Jump to content

Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?

The titles of the 16 types are repeated as a colorful picture (ex: ENTP). This doesn't serve any purpose, and seems inappropriate to me. Habanero-tan (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the colorful pictures are better than nothing (and far better than photos of real people who never took the test, yet are speculated to be of a particular type). Maybe someday when I'm feeling creative I'll create some artwork that more accurately reflects the personality of the different types than the current pictures do. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think they coould do with being
  • A little smaller
  • A defined border.
Can I suggest a change of coding? - example for ENTP...
[[Image:ENTP.jpg|300px|right]]
TO...
{| align="right" border=0
| [[Image:ENTP.jpg|center|150px]]
|}
How about that? (from a mad INTP scientist) - I'll leave the working code in User:Ronhjones/Sandbox for a few days.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll experiment with this a little—maybe add a colored border that reflects the personalities of each type. I'm thinking warm, vibrant colors for the SPs; warm, conservative colors for the SJs; cool, vibrant colors for the NFs; and cool, conservative colors for the NTs. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. My wife would agree with cool for NT... :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what I did. Using the color wheel as a guide, and following my NF instincts, I selected the following colors for each type. (Note that the colors listed are descriptive and not the color names.)

SPs ISTP (dark red) ESTP (reddish orange) ESFP (orange) ISFP (yellowish orange)
SJs ISFJ (yellow) ESFJ (yellowish green) ISTJ (green) ESTJ (dark green)
NTs ENTP (greenish blue) INTP (blue) ENTJ (dark blue) INTJ (violet blue)
NFs INFJ (purple) INFP (mauve) ENFJ (reddish purple) ENFP (red)

If anyone wanted to make a change, for instance, using a different shade of yellowish-orange for ISFP, I wouldn't object to that. But if you want to change the color to something like green or purple, I think it would be better to discuss it here first, because it will throw the entire thing off.

I made the logos 270px wide, which is smaller than they were but probably still too wide. At 250px, the pattern started to run together. That may not be a bad thing, though. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Habanero that these logos are useless and inappropriate. Even if they contain some color-coded significance, that will be lost on a typical reader, especially since she will be able to get the same information by reading the title of the article. These pictures don't add anything, and, frankly, look childish. I disagree with ThreeOfCups that they are better than nothing. 74.104.98.175 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll replace them with a photo of Carl Jung, unless someone has a better idea. I can't find any public domain photos of Isabel Myers. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I also added the Jung photo to this article. Other suggestions would be appreciated. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jung Type Indicator

I am not a registered user, but WIKI should probably start a stub on the Jung Type Indicator. This is a version of the MBTI abbrevated JTI. It has replaced MBTI in Scandinavia proper. Two court rulings have affirmed that the JTI is not a plagarism of the MBTI. But that is still disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Until someone determines that this assessment is notable and then creates an article, I'm removing the red link. It looks like a knockoff to me. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the JTI has completely replaced the MBTI in Denmark+Norway+Sweden, I think the notability speaks for itself. You are, however, correct in assuming that the JTI is a knockoff. That's my verdict as well. But as I said, two courts ruled against it. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I created the JTI article based on the information from 87.60.229.164, then deleted that information from this article. I added the JTI back to the "See Also" section in this article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that there are two different tests called the JTI: the Jung Type Indicator and the Jungian Type Index. The one used in Scandinavia is the Jungian Type Index. I suspect that the one involved in the lawsuits is the Jung Type Indicator, though I can't find any evidence that such lawsuits existed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I am inclined to agree - indeed, since there are differences between Jungian typology and the Myers-Brigg typology, I wonder whether there should be a new page entitled "Jungian typology" createdfor Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's consistent with Jung's terminology, then it's correspondent to socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have stubbed these articles since neither had third party RS,Martinlc (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section is being edited out of existence in crappy little incremental steps - you're on notice that I'm going to overhaul it. --Coroebus 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Critism section definitely needs overhauling. There needs to be another point in there entitled "Stubborn rejection" or something. The ability of someone to utterly reject MBTI and all it stands for, with either no knowledge whatsoever, or with a small amont of knowledge and no understanding. Human nature is rife with example of such rejection (indeed, such a stand-point is critical to progression of real knowledge). But it is one of the biggest critisms, and could do with being in there. For another example of such critism read the history of the theory of plate tectonics 75.30.71.184 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) nousernameyet

