Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spam Section, Link Farming

It's a WP guideline that articles should not be advertisements or link farms. The new section about qualified practicioners does not justify the horde of links at the bottom of this article. I'm going to put citation needed remark to the newest claim. JazzyGroove 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Main Article vs. sub-articles

This article is really a mess. The sections seem like major tangents into typology theory and typology criticism. This article has everything but the kitchen sink. In this case, the kitchen sink would be simple and clear information about what the MBTI is, how it is used, who uses it, how it differs from personality instruments administered by psychologists, and why it has become so popular. Everyone's pet theories and criticisms should be separate sub-articles with short summaries within the main article. If I were confident enough with wiki-editing I would do the honors, but might end up deleting everything and making the archives unruly.JazzyGroove 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am with JazzyGroove on this. If I was a reader trying to understand what the heck MBTI is about, then the current article would fail this test. For the sake of NPOV, it is right to include criticism as a section; ideally as JazzyGroove says some of the content should be moved out to separate articles.

The only thing I didn't get, though, was your comment "how it differs from personality instruments administered by psychologists": as whilst it's the case that not all practitioners of MBTI are qualified psychologists, some are. Could you clarify this for me? Thanks.

I will plan to have a crack at a clean-up during June 2007, taking into account any further feedback in this discussion page. Hope that's OK with y'all... Wee Paddy 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Population breakdown chart

The chart claims that "inferential statistics" were used to generate its numbers. Wouldn't this be OR? Unless it came from a third party source in which case it should be cited. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Defintion of functions

How can Sensing and Intuition be the "perceiving" functions and Thinking and Feeling be the "judging" functions when you can have any combination of each (STP, STJ, NTP, NTJ, SFP, SFJ, NFP, NFJ)? I guess it's not clear from the description.Dujang Prang 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the result of bad terminology. Perceiving and Judging refer to the dichotomy, but some people like using the terms to distinguish between decision making functions (T and F, inaccurately termed "Judging" because they make decisions) and information gathering functions (S and N, inaccurately termed "perceiving" because they analyze information from the outside world) As I understand, a type is considered to be of the perceiving dichotomy if their most preferred decision making function is introverted, in which they prefer to make decisions which are focused on their own internal world rather than the outside world.Ziiv 09:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's the result of "bad terminology." The S/I dichotomy and the T/F dichotomy are cognitive functions, while the J/P dichotomy is an attitude. Individuals with a Perceiving attitude use their perceiving function (sensing or intution) when interacting with the outside world. Individuals with a Judging attitude use their judging function (thinking or feeling) when interacting with the outside world. The terminology may be confusing, but Isabel Myers chose it intentionally and for good reason. Myers herself, in Gifts Differing, called T/F the judging function and S/I the perceiving function. So it isn't inaccurate to refer to them that way.Ajwenger 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up Now in Progress

The overall clean up and restructure of this article is now largely complete and could do with peer review Wee Paddy 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The intention overall has been: to improve clarity; add references where appropriate; move (or remove) secondary or redundant content; make it easier for someone with no or limited prior knowledge to have a clue :-)

I have used the Wikipedia article on Neuro Linguistic Programming as a bit of a guide to the structure and headings, as this article seems more approachable.

My limited qualifications for this clean-up were: comments on this talk page; I am step I and step II qualified, so quite familiar with the instruments; I have some degree level training in psychology; and can structure and write reasonably clearly (you be the judge - QED). But I am not claiming to be an expert, thought leader or guru! So for those of you who are any or all of those things, please weigh in with your thoughts and contributions, to make this the best it can be.

Now a Separate Article: MBTI Step II

I think the proposed changes look good and would encourage you to proceed with the expansion of the article... -- Johnfos 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologise for the incorrect spelling of "pejorative". Interesting, as etymologically, it presumably has the same root as "perjury". I stand corrected... I normally pride myself on correct spelling and grammar, this one somehow passed me by! Wee Paddy 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you all don't mind, but I added some information in the introduction to counter the suggestion that MBTI is nothing more than the Forer effect at work. Unlike the Forer effect, MBTI offers 16 personality descriptions that differ from one another in substantial ways. Perhaps this information belongs elsewhere; but in that case, so does the reference to the Forer effect.Ajwenger 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking vs. Feeling

I edited this section to remove the word "values" from the description of how Feeling types reach decisions. Everyone makes decisions based on their values; but what Thinking types value is logic, while Feeling types take personal considerations into account. The aptness of each style of reasoning depends on the situation: Feeling is better suited to decisions involving people, and Thinking to decisions involving objects or facts. Ajwenger 23:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Katharine Cook Briggs

I've removed the link from this name, as it was just a redirect leading to Isabel Myers Briggs page, and was a bit confusing.--Quywompka 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Another editor added the link back in. I'm not sure why. I think your reasoning for removing it was good, Quywompka. Ajwenger 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ENFP and ISTJ

In all materials I've read, the canonical example types are ENFP and ISTJ. I don't think the same can be said for INFP and ESTJ. I'm changing those back, and if there's any issues I guess I'll have to do a review of the literature to support my position. Can anyone confirm that we should stick to ENFP and ISTJ as examples, or is there disagreement here? -FrankTobia (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I changed these back to ESTJ and INFP. This is to be consistent with the order in which the dichotomies are presented in the sections that follow: E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P. This is the order Isabel Myers uses in "Gifts Differing." My main concern is that if we use ISTJ and ENFP in the examples, someone will change "E-I Preference" to "I-E Preference" again. Ajwenger (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Tests

