Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #1

xMathFanx's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: USA
Posts: 265
Myers-Brigg Personality Test: What is Your Personality Type?


Myers-Brigg Personality Test: What is Your Personality Type?

Take the Myers-Brigg Personality Test here: https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

Read some of your Personality Profile and post your result here.

You can find a great deal about your personal Personality Type through various resources on the internet articles as well as YouTube videos.

My results came back INTJ-A ("the Architect"). My exact stats were:

-52% Introverted
-67% Intuitive
-65% Thinking
-52% Judging
-80% Assertive
xMathFanx is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 30th, 2017, 09:50 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,271

Myers Briggs and all similar tests are a piece of foul smelling fecal matter.... Its no better than astrology......

In fact there is more actual value to zodiacal signs than to MB and such
tomar is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:08 PM   #3

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,181

While I can agree they are not always accurate. Zodiacs are nonsense, and way off the mark.
Edric Streona is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:14 PM   #4

Fox's Avatar
Fox
散木
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Korea
Posts: 3,666

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Myers Briggs and all similar tests are a piece of foul smelling fecal matter.... Its no better than astrology......
This is implausible. The Myers Briggs test asks a series of personality related questions, and then attempts to sort people based upon their answers. It's entirely intuitive that people who answer similarly on personality-based questions would share a certain amount in common, and within that common ground, that trends would be noticeable and describable. That is not to say there are no valid criticisms of the testing system, or limitations which can and should be noted, but to liken it to astrology is not particularly rational.

Its single biggest weak point is relying on self-reporting surveys: if you don't answer honestly, or answer inconsistently based upon your mood, you will get different results, and accordingly, those results might not be very meaningful. No testing system can adequately compensate for people who don't even truly understand themselves -- or worse, who actively misportray themselves -- trying to explain themselves to it. Another major weakness is inadequate marking of borderline cases: if you score just a few percent in a particular trait, then you're just one or two slightly different answers away from being placed on the opposite side of that particular spectrum (again, by just a few percentage points), which makes inconsistent results of the sort described in point #1 more likely. A well-made system would mark this sort of ambiguity and capitalize upon it, while the Myers Briggs system does not seem to bother to do so, meaning anyone with both a borderline personality and insufficient perspicacity to notice this defect in the system and mentally correct for it themself can easily end up confused and irritated by the system. I suspect people with more extreme personalities end up, on average, more impressed by the system, because the system models them better.

Yet even with these weaknesses, it seems like the Myers Briggs is actually testing something. The Big Five Personality Inventory, for example, seems to be viewed in a relatively positive fashion in the psychological community; there is debate around it and whether it could be improved, but few people seem to liken it to "astrology." Yet if one looks at the Briggs Myers battery with the "assertiveness/turbulence" axis separated out from "introversion/extroversion," one sees a fairly strong statistical correlation between what the Myers Briggs Tests and what the Big Five Tests: I/E correlates with Big Five introversion, S/N correlates with Big Five openness to experience, T/F correlates with Big Five agreeableness, J/P correlates with Big Five conscientiousness, and A/T correlates with Big Five neuroticism. So the real question is not whether the underlying system for gathering data works -- it seems to, if imperfectly -- but rather, whether the "personality profile" conclusions are sound.

Astrology works by suggesting vague, mostly-positive traits with which almost anyone could related. In other words, a well-written astrology profile will leave just about anyone nodding along, assuming they don't know what's going on. By contrast, the study validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type evidently found that only about 50% of first-time test takers agreed with the type provided by the test. That's an interesting number: it's much lower than what a well-written Barnum Effect profile (e.g. astrology) should provide, yet also much, much higher than random chance would indicate (with 32 possible 5 value combinations, the chance of the "type" most like you being chosen at random is a little over 3%). Let's make five assumptions, all of which I think are fairly sound:

1) Some portion of test takers will have an correct broad understanding of their own personality, but describe themselves incorrectly in individual questions, leading to mismatches in results as compared to expectations.
2) Some portion of test takers will have an incorrect broad understanding of their own personality, but describe themselves correctly in all relevant questions, resulting in a mismatch of results as compared to expectations.
3) Some will be incorrect in both regards, likewise leading to a mismatch.
4) Some people may simply not like themselves and want to associate more with a different profile, resulting in accuracy (ironically) being a penalizing factor with regards to evaluation.
5) Some people will have genuinely borderline personalities with regards to the factors through which the test attempts to sort people, resulting in ambiguity which will be (rightly) treated as a failure.

