I think before anyone goes to anything mbti they need to look at this video. Ive seen so much people trashing on the test without looking into it, and also not understanding what the test is evaluating in the first place
Great job. I am a big fan. The assessment can be improved and the theory will be develop. One fear I have is that we are focused too much on the assessment and not on the test taker. Putting Reliability and Validity to the side, I have seen how personality tests are impacted by Si, maturity, and unresolved issues. We can't fix that and we need that test administrator. My second fear is that overall some professionals with certain preferences with never understand MBTI concepts. People project their inferior, even educated people.
I think I agree. Would you also say we put too much faith in the test? For example I've worked with many that in my opinion were mistyped likely because they were stressed or answered based on what they thought was ideal not how they really felt. Does that make sense? Only after observing them and getting to know them have I helped them find a better fit. For example ISTP gets INTJ because they think being future focused and the ability make plans is "better" than making more impulsive decisions quickly.
7:27 My critique is this: If they are measuring preferences and not cognitive functions, then why should anyone reference their MBTI type when taking about what cognitive functions they may be using. For example, agreeable woman takes the MBTI three times and each time gets the result INFJ. The MBTI has nailed her preferences, however, agreeable woman clearly psychologically leads with introverted feeling (introverted judgment w/ emotional axiom), relates to intuition because it is her auxiliary Ne and maybe has some development around Te and so she is akin to aligning internal emotional axiom to external objective protocol. Point being, the MBTI was accurate in what it was measuring but completely inaccurate in applicability.
I think the reason MBTI has certified practitioners is because the assessment was meant to be an introduction on how to get to the functions. A pointer in the right direction. When someone takes an MBTI form M or Q assessment they are supposed to then meet a practitioner trained in function use to verify their type. I haven't worked with the formal assessment in a few years but say for example a person might test as an ESFP but then they would come to my session and I could review their preferences and scores and compare them to what I see in them function wise. A practitioner could then override a reported type on their assessment and reprint them a verified type. Maybe they tested as an ESFP, but they are an ENFP instead - the practitioner is there to clean up the small mistakes. In general though, I agree with your critique and I think the largest flaw in MBTI research is that the corporation isn't interested in further research regarding functions because it is hard. Why would they want to waste all the energy trying to prove something when it is already the most used personality assessment in the world and sells millions yearly. I think they should invest money into the functions research though. In Gifts Differing, Briggs supports the idea that functions are a large part of the theory. Starting from 0 to full fledged functions research would have been a near insurmountable task (especially before the internet) so that is why I believe she started with letter theory to give everything a foundation. As a separate point, I think even detached from functions, just letter preferences can still be useful in and of themselves to laypeople who aren't interested in the depths of function dynamics. That is why I think the MBTI Step II is still a fantastic personality assessment even if it is completely removed from functions. Thanks for the feedback!
@@sjc2017 Right, an introverted perceiving lead with either unhealthy Fe or a fixation on Fi and you'd likely get the ISFP result and relate to the description.
@@AsuraPsych I agree it is still useful to come into typology through the big wide open MBTI creates. I just come around to rattle your cage a little and remind you I am here. Chris, feel free to do this to me as well. I really wish someone would lol and you are one of the few who isn't afraid of me
I'm taking psychology of personality rn. My Jungian type indicator is pretty accurate. It's hard for me to believe that what I am experiencing is the Barnum effect.
As you said in previous videos, knowing our type is the first step. Here it's surely similar, do the MBTI, is just the first step. An objective view from a professional or someone who know deeply the cognitives functions and more (as LiJo or you) is still the best, more efficient and accurate I think. To analyse deeply every details/aspect of the entire behavior (conscious and especially the unconscious behavior), choices, tastes etc... especially if the person is not very introspective. I confirm it's important to have an objective analyse, and not only subjective. This is one of the reasons why I misstyped myself last year. I remain convinced that if everyone knew a little the MBTI, of just if everyone accept and understand we are all different, the world would be different.