If you think that's needed then fine. Just be sure to find (and Cite) a reliable source. --YbborT 04:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph in the Introduction that begins "Most academic psychologists have criticized the indicator…" actually belongs under Criticism. Would anyone object to moving it there? Ajwenger 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that there is a middle ground here. Moving it to the Criticism section pulls something relatively important (from an overview perspective) out of the initial paragraph, where it probably belongs, but the sentence as written ("Most academic..."_ is probably too strong. How about leaving it up top, but changing it "Most" to "Many"?Yorker 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I compromised, changing "most" to "many," as suggested. I also moved the info about the Forer effect under Criticism > Reliability, since there was already a mention of the Forer effect there. The tone of the Introduction now seems more neutral to me. Ajwenger 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Coroebus didn't think that the expanded information on personality descriptions belonged under Reliability, so I moved it to Whole Type. There was already information about personality descriptions there. Ajwenger 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Meh, the article claims people get different results variating the time of the day or if they take it again a week or month after. In my case for the last 6 months (the time I have been familiar with this test) I've always gotten the same result: INFP. 201.150.67.84 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The article confounds Criticisms and Psychometric Properties. There should be a statement of fact outlining the Psychometric Properties of MBTI instrument; particularly Validity_(statistics) and Reliability_(statistics). The Criticisms section should then outline how the particular psychometric properties that have been used to criticises the instrument. 149.171.6.250 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I undid the changes by LeContexte, but added references to help address the stated concerns. I removed a lot of the requests for citations, since in most cases the references were there; they just weren't duplicated every half sentence. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would still rather see this section renamed to "Psychometric Properties" and clearly separated from "Criticisms". While low Reliability_(statistics) and low Validity_(statistics) could be charactersied as criticisms it is more appropriate to first establish the measures of reliability and validity then to infer the instruments strengths/weaknesses from them.Alephsmith (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds great! Are you volunteering to do that? ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the "Reliability" subsection, the last sentence in the second paragraph, "For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), these scores are higher (see MBTI Manual, p. 163, Table 8.6)," at the very least needs an NPOV source citation. Citing the MBTI Manual to counter criticisms of the MBTI instrument is not exactly neutral. Not only that, but I don't see that the source cited actually supports the statement. It shows a slight increase in short-term reliability between test and retest, but nowhere does it appear to address the issue of sensitivity to the retest interval. Furthermore, the cited table hardly represents sound methodology: for example, what was the sample size used in testing the reliability of Form M? Without such information, there is no way to assess whether the "improvement" is statistically significant. This deficiency is compounded by the change from Classical Test Theory to Item Response Theory in scoring the responses, since the change in reliability could be an artifact of the scoring method. At least one study by Bess and Harvey, "Bimodal Score Distributions and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Fact or Artifact?" (Journal of Personality Assessment, 2002), implies the latter. My inclination is to simply remove the offending sentence, rather than play and endless game of "point-counterpoint" in an already lengthy article, but I wanted to air it out here first. Wilford Nusser (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in question to read, "…the MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher…" to stress that the source isn't neutral and the claim shouldn't be regarded as proven fact. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Learning by Example [Analysis Sections for the 16 Type Articles]

I noticed an interesting phenomenon among the specific MBTI type articles. In general, the style of writing observed in the article seemed to strongly reflect the temperament of the MBTI type it was discussing. This makes sense, because members belonging to a certain type have the greatest imperative to share their knowledge and experience regarding their respective type.

For instance, the INTP article is a somewhat exhaustive explanation, but the article itself states "exhaustive explanation" as a common tendency among INTPs. Therefore, it might benefit readers belonging to other MBTI types to see that point reinforced in an analysis of the article. To state another example, the ENFP page is rather brief, and lacks a depth of information regarding the type. However, the ENFP article describes ENFPs as people primarily interested in only the initial stages of a project or relationship, and implies that their introverted sensing is largely to blame. Readers belonging to other types might benefit from this analysis, seeing a correlation between the qualities described in the article and the actually quality of the article itself.

I'd like to see some people create article analysis sections for each of the 16 respective types. In doing so, we could further the understanding of those who may not be familiar with a particular type by giving them concrete examples of how that type thinks and operates. Even now, as you're reading this comment, I bet you're attempting to type me. If this is the case, then surely you understand the validity of my argument. Please help contribute to this cause!

That would actually be a great idea, but would be considered original research on Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, do it on the Wikiversity. --John Bessa (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any scientific validity to this test?

