The MBTI does not have much empirical grounding in it’s accuracy with Socionics, but where are you getting that it’s based on “outdated” theories? It’s based on Socionics (which you admit to having not heard of until this thread). Socionics is based on the work of Carl Jung around the time-frame you give, but his work has been greatly expanded upon since that time. It’s still the dominant personality theory in Psychology.
I’ve basically said all I know about Socionics: I invite those informed about it to point to some peer review journals on the subject that are available in English. Ditto for the psychological study of personality.
The Vox article I linked to above noted the following: [INDENT]“There’s just no evidence behind it,” says Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who’s written about the shortcomings of the Myers-Briggs previously. “The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you’ll be in a situation, how you’ll perform at your job, or how happy you’ll be in your marriage.” …
But the test was developed in the 1940s based off the untested theories of an outdated analytical psychologist named Carl Jung, and is now thoroughly disregarded by the psychology community. [/INDENT] Carl Jung is great to read for a laugh and writers of fiction might find him useful (I say the latter with seriousness and without contempt). But his stock has declined in the past 30 years. Freud’s too.
I don’t have any peer-reviewed papers. From what we both seem to understand; It’s not a popular research topic in English-speaking countries.
I checked your last comment, and the only link I see is to Wikipedia.
Your quote is from a psychologist in a different branch than Personality Psychology. I’m not claiming his opinion carries no weight at all, but it’s not as valid as a scientist in the correct branch. His critiques of MBTI are beyond what the test was designed for. No personality test administrator would tell you that the test will predict how happy you’ll be in a situation (seriously?), or how well you’ll preform at something. That’s beyond the scope of MBTI. The relationship compatibility is a valid critique.
According to the data cited from this website: http://www.typefinder.com/story/compatibility-and-your-myers-briggs-personality-type your link is wrong. The author of the book’s polled sample showed a high correlation between relationship satisfaction and MBTI relationship compatibility.
MBTI relationship compatibility:
www.typefinder.com/story/compatibility-and-your-myers-briggs-personality-type
Also, you can make accurate predictions with the test. I was able to predict two people’s test results based on observing what 4 function MBTI code fit their behavior (introvert/extrovert, sensing/intuition,thinking/feeling,judging/perceiving). I’m not submitting this as evidence, but encouraging people to try it themselves.
Even so, MBTI, and theory it is based off of, is not well substantiated, and Psychology itself is considered a “soft science” at best, but it’s the best we’ve got. Why be so dismissive when there’s absolutely no theory in the field better to base decisions off of?
How have his theories been thoroughly disregarded? You imply that they have been debunked, or replaced with a new theory on personality. Who are the scientists that have demonstrated his basic 8 functions thought process incorrect? Where is your evidence?
*correction on my last post
Jung’s work was in the 20’s; MBTI came out in the 60s.
In fact Jung’s contribution to Modernism and Postmodernism is an immense one. “Aside from Freud, probably no person had a greater influence on modern psychology and psychiatry than did Jung.” Encyclopaedia Britannica
I agree. But postmodernism is not psychology and Jung/Freud’s influence in psychology has declined over time. IME. (But see below).
That website was very much a secondary source… but they had references on the bottom. So maybe that’s the sort of peer reviewed material we were looking for.
The Sherman article appears to be connected with their dissertation: [INDENT]203. Sherman, R. G. (1981). Psychological typology and satisfaction in intimate relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Humanistic Psychology Institute, San Francisco, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(05), 2084B. (University Microfilms No. AAT81-23292) [/INDENT] The Journal of Psychological Type is published by the Myers and Briggs Foundation.
Consider these to be leads. I’m taking off in a couple of days and won’t be digging further in this subject soon. I suspect that MB was a crude measure, but I find it plausible that similar measures are either somewhat predictive or not substantially at all. I’d have to look at the data. The “Typefinder” website looks pretty commercial, so it might be nice to go beyond it.
Regarding Jung, honestly all I’ve got is the Vox link provided and a personal impression. Basis, but not really solid basis or demonstration.
Welcome to the board Contemporary Logic. We seldom settle anything in Great Debates, but sometimes we succeed in identifying most of the main lines of argument. That ain’t nothing.
My theory is that men and women may have slightly different sets of priorities, causing them to chose to spend time developing different sets of inherent abilities.
There is research from two Psychology papers quoted on the site. Unfortunately, the quoted research wasn’t of any use to me because it documented correlations that I’m not aware of MBTI or Socionists claiming. However, it should be noted that these are both researchers in the field who are making predictions based on Socionics.
I couldn’t find anything on Dr. Sherman or Marioles, N without having to pay money in order to read it.
However, I found papers by two other researchers in the field. One is a bit dated by Dr. John Carlson written in the Journal of Personality Assessment in 1985. It concerns itself with the reliability and validity of the MBTI.
The paper:
The psychologist:
The reliability was documented as high; Sometimes as high as .80 reliable from two dozen studies. The validity; I’ll let him explain:
“It seems premature to consider research on the MBTI as more than just tentative beginnings on the establishment of the “nomological net” that underlies the test. Jung’s theory itself is often vague and concepts ill-defined. Moreover, translations of the theory, as well as attempts to operationalize it in the form of MBTI often leave out conceptual steps that would allow for clear empirical assessment of related constructs. Nevertheless, the research reviewed here can be seen as important in the early stages of development of useful measurements of Jung’s constructs as translated by the MBTI.”
Meh, ok; So, MBTI isn’t scientifically valid enough in order to properly test Jung’s constructs, but validity assessments of the test are generally positive. I’m definitely not getting the sense that he was at all dismissive about Jungian Psychology.
Here’s another paper by 2 researchers. I verified Mrs. Tarika Sandhu as having her Masters, and working in Punjabi University’s Department of Psychology.
The paper:
The psychologist:
http://punjabiuniversity.ac.in/pbiuniweb/pages/departments/psychology.html
(You’re gonna have to scroll down to find her)
“Results of the study reveal the significant role of personality types in influencing typical emotional self regulatory patterns in young women. Identifying personality types thus becomes relevant in context of social and occupational adjustment of young women, since success in there domain largely depends upon effective emotional functioning.”
This is Jungian Psychology still being researched in 2013. It’s still quite relevant.
I believe I addressed The Vox link well enough. I can’t say much about your personal impression. Again, check it out, take the test, learn about the types, and try to type the people around you.
TY for the welcome.
Larry Summers was probably right that there are more men with very high IQs (and very low IQs) than women. Men are generally more variable than women, including with respect to intelligent, so you should expect more men in highly g-loaded scientific fields, and especially you should expect more great male scientists than female ones.
That has nothing to do with one sex being on average more intelligent than the other, and it also has nothing to do with ‘rationality’. I don’t think either sex is necessarily more rational (some of that has to do with how you define rationality, e.g. goal rationality vs. value rationality, what objectives you are rationally seeking to maximize, etc.).
Also, Myers-Briggs is nonsense. The more commonly used personality test is the Big Five one that measures five major axes of personality traits: neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and extraversion.