After all such people are accounted for, we should certainly not expect 100% of people to look at personality profiles and nod along, assuming the personality profiles make a genuine attempt at description rather than utilizing the Barnum Effect. In other words, the results here suggest something different than "astrology" is going on here; something imperfect and surely in need of further refinement, and something which should probably not be used for anything more than entertainment or self-reflection until those improvements are adequately implemented and vigorously studied, and certainly something for which one should probably not pay money, but something different nonetheless.

Like Tomar here, I'm the sort of person who likes to take a cynical stance on things; it makes me feel intelligent, and seems to be a winning epistemological strategy with a high degree of statistical frequency. I spent a moderate amount of time looking into the MBTI looking for grounds upon which to cynically dismiss it, but while it's clearly imperfect, it still seems both like there's already something of interest there, and that incremental improvement could lead to something genuinely valuable in the long term. Perhaps more generally we should realize that the same people who are, in a professional capacity, calling this "pseudoscience" are themselves "pseudoscientists" from a certain point of view: the social and psychological sciences suffer from abuse of statistical techniques and failures of replication at such a massive rate that they probably ought not be classified alongside the physical sciences. But that doesn't necessitate their uselessness, nor mean that we must scorn them: so long as we understand the defects of their methodologies and account for their biases, it may well be that we can learn from their results, and whatever defects exist in their methodologies can be remedied over time so long as we are aware of them.

Or at least that's my thinking on the matter at the moment.
Fox is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 06:03 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox View Post

Astrology works by suggesting vague, mostly-positive traits with which almost anyone could related. In other words, a well-written astrology profile will leave just about anyone nodding along, assuming they don't know what's going on. .
Here is the thing about zodiacal signs... they are season related....

So for people living in the northern hemisphere (but not in the tropics, or at least in the tropics there would be a different logic at play) there was actually some relevancy to them.

A child born in December had a different life than one born in June... The one in December mostly stayed indoors the first few months of his life and hardly ever saw the sun. His food was not as good, because his mother was eating whatever could have been saved for the winter... mostly it was not fresh but preserved and there was less of it (so for example concentration of salt and perhaps sugar were much higher).... Overall his probability of survival was less... This was bound to have some impact on the child, and probably on his behavior.
Nowadays all of this is less relevant of course.

MB and all that sort of thing on the other hand ? Grounded in nothing.... other than the plain "truth" that given anything you can always classify "anything" into any number of artificially created categories... (usually the number of categories is kept low, 4 or 5, as it seems that number 'sells' better... simpler to understand for simple minds)

I would add that Zodiac signs are mostly innocuous in as a majority understands this is mostly superstition whereas the MB and such are dangerous as they dress themselves up in "science"...
To illustrate the nefarious effect consider that in France there was for quite a long while (in fact some companies are still doing it) usage of graphology to evaluate candidates... This means that some people did not get a job because some idiots believed in the pseudo science while other idiots played up to them by evaluating candidate's writing.