Please do not post Internet links to so-called Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the term "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" is a registered trademark of THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR TRUST. No one else can legally use that term to describe their test. Ajwenger (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of "Extraversion"

The correct spelling is "Extraversion," not "Extroversion." (Check your dictionary, as well as the writings of Isabel Briggs Myers.) "Extroversion" is a back-formation from "Introversion" and an unnecessary variant. Please, let's try to be consistent. Ajwenger (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives both spellings, and extraversion directs you to extroversion, suggesting that the 'o' spelling is predominant. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My copy of "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" gives "extraversion" as the preferred spelling. Moreover, that's the spelling that Isabel Briggs Myers used, and that's the spelling that the MBTI uses. The article needs to be consistent; and since the topic is the MBTI, and the MBTI uses "extraversion," I believe that's the spelling that should be used. Ajwenger (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that since MBTI is based on her work we should use her sp in this article, but the dictionary argument is a weak one. The OED is more authoritative than is Webster. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of the Oxford English Dictionary article, it seems the OED seeks to catalog all spellings and usages of all English words through the ages. So it makes sense that they would have both spellings. In any case, I think we agree to use "extraversion" throughout the article? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that "extraversion" should be used here. So the OED point is moot, but interesting. It does catalogue all sp and usages, but when there are variant spellings, it usually gives a preferred sp, and lists the others under that word. In this case, though, they are treated as two separate words, where this particular definition redirects, rather than the entire word redirecting. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the spelling back to Extraversion and added a note that this is the spelling used in Myers-Briggs terminology. Thanks!Ajwenger (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The 16 types

"To find the opposite type of the one you are looking at, jump over one type diagonally". I'm sorry, I really don't understand what "jump over one type diagonally" means. Can someone clarify? --Dweller (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed this to, "…move diagonally, jumping over one type." Does that clarify it? Ajwenger (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment vs. Questionnaire

According to the website of the publisher, CPP, the correct term is Myer-Briggs Type Indicator® assessment. The site also uses the term MBTI® instrument. It's important to note that both Myer-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are trademarks; therefore, the terms should never be used as nouns, always as adjectives. Ajwenger (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so but the term 'assessment' is not adequate by itself as it does not clarify what kind of assessment 'instrument' it is. As the MBTI is actually a questionnaire - and not some other kind of assessment - it would seem to be more appropriate to use a precise term in this article rather than a vague one. As for 'MBTI' etc being 'adjectives' because they are also trademark terms this seems a very dubious argument since the MBTI is principally a thing (a questionairre) and therefore the terms are not really *describing* something but *referring* to something. In any case many terms can be used correctly both as adjectives and nouns and I can't see any validity in your argument that the terms "should never be used as "nouns". Ontologicos (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of U.S intellectual property law, trademarks should not be used as nouns. Also, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style on trademarks, "Avoid use of trademarks as a noun except where any other usage would be awkward." Ajwenger (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add that the assessment is a psychometric questionnaire, I think that would be good information. But while "questionnaire" may be an accurate description, "assessment" remains the name used by CPP. Ajwenger (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

INFPs exuding personal warmth

I am curious to know the source of the idea that 'the INFP exudes a personal warmth that is unspoken and sympathetic'. My understanding was that within an INFP's inner circle of friends, an INFP may reveal an intensely compassionate side that is usually held back in day-to-day life. However, the rest of the time, INFPs come across on the surface as being so withdrawn and out of touch with reality that people often perceive them as cold and aloof. Their Introverted Feeling is not revealed to most people, unless their values are threatened.

Carl Jung made a point of this (I know this is MBTI, but the basic concepts are the same) in saying:

A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive...To the outer world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this sympathy looks like coldness, for it does nothing visibly, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.

I'd also be interested to know the source of the idea that INFPs often fight for civil rights or the environment. I was under the impression that INFPs were more concerned with a personal inner quest for harmony than external campaigning for action, which sounds more like something an ENFP or ENFJ would do. I am not saying any of this page is wrong. I would just like to know where these ideas came from. Excitation needed (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to MyersBriggs.org, INFPs "want an external life that is congruent with their values...[They] can be catalysts for implementing ideas." Their quest for harmony isn't merely internal; they seek harmony between their inner and outer worlds. Ajwenger (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed "exudes a personal warmth that is unspoken and sympathetic" to "radiates a pleasant and sympathetic demeanor." Isabel Myers wrote in Gifts Differing: "Introverted feeling types...wear their warm side inside, like a fur-lined coat." Ajwenger (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An INFP is perhaps the most sympathetic of all types when the object being wronged has not gone against one of the INFP's deeply held values. However, I'm still not sure whether this sympathy would radiate to people around, but I don't know any mature INFPs so I don't think I can comment on this. Thanks for the replies.Excitation needed (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With due respect to Carl Jung (or perhaps his translator), I don't think "cold" is quite the right word to describe the demeanor of the INFP. In my experience, they tend to express themselves dispassionately, much the way you might expect of a Thinking type. But when their values are threatened, INFPs may respond with a sudden emotional intensity that seems to come out of nowhere, in a way that you'd never expect of a Thinking type. Most of the time, though, INFPs tend to appear calm, open, and attentive to the wants of others. It's the receptiveness of their auxiliary extraverted intuition, acting in conjunction with the warmth of their dominant introverted feeling, that makes them seem sympathetic. Ajwenger (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

