View Poll Results: Which is a more accurate personality system for describing people?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • MBTI

    14 70.00%
  • Big 5

    6 30.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: mbti vs. big 5

  1. #1
    Junior Member Array janitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Type
    Posts
    66

    Default mbti vs. big 5

    Quote Originally Posted by AcidGoethe View Post

    http://www.centacs.com/quickstart.htm#Individuals

    Some interesting parts here:

    For three decades, the training community has generally followed the assumptions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which included:

    a four-dimension model,
    bimodal distribution of scores on each dimension,
    sixteen independent types,
    the concept of a primary function determined by Judger/Perceiver preference, and
    a grounding in the personality theory of Carl Jung (1971).

    But new research has pointed to the need for a shift in thinking, to:

    five dimensions of personality,
    a normal distribution of scores on these dimensions,
    an emphasis on individual personality traits (the type concept is gone),
    preferences indicated by strength of score, and
    a model based on experience, not theory.

    Throughout the 1980's and continuing through the present, a plethora of personality researchers have established the Five-Factor Model as the basic paradigm for personality research. Four excellent summaries of this research tradition are Goldberg (1993), Digman (1990), John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988), and McCrae (1992).
    Quote:

    1. The Judgment dimension (Thinking vs. Feeling) is unstable because of its failure to separate negative emotionality from agreeableness. The concept of thinking vs. feeling does not fit isomorphically to the FFM. In order to measure the thinking/feeling supertrait, one would need to piece together several different facet scores from among the thirty facets of the FFM (as defined by Costa and McCrae).

    2. Because the distribution of factor scores is normal and not bimodal, the practice of dichotomizing respondents, for example, into extraverts and introverts, is unjustified. McCrae and Costa prefer speaking of degrees of extraversion. For convenience's sake, we speak of three levels, or regions, in which one might score--extraversion, ambiversion, and introversion.

    3. The Judger/Perceiver preference does not identify one's primary. In fact, assuming, as sound psychometric practice requires, that one's primary function (from among sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling) would be the function with the highest score, then the J/P preference picks the highest function score at a rate no better than chance.

    4. The type concept has no validity. Assuming the integrity of the sixteen four-letter types, one would expect to find consistent correlations among the types and other behavioral measures. This is not the case. Rather than reporting a five-letter type, then, the FFM simply reports five trait scores. Certainly, many behaviors are explained by the combinative effect of two or more FFM traits, such as authoritarian behavior being associated with high N, low O, and low A. We call these behaviors with multi-trait explanations "themes" or interactive effects. The second and third sections in this monograph will discuss such thematic behaviors.

    5. Introspection, or reflection, is not associated with introversion, but rather with the trait called intuition (by the MBTI) or O (by the FFM).

    6. The judgment/perception scale does not measure one's decisiveness, but rather appears to measure one's need for structure.

    7. The definitional problems with the thinker/feeler dimension are many, but they are resolved by adopting the two new dimensions, N and A. A preference for reason and logic belongs to the N (low) bucket, while a preference for harmony belongs to the A (high) bucket.
    the above is the most cohesive and cogent argument for why the big 5 trumps the mbti. there is no reason to not simply repeat the above whenever a debate like this happens. if you are generous to slower people here who don't like to do their own reading or don't value reproducible scientific findings, then i guess you can explain each point to them. trying to defend the validity / superiority of the mbti is entirely futile based on the empirical research record. what do you expect of an intuitive system? who here uses intuitively drawn world maps or road maps? no one, because intuition does not excel at high accuracy. intuition is great for determining scientific hypotheses to test, it's not great for coming up with scientific conclusions / facts.

    the mbti is only useful because jung, to his credit, or myers, to her credit, came up with a system (intuitively) which comes 'close enough' to four of the big 5 empirically revealed personality factors (in countless studies). anyone here who likes to type people is using an inferior, less accurate system when they choose the mbti over the big 5. why the big 5 is not bigger than the mbti is a function of it not being as slickly marketed and spoon fed to people and it being newer. people here that put higher value on the big 5 compared to the mbti display a kind of backwardness which 'intp' descriptions would suggest should be more uncommon in the intp. if you think the mbti is more accurate than the big 5 you are not too far off from people that supported geocentrism.

  2. #2
    Please leave a message... Array
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    1,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janitor View Post
    if you think the mbti is more accurate than the big 5 you are not too far off from people that supported geocentrism.
    Blah blah [sensationalism] blah blah.[/sensationalism].

    More O+ please.

    (And I vote FFM, or 16PF, or 15FQ > MBTI). But less crusade, more understanding = better for all. This contributes nothing.

  3. #3
    Junior Member Array janitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Type
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptGatsby View Post
    Blah blah [sensationalism] blah blah.[/sensationalism].

    More O+ please.

    (And I vote FFM, or 16PF, or 15FQ > MBTI). But less crusade, more understanding = better for all. This contributes nothing.
    ffm = five factor model = big 5. 16pf now gives big 5 scores, so it's like a big 5 test with a little more detail because of more sub factors.

    anyway, if you prefer the mbti, you must value familiarity and lay people over the scientific method and scientists. that's the same mindset of people that bought into geocentrism.

