Everyone knows that MBTI is pseudoscience, barely better than astrology - with too-vague descriptions and "well most of these sorta fit me" personality descriptions. Well, you're only halfway right! Buckle up kids, I'm gonna take us on an overly-detailed steelman of MBTI.
-
-
Now, all of this being said, and even though I've read way too fucking much about MBTI, I still think it's got some weaknesses. For example, there's a rule that one type of function must be followed by a certain type of other function (e.g., no "Ni-Fi-Se-Ne"). I don't understand.
Show this thread -
I've never come across any reasoning for why this rule is the case. Maybe Jung wrote about it somewhere? But it seems kind of arbitrary to me, and possible explanations aren't compelling. And it makes up a big basis of the theory behind MBTI. I'm pretty suspicious.
Show this thread -
And while different MBTI types do have pretty strong correlations to different stuff like GPA or income, it doesn't feel as strongly predictive as something like the Big 5 (even though it's also strongly correlated to Big 5!)
Show this thread -
Anyway, in conclusion, MBTI doesn't really deserve all the shit it's getting. It's actually a pretty cool, predictive, and beautiful system, when you look deeply. Its actual flaws are that the beautiful system is closer to a work of art than our best tool for mapping personality.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.