'Sensing' vs. 'Sensation'

The MBTI uses the term 'Sensing.' Perhaps some translation of Jung's Psychological Types used 'Sensation,' but I'm not sure that a translator ought to be the ultimate authority on the subject. The word 'Sensing' in this context is a gerund, that is, a participle used as a noun, as is also the case with 'Thinking' and 'Feeling.' ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Separating Academic Psychologists from Skeptics

I made copy-editing changes to parse and clarify which groups offer which criticisms at the top of this article. Lumping together psychology academics and skeptics blurs the distinction between the two groups. The academic psychologists who critique the MBTI do not critique the idea of psychometrics while skeptics do. The skeptic sources listed in this article are not research papers; lumping the critiques of academics who have researched studies vs. the skeptics dictionary, which is a philosophical document without research conflates all forms of criticism. There must be a skeptic author who has published a research paper, but none of them are mentioned here. Most of the academic psychologists who have critiqued the MBTI do so by comparing it to their instrument of choice, the Big 5. Skeptics are skeptical of both, so this adds to the confusion for new readers.

The current version tries to separate out Pittenger (academic psychologist) into the "skeptics" group, which seems pretty silly if you want to make that distinction. If you want to include some more academic rejections of the MBTI you could also include McRae & Costa and Stricker & Ross (probably the two most significant). Also - I'm not sure where your evidence that the sole "skeptic" you have identified here, Todd Carroll, is skeptical of psychometrics. --Coroebus 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated my parsing of these two groups because the anonymous user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.11.31.46 seems to have reverted my parsing by working with an old copy of the article. Also, this anonymous editor's changes were not what the Edit summary said, so it could possibly be editing vandalism. JazzyGroove 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a new section for Skepticism and put all the information about the Forer Effect there. I left the rest of the information under Criticism. I'm not sure that's the best way to handle it, but I agree with JazzyGroove that there's a significant difference between the two, and lumping them together causes confusion.ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Correlations to Other Instruments"

This section makes no sense to me. I think something, particularly, needs to explain exactly what the graph represents (does a high number indicate that someone who is very E is also likely to be very extroverted?) What I don't understand, I guess, is why the axes are being correlated, rather than extremes on the axes. The Jade Knight 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Correlation to other instruments" corresponds to a well accepted manner of assessing construct validity. This section should ideally be moved to the validity section of the article with a statement of fact concerning the relationship between this measure and other measures of the same construct. Higher correlation between this instrument and other instruments that purport to measure the same underlying construct provides more support for construct validity. Furthermore, construct validity can be partitioned into convergent and divergent validity, information that should be readily available in any of the many academic papers outlining the psychometric properties of MBTI instruments. 149.171.6.250 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this section confusing -- not because of the statistical information, but because of the interpretation:

"There was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types... Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it."

These sentences have a nice critical sound, but contain little substantial information, as far as I can tell. Why is there no support for the view that MBTI measures "truly dichotomous preferences"? What does that even mean? The "Big 5" aren't conceived as dichotomous, but there is no reason why they couldn't be conceived that way, with little or no modification to the underlying concepts -- the absence or presence of a particular quality forms a dichotomous system. Likewise, the MBTI could be cosmetically altered to obscure its dichotomicity without changing the underlying system. There's no there there.

Next: "qualitatively distinct types" -- well, any system that measures values along spectra in multiple dimensions must in some sense imply "qualitatively distinct types." So what if most people land in the middle of the spectra? It remains possible for people to land on the outer edges, and two people who are on opposite ends of a particular spectrum almost certainly have qualitatively distinct personality types. And given that the MBTI correlates with four of the Big 5 pretty well, if the Big 5 implies qualitatively distinct personality types (it does, if it measures anything at all) then so does the MBTI. Perhaps it doesn't measure what it measures as well as the Big 5 does -- but there you go. If that's the real criticism being made, then why isn't it stated explicitly?

Finally, why on earth does Jung even come up? What does Jung have to do with _any of this_? There needs to be a relationship established between the Big 5 and Jung's theories before the Big 5 can be used to confirm or reject the relation between the MBTI and Jung.

Perhaps the article in question addresses these issues, but if it does, they ought to be discussed in this section.

In short, I don't care a whit about the MBTI; but I find it annoying when a bunch of nonsensical jibber-jabber is used to discredit the MBTI when there are simple, pragmatic reasons why it ought to be superseded by the Big 5. The Big 5 gives more consistent results, and you don't have to license it. Why are people bringing Jung into it?? 24.238.113.229 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references to Jung, since they're not relevant in the context of the Big Five, as you point out. As far as I'm concerned, the article you mention above is completely irrelevant in terms of the accuracy of the MBTI. To my knowledge, Isabel Myers never claimed that Introversion and Extraversion, for example, are two distinct things rather than opposite ends of a continuum.

It would be great if an expert in this field would contribute some sensible criticism of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument. For the most part, what appears for free on the Web is emotional slams of the MBTI, either because it's sometimes used in a way that violates the ethical application of the instrument (for example, employers trying to pigeonhole employees based on MBTI results), or because the author rejects the notion of personality type altogether. If some sensible criticism were offered, the jibber-jabber could be deleted.

