so pork is invalid because beef has more iron
Conversation
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.
1
1
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
Yeah, whereas I tend to come at it from the opposite angle. I don't like MBTI put next to Jung as I feel he doesn't deserve the criticism it does - he didn't make any claims to have developed a personality test, just a conceptual framework he found valuable.
which is why the only/main thing I take from MBTI is the notation system. It’s pithy and recognizable and that has its own sort of value imo, and is in pretty common usage across related theories