From my gander at the article it seems like there isn't. However, from my gander at this talk page, some people seem to take it seriously. Am I missing something? Is there any reliable evidence that this test is at least somewhat scientifically valid? If so, it should be included so as to clarify that the intention for this test is not a gullibility experiment. --216.165.32.126 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is evidence of scientific validity. For instance, studies show that, to a statistically significant degree, individuals of certain personality types are overrepresented in certain professions, while those of other types are underrepresented. For example, thinking types are overrepresented among lawyers, and judging types are overrepresented among school administrators. I agree that this article should feature more scientific evidence of validity. I just don't think there's a huge body of unbiased literature out there. Ajwenger (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure (but not 100%) that this test is NOT scientifically valid. The point about personality profiling questionnaires is that some of them have been very thoroughly researched and, very importantly, statistically validated by the British Psychological Society (BPS) or other equivalent body for another nation. If you want to know what I mean by 'thoroughly researched' and 'statistically validated', read 'The Scientific Analysis of Personality' by Professor Raymond Cattell, a book which describes the many years of painstaking research that went into the development of a personality profiling instrument known as the 16PF. A phone call to the BPS will tell you whether MBTI has been BPS approved. I will be surprised if it has.Snookerrobot (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm 100% sure that the MBTI has been found to be statistically valid, with a significant body of research supporting it over a period of 50 years. Please see the references provided in the article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of scientific, really. I am a practitioner of the MBTI myself and I have been through all the evidence: Trust me; if there was a hard scientific validity to the MBTI it'd be alot more widespread. What there *is* is a correlation between MBTI scores and scores on hard scientific tests such as the NEO-PIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 Im sorry to say there IS NOT scientific validity.  
 see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7450/1244
 this contains a detailed analysis.  There is a lot more
 LookingGlass (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get some "balance" into this article. At present it reads like a magazine review and provides worthy citations that do not however corroborate the content. In fact the first citation I followed refuted not only the statement which it was purpoted to support, but also the surrounding material and article in general. Whilst it is true that there have been studies that purport to support the validity of the model these have been consistently criticised and debunked in peer reviewed publications etc and through randomised testing. The MBPTI is in effect a "fringe medicine" tool, which, while it may be very interesting has no scientific foundation. It has gained popularity in the same way as astrology, numerology etc have and in business arenas it has been latcxhed onto through a marriage of academic ignorance and the need to justify human resource management strategies. Consequently IMHO it is the result of pseudo-scientific methodologies and should be treated with great caution in the same way as other human classification instrumensta have been and should continue to be. LookingGlass (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to get some balance into the article, then may I suggest that you edit the article to include reliable, verifiable sources for the criticisms you refer to? Or do you prefer to dispute the theory without providing evidence to support your assertions? There are numerous references throughout the article to criticisms of the MBTI, both the instrument itself and the theory behind it (including the discussion you note above, which provides arguments both for and against the instrument's validity). But if some studies support the validity of the instrument and some studies don't, the best the article can do is report both, which it does. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me reiterate that criticism of the instrument must be properly supported by reliable, verifiable sources. Weasel-worded statements like "the accuracy is disputed" have no place in an encyclopedic article. Who disputes it? Based on what evidence? Also, 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. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I dispute it. And so will the neurologist who proves one day, beyond doubt, that thinking is judging, PERIOD.
The destiny of inconsistent logic is abolition. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Neither Myers' theory nor this article dispute the assertion that thinking is judging. But the reason that Nobel prize winners, for instance, tend to be perceiving types is that they keep gathering data long after judging types are ready to reach a conclusion and move on. Myers' use of judging and perceiving (in terms of the type scale) relates to closed-endedness (judgment) vs. open-endedness (perception), NOT whether the type's best and most-used function is a judging or a perceiving function. You can disagree with it if you like, but the article is an accurate representation of Myers' theory. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think most people would agree that this personality type stuff is a bunch of baloney. --173.52.152.3 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Especially considering that the article has a heading "Applications" that has practically nothing under it. Richard K. Carson (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This page describes Jung's foundation as starting with rational vs irrational, though Jung's Psychological Types shows this:

  • Two perceiving functions: Sensation and Intuition
  • Two judging functions: Thinking and Feeling

Either way, he shows different thought: emotion and analysis (or sense and rationality). We all do both, but to varying degrees--I think this would be exceptionally easy to support with your own study where you live! The sub-categories logically follow, IMHO.

I would question how it holds up under evolutionary models, and how it would show up under fMRI. (The past couple of years have seen imaging unite FASD, ADHD, SZ, and dementia therapies.) I have a receptor/preceptor component that leads the other thought-process components such as analysis, and especially emotionally-intelligent response. But the mind co-processes to an apparently infinite degree. (A key memory module is olfactory, and is attached to the lymbic (emotional) systems, so what does that tell us?) Jung and the Briggs don't say one polar trait is better than another, just that people tend to one or the other as in left- and right-handedness. I think an evolutionary model would support a tendency for a person to develop whichever trait is best supported by underlying neurology with influence from the environment and mentors.

People with better sensing neural constructs might tend to the arts, for instance, and people with better analysis neural constructs might tend to lab science. Something like that, but greatly expanded to account for all the strengths of the mind--which are many! If you can accept this, then the Jung/Briggs model is valid, it just does not yet have the benefit of imaging, and other new "instruments," including evolutionary concepts, to help it evolve.--John Bessa (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of hyphen in article name

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a publication, spelled with a hyphen, not an en dash. It's trademarked with the hyphen. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Role variant articles

I think that the articles for the individual role variants should be merged into those of the MBTI types they represent. I'm aware that the role variant analyses weren't part of the original MBTI, but the articles really have a lot of overlap. Tezero (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be merged too, there is too much overlap. --Aronoel (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section seems to be a POV fork

