It's a bit of a shame that the article goes about the history instead of the science. Personality is something that psychologists study, but they use the five-factor model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
One big problem preventing the five factor model from catching on is that the five factor model seems to have value judgements built in (agreeableness friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached seems to imply that it is a good thing, so a lack of it would be bad), whereas MBTI makes both ends of the spectrum sound positive (in Thinking vs Feeling, Thinking sounds equally good, vs challenging/detached).
Another facet is that MBTI assumes bimodal distributions, but as a result they can come up with catchy characters like "The Debater" and "The Entertainer" which five-factor doesn't do.
As a result, people tend to talk MBTI, even among folks who know about the five factor model, just because it's easier. It has some amount of predictive power, much better than a horoscope or tarot cards or blood type or astrology, and the reality is that people talk about that stuff all the time.
Yeah, the big five personality traits fall apart just as easily if you start factoring in evil, yet productive activities.
How does moral relativism play into being agreeable, organized, curious, confident and outgoing? An enterprising individual interested in hooking as many people as possible on heroin? A strong individual that leads Germany out of the economic peril of crushing war debt?
Being superficially agreeable, and conscientious, yet knowingly sabotaging the people you agree with, to their face? Or maybe agreeing with some people, but not with you? Outgoing, but only when met by individuals that meet certain criteria? Curious and inventive, when torturing animals? Organized, while incarcerating inmates in a private prison?
Sounds like a great recipe for being productive at work, just so long as you don't think to deeply about the work being done.
It doesn’t only need to be dominant, sociopathic traits expressed as the positive aspects of The Big Five trait combinations.
You can be confindent in your own humility, dignified while on a dog leash. Open to eating another performer’s feces on a livestreamed webcam feed. Curious about intraveinously shooting speedballs. Organized, about giving away your life savings to a casino. Outgoing, in search of satisfying abuse at the hands of a talented mistress with a bullwhip, or while looking for more furry pals to engage in daiper play with.
This article is laughable. Knocking the developers by saying Myers and Briggs had no training is akin to knocking the first powered flight by saying Orville and Wilbur Wright had no training.
It's not difficult to imagine evolution has discovered a way to segregate us into different personalities for the advantage to form cohesive social groups with specializations for survival. Who hasn't observed the difference between introvert and extravert in their own interactions? Is it a stretch to envision a couple more dichotomies exist?
Ask people to answer questions that will sort them into 16 bins and isn't it logical to assume those bins might have traits in common?
There are plenty of problems with MBTI and by all means, develop a better science. I tend to characterize people into their MBTI type in order to better interact with them. I find it useful and understandable, even predictive. Parlor trick? Perhaps, but on a couple of occasions now, I've accurately predicted a new friend's MBTI type simply by observing them and then having them take the test to confirm. You then have a useful basic mental model of them.
Unfortunately, while I can fly in a 777 nearly halfway around the world now due in part to the Wrights, there is no personality tool 777 equivalent.
The "Straight Dope" took a stab at characterizing the Myers-Briggs test [1]. They found the test lacked validity except it has a slight correlation (by accident) with one of the big five dimensions.
5 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 26.7 ms ] threadOne big problem preventing the five factor model from catching on is that the five factor model seems to have value judgements built in (agreeableness friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached seems to imply that it is a good thing, so a lack of it would be bad), whereas MBTI makes both ends of the spectrum sound positive (in Thinking vs Feeling, Thinking sounds equally good, vs challenging/detached).
Another facet is that MBTI assumes bimodal distributions, but as a result they can come up with catchy characters like "The Debater" and "The Entertainer" which five-factor doesn't do.
As a result, people tend to talk MBTI, even among folks who know about the five factor model, just because it's easier. It has some amount of predictive power, much better than a horoscope or tarot cards or blood type or astrology, and the reality is that people talk about that stuff all the time.
How does moral relativism play into being agreeable, organized, curious, confident and outgoing? An enterprising individual interested in hooking as many people as possible on heroin? A strong individual that leads Germany out of the economic peril of crushing war debt?
Being superficially agreeable, and conscientious, yet knowingly sabotaging the people you agree with, to their face? Or maybe agreeing with some people, but not with you? Outgoing, but only when met by individuals that meet certain criteria? Curious and inventive, when torturing animals? Organized, while incarcerating inmates in a private prison?
Sounds like a great recipe for being productive at work, just so long as you don't think to deeply about the work being done.
You can be confindent in your own humility, dignified while on a dog leash. Open to eating another performer’s feces on a livestreamed webcam feed. Curious about intraveinously shooting speedballs. Organized, about giving away your life savings to a casino. Outgoing, in search of satisfying abuse at the hands of a talented mistress with a bullwhip, or while looking for more furry pals to engage in daiper play with.
It's not difficult to imagine evolution has discovered a way to segregate us into different personalities for the advantage to form cohesive social groups with specializations for survival. Who hasn't observed the difference between introvert and extravert in their own interactions? Is it a stretch to envision a couple more dichotomies exist?
Ask people to answer questions that will sort them into 16 bins and isn't it logical to assume those bins might have traits in common?
There are plenty of problems with MBTI and by all means, develop a better science. I tend to characterize people into their MBTI type in order to better interact with them. I find it useful and understandable, even predictive. Parlor trick? Perhaps, but on a couple of occasions now, I've accurately predicted a new friend's MBTI type simply by observing them and then having them take the test to confirm. You then have a useful basic mental model of them.
Unfortunately, while I can fly in a 777 nearly halfway around the world now due in part to the Wrights, there is no personality tool 777 equivalent.
[1]https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2922/does-the-myer...