I think the problem many psychologists have with MBTI and similar instruments (of which there are many) is the concept of 'type.' The compartmentalization of a person is irrationally restrictive in that it says that there are only 4 types of people (MBTI), or some other small number. It belies our experience of greater variety of personality, meaning it lacks face validity.
And, this leads to a problem of it (and other such measures) being too parsimonious. It is as if people who barely score out as a T-F are the same as people who overwhelmingly score as a T-F. With so few types, there is no distinguishing these people, even though intuitively (if we believe in the typology at all) they have a good chance of being somewhat different. As soon as you begin to think in terms of 'type' a notion of inflexibility of response appears. Inflexibility of response flies in the face of the many social psychology findings of the importance of situational factors in determining behavior, sometimes interacting with personality dimensions. Also, as soon as you think in terms of type, it can restrict how we interact with others. To describe the situation given in the article: If I'm not well schooled on this, yet I've been taught about MBTI and been tested, and students are tested (but not told), but matched on type, then there is an issue that comes up so we reveal it to them , we are somewhat mandated to use the MBTI information as a method of resolving the difficulty. We may avoid (consciously or unconsciously) resolutions that might be successful because it doesn't fit their types, doesn't fit this mandate, etc. IMO, the main reasons the Big Five is considered better is it is less restrictive. By not compartmentalizing people, it is more flexible. You can think of a person as being 'high in openness' not a "T-F type" and someone higher in openness probably can be construed as 'more open to experience' than someone who is moderately high in openness. So, someone can be high in both Openness and high in Conscientiousness, or even more dimensions. I see the same problems with learning styles discussions, for which I understand there is precious little evidence to support. But, of course, we all know there are really only 2 types of people: those who trust the validity of MBTI and those who don't trust the validity of MBTI. <grin> Paul Bernhardt FSU Department of Psychology 301-687-4410 On 12/12/08 10:32 AM, "Tollefsrud, Linda" <[email protected]> wrote: > While I am aware that many research psychologists hate the MBTI, I also work > with people (student services & career counseling staff, etc.) who love it (as > do many of us, I'm guessing). If there is definitive proof that the MBTI is > worthless, what is it? For instance, we have this comparison (copied from > Wikipedia): > > > Big Five > McCrae and Costa[5] present correlations between the MBTI scales and the Big > Five personality construct, which is a conglomeration of characteristics found > in nearly all personality and psychological tests. The five personality > characteristics are extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, > and emotional stability (or neuroticism). The following study is based on the > results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of aging. > (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.) > Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism > E-I -.74 .03 -.03 .08 .16 > S-N .10 .72 .04 -.15 -.06 > T-F .19 .02 .44 -.15 .06 > J-P .15 .30 -.06 -.49 .11 > The closer the number is to 1.0 or -1.0, the higher the degree of correlation. > These data suggest that four of the MBTI scales are related to the Big Five > personality traits. These correlations show that E-I and S-N are strongly > related to extraversion and openness respectively, while T-F and J-P are > moderately related to agreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. The > emotional stability dimension of the Big Five is largely absent from the > original MBTI (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed that dimension). > > These findings led McCrae and Costa, the formulators of the Five Factor > Theory,[26] to conclude, "correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI > indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal > personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for > interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual > framework." However, "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures > truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the > instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions." > > > I'm especially curious about Costa & McCrae's conclusion that ""correlational > analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the > five major dimensions of normal personality." Doesn't this provide some > "support" for the MBTI in comparison to the Big Five? Or, what am I missing > here? > > Linda Tollefsrud > Professor of Psychology > University of Wisconsin - Barron County > 1800 College Drive > Rice Lake, WI 54868 > (715) 234-8176 > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:04 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: RE: [tips] Dorm Living as a Psychological Science :: Inside Higher Ed > > AARRGGHH! > > It just makes me livid that people are investing so much money into this CRAP! > > (Geez, I must have just sent a whole lot of spam filters into active mode). > > The unfortunate reality is that is that there is a poop-load (one poop-load > equals numerical hundreds) of studies that do show reliability and validity. > Now, > the fact that NONE are published in refereed journals, other than those > refereed > by "type" psychologists for their own little rag should say something about > the > QUALITY of those studies. > > How do we combat this??????? > > There was not a single statement in the article that this is junk not science. > The > commentary following the article is 2 con, 1 pro--not a strong statement by > psychologists nationwide about this crap that is making some people very, very > rich, in a very tough economy. > > And we could never have this discussion on Psychteach without several people > coming out of walls to defend this trash because there are very many > psychology instructors who believe in it. Why? Because students really, really > like it :) (take that last smiley face as my attempt at sarcasm). > > How do we reach people? How does our meager reply that there is no quality > evidence in favor, counter the voluminous junk that is in favor? > > In all misconceptions that people have about psychology the hardest things to > combat are those where we lack the evidence to support a premise, and without > evidence, what are we to do? > > I'm so frustrated with this. > > Annette > > > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > University of San Diego > 5998 Alcala Park > San Diego, CA 92110 > 619-260-4006 > [email protected] > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:06:58 -0600 >> From: Rick Froman <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [tips] Dorm Living as a Psychological Science :: Inside Higher >> Ed >> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> >> >> How can you criticize it in the face of such strong anecdotal evidence and >> this: >> >> "³Myers-Briggs research shows that certain personality types are more >> inclined > to get along with certain other types,² Perillo said. ³While this research was > not > about roommate pairing, [the MBTI] is pretty well established and reliable. We > feel comfortable bringing it into the roommate pairing process.² >> >> How do you argue with a test that is "pretty well established and reliable"? >> >> Rick >> >> Dr. Rick Froman, Chair >> Division of Humanities and Social Sciences >> John Brown University >> Siloam Springs, AR 72761 >> [email protected] >> ________________________________________ >> From: Christopher D. Green [[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:33 AM >> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) >> Subject: [tips] Dorm Living as a Psychological Science :: Inside Higher Ed >> >> Myers-Briggs: the junk test that won't die... >> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/12/myersbriggs >> >> Chris >> -- >> >> Christopher D. Green >> Department of Psychology >> York University >> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 >> Canada >> >> >> >> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ >> >> ========================== >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