From my perspective, another important question (which I don't think this article addresses very well) is under what circumstances the MBTI is a better tool than, say, the Big Five, and vice versa. For me, they don't have the same applications. The beauty of Myers' theory is its simplicity. It helps me, as a lay person, understand myself and the people around me better. As a psychological tool, however, the MBTI may have no value at all. That's where the Big Five comes in, in part because it adds the dimension of neuroticism. Yet the Big Five doesn't give me a better understanding of myself, because it provides too much information; moreover, it doesn't give an overview (to my knowledge) of how the traits interact. The MBTI offers 16 versions of "normal," whereas the Big Five measures the respondent against the average for the general population. Those aren't remotely the same things. In that context, a comparison of the accuracy in terms of repeatability does little to help me decide which is the better tool. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous people

The pages INTJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ all contain lists of people who are asserted to have those personality types. Unfortunately these lists are almost certainly total crap. In many cases, the entries are unknown and unknowable: there is clearly no way that we can meaningfully assign a personality type to, say, King David, or the emperor Augustus. Even for the living people there is no evidence given. The data seems to come from one person's website which itself contains nothing beyond a simple assertion that these people have or had these personality types.

Is there any reason at all why any of this information should not be deleted? 82.16.99.2 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason other than the hordes of MBTI/Kiersey/Socionics obsessives who will revert you in a second. --Coroebus 14:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm an obsessive, and I say: Delete! There are no reliable sources. — Starylon 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There're two websites I know of that categorize celebrities - http://keirsey.com/matrix.html and http://typelogic.com/ - and while some of it is obviously uncited (ie. Charles Darwin), some of it is (ie. Princess Diana - http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter/200412_diana.html). However, I think that an expert's deduction of what famous people fit in which category is a reasonable enough source, but that's a matter of opinion.

Experts "deducing" the personality type of famous people is a corruption of the MBTI, in my opinion. As Myers wrote in Gifts Differing, "These basic differences concern the way people prefer to use their minds." If people always acted according to their preference, we could deduce how they prefer to use their minds based on their behavior. But balanced individuals adapt as the situation requires, and often exhibit non-preferred traits. Ajwenger 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keirsey differs from the MBTI in that analysis is based on behavior rather than cognitive preferences. Expert opinion in that context is somewhat more palatable. Still, the Keirsey opinions don't belong in the MBTI articles, in my opinion. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and tone labels

The introduction and general tone of this article confuses the work of Carl Jung with that of Myers (and Briggs?!). I have made the minor change in the opening sentence to at least adjust what was a highly misleading entry point but one which sets the tone for the entire article. The change I have made is from:

designed to identify certain psychological differences according to the typological  
theories of Carl Gustav Jung 

changed to:

designed to identify psychological differences between individuals based upon the 
typological theories of Carl Gustav Jung. 

But the rest or the article needs a major overhaul. If the article is not read in its entirety and with a general knowledge of the subject it is misleading and inaccurate. The opening FOUR screen PAGES of article are about Jung and not the MBTI. Such substantial explantions as here that are to the work of other author's should be by reference ONLY. The article in its current form claims an academic lineage through an association with Jung that is not merited.

It is stated in the article that MBTI evolved from an attempt to use the work of Jung to help women choose suitable work in the war effort. THIS is the key point of interest in THIS article which is about the MBTI and NOT the work of Carl Jung. The questionnaire and the instrument were devised by Myers (a graduate of political science with an interest in psychology) and her mother a teacher. Instead of informing us about the MBTI, its authors etc, instead it concentrates on establishing a link with Carl Jung (who dies before it was publsihed and to my knowledge was in no way associated with it). The article doesn't mention who "Briggs" was even though it states "Myers AND Briggs".

The existence of personality type is highly disputed and so measuring it is not a trivial task, or one that can be compared with the development of say a voltmeter or a CAT scanner. A far clearer differentiation needs to be made in my opinion between Jung and the MBTI and the article should concentrate on the MBTI rather than on its merits and demerits. Its merits should be dowplayed, as merit is inherent in neutral description, and demerits should be included for balance.

I have tagged the article as follows: NPOV - becaue the article generally reads as if the MBTI was a simple expension of Carl Jung's work when it is actually the work of the authors ONLY (this is stated in one sentence of the article but the style of the remainder reinforces the misunderstanding). Tone - because the article generally, through using "weasel" words and phrases as well as in general literary construction, makes the claim that the MBTI is an accepted and accurate measure of those matters the article refers to when this is not and perhaps cannot be the case. Citation - because the article includes text in a manner which implies a closeness of association with the work of Carl Jung that is not merited.

I have added a couple of instances of "weaseling" but in my view the entire article could be labelled "weasely".