Has there been any neurological/ brain studies on MBTI? To me the best proof you can get for any psychological based thing is by crossing psychology with neuroscience when possible. For example the brains of people with Autism are shown by brain scans, and the brains of the recently deceased, to have physical differences between them and neurotypical brains. Although differences between the types in MBTI or related systems, would very likely be much much smaller and harder to find, any real proof of the system should lay in neuroscience. Beyond that they're just educated guesses. From my understanding for the most part Neuroscience is what separates the boys from the men, so to say. Also as a quick bit of constructive criticism, though I'm sure you're painfully aware of this, you are also biased. That said I still think MBTI is fun and I like the system, but I do take it with a grain of salt, because the 0.7 correlation isn't good enough for me, and many tests show a lower correlation. I'm not saying that it's incorrect, I'm just saying I'm not convinced. Also I personally find that in my life CPT is more accurate. Not that personal experience is any proof. Anyway, I did enjoy this video, it was very interesting, good work.
The closest you will find is Dr Dario Nardis book "The neuroscience of Personality" which involves case studies on mbti in relation to EEG testing. It is less of a formal research project and more of an exploratory attempt to see if there was anything worth researching more. A lot of personality psychology exists outside of what would be found from a neuroscience perspective though, much like social psychology. Or, at the very least, the systems are so complex it would be nearly impossible to clearly define them in such a way that it would be applicable. There is of course value there, but it is an early and emerging field of study.
Scientists over the years have been able to learn a lot about the inner workings of the human brain but I’m sure you’re aware that there’s still an incredible amount that is yet to be discovered. It’s widely accepted that mapping the human genome took 13 years but in reality, it’s closer to 40 years and honestly I’m being generous, it was definitely longer. With the right technology things will be much faster now but the last neurological breakthrough was still 2 years ago which was basically a digital 3D mapping of something we kinda already knew. Don’t get me wrong, it's still very impressive and opens the door to a plethora of research that were perhaps unethical or impractical until now. And then a lot of things had to take a step back during the pandemic but once things return to relative normal, research studies will once gain be focused towards the 100’s of neurological diseases, mental health conditions, cancers, drug therapies, pathological personality disorders, and more, not on cognitive functions or psychoanalytical behaviours. That’s at least 80 years from now at best, but judging by the rate at which technology keeps advancing, who knows, maybe you'll get your proof and MBTI studies in your time but I personally wouldn’t count on it. The frontal lobe being responsible for the development of one’s personality is arguably sufficient. The applications of MBTI towards self growth and understanding each other better is as well.
Depends on which, he has many. He and I argued back and forth a lot on PersonalityCafe years ago. If I remember correctly, he is a letter purist - which is a fine take, just one I don't agree with. I was critical of him because of his blatant misinterpretation of Briggs, dismissing cognitive functions as unimportant in Gifts Differing when they are explicitly the things that make up type descriptions. Hence, we debated a lot.
@@AsuraPsych What was your username on PersonalityCafe? I'm curious if I ever ran into you on there. As a side note, I also met my wife on that forum, and we're still happily married.
no, it doesn't require self reporting. MBTI has been around for 3 decades. efficiency still dictates the scientific method. I understand your question though. the answer is nobody wants to pay for the actual test. hence a growth in predatory companies giving half assed test perpetuating the myth of inaccuracy. truth be told most scientists know it's accurate for its use. just not the best.
@@lukeadamson353 I don't think there's enough information here for me. I need more reasoning for actually why it it doesn't require self-reporting, and not a bunch of other points that I don't care about for what I'm asking. So I don't get the point that is trying to be made by saying efficiency dictates the scientific method, because it sounds like going against the scientific method to me.
