MBTI Is Pseudoscience

PRO would like us to switch to a simplistic definition he found on wikipedia. There is no point in this other than to disrupt the organization of my argument. PRO's definition is not significantly deviate from the characteristics I provided and even drops points. First I will defend my points. I. “nothing concrete is ever learned” PRO complains that the list of recommended careers is “wishy washy” and not concrete. The career list is based on skills and environments particular personality types are suited to. It makes sense that multiple personality types might favor a certain environment. After all, not everyone in a certain workplace is exactly the same. The fact that MBTI offers a concrete list, means that it is not pseudoscience. II. “the original idea is never abandoned” PRO believes the alternative explanations are “haphazardly modified” to fit the person. There is a predetermined and limited number of alternative explanations. This is not haphazard. This is calculated. In fact, having these alternatives is what assures us that MBTI doesn't claim absolute correctness as a Pseudoscience would. III. “results cannot be reproduced” PRO does not reject that MBTI results are reliable (can be reproduced). Instead PRO claims that self-report through surveys in unscientific. Professionally produced and tested surveys are scientific. I understand many 'joke' personality surveys might make you think surveys are just toys. However, the MBTI survey was carefully crafted and has proven itself reliable (see evidence in my previous speech). Unless you are willing to debunk the whole of psychology and various other social sciences, I suggest you accept surveys as a scientific form of inquiry. Now I move on to answering PRO's questions. PRO asks what the cause (mechanism/biological reason) is for having a certain personality type. It is often said personality comes from nature and nurture. However, this hardly seems relevant. This classification system does not seek to explain nor factor in origin of personality. PRO asks if there is a better way than surveys to determine personality type. The creator of MBTI tested her theories through observation. While observation could be used as a more objective test, this would be difficult to implement. Again, this concern is not relevant to whether or not MBTI is a pseudoscience. PRO asks if, for example, thinking always trumps feeling in a particular individual. It just so happens that these characteristics aren't absolutes. As can be seen in my third argument, individuals often fall on a range between the two extremes. This concern points to the adaptability of MBTI, which is one of the characteristics that shows it is not a pseudoscience. PRO asks if more that four cognitive functions should be included. Do you have a specific one in mind. The simplicity of 16 possible results is an asset of this system. Even if a classification system is not all-inclusive, this does not make it pseudoscience. Even PRO's wikipedia definition says nothing about accounting for all possibilities and variances. It seems to me PRO's questions are either irrelevant or search for ways to improve the MBTI. PRO has not offered significant argumentation that MBTI is a pseudoscience, merely that in could be improved. As you can see, MBTI is clearly not a pseudoscience.