 LookingGlass (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Now that I understand what your concerns are, this should be easy to fix. I don't believe, however, that the mentions of Jung were intended to confer undo status to the MBTI but rather to give Jung proper credit as the originator of the theory on which the MBTI is based. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"See also" list

I deleted Socionics from this list, since Socionics is unrelated to the MBTI. It was developed at a different time, in a different place, by a different person. The two typologies were not influenced by each other, even though they both used Jung's work as their starting point. An understanding of Socionics does not contribute to an understanding of the MBTI. Moreover, Socionics is not a psychometric testing instrument, as the other entries in the list are. It is a belief system based on Jung's theories, but not on the work of Myers and Briggs. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what other people may speculate, my only goal is to help this article achieve Good Article status. That means including relevant information and leaving out irrelevant information. Socionics has no bearing on the MBTI and vice versa. But, if people are interested in other Jungian typologies, they can navigate to them using the "Analytical Psychology" template at the end of the article. It isn't necessary to duplicate those links in the "See also" section. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is included in the "See also" list because it was derived, in part, from the theories of Isabel Myers, in greatly expanded form. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

i don't know if this is entirely appropriate. for one thing, socionics is a closely related subject matter and it shares a number of similarities with MBTI, including addressing the general dimensions of MBTI in a different way. the two are also often confused by laypeople. while in many ways i would applaud the concept of dealing with socionics and MBTI from separate standpoints, i don't know that addition of socionics in a see also section to MBTI (and vice versa) is a far-fetched concept. i don't have a strong opinion about this, however, and as ThreeOfCups indicated, it is not as though access to the article is especially limited on this basis.

certainly if the enneagram is linked to in "see also," so should be socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Enneagram should be in there, either. Again, they're completely unrelated. As for MBTI and Socionics, having a common starting point doesn't make the disparately derived theories themselves relevant to one another. I also don't agree that laypeople confuse the two. I've never seen Socionics mentioned in conjunction with the MBTI except on Wikipedia. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Enneagram actually does show up disproportionately in socionics circles, but I'd agree that it's not appropriate for comparative inclusion because it's very different from both MBTI and socionics and based on deeply different principles. As a participant in socionics circles, it is definitely the case that laypeople confuse the two. This is in large measure due to the fact that the notation is similar, and people who chance upon one or the other (usually people outside of russian or ukranian-speaking environments chance on MBTI because there is so much more material on it) do not necessarily realize that the types are as different as they are given that the notation could be seen to refer to the same thing. It is undoubtedly true that socionics probably doesn't come up so often in MBTI circles, but noting the difference is a relatively important comparison within socionics environments. although i don't really know, in russian speaking environments it seems plausible that the comparison would go the other way and MBTI would be confused for socionics since socionics was developed in a russian setting while MBTI may be more culturally unfamiliar. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV

1) Having read most of the article and the discussion here I can appreciate the enormous amount of work that has gone into an article like this. But sometimes the point gets lost in all the discussion.

The point of an enclopedia article is to inform, not to debate and decide. The criticism described at the end is a far-too-long academic dissertation aimed apparently at convincing the reader that the discussion is over. This isn't appropriate here and is not NPOV. IMO the pro/con should be reduced to something not much more than "Users of this tool continue to claim its anecdotal consistency and to see other merits. However, the MBTI is criticized in academic/scientific circles for its lack of both a scientific theoretical basis or convincing studies that it has scientific validity [reference list for those interested]. ". Yes, yes, this may be a little too short but to have 30% of the article devoted to criticism/skepticism with no reference to why people still use it (no matter how repugnant that might be to the author of this article) is not neutral.70.79.182.98 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These comments are quite enlightening, especially since there are convincing studies that the MBTI instrument is scientifically valid. It appears that the criticism section is skewing the article to the opposite POV. The theory itself is unproven (apart from the fact that the MBTI is certainly measuring something, given that the results are statistically valid). Nevertheless, the fact that the theory is unproven doesn't make it false. The instrument is popular in part because it resonates with many of the people who take it. Unlike, for example, astrological signs, which are empty caricatures, the 16 MBTI types are psychologically complex and richly layered. (This is my opinion, of course, not scientific fact.) I honestly believe that in the estimation of Isabel Myers, the truth of Jung's theory was self-evident, so she focused on developing a statistically valid testing instrument rather than proving the theory itself. If CAPT has subsequently made any inroads in this direction, I'm not aware of them.

I'm loath to remove information from the Criticism section, since it's well supported by references (although I question the reliability of some of them). It may be possible to condense the section without actually removing anything. And in some cases, it may not even be accurate to call it criticism. It's a simple fact that the theory behind the instrument is unproven scientifically. So maybe the information could be reorganized.

Beyond this, however, I believe that the very popularity of the instrument is good reason to include a substantial Criticism section. People should absolutely question the accuracy and usefulness of their results on the MBTI - and in fact, the ethical usage of the tool demands this. There are editors who try to turn the Criticism section into an argument against the tool, however, and I'm not sure how best to achieve balance. Input from a neutral expert on the subject would be most welcome. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2) The Skepticism sections seems particularly non-neutral to me. I have added a tag to this effect, and hope I'm not violating procedure... Remove if I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.119.121 (talk) 18:13, November 3, 2008 (UTC)

Edited the section and removed the tag. Still not perfect, I know, but I'm not sure exactly how to handle a situation that's as completely unjustified as the comparison of the MBTI descriptions to the vague and ambiguous one used to demonstrate the Forer effect. On another point, the Criticism/Skepticism sections account for perhaps 10-12% of the article, not 30%. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifestyle

Dcompane (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some problems with the last 2 paragraphs of the section. Can someone validate that? Thanks!

The last two paragraphs are correct. For types who prefer Judging, the decision-making function is the one used with the outside world. So if the Judging types are Extaverts, who use their dominant function with the outside world, the decision-making function is dominant. If the Judging types are Introverts, who use their auxiliary function with the outside world (reserving their dominant function for their internal world), their decision-making function is their auxiliary function. I agree that the concept is very confusing, and this section probably needs to be clearer. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As sure as this INTP is applying his Ti to the judgment of this concept's nonsensicality, so it is. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing a preference for Judging with a preference for a judging function. Judging simply means a preference for structure and closed-endedness, while Perceiving means a preference for spontaneity and open-endedness. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The J/P passage with regard to Jung

One of two things is true regarding it: either it is a misinterpretation of Myers' statements, or Myers' theory itself is inconsistent by her own description. She's saying that people with dominant introverted thinking like to keep approaches open, when we know that T is a judging function. It's not consistent with reality.

The second passage is definitely a misconflation: dominant in Jung's sense DOES NOT mean extrovert. Either MBTI has no relation to Jung's theory, or is inconsistent with the reality that Jung described. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific passages you're referring to. The "Differences from Jung" section makes it clear that Myers and Jung differ on Judging/Perceiving. According to Myers (not Jung), introverts with a dominant judging function like to keep options open, while introverts with a dominant perceiving function like matters settled. The article doesn't state that dominant means extraverted in Jung's sense or in Myers' sense. Rather, the article states that according to Myers, Judging/Perceiving is based on the preferred extraverted function - in introverts, that's the auxiliary function rather than the dominant one. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Validity

Does the MBTI Manual actually state, "the MBTI lacks validity scales to assess response styles such as exaggeration or impression management"? If so, please provide a page reference. If not, then this citation does not support the claim. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) If the point is that the MBTI does not claim to offer such validity scales, then the statement needs to be rewritten. The lack of such a claim in the Manual can't be construed as proof that the scales don't exist. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a highly tendentious approach and perfectly represents the sort of confrontational over-literalism that scars wikipedia. The MBTI, as anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the product will know, does not have, nor pretend to have lie-scales. I doubt I could find a page number to prove that even if I could be bothered to scour the Manual looking for it. Of course I also can't prove that the MBTI doesn't contain scales measuring preference for cereal over fried breakfast because sometimes you need to take a rather more grown-up approach than the current bizarre fetish in wikipedia for a nice simple declarative statement to use as an inline citation at the end of every single sentence. --Coroebus 23:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you made me go dig out some references, below are some interesting studies on this question, I'll let you insert the refs into the text --Coroebus 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Positive correlation between MBTI judging scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale (Leslie J. Francis and Susan H. Jones "The Relationship Between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Among Adult Churchgoers" Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2000)
• The vulnerability of the MBTI to faking (A Furnham "Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes" Current Psychology 9(1):46-55)
• "there are no scales built into the MBTI to detect the effects of random responding, response sets such as social desirability, or either conscious or unconscious response distortion" (GJ Boyle - "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations" - Australian Psychologist. Vol 30(1), 1995, 71-74)

Sorry, but I'm not going to take responsibility for adding references to works that I haven't personally read. Also, please don't assume that the average Wikipedia reader knows anything about validity scales. What apparently seems intuitively obvious to you is likely to baffle the average high school student. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I worried about the average wikipedian understanding stuff I wouldn't add anything. --Coroebus 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in the Wikipedia policy on this subject, please see WP:MTAA. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Please see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT:"It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." You might also want to take a look at WP:NPA while you're at it.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT seems irrelevant here, I've read these articles, and I told you what they said, I don't count as an intermediate source in this situation because I'm another editor on wikipedia, taking that position further anything added into an article is an intermediate source - I have no way of knowing these people have read the sources they add so should revert the lot of them. I've added the refs myself, hopefully that will make you happy. As for WP:NPA, I suggest you read passive aggressive. --Coroebus 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I was being passive. :) ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

Please note that linking to sites that primarily promote a product is considered spam. To avoid the appearance that a link is spam, be sure to link to a page that contains information that supplements the article, rather than one that offers a product. If no such information appears on the site, it is spam. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For more information, refer to WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If you're unsure whether a link is appropriate, or if you believe it's appropriate but it's been deleted more than once, you can post it here on the talk page and ask for comments. A civil discussion is preferable to an edit war. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the Jungian typology test at http://mbti.skeletus.com/eng/ because it's very similar to the other tests listed, plus it contains an obvious error in question 28. Also, questions 38 and 56 didn't make sense to me. Either they contain errors, or they're poorly worded. Please do not add back this link, at least until the errors in the test are corrected. It does not meet the reliability standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing question 28. However, other problems still exist:

• I'm concerned that this test is a copyright violation. I've seen many of these exact questions elsewhere.
• The test claims to be the MBTI test, which is definitely a copyright violation. The MBTI acronym is trademarked by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust, and the MBTI test is licensed by CPP.
• I still find the following questions confusing:
  • Q35 - What's the difference between "infinite" and "open-minded"? They suggest the same thing to me.
  • Q38 - Sounds like a word is missing - see how others see what? Lack of parallelism with the previous option creates confusion. "See how others see things" would be better.
  • Q56 - What's the difference between "renegotiable" and "random and circumstantial"? Again, they suggest the same thing to me.

Links must be useful and high-quality to be included here. Wikipedia is not a link farm. It's not appropriate to use this article to promote your website. See WP:EL. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the concerns listed above were not addressed, I deleted the link to the Skeletus test. It was clearly written by a non-native English speaker, and some of the questions were nonsensical. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting the link to the 41q questionnaire (again) because I find it to be poorly written and inaccurate. I always test as an INTJ on that assessment, while I test as INFJ on every other assessment. There are better assessments available, so there's not point in directing people to this one. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dominant Function

Some confusion has been introduced into the article regarding dominant vs. preferred function. Each of the sixteen types has one dominant function: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, or Intuition, which will be either introverted or extraverted. But on each dichotomy, the individual also exhibits a preference, for a total of four preferences (as opposed to one dominant function). So, for instance, as an INFJ, I prefer Feeling to Thinking, but my dominant function is Introverted Intuition.

Also, I don't think the tertiary function should be called an auxiliary function. In "Gifts Differing," Isabel Myers refers to the secondary function as the auxiliary function. The terminology is confusing enough without saying that both the auxiliary function and the tertiary function are auxiliary functions.

I'm going to edit the article accordingly.Ajwenger (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect to say, "According to Jung and Myers, all people use all four functions." In Gifts Differing, Myers writes: "Good type development thus demands that the auxiliary supplement the dominant process in two respects. It must supply a useful degree of balance not only between perception and judgment but also between extraversion and introversion. When it fails to do so it leaves the individual literally 'unbalanced,' retreating into the preferred world and consciously or unconsciously afraid of the other world. Such cases do occur..." (page 20, ISBN 0-89106-074-X).Ajwenger (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As orignally referred to by Jung - and correctly understood - the so-called 'tertiary' function is also an 'auxiliary' function but I accept that in MBTI-related publications that only the first auxiliary is referred to as such. In Jung's 'Psychological Types' both are referred to as 'auxiliary' functions so it is not out of place in this article to clarify this difference in how the term is used. Ontologicos (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern about using "auxiliary" to describe the tertiary function has nothing to do with its correctness with respect to Jung's writing. In the context of this article, I believe it does more to create confusion than to add value. So for the sake of the reader, I believe it's better left out. And at any rate, this article isn't about Jung, except in terms of his influence on Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers. Ajwenger (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this article is not directly "about Jung" I am not persuaded that it is not useful or important to clarify differences in terminology. The way in which Myers and Briggs used Jung's original terminology can be very confusing and has lead to various misunderstandings and distortions of Jung's typology by MBTI facilitators. Perhaps a separate section on this is possible? Ontologicos (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a separate section would be quite useful, since Myers differed from Jung on many points. A "he said / she said" approach throughout would muddle the article; but a separate section would offer clarity. Ajwenger (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the Examples?

In one section we have:

Although people use all four cognitive functions, one function is generally used in a more conscious and confident way.
This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function.
The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior
function the shadow.[1]:84

Then in the next section we have:

Because ENTJ types are extraverts, the J indicates that their dominant function is their preferred judging function
(extraverted thinking). ENTJ types introvert their auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary
function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

Because INTJ types are introverts, the J indicates that their auxiliary function is their preferred judging function
(extraverted thinking). INTJ types introvert their dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary
function is feeling, and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.

The first of these examples is consistent with the prior statement (feeling is opposite of thinking), but the second is inconsistent (sensing is not the opposite of thinking). Either the second example is wrong, or the statement about "The fourth and least conscious function" is wrong. 198.70.193.2 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind! I misread the second example; it says thinking is the auxiliary not the dominant function. 198.70.193.2 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Intuition vs. iNtuition

Anyone have a strong preference for one spelling or another? I like iNtuition because it shows visually what the N stands for. From a usability perspective, "Intuition (N)" just seems confusing to me. When people change it without comment, I assume that they believe it's a spelling error, but I'm curious as to whether someone objects on principle. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

it is written: "The two Perceiving functions, Sensing and iNtuition (thus capitalized to distinguish it from Introversion)." To my mind, it is obvious that it is capitalized in order to do so (even if I had no previous knowledge in the field). I think it's obvious that iNtuition is referred to as "N" (because the word already features a capital N), and thus that what's in parenthesis isn't needed. Twipley (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't obvious to everyone. Lately, editors have been changing "iNtuition" to "Intuition" almost on a daily basis, thinking it's a misspelling.ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best just to standardize on Myers' capitalization. The Manual doesn't capitalize the cognitive functions, nor does Gifts Differing, though many other publications do. That means, generally speaking, the article would use "intuition" rather than "iNtuition" or "Intuition," and likewise for the other functions and preferences. Any objections? ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the spelling of the preferences to use lowercase in most instances. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the use of lowercase. The average person can reconcile why N is for intuition on their own, no need to over-explain things. Habanero-tan (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Book source

I'm putting in a pre-emptive warning that Effective Multicultural Teams By Claire B. Halverson, S. Aqeel Tirmizi, which has a section on the MBTI, seems to have been sourced from this article, including some unique references. --Coroebus 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the MBTI section and don't see Wikipedia as a source, so I assume you mean they use the same referenced information as Wikipedia so you are suspicious. Since there isn't real proof of them blindly copying Wikipedia, I think we can just treat it as the average intermediate source, and cite it as such per WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT:"It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Habanero-tan (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Study of scoring consistency

I removed this paragraph as it was practically unreadable. It contained contradictions and was not written in a comprehensible language. Bjørn Clasen (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added it back. I'll edit it to be more readable. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Inserting critique by socionists

Socionists have had numerous things to say about the MBTI, and I think they should be represented in this article. Sources will be provided. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Commercial popularity

I added a bit to the intro about the commercial popularity of the assessment—not because I think it's persuasive, but because I think it's important information for readers who are unacquainted with the tool. The theory behind the MBTI may be unproven scientifically, but the MBTI is notable because it's successful. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You really ought to give up the MBTI and go to socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages:"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I expected you'd do that. I was giving you advice as the guy who will be responsible for dethroning the MBTI (assuming it doesn't break and absorb socionics), but it's evident you won't listen to reason, or you already WOULD have switched to socionics. If not for your stubborn reluctance this article would almost not be notable because socionics would have already replaced it. In any case, I mourn for all the wasted effort so many psychologists have put into this tool, only to see it superseded without cause by Augusta's superior work.