I don't think the criticism section is necessary at all in this article, and I believe it serves as a POV fork. Why is it necessary to have the section "Reliability" under "criticism"? It can neutrally present the facts and discussions about the test's reliability without categorizing it all as opposition to Myers-Briggs. And also, why is "skepticism" its own section outside of "criticism"? I will try and re-organize this section to eliminate any POV fork issues. --Aronoel (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The subsections of the criticism section are as they are for a reason. There are multiple problems with the instrument, and each of the major problems is addressed under a subheading. There is a very broad base of scientific and academic support for these critical views of the MBTI. Each subsection started with a general statement of the nature of that particular criticism, then followed up with peer-reviewed references.
I agree that there are some problems with this section, particularly that the "Skepticism" section should be merged with "Criticism." But as the article currently stands, the majority describes the instrument and the ideas behind it. There needs to be a consensus before the whole section is dropped, so I have restored it. Wilford Nusser (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wilford, you've said in your edit summary that the Criticism section is "less than a tenth of the article". How did you arrive at that conclusion? The figures show that the article is 61k long and the Criticism section is 12k long. So that would make it about 20% of the article. Johnfos (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than arguing over percentages, let's take another approach. Search Google Scholar for "Myers Briggs Type Indicator" and, omitting publications by those with an obvious conflict of interest (i.e., the ones who MAKE MONEY from it), take a look at the nature of recent peer-reviewed material related to this instrument. The first (McCrea and Costa. Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 1989) addresses the lack of dichotomy in preferences and conclude "the data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI." The second (Gardner and Martinko. Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 1996) addresses the "limitations of research on psychological types" and "advocates: (1) the exploration of potential psychometric refinements of the MBTI, (2) more rigorous research designs, and (3) a broadening of the scope of managerial research into type." The third (Pittenger. The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 1993) concludes that "a review of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenets of and claims about the utility of the test."
My point is that there is a clear academic majority who assesses that the MBTI comes up short against the claims made for it. To call this a POV fork is like saying climate change is a "POV fork." The majority of the article covers the type indicator and the theory behind it, but the article would be incomplete without discussing in reasonable detail the scientific assessment of its value. So I retract my "one-tenth" obvious tongue-in-cheek hyperbole in the edit summary (you will note that fraction never appears in my content above), but stand by the rationale for restoration of the section. Wilford Nusser (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the criticism and skepticism sections dominate the article and unbalance it. I would suggest that they be cut down to about half of their current length, to about 10% of the article. If this is not possible then a POV tag should be added at the top of the article. Johnfos (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing the criticism section with me. Of course I agree that this article needs to have a scientific assessment of the test's value, I just think having that assessment under "criticism" is unnecessary and gives the impression that it is a subjective point of view and not scientific consensus. For example, the article Homeopathy has a section called "evidence", which covers a lot of major criticism of homeopathy, but it doesn't need to be under the category "criticism" because an objective discussion of evidence does not have to be labeled as one side of a debate between two equal points of view. That's what I meant when I said that this section is a POV fork.
So I do think the content in the criticism section should be completely retained, and just should be under neutrally-titled sections like "validity" or "evidence". Also, after reading Wilford Nusser's comments, I wonder if maybe the content in the criticism section needs to be given more weight, (for example, by rewording "The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism" to "The MBTI as a psychometric instrument is not statisically valid.") --Aronoel (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Under the "Reverted Edits" heading above, the precedents on Wikipedia for criticism sections have already been discussed. It is pretty standard on Wikipedia to have criticisms conveniently collected under one heading in the article, rather than scattered throughout. This is especially true on subjects which have been exposed to a considerable amount of criticism (e.g. Windows Vista, PNAC). This has a couple of advantages, including easing research by individuals who may be interested in specific criticisms of a topic. It further avoids giving the entire article a debate-like tone, and improves the flow of the article by allowing related ideas to remain connected in consecutive sentences or paragraphs, without a series of intervening "howevers."
I am not completely opposed to removing this section, if the material can be reworked into the article in a way that avoids these problems. This would require a substantial rewrite, though. I'm also not opposed to changing the title of the Criticism section to avoid the possible negative connotations this word carries, but such a solution is merely cosmetic and would not address any underlying POV fork issues (if they exist, which I tend to doubt.) Wilford Nusser (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that a lot of articles use criticism sections, but my understanding is that there is sometimes disagreement on Wikipedia on how appropriate it is to separate out critical views from the rest of the article. Regardless, I think it's not very useful here, (and maybe even problematic, as I've argued previously) because neutral section titles like "validity" are clear enough to indicate where critical and scientific commentaries are going to be located. Just like in Homeopathy, it's easy to know that "evidence" contains critical views.
It will take a little work, but I think the following changes would help resolve what I still believe is a POV fork and just improve this article in general: 1. removing the heading "criticism" and leaving the other section titles to stand on their own, 2. integrating the section "skepticism" into other appropriate sections with criticism, 3. combining the sections "statistical structure" and "validity", maybe using a subsection (statistical structure is related to the test's validity), 4. possibly adding the content of "origins of the theory", with some rewording, to both "historical development" and "validity", 5. Removing sources with a conflict of interest (do they count as RS?)
Sorry to write so much. I will try and perform these changes myself one at a time, please let me know what you think, especially regarding the sources with conflict of interest. --Aronoel (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Info in lead about "other studies"

Hey ThreeOfCups, when I wrote in my edit "although other studies have shown the statistical validity, reliability, and utility as a job predictor to be low", it was supposed to refer to the other studies cited in the sections validity, reliability, and utility, not the ones cited earlier in the sentence. --Aronoel (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but you also deleted the part about the supporting studies having found variation, which is important. The part you added is already suggested in the lead and found in more detail in the article. If you really feel it's necessary to repeat the information in the lead, please do so without removing the caveat about the supporting studies. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll leave the caveat in, but I still think the information about studies not supporting the MBTI should definitely be in the lead, since the only studies mentioned are supportive of the MBTI. --Aronoel (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead currently contains the sentence, 'Some academic psychologists have criticized the MBTI instrument, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data"', then cites four studies supporting that claim. That's why I think the information you added, which summarizes information found elsewhere in the article, is unnecessary. ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I see now what you're referring to, but I don't think "some psychologists claim that..." is really the same as "some studies have found that..." --Aronoel (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Main Photo

does anyone agree with me that considering this is a page on 'myers-briggs type indicator' that the picture should be of myers or briggs as opposed to Jung?

