Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 1

message: For a truly neutral POV a this is considered by many as nothing more than mumbo jumbo disclaimer should be very prominent!  Note I am not advocating censorship:  I am sure many are convinced of the value of MBTI but it should not appear that Wikipedia endorses this technique!!!  Some skepticism is healthy!  I note that in recent months some of the criticism has been toned down. E.g. my point that nobody ever tells you what category of MBTI Hitler fell into - only positive category models are used - has been deleted.  What we have seems to be an advert or marketing literature for MBTI practitioners, MBTI books and MBTI web sites.  Paul Beardsell 23:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say what you want, but whatever might be written by the MBTI foundation can by definition be considered worthless. There's this thing called "peer review" and scholarly peer reviewed articles are what Wikipedians are supposed to take their references from. The MBTI can NOT be taken seriously unless it has been peer reviewed and judged favourably in at ONE scientific journal.--TheOtherStephan 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia does not officially endorse MBTI

message: I can get you several resources if you wish which will show the opposite, if you go to most MBTI sites they talk about how there is a debate going on about the tertiary function.  I have editted the page to show the same, left the chart the same.
--Travis 2:27 on 12/4/04
:Travis, please do not edit in this manner again without providing a specific and official citation for your claim. I am going to give you a link right now to the official ethical guidlines for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which states that the indicator must be used in accordance with The Manual, the most recent version of which I have provided a photograph of above.  Citation. Citation. Citation!
:Cite: "Administer and score the Indicator in accordance with the technical Manual".
:Cite: "The Indicator should be used according to the instructions on the booklet and in the Manual."
: --Alterego 1:30 12/4/2004
Just a personal note:
I have yet to meet anyone whose tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant. In my 20 years of observation and teaching, every type has only one configuration, as Jung predicted, that the dominant function operates all alone in its preferred realm, introverted or extraverted. I am an INTP, my sensing is DEFINITELY extraverted, and I've never met an INTP who could bear to fit into the introverted sensing world of rules, procedures, and historical perspective. Could someone point me to an INTP who has introverted sensing?
RSGracey 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Attitude of the tertiary 

message: I stuck the last edit in the todo list so we can beautify it and make it a bit easier to understand! --Alterego 01:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to mention that I am colorblind, so if the colors I put in these tables do not jive, please make them easier on the eyes :)  I do think they improve the readability of tables, though. --Alterego 02:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to be playing with the organization of the article.  I think that jumping into the psychometrics of the test before we explain what it is trying to test is jumping the gun --Alterego 02:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion of the scoring and psychometrics is, in effect, and argument in favor of the MBTI.  For that reason, I am going to put it right next to the skeptical view section, which will provide balance in the article. --Alterego 02:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Last edit 

message: The VfD on Judging - Perceiving decided to merge that article here.  The content was:
:The Perceiving seeks the life as it comes whereas Judging prefers organizations and making plans. People with Perceive Preference, tend to adapt to changing situations well but at the same time, they may be taking some decision and change it later when new information is made available. They would start a new project but would not follow through to its completion. They are more often seen as “in-decisive”. People with Judging preference like order and structure. They make decisions and move on to complete it. Their work place is organized. They are time oriented and make most out of available valuable resources.
I don't see anything useful that isn't already in the article, so I've put the text here.  dbenbenn | talk 02:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Judging - Perceiving]] 

message: The functions are still being explained from a Keirsian view.
Introvert / Extrovert
:"extroverted attitude the energy flow is outward". Jung explained it simply as the Extravert is objective to the outer world, and the introvert is subjective to the outer world. That is, an Extravert accepts what he senses whereas the introvert stands back and resists blindly accepting that which happens in the outer world.
:Although i have not seen it said directly, the attitude towards the inner world of ideas is the exact opposite. That is, the Introvert is objective to the inner world (accepts all ideas as they are), whereas the extravert is subjective and can reject abnormal ideas.
:I do not remember seeing anything about "energy flow" in Gifts Differing.
Sensing / Intuition
:"They indicate how a person prefers to receive data." That is incorrect. They indicate how a person prefers to perceive it. Everyone uses both. Intuition can only work after the senses receive data. (And ultimately, any data to be judged on must be intuited first. Though this is van der Hoop.) The Sensor remembers information, whereas the Intuitive understands it.
:"intuition prefers to receive data from the unconscious" I know Keirsey says that, but this is not Jungian. Otherwise, how could where be an extraverted intuitive? van der Hoop explains this best (Character and the Unconcious) by saying that Intuition is pattern recognition. That is, recognition that there is a pattern, not what the pattern is. 
Thinking / Feeling
:Feeling uses "more or less, better-worse" evaluations. IIRC, Gifts Differing says that the judgement unlike the binary true/false logic judgements, are trinary less than/equal to/greater than judgements.
:"When introverted, Thinking and Feeling judgments tend to be subjective, relying on internally generated ideas for logical organization and evaluation." This is absurd. The introverted thinkers are by far the most objective of all the types in the realm of thought. Specifically, the INTP takes little to no prejudice into arguments, and thus come up with new approaches. Jung himself was INTP and he took a very objective view in identifing the four functions.
:Thinking is always objective and feeling is always subjective (van der Hoop). The extraverted thinkers are only objective in as far as society allows, and once they latch into an idea they reject all others. The introverted thinker rejects what society thinks are goes on his own, but ultimately is always open to hear new ideas.
:Extraverted feelers base their values on current society. Introverted feelers base their values on personal feelings. The INFP is the most subjective of all the types.
--Chacham 7:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function descriptions 

message: What are your sources of the mbti functions? I´ve know only funkction models with alternating introversion and extraversion and not three introversion or extraversion functions in a row. e.g.  or  --Gronau 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of the mbti functions? 

message: This entry uses phrases that imply the average Introverted Feeler has psychological and/or emotional disorders (i.e. "childish mask" and "...generally fails to respond to the feelings of others, which makes them incompatible with others...").
Such biased wording is a disservice to the MBTI. It portrays many people, who either label themselves or are labeled by others as Introverted Feelers, as unfit members of society. This lack of objectivity is unscientific, which devalues the MBTI as a valid personality indicator.
The use of "generally" should be deleted, while qualifiers such as "may" should be added, when describing supposed positive or negative character traits.  
Finally, more positive traits should be included. Perhaps references to how Intorverted Feelers are highly self-aware and how they strive to live in accordance with their values.
--216.80.125.207 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased "Introverted Feeling" definition 

message: The skeptical view point presented is quite weak. Also, there are logical and factual errors in the main section. I suspect the hand of ccp! It is really a pity when there are well articulated arguments for why the MBTI is very, very bad. Google is just as bad, thanks to the link spamming.Tony Danza 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it is based on the skepics dictionary directly, it needs organising and expanding.  Any volunteers? --Coroebus 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged the arguments in skeptical views, but haven't really changed it's contents apart from moving some stuff from talk.  What more should be covered?  We talk about the potential invalidity of 16 dichotomous types and the less than sterling reliability of the test, what else needs to be covered? --Coroebus 15:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: -FYI- Consulting Phycologist Press Inc. is now officially titled "Cpp, Inc." I don't have time to do the research- but someone can follow up
I had a look at the to do list Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/to do and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/to do, both contain completly different content and the last major changes were over a year ago. Is this TODO still current? Should still be included? (if not the conent of both should probably me included here). --Salix alba (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list 

message: I was just curious as to why the actual articles for the individual types simply refer back to the main article.  How come there aren't articles explaining those types in more detail? ONEder Boy 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could do with an individual page for each of the different types. There is one for ISTP and one for INFJ but the others just redirect to here. Jammycakes 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The different types

message: It appears that the "XXXX" and other derivitave identifiers are missing.
To see what I mean, if you take the test, and fall dead center between an "extrovert" and an "introvert", then the letter "X" would be used, instead of "E" or "I".  If you took the test, and ALL answers were dead-center in all categories, you'd be an "XXXX".
I say that, because that's happened to me repeatedly.
Just thought I'd mention it.  I don't feel like updating the main article, if someone else feels like doing that, have at it.
--Ron 03:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More recent versions of the test do not have the 'x' identifier, everyone is forced into one or other of the categories. --Coroebus 10:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure IRT (computer) scoring doesn't produce this problem.--Coroebus 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XXXX 

message: Argh! This article is a piece of shit. It is completely biased. The astrology articles make more sense. And really that whole thing about statistical studies is fucked up. What you have is three weak correalations. Every time I have tried to reword it to make it more balanced (and to point out that the correalations are weak), SOMEONE comes and changes it.
I give up. If you want to believe in it and pretend that it is all well validated and 'scientific' go for it. It is a load of shit.
:I don't think the MBTI is valid, I also think the article is a bit biased (note the discussion I had about putting in more qualifiers about the reliability), but, although the correlations reported in the article are weak, the standard paper quoted in the field is McCrae & Costa (1989) where the correlations are of the order .7, which is very good for a personality study (where even re-takes of the same test often correlate at .8 or less).  Therefore, changing it read that there are only weak correlations would be misleading.  Obvously the use of that particular study was unwise, but I can't be bothered to change it. --Coroebus 10:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I lie, changed study to McCrae & Costa (1989).--Coroebus 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I am sorry about earlier.  I realize now I should have discussed what I was about to do in this talk section before I made all the edits.  I am still pretty new to all this and it takes some getting used to.  If you look at the ESTJ stub, you can see what I think should be done for all of the Myers' Briggs Character types.  I feel that this will help with the organization of this article.  I feel that this article needs a lot more organization and I am going to try and do it.  I'll keep you posted about what I am tyring to do on here. Eincrat 19:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only wikipedia, don't stress about it mateJayKeaton 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: I have just added a link which contains a lot of information regarding Myers-Briggs.  I haven't had a chance to look through it all yet, but it looks to be very useful 
http://www.gesher.org/Myers-Briggs/Myers_Briggs.html  Eincrat 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valuable resource

message: Under History, the article says "The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®) in 1956."  It must be brilliant sort of test, to change its own name!  Who made the decision to change it?
Cephal-odd 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who changed the name? 

message: The very first paragraph has the language "claim" and an additional hypothesis "could be due to the Forer effect."
There has been no cited research on the Forer effect and the MBTI -- only a link to a hypothesis on another site that has never been researched.
This violates the no original research principle of the Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Skeptics do not claim anything.
Pseudo-skeptics make negative claims that are unsubstantiated and this page is getting overwhelmed with pseudo-skepticism when skepticism should be enough.
JazzyGroove 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated Skeptic Claims 

message: These don't relate to whether real world phenomena such as a personality take discrete or continuous values in the slightest (this is what I whoever put them in meant). Now thw first sentance of validity sucks a bit because I had to pull the pseudo-set theory but didn't know what to replace it with. Can someone rewrite. A Geek Tragedy 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Type theory]] and [[Continuum hypothesis]], in the validity section