Why personality type tests cannot be reliable

[edge walker]

Because what they do is akin to deciding whether a car has automatic or manual transmission by looking at footage of how it accelerates.

(This is just a one-liner because I'm posting it so I won't forget it. I thought it might be interesting to others beside me.)

[Jynweythek]

There's something called notepad.exe and email, you know.

[Shadowlogical]

It's better than deciding whether a car has automatic or manual transmission by looking at the color of the paint job.

And yeah dude. The forum ain't yo personal note pad mutha ***a

[edge walker]

You found it interesting enough to comment.

And yes, absolutely. This is not about the validity of typology, mind. I'm just talking about why tests cannot be authoritative, only informative.

[Diophantes]

Though, the MBTI is fairly reliable, at least over a medium time span. The term reliable is here denoting that subsequent tests will yield the same result. It does have difficulty with those that are located near the origin along a trait axis, but even with those individuals the results are still reproducible over the medium term.

Note: medium term is used to refer to the time span of 1-4 years.

[peterk]

No personality test can be authoritive because we can't be sure the test is measuring what we think it's measuring. As for the MBTI maybe their are more than 16 types, maybe less, or maybe none at all.

[gr8ness97]

Because what they do is akin to deciding whether a car has automatic or manual transmission by looking at footage of how it accelerates.

(This is just a one-liner because I'm posting it so I won't forget it. I thought it might be interesting to others beside me.)

Maybe you should look at the pedals. :p

[Resonance]

I think you need a brake pedal for your personality, there, gr8ness97

[gr8ness97]

Do explain.

[Resonance]

I see we are at an impasse.

[stuck]

I have a one-liner to describe Russel Crowe:

"he's a good guy...but a BAD BOY"

[Resonance]

No personality test can be authoritive because we can't be sure the test is measuring what we think it's measuring. As for the MBTI maybe their are more than 16 types, maybe less, or maybe none at all.

the test is measuring exactly what we think it's measuring, which is how people perceive themselves within a 4-dimensional binary.

[gr8ness97]

I see we are at an impasse.

lol

[Anonymous]

Self-report tests are unreliable in general.

[manza]

Self-report tests are unreliable in general.

Isn't MBTI supposed to represent preference?

[Resonance]

yes. I don't know what he's on about. :3

[Spy_with the Eye_of]

Because what they do is akin to deciding whether a car has automatic or manual transmission by looking at footage of how it accelerates.

(This is just a one-liner because I'm posting it so I won't forget it. I thought it might be interesting to others beside me.)

Interesting comparison... Im curious though as to what degree of reliability you're expecting... I don't think the MBTI promises very much yet delivers some interesting insights into the patterns of people. I think what it does is akin to estimating wether or not a driver would prefer a certain terrain or track based on the type of car, engine, tires, ect.

[daseinmind]

I think the reliability of the tests for a typing system is directly proportional to the obviousness of its categories and the level of consensus that those categories are actually dichotomies. Another thing to assess is the usefulness of the test for the purpose you are seeking.

If I had to score MBTI on reliability, I would score it low. I don't think the scales are all necessarily pure dichotomies nor do I think that they are immediately obvious. However, I would score MBTI high on the usefulness scale in terms of the insights those series of categories unveil once you do "get it." It told me things about myself I hadn't considered prior.

Contrast that to Predictive Index (PI). The scales are assertive/unassertive, introverted/extroverted, formal/informal, and patient/impatient. I would score that high in terms of being obvious dichotomies that are easy to identify with. I would score it high for its usefulness towards getting a sense of how a potential new hire may process their workload and engage with coworkers. Certain PI types are better suited for certain types of jobs. But, I would score it low for usefulness beyond that. It only tells me what is already obvious to myself.

[daseinmind]

Sorry for abandoning the car analogy...I thought it was terrible. :)

[jyng1]

I have a one-liner to describe Russel Crowe:

"he's a good guy...but a BAD BOY"

It's like trying to decide if this is due to him being born in Dorkland or brought up in Shitney.

[Who]

The car analogy is kind of terrible. Just how important is knowing whether or not your car is manual or automatic to you? You use only one feature to point out we can't tell, when there are a lot other signs as to whether or not a car is automatic.

As far as trait theory. We use "trait theory" anyway, if you consider the fact that we compare ourselves to other people all the time and define them (and ourselves). Jung's types are very useful in place of more stereotypical systems.

Jung's types and the MBTI has been under development for a long time. A lot of people have developed upon Jung's original theory. Of course it isn't perfect. Human knowledge is never perfect, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it. That's kind of how reasoning works.

[bass_n_treble]

http://www.worldometers.info/

There are 6,829,166,240 personality types currently, give or take.

[Who]

That's true, we can't exactly call trait theory "personalities". My bro and dad are both ISTPs, but they have different personalities. It seems like they have the same general ways of translating information and similar temperament, but they have different interests and slightly different ways of buffering interaction.

[bass_n_treble]

It's fun entertainment--a pseudoscience. The minute someone takes it more seriously than that, you have to wonder...

[Resonance]

to be fair, it's been discovered that many of the traits Jung described are in fact correlated. Real science is a bit more rigorous though.

[jyng1]

It's fun entertainment--a pseudoscience. The minute someone takes it more seriously than that, you have to wonder...

Having just done a paper in quantitative and qualitative research methods in education; the MBTI is far more of a science than education research...

The MBTI is actually a commercial product and a lot of the criticism is that most of the research is done for and by the Consulting Psychologist Press, a commercial organisation. There is also criticism about whether dichotomies actually exist or are actually opposites or whether the functions in reality actually exist on a continuum.

The question of the accuracy of the MBTI as an instrument that actually measures differences in psychological type is a different argument than if Type actually exists, or if there are actual differences between people.

Someone who says that there are 6,000,000,000 different "types" is actually saying they believe in trait based psychological models where personality is measured on a continuum.

Type based models don't actually measure a quantity of something like Introversion, but indicate a preference. This preference implies an individual will share some common characteristics with others of a similar "type".

A "true" science is falsifiable, so I guess there is some difficulty making it a true science until they can get some biological evidence at the neuron level about the processing going on.

It might also be "pop" psychology, but at least it's not boring...

[Resonance]

jyng, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

[bass_n_treble]

Having just done a paper in quantitative and qualitative research methods in education; the MBTI is far more of a science than education research...

The MBTI is actually a commercial product and a lot of the criticism is that most of the research is done for and by the Consulting Psychologist Press, a commercial organisation. There is also criticism about whether dichotomies actually exist or are actually opposites or whether the functions in reality actually exist on a continuum.

The question of the accuracy of the MBTI as an instrument that actually measures differences in psychological type is a different argument than if Type actually exists, or if there are actual differences between people.

Someone who says that there are 6,000,000,000 different "types" is actually saying they believe in trait based psychological models where personality is measured on a continuum.

Type based models don't actually measure a quantity of something like Introversion, but indicate a preference. This preference implies an individual will share some common characteristics with others of a similar "type".

A "true" science is falsifiable, so I guess there is some difficulty making it a true science until they can get some biological evidence at the neuron level about the processing going on.

It might also be "pop" psychology, but at least it's not boring...

Oh, I agree 100%. I just think it's not the end all be all. Certainly my main issue with it is that both the ENTP and INTP profile explain me correctly, but I also get along splendidly with the personality types I'm supposed to hate--ESFJ for instance.

Also, the job suggestions for either of these types don't appeal to me on a work level--I could see them as side projects or hobbies, but anything I've ever been interested in for work outside of Audio Engineering has fallen under the ISFP Artisan profile, heavy right brained creative stuff.

[Resonance]

do a NEO-PIR bassntuna

[Who]

Sometimes we find that science can be heavily influenced by culture and society. Medicine is one of those areas that, despite the fact that people have been dissected and organs have been drawn for centuries, we can't help but notice some are completely wrong to our current understanding.

From a Jung POV, the irrational function of society is what we call human knowledge. It's what we perceive and then make into "knowledge". The rational functions are the decisions we make.

Science and knowledge are always in the process of evolving. If we truly want to have knowledge, we have to question what we know.

It is more dangerous for a society of orthodox views to never question their views, than for some people to take an unorthodox view.

Perhaps you should consider what your comparison is for why personality trait theory cannot be reliable and question those comparisons and standards that are the apparent knowledge you use to judge other systems.

You should also consider whether or not you're taking things out of context, because you clearly are. INTPs aren't suppose to hate anyone. Only take the bones of what the INTP description is, don't add unnecessary junk to it, because that will obscure your view of it.

I'm surprised you didn't come to the conclusion of learning about and then picking this apart yourself.
If you don't find it useful, you shouldn't bother with it, it will be a waste of your time.

[Resonance]

who, do youj realize your reasoning is circular there

[Who]

It's ironic, but isn't it true?

There's the knowledge that is supposedly so widely accepted by people that it stands as objective. But it's actually more like cultural and the understanding of the times. Our knowledge is always evolving to be more correct (hopefully), but there have been times we've been totally wrong or rather, we've completely changed our minds. In sciences, that's theory. There was a point in which the theory of Plate-tectonics had to come around. We regard it as fact now, but it's rather recent in the scheme of science.

From a personal level, if something has any importance I don't understand how people don't question it or tear it apart.

Sometimes I wonder why people don't investigate and why they don't appear to think. That's in general, not necessarily in this particular case.

I guess I just don't get people. I tend to think something like, "make use of useful knowledge and make knowledge that is useful".

[Resonance]

I don't actually have any idea what you're saying because half of your sentences don't parse into anything meaningful and it's impossible to string together the ones that do make sense into anything resembling a thesis.

But your tone is mildly condescending and you seem to be complaining about the lack of rigour in the OP's analysis.

[Who]

Um..... Ooookay.

I didn't have that intention at all. I certainly don't know what "tone" you're "hearing". My apologizes that not only was I apparently confusing, but came off as rude to you. I was just trying to explain what I had written earlier. I don't know how that could be senseless. I'm saying knowledge and science are areas that are always evolving. That's not complicated.

:s

[Resonance]

Oh.

What does that have to do with the OP? XD

[Who]

My reply was not meant to be to the OP, but to this remark:


"It's fun entertainment--a pseudoscience. The minute someone takes it more seriously than that, you have to wonder... "

I want to challenge people to think about things for themselves. That's the simple way of putting it. I made it complicated by not clarifying.

[Deleted a large explanation]

If I weren't so wordy, I'd basically be saying, general knowledge is limited, science is limited, our understand is limited. We have to make the best of it by asking questions of the answers we're expected to accept. I would find it ironic if we're going to say that physical sciences are more absolute than social sciences. If there's a small earthquake on the other side of the world we will get a report on Yahoo news and the rest of our day will be dictated by "pseudoscience".

*The OP was silly and probably didn't even warrant a response.

[mchampagne]

You found it interesting enough to comment.

And yes, absolutely. This is not about the validity of typology, mind. I'm just talking about why tests cannot be authoritative, only informative.

The MBTI testmakers believe it is only 75% accurate. So, to call it authoritative would be a stretch.