here's one: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/univ1011/Modules/13_MBTI/IsabelBriggsMyers.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/univ1011/Modules/13_MBTI/13_MBTI.htm&usg=__JmiTA9WMyDgfiHzTT0aYnIE4Mj0=&h=184&w=130&sz=4&hl=en&start=0&sig2=dVq-27-QBPVKjd1SbIqjWA&zoom=1&tbnid=Ru6GamPlx3JlEM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=104&ei=G_TbTJaqK8qwhAem8Nn-Dw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Disabel%2Bbriggs%2Bmyers%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1281%26bih%3D680%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=328&vpy=162&dur=3134&hovh=147&hovw=104&tx=66&ty=74&oei=G_TbTJaqK8qwhAem8Nn-Dw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

109.157.211.105 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no public domain photos of Isabel Myers. The image you refer to is sourced from a site operated by the Myers family, so without information suggesting that the photo is public domain, I wouldn't assume that it is. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's a problem that Carl Jung is depicted on this page, instead of Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Has anyone contacted the Myers & Briggs Foundation to ask permission to use the image? If not, I'd be willing to contact them. (Let me know before 8/8/11 if someone's already gotten in touch with them. If not, I'll try to do it that week). Designmary (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've contacted the Myers & Briggs Foundation to see if they know of a photo in the public domain we could use, or would be able to provide us permission. I'll let you know when I hear back. (I also changed the title of this section of the Discussion page to "Main Photo" to ease confusion.Designmary (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of dominant and auxiliary functions

As a certified MBTI administrator, allow me to offer a (hopefully!) clearer explanation of each type's dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant function is a reflection of two factors: the type's preference 1) for closure/decisiveness (Judging) or for spontaneity/leaving one's options open (Perceiving) and 2) for internal reflection (Introversion) or for external interaction (Extraversion) as the primary source of decision-making, whether these processes are objective/abstract principle (i.e., Thinking preference)-based or subjective/interpersonal criteria (Feeling preference)-based. It's the particular combination of both aspects of the type that determines the dominant vs. auxiliary function - a two-step interpretatation process.

Step 1: Does the type have a Judding or Perceiving preference? If has a Judging preference, by default, the "direction" of the type's decision-making preferences (whether Thinking- or Feeling-oriented) is extraverted; thus, an INTJ (a "Judging" type) has an extraverted Thinking function. Conversely, for types with a Perceiving preference, the decision-making (Thinking/Feeling) processes are introverted and the information intake/interpretation function (iNtuitive or Sensing) is extraverted - thus, an ENTP (a "Perceiving" type) has an introverted Thinking and an extraverted iNtuitive function.

Step 2: Does the type have an overall Introverted or Extraverted preference? If Introverted (all "I" types, as in "I"STJ, "I"NFP, etc), the type's introverted function will be his/her dominant one. As explained above, for "J's" this will be the information intakefunction(iNtuition (N) or Sensing (S)) while for "P's" it's the type's decision-making (Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)) function. For "Extraverts" on the other hand the opposite is the case: the extraverted, not the introverted, function is the dominant one, which will again be either "T" or "F" for those with a "J" preference and "N" or "S" for those with a "P" preference.

If this all sounds very complicated, it's because it is. While I appreciate the article's efforts to simplify the explanation, unfortunately, in so doing, too much necessary detail was lost, so that the distinction made between the dominant and auxiliary functions is very nearly meaningless. Perhaps some kind of compromise between the long-windedness of my explanation and the excessive brevity of the article's would resolve the problem? I'd be very happy to work on a slimmed down explanation with someone else's help. Please advise if interesteds. Thanks! Jsdmbtifan (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Assignment" of the trademark

In the last paragraph of the initial overview: " the registered trademark rights to the terms Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI have been assigned from the publisher to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust". How is the "from" meant? Was it a transfer of the rights from CPP to the trust?Svato (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Jung pic

We now have a great many pictures of Carl Jung here. I particularly dislike the current one with its painted-on color and grand photo of that vine, but I don't find any other one especially appealing, either. I cropped and desaturated the current one File:Jung_1910-cropped.jpg, but there are many other good ones. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the photo, either, but I have no confidence that the others at that link are in the public domain. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose replacing the hyphen with an endash, per WP:ENDASH. The article would be moved to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, currently a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a publication. The publication is spelled with a hyphen, not an en dash. I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the proper use of they en dash. Normally, a hyphen is used to join terms. The en dash is used in a small percentage of exceptions. You might want to consider consulting The Chicago Manual of Style for a more thorough explanation.
Thank you, ThreeOfCups, for clarifying that the name is a publication. I expected that it might be trademarked with the hyphen. There is, however, no need for me to "consider" consulting the Chicago or even the Oxford manual of style. We have at Wikipedia a global mission, and our manual of style, available at WP:MOS, is a compromise or amalgamated position—I need go no further. To your point, though, Myers–Briggs is exactly one of those "small percentage" of cases where the endash is indicated, absent such circumstances as trademark name or purposeful choice of hyphen by originator. Binksternet (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I pointed you to CMOS because I assumed you had already checked the WP:MOS. The WP:MOS indicates that the en dash should be used for disjunction, and the hyphen for conjunction. "Myers-Briggs" is a conjunction. The WP:MOS is incomplete on this subject, and needs more examples to clarify the difference. The CMOS, by contrast, does a very good job. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the pointers. I'm checking out of this article as it is good hands. Binksternet (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For the record, Myers-Briggs is a disjunction really (confer James–Lange theory). The real reason why it should be written with a hyphen is that it is trademarked this way; confer Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive functions on some Myers-Briggs types