Is it scientifically accurate to conclude that the Human race is distinctly categorized into only 16 baseline non pathological variations of personality? As of 2022, Yes. Do these archetypes apply to all individuals? No, there are always exceptions in biological science as it evolves over time. Do these archetypes develop as a result of nature, nurture or both? Inconclusive. Are the free version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at assessing consumers into one of these types? No Are the paid version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at assessing consumers into one of these types? Yes Are the paid version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at estimating consumers effectiveness and compatibility with certain careers, positions or relationships? Inconclusive. Do individuals with the same personality type all have the same personality and exhibit the same traits? No, that's ridiculous. The simulation AI is not that lazy. Are there memes and do they slap? Yes, yes they do.
It’s actually 32 variations of personality if you include the a/t variable. This fifth variable is measuring assertiveness, and was updated MBTI tests. MBTI is basically the same as the Big Five test, just with different names. While MBTI has four variables, the big Five test obviously has five. Assertiveness in MBTI is equivalent to (the opposite of) neuroticism in the Big Five test. The big Five test is much more scientifically validated than MBTI, but again, they are equivalent, except for that fifth variable in the big five. The research that led to the big five found 5 scientifically proven independent variables, not 4, therefore we have to assume that there are 32 personalities, not 16.
@@zacharieroy2106 I would have to disagree with that assessment. In my experience there are many variations of ISTJs due to nurture but there is no trackable objective difference between an ISTJA and ISTJT. I suppose that's 16Ps flawed way of integrating myers briggs with the Big 5's Neuroticism scale as they are the only "test cite" who uses those letters. Even the J and P don't mean anything in terms of personalty as 16P would have you believe but simply tells us the order of the cognitive functions. T vs A is also a self measurebale metric that seems to change depending on a person's age or general state of mind. So i personally wouldn't put too much stock in that data.
I think before anyone goes to anything mbti they need to look at this video. Ive seen so much people trashing on the test without looking into it, and also not understanding what the test is evaluating in the first place
Great job. I am a big fan. The assessment can be improved and the theory will be develop. One fear I have is that we are focused too much on the assessment and not on the test taker. Putting Reliability and Validity to the side, I have seen how personality tests are impacted by Si, maturity, and unresolved issues. We can't fix that and we need that test administrator. My second fear is that overall some professionals with certain preferences with never understand MBTI concepts. People project their inferior, even educated people.
I think I agree. Would you also say we put too much faith in the test? For example I've worked with many that in my opinion were mistyped likely because they were stressed or answered based on what they thought was ideal not how they really felt. Does that make sense? Only after observing them and getting to know them have I helped them find a better fit. For example ISTP gets INTJ because they think being future focused and the ability make plans is "better" than making more impulsive decisions quickly.
Great exploration!
Excellent video Chris this is your best yet. Super 😎 cool!
7:27 My critique is this: If they are measuring preferences and not cognitive functions, then why should anyone reference their MBTI type when taking about what cognitive functions they may be using. For example, agreeable woman takes the MBTI three times and each time gets the result INFJ. The MBTI has nailed her preferences, however, agreeable woman clearly psychologically leads with introverted feeling (introverted judgment w/ emotional axiom), relates to intuition because it is her auxiliary Ne and maybe has some development around Te and so she is akin to aligning internal emotional axiom to external objective protocol. Point being, the MBTI was accurate in what it was measuring but completely inaccurate in applicability.
I think the reason MBTI has certified practitioners is because the assessment was meant to be an introduction on how to get to the functions. A pointer in the right direction.
When someone takes an MBTI form M or Q assessment they are supposed to then meet a practitioner trained in function use to verify their type.
I haven't worked with the formal assessment in a few years but say for example a person might test as an ESFP but then they would come to my session and I could review their preferences and scores and compare them to what I see in them function wise. A practitioner could then override a reported type on their assessment and reprint them a verified type. Maybe they tested as an ESFP, but they are an ENFP instead - the practitioner is there to clean up the small mistakes.
In general though, I agree with your critique and I think the largest flaw in MBTI research is that the corporation isn't interested in further research regarding functions because it is hard. Why would they want to waste all the energy trying to prove something when it is already the most used personality assessment in the world and sells millions yearly. I think they should invest money into the functions research though.
In Gifts Differing, Briggs supports the idea that functions are a large part of the theory. Starting from 0 to full fledged functions research would have been a near insurmountable task (especially before the internet) so that is why I believe she started with letter theory to give everything a foundation.
As a separate point, I think even detached from functions, just letter preferences can still be useful in and of themselves to laypeople who aren't interested in the depths of function dynamics. That is why I think the MBTI Step II is still a fantastic personality assessment even if it is completely removed from functions.
Thanks for the feedback!
Good point. Another example, tortured artist gets the result ISFP leading with introverted sensing makes sense too.
@@sjc2017 Right, an introverted perceiving lead with either unhealthy Fe or a fixation on Fi and you'd likely get the ISFP result and relate to the description.
@@AsuraPsych I agree it is still useful to come into typology through the big wide open MBTI creates. I just come around to rattle your cage a little and remind you I am here. Chris, feel free to do this to me as well. I really wish someone would lol and you are one of the few who isn't afraid of me
I'm taking psychology of personality rn. My Jungian type indicator is pretty accurate. It's hard for me to believe that what I am experiencing is the Barnum effect.
God bless you, sir.
Thanks! Means a lot coming from you, hope all is well!
As you said in previous videos, knowing our type is the first step. Here it's surely similar, do the MBTI, is just the first step.
An objective view from a professional or someone who know deeply the cognitives functions and more (as LiJo or you) is still the best, more efficient and accurate I think. To analyse deeply every details/aspect of the entire behavior (conscious and especially the unconscious behavior), choices, tastes etc... especially if the person is not very introspective.
I confirm it's important to have an objective analyse, and not only subjective. This is one of the reasons why I misstyped myself last year.
I remain convinced that if everyone knew a little the MBTI, of just if everyone accept and understand we are all different, the world would be different.
What a rebel xD
Has there been any neurological/ brain studies on MBTI? To me the best proof you can get for any psychological based thing is by crossing psychology with neuroscience when possible. For example the brains of people with Autism are shown by brain scans, and the brains of the recently deceased, to have physical differences between them and neurotypical brains. Although differences between the types in MBTI or related systems, would very likely be much much smaller and harder to find, any real proof of the system should lay in neuroscience. Beyond that they're just educated guesses. From my understanding for the most part Neuroscience is what separates the boys from the men, so to say.
Also as a quick bit of constructive criticism, though I'm sure you're painfully aware of this, you are also biased. That said I still think MBTI is fun and I like the system, but I do take it with a grain of salt, because the 0.7 correlation isn't good enough for me, and many tests show a lower correlation. I'm not saying that it's incorrect, I'm just saying I'm not convinced. Also I personally find that in my life CPT is more accurate. Not that personal experience is any proof. Anyway, I did enjoy this video, it was very interesting, good work.
The closest you will find is Dr Dario Nardis book "The neuroscience of Personality" which involves case studies on mbti in relation to EEG testing.
It is less of a formal research project and more of an exploratory attempt to see if there was anything worth researching more.
A lot of personality psychology exists outside of what would be found from a neuroscience perspective though, much like social psychology. Or, at the very least, the systems are so complex it would be nearly impossible to clearly define them in such a way that it would be applicable. There is of course value there, but it is an early and emerging field of study.
Scientists over the years have been able to learn a lot about the inner workings of the human brain but I’m sure you’re aware that there’s still an incredible amount that is yet to be discovered. It’s widely accepted that mapping the human genome took 13 years but in reality, it’s closer to 40 years and honestly I’m being generous, it was definitely longer. With the right technology things will be much faster now but the last neurological breakthrough was still 2 years ago which was basically a digital 3D mapping of something we kinda already knew. Don’t get me wrong, it's still very impressive and opens the door to a plethora of research that were perhaps unethical or impractical until now. And then a lot of things had to take a step back during the pandemic but once things return to relative normal, research studies will once gain be focused towards the 100’s of neurological diseases, mental health conditions, cancers, drug therapies, pathological personality disorders, and more, not on cognitive functions or psychoanalytical behaviours. That’s at least 80 years from now at best, but judging by the rate at which technology keeps advancing, who knows, maybe you'll get your proof and MBTI studies in your time but I personally wouldn’t count on it. The frontal lobe being responsible for the development of one’s personality is arguably sufficient. The applications of MBTI towards self growth and understanding each other better is as well.
i do agree
Ixtps must have highly activated brain regions for logic
Inxjs must have highly activated brain regions for patterns
Have you read reckful's post? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that post
Depends on which, he has many. He and I argued back and forth a lot on PersonalityCafe years ago. If I remember correctly, he is a letter purist - which is a fine take, just one I don't agree with.
I was critical of him because of his blatant misinterpretation of Briggs, dismissing cognitive functions as unimportant in Gifts Differing when they are explicitly the things that make up type descriptions. Hence, we debated a lot.
@@AsuraPsych Thanks for your answer :)
@@AsuraPsych What was your username on PersonalityCafe? I'm curious if I ever ran into you on there. As a side note, I also met my wife on that forum, and we're still happily married.
@@Andtherewasguitar Asura, I was a senior moderator around 2016-2018 but I haven't been around in a long while.
@@AsuraPsych Ah ok, I was active around 2014-2016. Picked up a lot of typology knowledge from that place.
I don't know much about the assessment, but doesn't it rely on self-reporting?
no, it doesn't require self reporting. MBTI has been around for 3 decades. efficiency still dictates the scientific method. I understand your question though. the answer is nobody wants to pay for the actual test. hence a growth in predatory companies giving half assed test perpetuating the myth of inaccuracy. truth be told most scientists know it's accurate for its use. just not the best.
@@lukeadamson353 I don't think there's enough information here for me.
I need more reasoning for actually why it it doesn't require self-reporting, and not a bunch of other points that I don't care about for what I'm asking.
So I don't get the point that is trying to be made by saying efficiency dictates the scientific method, because it sounds like going against the scientific method to me.
Is it scientifically accurate to conclude that the Human race is distinctly categorized into only 16 baseline non pathological variations of personality? As of 2022, Yes.
Do these archetypes apply to all individuals? No, there are always exceptions in biological science as it evolves over time.
Do these archetypes develop as a result of nature, nurture or both? Inconclusive.
Are the free version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at assessing consumers into one of these types? No
Are the paid version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at assessing consumers into one of these types? Yes
Are the paid version MBTI tests accurate and reliable at estimating consumers effectiveness and compatibility with certain careers, positions or relationships? Inconclusive.
Do individuals with the same personality type all have the same personality and exhibit the same traits? No, that's ridiculous. The simulation AI is not that lazy.
Are there memes and do they slap? Yes, yes they do.
It’s actually 32 variations of personality if you include the a/t variable. This fifth variable is measuring assertiveness, and was updated MBTI tests.
MBTI is basically the same as the Big Five test, just with different names. While MBTI has four variables, the big Five test obviously has five. Assertiveness in MBTI is equivalent to (the opposite of) neuroticism in the Big Five test.
The big Five test is much more scientifically validated than MBTI, but again, they are equivalent, except for that fifth variable in the big five.
The research that led to the big five found 5 scientifically proven independent variables, not 4, therefore we have to assume that there are 32 personalities, not 16.
@@zacharieroy2106 I would have to disagree with that assessment. In my experience there are many variations of ISTJs due to nurture but there is no trackable objective difference between an ISTJA and ISTJT. I suppose that's 16Ps flawed way of integrating myers briggs with the Big 5's Neuroticism scale as they are the only "test cite" who uses those letters. Even the J and P don't mean anything in terms of personalty as 16P would have you believe but simply tells us the order of the cognitive functions. T vs A is also a self measurebale metric that seems to change depending on a person's age or general state of mind. So i personally wouldn't put too much stock in that data.