In fairness to @failed_buddhist, you don't need to see them as being at the same level.
That said, I hardly think MBTI is valid as such - and I say that as someone who used to be able to ascertain someone's MBTI type with very high probability (~80% agreement with test results.)
Conversation
It's a very good framing/storytelling device, but otherwise it has little going for it that Big Five doesn't do better and more reliably.
1
Replying to
Invalid for the sorts of things it's usually claimed to matter for (e.g. job choice, motivational structure...)
Big Five is different, I agree.
1
Go ahead, find reliable behavioural correlates of MBTI types. It's extremely difficult, but if you can find something replicable I'll grant you that.
Most personality typologies suffer from this lack of clear relationship with behaviour, yet they make assertions about it...
3
don’t conflate type theory as a whole with the MBTI, a psychometric test. the latter is only a doorstep to the former.
it’s nothing to do with behavior either, it deals with cognitive temperament/orientation directly
1
Jung heavily criticized Freud’s theories as trying to essentially boil human behavior and personality down to affect alone, so his theory makes no comparable pretense
1
big five is better behavior data collection, but pretty useless as an interpretive practical framework for individuals, because it insists on pulling apart the way different factors interact and treating traits as isolated
1
Sorry, but there are at least 4 basic errors here.
Firstly, MBTI is not Jung's theory. Jung had his own theory. Briggs and her daughter are not Jung.
Secondly, MBTI claims to be do all of the things you listed. It doesn't get extra points for actually doing something else.
2
it’s functionally an adaptation of Jung’s theory regardless of any of its interior elements or claims. and despite its failings - and the inherent failings of psychometric testing - it’s valuable for the utility its abbreviations provide in discussing cognitive patterns.
1
I agree, but A) Jung did it better, in his own context, B) Big Five does it better from a scientific perspective (i.e. the traits are more clearly delineated, neuroticism is discussed, at all...), C) it's not what MBTI purports to do, which is to test personality.
we’re mostly on the same page it seems. I just tend to defend MBTI as a correlate of Jung since most people wouldn’t care to make that differentiation, so hats off on that one.
2
1
re: neuroticism, that’s a dynamic that plays out *within* type structure, and probably one of the worse things they could have posited as a fundamental trait. I heavily dislike the linearity of big 5 dimensions compared to the differential sets of anything of Jungian descent
1
Show replies