furthermore, the reliability is about the same as the Big 5. Frequently, (50% +) the results are wrong on one dimension, but this doesn't mean that the test has "no reliability." By your standards, the Big 5 should likewise be completely unreliable either.

The bottom line is that the MBTI was never really accepted by academia, and yet there is substantial evidence supporting both its reliability, validity, and predictive power.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
Posted twice in error.
 
Last edited:

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
My friend said he'd be glad to provide you with an extensive report on the MBTI, it's support and critique. He said he'd even bring his usual consulting fee down to $200/hour to complete the report. Said it'd probably run somewhere between 5-10 hours. Let me know if you want to take him up on it and I'll put him in contact with you.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
My friend said he'd be glad to provide you with an extensive report on the MBTI, it's support and critique. He said he'd even bring his usual consulting fee down to $200/hour to complete the report. Said it'd probably run somewhere between 5-10 hours. Let me know if you want to take him up on it and I'll put him in contact with you.
This made me laugh. You honestly expect me to pay $1000-2000 for something that should be free? If the MBTI is so soundly rejected by academia, then you have a public service obligation to show people why. Wow...what a world! o_O
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
10,158
8,843
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
This made me laugh. You honestly expect me to pay $1000-2000 for something that should be free? If the MBTI is so soundly rejected by academia, then you have a public service obligation to show people why. Wow...what a world! o_O
No one uses it clinically. I fail to see how I have a public service obligation to help corporations save money due to them not knowing any better. This falls squarely in the realm of corporate interest, therefore, consulting fees are very appropriate.
 
OP
R

RTG

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2008
29
2
Status
Pre-Medical
No one uses it clinically. I fail to see how I have a public service obligation to help corporations save money due to them not knowing any better. This falls squarely in the realm of corporate interest, therefore, consulting fees are very appropriate.
:smack:

Repeat after me: MBTI was never designed for clinical applications. And yes, if it is actually true as you say it is that MBTI is no better than astrology, then I would think that on an internet forum such as this, you would rise to the occasion and point people in the right direction. I'm not a corporation. That is the best part about the internet after all, exchange of information. I've given you my evidence. What's yours?
 

hamstergang

may or may not contain hamsters
7+ Year Member
May 6, 2012
1,898
1,800
NJ
Status
Attending Physician
You are being illogical. This argument can be easily debunked: People also use cars and airplanes by the billions so clearly cars and airplanes are also worthless. :)
The argument you're pretending I'm making is certainly logical. The argument I actually made is not.

I hate to nitpick, but have you actually read the following books? I too thought I understood the theory. Boy was I wrong! The amount of bs circulating online dwarfs the respectable sources of information.
This is ridiculous. You are arguing with people with doctorates in this field. I don't think he's relying on things he read on the Internet. There's a deeper understanding of this material to be had.