Could someone who is an expert, or who knows a good deal about the cognitive functions check out the order (for ex., dominant; auxiliary..) of the cognitive functions on each of the Myers-Briggs types. I'd do it myself, but I don't know enough about it to know that my hunch is 100% right. I suspect that it isn't in the right order (on a lot of them in fact). Could someone please check it out? Thanks. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you be specific about what your concerns are? I don't want to go on a wild goose chase. Are you referring to this article? To the articles for the specific types? I believe the order in the articles for the specific types are all correct. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The articles I'm referring to are the MBTI types proper (ex. ISTJ; I believe this one is in the wrong order). For example, in ISTJ it lists the dominant cognitive function as introverted sensing, if the way they orient themselves to the external world is Judging, shouldn't the dominant cognitive function be introverted thinking? I'm just going by what it says in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Judgment vs. perception. So either that section is wrong or that article describing the type itself is wrong. And trust me, you're not gonna go on a wild goose chase; there's plenty MBTI type articles that seem to have this wrong. There's plenty to choose from. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 02:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The articles are correct. Your understanding is wrong. As this article states, "For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function." Introverts use their dominant function with their internal world. They use their auxiliary function with the external world. Therefore, since ISTJs use their judging function—thinking—with the external world, extraverted thinking is in the auxiliary position, and introverted sensing is in the dominant position. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious does it say in this article (that is the article that this discussion is on..), or does it explain how thinking is extraverted? If so, in which section. I'm not trying to one up you; I'm just curious for my own study. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 05:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm all confused; what section explains clearly how the dominant function is arrived at? Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 05:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I scanned the articles. And now I get it (sort of). Wow! I get it in one second, and then it goes away. That's a really complicated model. You have to almost be a genius to understand it. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 05:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, its not that complicated. Thanks for clarifying. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 06:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I "have" to throw a spanner in the works here, late in the day, as the idea that MBTI provides some sort of definitive crystal ball onto human nature is very far from the truth. MBTI is an extended assumption loosely founded upon a model that Jung came up with. Cognition is a concept not something real. The word and its definition change subtly but significantly between users, as between Jung and the Briggs, so there is no "answer" as there is no clear question. However, there seems little evidence that MBTI, or any other typology of character, has much substance (e.g. see Validity section of the article), but as far as I can see such typologies have historically generally done more harm than good in clinical settings, and I am unconvinced of their ethical benefits in other settings. 84.250.130.175 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotation correction re bimodality findings

Under the Validity section of the article there is a reference to a paper by Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001) given at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego 2001. After the main reference to this there is an additional quote that read:

Nevertheless, "the absence of bimodal score distributions does not necessarily prove that the 'type'-based approach is incorrect."

I was fascinated by this as the absence of bi-modality is fundamental to the argument that people can be "sorted" through bi-modality. Reading the paper I found that the quotation being cited was not only incorrectly quoted but was entirely misleading. I have therefore replaced it with the slightly longer but correct one:

Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers’ theory-based assumption of categorical “types” of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to “type” advocates to cite in defense of their position.

The level of proof being referred to as absent is not described. I imagine the comment is added as a professional courtesy to a highly invested and emotionally charged area. The absence of bi-modality in the statistics is not so much a disproof of a theory as a demonstration that none is required. MBTI is an "assumption" which, from the data appears has yet to be proved. The paper does not introduce any doubt as to the relevance of the absence of bimodality in the statistical results. It states categorically it seems to me that there is no evidence of bimodality. Bimodality is the central tenet of MBTI, not of Jung.
LookingGlass (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As LookingGlass points out, bimodality is a not central to the theory of psychological type put forth by Jung. However, it is also not a "central tenet" of the MBTI either, although it is a goal of the MBTI to minimize error of measurement at the cut score on each of the four preference scales. Some have hypothesized that if the MBTI is a satisfactory indicator of type—and if Jungian type is a useful psychological model—that scores should be bimodal. For example, one scale on the MBTI attempts to identify whether a person prefers Introversion or Extraversion. The MBTI does this by estimating an underlying continuous trait score and classifying people who score below a cut score as Extraverts and above that score as Introverts.
In fact, it would be surprising to find anything more than weak bimodality at best on the four MBTI scales when administering it to a general population of people. This is because even if the underlying type theory is correct, the preferences themselves are not categorical. Indeed, the Bess & Harvey (2001) study design itself was not an optimal way to test the limited issue it focused on: the impact of the number of quadrature points on the results of an earlier study by Harvey that suggested bimodality. A better design would have included a larger sample of different numbers of quadrature points. I suspect the study was not accepted in a peer-reviewed journal because of its flaws, and the authors chose not to pursue the line of research further.
For those who believe failure to demonstrate bimodality is a serious stake in the heart of the case of the validity of the MBTI in identifying psychological type, I want to suggest a more fruitful approach to gathering convincing evidence. Sufficient numbers of people representing each of the 16 types (e.g., 30 or more) whose types have been verified independently of the MBTI (e.g., having participants select their "best-fit" type after reading about the 16 types before taking the MBTI or before receiving the results). The score distributions for each type would be compared across each of the four preference scales. For example, to support the validity of the MBTI, the extraverted types and introverted types would have distinct distributions of extraverted/introverted preference scores, with substantially different mean preference scores for the eight extraverted types vs. the eight introverted types. The MBTI, like any psychometric measure, will have some measurement error. Therefore, some extraverts will fall in the introvert range, and vice versa. However, we would expect—if the MBTI does what it purports to do—the overlap between the two distributions to be relatively small. The study design I suggest is much more difficult and expensive to implement than those previously undertaken to look at overlap, but it would provide stronger evidence on which to draw conclusions about the validity of the inferences that may be drawn from the MBTI.--Drbb01 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Care Needed When Concluding Research on Obsolete MBTI Forms Still Relevant

One difficulty with citing research on psychometric measures is that some of the findings will generalize easily to revised forms but some will not. For example (and this is just one), the article cites Pittenger (1993): "However, some researchers examining the proportions of each type within varying professions report that the proportion of MBTI types within each occupation is close to that within a random sample of the population.[15]" I will not attempt to support or refute whether Pittenger's conclusion was correct in 1993. Any research studies that supported this conclusion, however, used now-obsolete forms of the MBTI. In 1998, the MBTI underwent a major revision, including adopting a completely new psychometric model (a 3-parameter logistic IRT model replaced a classical test theory model) to both select items and score the instrument. Therefore, Pittenger's conclusion, which may or may not have been true in 1993, cannot be assumed true after 1998. Indeed, in 2008 the MBTI publisher, CPP, released (not cheap @ $99.00 US), "MBTI® Type Tables for Occupations," which includes type tables for more than 200 occupations. The self-selection ratios (the proportions of the 16 types within each occupation divided by the proportions of each estimated type within the general population) are far from random and are consistent with reasonable expectations (e.g., SSRs for INFP in counseling and clinical psychology are very high, but very low for accounting).

Because research results based on old or obsolete forms of tests and measures may no longer apply when they undergo significant revisions--as the MBTI did in 1998--articles like the one for the MBTI require careful monitoring and revision to account for such revisions. I am not proposing wholesale elimination of citations to past research; I believe wording can be changed to emphasize the now-historical nature of that research and the conclusions, with an indication about whether similar conclusions can yet be drawn--or refuted--on the current forms. When revisions are minor or cosmetic (e.g., rewording a few items to conform to changes in language usage), such rewording may not be necessary. But in cases like that of the substantial 1998 revisions to the MBTI (now Form M), the credibility of the article depends on communicating that changes to the measure require additional research to confirm or refute many of the conclusions that were based on obsolete forms.Drbb01 (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Two points - (1) try and avoid original research, you need to be very careful trying to be the arbiter between what previous research is relevant and what is out of date, (2) given that the published correspondence between Form M and Form G is 60% (similar to the test-retest correspondence of the MBTI) it is unlikely that Form M and previous versions differ massively (and theoretically unlikely that they would as the switch from the old scoring system to IRT is only a slight change in emphasis of different items, not a wholesale change in underlying model). --Coroebus 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Inclusion of MBTI but not Socionics on Wikipedia CD? == Explain how that is fair. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity Types

Celebrity Types is indeed a notable site; it has been mentioned by name in The Washington Post as well as referenced in BBC News Magazine (not by name, but by description). The site deserves mention in some form, as does the practice of typing others since it was done by both Jung and Myers. If you disagree, please state why.

As for your second point, you are right that Jung did not use the letters. The proper terms should be used instead. Thanks, --Nightbraker 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see anything about this website which in any way makes it notable or deserving mentioning. There are numerous popular MBTI sites of this kind on the Internet and such sites are normally avoided in articles and not referred to or used for references. We know nothing about the credentials of the people behind this website. Just being mentioned in non-scholarly media articles isn't sufficient to establish notability. Also, the way in which you called it "notable" is a common trick by spammers to cunningly promote websites in articles. I doubt that this was your intention but the effect is still the same.
Some information on the issues concerning the speculative typing of other people along the lines of what you wrote would be appropriate but there would also need to be more precise references to support the comments. Afterwriting (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Consistency between the sub articles

I've noticed that the sub articles (e.g. ISTJ, ESTP) all list the individual traits of that specific personality differently.

For example, notice that the begging of the page ISTJ is "ISTJ (introversion, sensing, thinking, judgment)"

The page for ISFJ begins with "ISFJ (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging)" (note capital letters, no bold)

Some even have links. I think since these pages are directly related, we should have a standard way for writing the beginning. My only problem is that I can't decide which way to write it out. Thoughts? --Jdc1197 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the subarticles should be merged into one article. They have a lot of duplicate information (most of the second section, for instance, seems to be shared across all the articles) and are about extremely similar topics. Thoughts? Turdas (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ersatz Test

Almost no casual reader is going to pay actual money to take the MBTI, I think an example of what the test is actually like is extremely relevant and useful even if it is a knockoff. Thoughts? —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Any "knockoff" isn't the MBTI and has no place anywhere in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And, for your information, the "psychology-tools.com" website is a self-published website which appears to include copyright violations. On both of these grounds it cannot be included anywhere in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 16 pairs of articles

I'm referring to the most predictable 16 pairs given that there are 16 of them. For example, I don't see why Architect (role variant) has to be distinct from INTP, my type. The articles contain basically the same content. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy mistake

Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

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

I'm pretty sure the second paragraph has been copy-and-pasted from the first and the "extraverted thinking" and "introverted intuition" need to be changed (possibly also the feeling/extraverted sensing). However, I don't know enough about this topic to do this with certainty.

82.70.214.206 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

myers briggs trademark infringement

Hello, i know myers briggs and MBTI are trademarks. But is "Briggs Myers" trademark infringement as well?

thanks for answer 112.210.56.115 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

CPP

What is it? The TLA is used twice in the article, neither time says what it stands for. Huw Powell (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the first use in the text and indicated the acronym properly. Huw Powell (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Misspelled word

The word is spelled extroversion (extrovert, etc.) not extraversion.

17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.219.219 (talk)

Check dictionaries of psychology. The APA dictionary prefers the spelling with "a" in the prefix, and most general dictionaries note that that is the spelling in psychological literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Different Pittenger sources

There were two definitions of the reference name "Pittenger", one referring to a 1993 publication, and the other to a 2005 publication. I differentiated them between "Pittenger1993" and "Pittenger2005", checked the former and removed those references that I could not find there. Possibly they are in the other publication. I may also have overlooked some.

Some details:

  1. I let reference g (after "between 39% and 76%") stand, even though the article does not give that range, saying instead "as many as 50 percent".
  2. The statement "The different scales are correlated, and not independent as claimed." does not fit under the headline "Reliability, so I removed it. (The 1993 source does mention correlation among factors, but does not make the case that there is a problem.) If that can be sourced, it would better fit in the "Correlates" section. — Sebastian 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to mention any criticisms in the lead?

This article has a largish criticisms section: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Criticism

Do we want to reflect any of that in the lead?

In January, the lead included the sentence "Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor validity and reliability." with three references.

I expanded this to say "Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor validity (it does not measure what it purports to measure) and poor reliability (it will give different results for the same person on different occasions). The four scales used in MBTI have some correlation with four of the Big Five personality traits, which are still controversial, but more widely accepted than MBTI."

This last bit was a summary of Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Big Five.

On the 29th of February, the text was removed by IP 63.229.212.167, citing information provided with the MBTI.

If we don't want to reflect any criticisms in the lead, perhaps we need to change our criticisms sections (or perhaps we need to both change the criticism section and reflect some of it in the lead).

Yaris678 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response to the above, so I've brought back the text mentioning criticisms in the lead.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

More detail about how the test was developed?

Perhaps the development of the Myers-Briggs test was mostly subjective, but the current article does say "From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test construction, scoring, validation, and statistical methods.[1]", What were the scoring, validation, and statistical methods used by Hay?

It would be useful to explain how a test using Hay's methods was developed and to say how this compares to the methods used to develop other personality tests. For example, I speculate that one method of developing a "personality test" would be to find a set of questions and a method of scoring the answers such that the test effectively divides a large sample of people into distinct categories and then have clinical psychologists examine the test subjects and classify (perhaps through interviews) the traits common to people who fall in the same category. Is that what Briggs and Briggs-Myers did? Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Falsifiability

I removed the sentence "Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability,[citation needed] where every possible outcome can be interpreted in support of a theory." A quick search on Google Scholar for Myers+Briggs+falsifiability reveals, near the top of the results, an article critical of the MBTI that says exactly the opposite about falsifiability: Pittenger, David J. (2005). "Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" (PDF). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 57 (3): 210–221. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210. The strong theoretical background of the MBTI affords many falsifiable hypotheses regarding the psychometric properties of the MBTI results. The MBTI has many problems, but nonfalsifiability does not appear to be one of them, unless others can find reliable sources stating otherwise. Biogeographist (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"They" in the History section

Late sentence in second graph references "they" but there appears to be only a single antecedent (Briggs). I didn't want to change it, though, in case I'm either misreading it, or there is supposed to, in fact, be another person referenced that someone might want to insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3F48:8300:59E9:C369:BCD7:ED93 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a title above your comment as I believe you are referring to the History section.
"They" would most obviously refer to both Briggs and Myers... but the sentences before and after indicate to me that it refers just to Briggs. Perhaps we should change it from "they" to "Briggs".
Yaris678 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator/Archive_3&oldid=1137030179"