Last edited by tomar; December 31st, 2017 at 06:35 AM.
tomar is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 04:14 PM   #6

Fox's Avatar
Fox
散木
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Korea
Posts: 3,666

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
MB and all that sort of thing on the other hand ? Grounded in nothing....
other than the plain "truth" that given anything you can always classify "anything" into any number of artificially created categories...
Tomar, humans understand the world through the construction and analysis of "artificial categories," even at the simplest levels of the world as we understand it. Two isotopes of carbon can behave very differently, for example, yet we choose to classify them both as carbon by focusing specifically on the number of protons present because there is utility in doing so; that "artificial classification" helps us understand the world. Our reliance on such conventions only increases as we move away from the relative simplicity of atoms and into the complexity of actual biological entities; biology is full of blurry barriers and distinctions of convenience. Predictably, it increases again when we deal with something even more complex: the mind (psychology) and the interaction of minds (sociology). The alternative to using "artificial classifications" to understand things at this level is to not understand anything about them at all, ever.

Let's hold up the DSM V as an example. Here is an overview of the DSM V description of ADHD and the basis upon which one can be diagnosed with it. Notice something? The description of the ailment itself is incredibly fuzzy and unclear, and the method of diagnosing as well; if the MBTI fails to meet the standard of "science" simply because it fails to perfectly pair individuals to absolutely accurate personality descriptions without fail (and that is what the objections to it reduce to, really), then this disease description and diagnosis method is necessarily even less "scientific" in character. Yet our society uses this method to dispense mind altering drugs. Why? Because we've struggled to do better; the phenomena involved, while noticeable, are themselves hazy. The options at this point are to persist and try to make improvements, or simply to give up.

One could respond, "Well, all of psychiatry is bunk, and ADHD doesn't actually exist." Such a person has probably never taught in a classroom environment for an extended period of time: I've seen enough children who are obviously afflicted by it to realize that, although it might be an "artificial category" in a certain sense -- attentiveness is probably a normally-distributed spectrum -- it's describing something real and salient about the world, to say nothing of the adults who look at their own struggles with every day life and realize that something is different about them as compared to their peers in this regard. Note that I'm not necessarily saying medication is the proper solution; all I'm doing is pointing out that this is an example of a somewhat vague "artificial category" being required to grasp and understand something about the world (namely, that some people suffer from a relative deficit in attentiveness of the sort described by ADHD). I think we can safely say that calling a particular categorization "artificial" is not a meaningful objection; we rely on "artificial" categorization to make sense of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
I would add that Zodiac signs are mostly innocuous in as a majority understands this is mostly superstition whereas the MB and such are dangerous as they dress themselves up in "science"...
I have no particular objections to this part of your complaint. It genuinely is the case that the MBTI suffers from serious limitations which should reasonably prevent it from being used in, for example, career counseling or job placement, and it genuinely is the case that many people, even employers, seem to be unaware of these limitations. But we can acknowledge these limitations (just as I did in my previous post) without going too far in the opposite direction and pretending that there's anything especially controversial or absurd about the notion that people who answer many personality questions in a similar fashion might actually have similar personalities. From the perspective of an individual person who takes the test, understanding its limitations, merely to read what it suggests about their personality, ponder to what extent those suggestions are true, and think about how one can grow as a person, there's really not that much to hate about the MBTI, assuming one is neither a borderline personality nor in a state of self-deception regarding one's behavior, in which case one is likely to be frustrated by it.

Ultimately, there are probably real trends in human personalities upon which we can exercise our pattern-seeking faculties. This means that projects like the MBTI are valid in principle, and simply must be continually refined in order to mitigate their defects. Today, the state of that project is insufficient for something like career counseling, but that simply means work is required. But to be the person who says, "This is all bunk, it's actually worse than astrology," is the equivalent of the person who once grumpily said, "Man will never fly, aviation is bunk." The entire history of human innovation is massaging manifestly imperfect systems and ideas into increasingly-adequate ones. Why would we expect anything differently here, given the complexities involved?
Fox is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:29 PM   #7
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Vatican occupied America
Posts: 811
Blog Entries: 1

Commander (ENTJ-A)
61% Extroverted
60% Intuitive
61% Thinking
65% Judging
93% Assertive
Disciple of Sophia is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
myersbrigg, personality, test, type



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the best type of personality for leadership? Jake10 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 15 December 9th, 2011 06:51 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.