Although your real nail in the coffin is Boukalov.

As for the relevance of this discussion to the article, it pertains to the attitude of MBTI practicioners towards socionics, which that I know of has not been examined. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are incapable of helping this article get to GA status because you are incapable of comprehending the relation of the subject matter to other such theories. And because of that, you don't understand the subject matter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a guideline and how dare you exploit it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages:"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Discussions of Socionics have no place on this page. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits

This article has a long history and some of the phrasing has been crafted to respond to specific concerns raised months or years earlier. The phrase "In her original research" is accurate and serves a purpose, even if some people may find it unnecessary. I don't see how it hurts anything for the phrase to be there. The statement about Myers and Briggs having no formal training in psychometic testing is factual and appears in the preface to Gifts Differing. They were self-taught, and no one officially associated with the MBTI makes any pretense to the contrary. The section heading "Criticism" is a standard heading title and appropriate for this article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase, "In her original research" does not appear to have been discussed anywhere on talk, including in the archives. What purpose is it supposed to serve? As for the line about formal training, I did not say it was false; I rather said it was original research (which Myers and Briggs can do until the cows come home, just as long as they're not doing it on here). This line, "Neither Katharine Cook Briggs nor Isabel Briggs Myers were formally educated in psychology, and thus lacked scientific qualifications in the field of psychometric testing" (in the "Validity" subsection of "Criticism"), implies that Myers and Briggs should be doubted, if not entirely dismissed; it furthermore serves to frame the position that the test has limited validity, and that it may rightfully be ciriticized on this account. However, there is no sourced indication that their lack of formal training constitutes a problem. Instead, the implication emerges from the article itself, and is therefore in violation of WP:SYN (actually, it appears, in gross violation, because the source comes from Briggs herself, and therefore convolutes Briggs into an implicit critic of herself). (As an aside, the quoted line also happens to be ungrammatical. What it essentially says is, "Neither Briggs nor Myers [compound subject] was formally trained, and thus neither Briggs nor Myers [same compound subject, via parallelism] lacked scientific qualifications." So get rid of the double negative and we have, "Neither Briggs nor Myers was formally trained, and thus both Briggs and Myers had scientific qualifications." I don't quite think that that was the intended meaning...) Finally, "criticism" headings may be "standard" to a degree, but they also are contentious--and, I would think, for good reason. Let's say that I develop theory X. Then along comes a critic who says, in essense, "X is false." I retort, "No, X is true." Does "criticism" really seem the ideal word to characterize this exchange? I'd think "debate" or "argument" would better capture the mutuality and dialogue that emerge as soon as I respond to my critic. But let's suppose that, instead of saying, "X is false", the critic says, "X is great, but at the same time, X really should consider Y." Even if I don't respond, is this critic even much of a "critic" at all? "Criticism" might not be the best word, and even "debate" or "argument" could be too narrow. But "perception" or "reception" could be adequate. The word "criticize" (in a colloquial sense) implies minimal dialogue and discussion; it is more or less synonymous with "scold". But the passage in the article does not function to say, "Tsk-tsk, Myers-Briggs!" It rather serves to demonstrate how the theory has been received, rejected, and revised; it summarizes, in other words, people's perceptions of the test. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The colloquial meaning of "criticize" may be to scold, but that's not the academic meaning. This is an encyclopedia, and "Criticism" is the correct term. The section isn't concerned with perceptions but with facts, based on formal academic research.

I moved the sentence about Briggs' and Myers' lack of formal training to the History section. It's critically important that this information remain in the article to maintain NPOV. (Not that lack of formal training is a valid criticism; Jane Goodall had no formal training when she first began her chimp studies, and therefore was unburdened by preconceived ideas. Lack of formal training can lead to better results. But factually, it's important.) In the early years, the validity of the assessment was disputed on the basis of Briggs' and Myers' lack of education alone, and Gifts Differing talks about that. It took twenty years for Myers to find someone who would take her seriously. And there are many in the academic community who continue to disregard the MBTI for the same reasons. It's not an intelligent argument, but it's an argument that's made all the time. So the statement in the original context was not a violation of WP:SYN.

The discussion about the phrase "in her original research" is documented above:

To suggest that the statement "Isabel Myers found in her research..." requires a disclaimer (saying that Myers' research isn't an independent source) doesn't make sense to me. The article makes it clear that her original research is the basis of the instrument, and therefore the instrument does not exist independent of her research. Would anyone suggest that in an article on Einstein's theory of relativity, any research that Einstein did himself must be disclaimed, because research supporting his own theory isn't independent? Such research is source material, not supporting material, so I don't see why a disclaimer would be required.

The phrase "in her original research" is there to make it clear that the statement refers to source material, not supporting material. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)