Thanks for the links. I had forgotten that MBTI pigeonholes you into 16 types, it's been years since I paid it any mind... But that doesn't overrule the issues I described below. 4 types, 16 types... Still too few, too restrictive.
Paul Bernhardt FSU Department of Psychology 301-687-4410 On 12/12/08 11:58 AM, "Paul Bernhardt" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