  4. #4
    Known Troublemaker Array Hustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    10,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janitor View Post
    anyway, if you prefer the mbti, you must value familiarity and lay people over the scientific method and scientists. that's the same mindset of people that bought into geocentrism.
    Why aren't you posting in Esperanto? Why aren't you off studying string theory? Quit being such a pleb.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array nfinityi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States
    Type
    xxxx
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    RLUAI here. It accurately describes my behavior because I accurately described my behavior to the test I took. Simple.

    The Big 5 is about how you act, not how you process the world. Not only does it not trump MBTI, it's measuring something completely different. It's like saying the Dollar is superior to the Pound because you get more Dollar than Pound for the same price.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array Prothero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    610

    Default

    For comparison sake, and a few other tests (for fun?):

    http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html

    My past experience is that the Big 5 was totally accurate, and explained nothing that wasn't already known. MBTI, as the type indicator at least offered an explanation for what I didn't understand about myself.

    Both attempt to measure variables in a soft, social science. MBTI performs poorly on a bimodal measure because it is not fixed on the 16 types it measures. This forum demonstrates one way to rid ourselves of the apparent weakness in that many people will use a small letter, or even x where the measure if marginal on preference. A practice accepted in the Big 5, yet ignored for the MBTI.

    What I didn't like about the Big 5 is that the results tend to be more, not less, judgmental in terms of positive and negative personality traits. When you are operating in a social science, the individual being tested is likely to adapt their answer to avoid appearing negative to the evaluator. MBTI doesn't attach any negatives to the type indicators. We might see criticism of SJs on INTPc, but it is not driven by the MBTI, which remains neutral to all types.

    Since no third choice, that both have value (when honestly taken) I can't vote, especially with the predetermined, and stated, bias of the pollster.
    "Naked to unknown forces, fortune evades mere understanding.
    The trial of effort. The dream of change. Such a place might Hell be to thought, and action."

  7. #7
    Junior Member Array janitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Type
    Posts
    66

    Default

    mbti doesn't have negative descriptors because it's a commercial product. consequently, the people that make a living of it (unscientific lay professionals) have little interest in reducing the size of their client base by being too negative about certain behavioral tendencies that are common in the population.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Prothero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    610

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janitor View Post
    mbti doesn't have negative descriptors because it's a commercial product. consequently, the people that make a living of it (unscientific lay professionals) have little interest in reducing the size of their client base by being too negative about certain behavioral tendencies that are common in the population.
    Yeah, right, and the Big 5 is hard, factual and proven science. We got it already.
    "Naked to unknown forces, fortune evades mere understanding.
    The trial of effort. The dream of change. Such a place might Hell be to thought, and action."

  9. #9
    Member Array Nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    sitting in a corner
    Type
    iNfj
    Posts
    480

    Default

    *cough cough* If you want scientific descriptions of people... you go with the Big 5. It's been reliably replicated across the world in multiple cultures/languages using the lexical/factor analysis approach. MBTI is just a theory to help us understand people based on easy to understand dichotomies. I see it as a way to open up people's minds so they will actively seek to better their personal interactions. Enough said on this topic...
    I am not irrational, I merely utilize bounded rationality. Expect the unexpected from me for I sometimes make seemingly random connections. ^^;;;

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortunato View Post
    I intuit it to be the same reason that someone would post a post about the worthwhileness of posting a thread questioning why people post goodbye threads, rather than simply posting a goodbye thread.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NC
    Type
    IXXX
    Posts
    10,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightning View Post
    *cough cough* If you want scientific descriptions of people... you go with the Big 5. It's been reliably replicated across the world in multiple cultures/languages using the lexical/factor analysis approach. MBTI is just a theory to help us understand people based on easy to understand dichotomies. I see it as a way to open up people's minds so they will actively seek to better their personal interactions. Enough said on this topic...
    Totally agree. To me, MBTI is just a shared vocabulary we can use to describe ourselves and others. I'm not into the test really, as I haven't found it to be very accurate for me, but using the dichotomies and the functions simply as descriptors for things I would ordinarily have a hard time communicating.

    I'm sure Big 5 is more accurate, scientifically speaking, but I'm not really in this for the science. I'll own that.

    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -graffiti on the wall of the basilica in Pompeii

Similar Threads

  1. How seriously do you take MBTI?
    By CapnEnnui in forum MBTI Talk
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 3 Apr 2007, 04:42 PM
  2. Do you still believe in the MBTI
    By headfonez in forum MBTI Talk
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12 Jun 2006, 01:09 AM
  3. Why are you your MBTI?
    By Xander in forum The Local Pub
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 14 Dec 2005, 11:11 AM
  4. MBTI Help
    By Solo in forum General Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 1 Feb 2005, 02:11 PM
  5. Rx MBTI
    By Utopmk in forum The Local Pub
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 9 Sep 2004, 11:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •