Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 1

TOC
What is the difference between feeling and intuition?


 * Feeling is a judgment based on subjective values, intuition is perception of subjective patterns. --Chacham 20:45 Nov 09 2005 (UTC)

Are there any statistics on personality types that are more religious (ie more likely to attend church service) than other types?


 * Not to my knowledge. Though, S seems to be more religious in numbers than N, but Ns tend to wax more philosophical and be passionate about it. --Chacham 20:45 Nov 09 2005 (UTC)

Is there any research, rules of thumb, or etc. that indicates that men or women tend to be certain personality types (i.e. the majority of men are "thinking")? [13 Oct 05]
 * I don't know if there's any proof but I sure know from observation that men are mostly T and women are mostly F. In fact the book 'men are from mars and women are from venus' seems to be one giant explanation of the difference between T & F.


 * Gifts Differing clearly states the difference being approximatelty 60% males are T and 70% females are F. This latter number has been lowered to 60% in more recent books, such as "Was that really me?" --Chacham 20:45 Nov 09 2005 (UTC)

Are MB types more or less permanent, like IQ, or can they change as we grow?


 * Anon one, if you mean growing as from youth or child hood. The measured temperaments can change, but since the tests are not validated on children, is difficult to say whether the changes represent some true underlying change in temperament, or just the difficulty of accurately measuring this characteristic in children.--Silverback 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I found that I took the test 15 years ago and then recently again and was exactly the same - both times as an adult. Very intersting.


 * Types are preferences, and Jung's theory is that it never changes, though we mature different parts of it depending on age, Jacobi's book "The Psycology of C G Jung" discusses the lifecycle in detail. The main notice can be seen at the mid-life crises and it probably can be noted with Keirsey's types too. --Chacham 20:45 Nov 09 2005 (UTC)


 * The types are a mixture of ideal and current state. In perfectly well-balanced people these will be identical, but for those with a degree of neurosis or psychosis (what proportion is this?) the type result will be garbled due to the machinery used to resolve contradictions between, for example, 'Do you spend leisure time alone?' and 'Do you enjoy parties?' being arithmetical rather than psychoanalytical. --CalG Feb 04 2006

---

I'm wondering if there are any research correlating the personality types to iq etc. Thanks


 * Keirsey's book talks about four types of intelligence, and how the IQ test puts NTs well above the rest, with NF following close behind. --Chacham 18:07 Oct 11 2005 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, an IQ test is basically a test to measure how much N you have. It was designed by N's for N's.


 * Actually, by NTs for NTs. Or in Keirsey's terminology, it tests for strategic intellegence (long-term decisions). It completely ignore Diplomatic, Logistical, and Tactical intelligence. --Chacham 20:45 Nov 09 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have an S here... --S J 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and needs to be fully revamped so that it discusses the topic from a NEUTRAL point of view.

Is it not correct that C.G. Jung coined the terms Introvert and Extrovert circa. 1918? Perhaps that should be outlined as well. I will if I have time.

--Alterego 7:48, 6/2/04

Do we really need these 8 stubblets for each type? Can't they be merged in with the article? -- Tarquin 13:45 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It's been a while since you asked and I'm planning on redirecting them later today -- Olathe November 16, 2003
 * Introversion and extroversion should not be redirected to here, as these are concepts that are also seperate from a discussion from the MBTI Dysprosia 01:43, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I see you fixed the introversion article.  I have fixed the extroversion article. -- Olathe November 16, 2003

There are a few ways to explain each type, and there are books on each.

This page is very Keirseyesque. Keirsey has a four types theory, which he merged with the 16 types theory of the MBTI. The MBTI itself, however, does not mention the four groupings. In fact, the only groups of four mentioned are SF, ST, NF, NT.

Further, this page explains the individual letters the way Keirsey explains then, and not how the MBTI does. For example, associating Intobersion and Extraversion with shyness or outgoingness is Keirsey (and incorrect). The MBTI says introversion means focusing the main process (either Perceiving or Judgement) in the inner world of ideas, and exraversion as focusing it on the outer world of people and things. That tends to make introverts shy, but there are plenty unshy introverts, and vice-versa.

To make this page correct, most of it would have to be changed, and the Keisey four types theory would need to be removed (and put in it own page).


 * I'm going to (unless I lose the motivation or forget) change this into three interpretation styles. If you then want to move the styles into separate articles, it might be a good idea.  Then again, it might not.  Best to wait and see how the article turns out to see if the split is still needed. -- Olathe November 24, 2003

I request that someone (or me) go through and change the type articles (for instance ESTJ) from redirects to actual descriptions of the types. The ISTP one is already done and the INTP article is strangely a redirect, but its talk page has (at first glance) a decent description (perhaps that article could be reinstated). By the way, I already looked at the history for the missing 14 types and nothing was there except a redirect entry.

Also, does anyone have any objections to this ? -- Olathe November 16, 2003

Doesn't look like too many people care. :)

If you start doing something, i am probably willing to help. However, the ISTP page is mostly incorrect (it gives examples instead of explanation). Perhaps, a better definition of the individual letters (with the Jungian definition) would be a better approach than the 16 types. -- Chacham


 * I think you are correct with your suggestion. A Jungian description of the letters would be a good idea.  I haven't read much Jung, though.  The best book I found on the subject was Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, so I guess I'll try to remember what that book says (I don't have it with me). -- Olathe November 22, 2003


 * Jung did not make up the letters. He came up with the four types "Thinking", "Feeling", "Intutitive", and "Sesory". When Briggs discussed it with him, they became the middle two letter N/S abd T/F. Jung discusses Introversion and Extroversion, but Briggs brought it its own letter. IIUC, J/P was Brigg's idea. I still need to read "Psycological Types" to know for sure.


 * If you really want to understadn this stuff "Gifts Differing" (Second Edition) is a *must* read. It is written by Meyers-Briggs and is the definition of the MBTI.


 * If you are interested in a rewrite, please email me.-- Chacham

-

Better link?
Seeing that wikipedia does not endorse this personality test, might we consider changing the test link to one or more pages which are free? Currently the only test link is to a site which charges to take the test. Just a thought.

Editing this article
I'm working on this article in my freetime. Feel free to make suggestions and help out!

--Alterego

Quote from the main article, Statistics section: About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months [12]

Note the repetition of 'nine months'. I suspect the first instance should read 'six weeks' but I am not in possession of the article to check.

The "most common school of thought" and temperament.
I am concerned with the latest revision of the article using terms such as "the most common school of thought" and including a section on temperament. There is only one school of thought that correlates to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and that is the same one that is advocated and outlined by the official links found at the bottom. In regards to temperament; The original Keirsey (he is now dead and his son works on it) came up with his own system of typology and then stumbled upon the MBTI. Originally, he told people to just go to CAPT and take the Indicator (he was never interested in testing for types, only describing them). His publisher suggested that for Please Understand Me he include his own "sorter", and so he wrote one of the weekend. Now, there is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter which should NOT be in any way be confused with the MBTI. The MBTI does not deal with Keirsey's theory of temperament. Although there are many similarities between the two theories, they are in some ways mutually exclusive. Point in case, Keirsey once wrote a paper entitled, The Temperament Theory of Madness, which was correspondingly answered in the 1984 Journal of Psychological Type by strong criticism. Basically, if you went with TTM you had to disregard the MBTI. I am not talking about the validity of the KTS as I have high respect for Keirsey, but it is too easy to confuse the two theories; something that should not be done in an encyclopedia.

I myself have not studied Keirsey's theories to the extent that I believe I could explain them impartially and scientifically. However, if someone would like to discuss temperament I believe it needs to be done in an article which does not yet exist on the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.

It is my goal to make this a high quality article with purely accurate information on this subject. That would make it a one of a kind for this topic on the Internet.

-- Alterego @ 12:31 AM on 10/1/2004


 * Having further examined the article I see that the previous edit contains a segment that will undoubtedly end in an edit war if pursued. Therefore, I would like to end the situation right here.  I am holding in my hands an official book, published by Consulting Psychologists Press, the publisher of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator forms, entitled MBTI Manual - A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (ISBN 0891061304).  This is the MBTI bible.  In the last edit, 129.64.147.80 posted this segment:

''The functions can be introverted or extraverted; the same function will have different qualities depending on whether it is introverted or extraverted. According to the most common school of thought, for introverts, the dominant function is introverted, the auxiliary is extraverted, the tertiary is introverted, and the inferior is extraverted. For extraverts, the dominant is extraverted, the auxiliary is introverted, the tertiary is extraverted, and the inferior is introverted. However, some type theorists believe that the three non-dominant functions are all in the attitude opposite to the dominant.'''

This is not "some type theorists". Page 31 of the The Manual contains a chart which clearly shows that the tertiary function is in the opposite attitude of the dominant. The chart is perfectly identical to the one I originally posted in my original addition. This should settle any further debate on the issue, as this is the only official source of information!

- Alterego @ 12:52 AM on 10/1/2004

Wikipedia does not officially endorse MBTI
For a truly neutral POV a this is considered by many as nothing more than mumbo jumbo disclaimer should be very prominent! Note I am not advocating censorship: I am sure many are convinced of the value of MBTI but it should not appear that Wikipedia endorses this technique!!! Some skepticism is healthy! I note that in recent months some of the criticism has been toned down. E.g. my point that nobody ever tells you what category of MBTI Hitler fell into - only positive category models are used - has been deleted. What we have seems to be an advert or marketing literature for MBTI practitioners, MBTI books and MBTI web sites. Paul Beardsell 23:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You CANNOT know Adolf Hitler's psychological type preferences as according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. He never took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The theory behind the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is strongly against such rash and irresponsible uses of the instrument.  I am trying to create an accurate article that accords to the rules that practitioners are forced to follow.  Of course Wikipedia does not endorse the MBTI, but this is an encyclopedia and as such it should contain information accurate to the MBTI.  only positive category models...:  The MBTI is specifically designed NOT to detect or correspond with neuroses.  It is designed to describe and assist healthy and "normal" individuals.  In the interest of Wikipedia having an accurate article on the MBTI I will check all of the statements made against official documentation as described in The Manual (see above comment) and if something is posted that is ethically or factually against the official guidlines I will post exact references with quotes.  I am also willing to answer any questions! --Alterego @ 4:53 PM on 10/3/2004

Well, I cannot know Hitler's MBTI category because I think MBTI is hocus pocus. But others claim to know JFK's and Einstein's - just look on the web. You may dispute that MBTI can be used in such a way and you might be the purist and the keeper of the holy grail but they might not recognise your authority as to what is or is not allowed when discussing MBTI. Paul Beardsell 00:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV: If The Manual is the bible of MBTI and only what is in the bible is allowed then NPOV will be impossible. Paul Beardsell 00:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Paul I believe your point is fallous. When you write an article on any topic you use authoritative information on that topic.  You cannot in good conscience write an article on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator without using accurate information.  There is a lot of information on the web that is innacurate and in all honesty has nothing to do with the MBTI.  It has been confused with the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.  This is a big problem for people looking for a source of quality information.  I also want to point out that there is a portion on the bottom of the article dedicated to valid skepticism.  It had some pretty silly points on it before but I left the two that I felt were pretty good.  You are, of course, free to put anything you want in the article.  I encourage you to do so.  Be Bold! right?  Just know that if it is not valid information I will correct it and provide sources.    As to your bible retort, that too is silly.  Typing Adolf Hitler is not Neutral Point of View.  It is silly and it is not a fact.  This encyclopedia, while being NPOV, is also, in theory, here to report facts in article form.    Penultimately, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter has gone ahead and reported what they believe to be the types of many different famous persons.  They use the same letters as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which is likely the source of your confusion.  The MBTI article is already linked to the KTS article so the KTS article would probably be a good place to put those names. Lastly, if you would please see the 2nd or 3rd comment down on the talk page he mainly reinforces the things I have said about it being confused with the KTS. --Alterego @ 8:03 PM on 10/3/2004
 * You can say what you want, but whatever might be written by the MBTI foundation can by definition be considered worthless. There's this thing called "peer review" and scholarly peer reviewed articles are what Wikipedians are supposed to take their references from. The MBTI can NOT be taken seriously unless it has been peer reviewed and judged favourably in at ONE scientific journal.--TheOtherStephan 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

INTJ is a theory of psychological perspective. As somebody who has typed (many many times) as INTJ on that THEROY, it is really against my nature to agrue the point. It's a theory. I think it's a good one, but it isn't a proven one. But I think the theory is RIGHT. I think any INTJ will not complain if the KKK or Adolph Hitler or any other horrible figure from history endorsed the theory or not. What well all want is for the world to make some sense, and people to make some sense (impossible, I now know). IN fact, I suspect most INTJs will give a clinical view of the motives of the KKK, or other hate groups of whatever ethnicity. We may absolutely despise it all, but we seek to understand it - we seek knowledge. 67.136.242.106 06:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTN: 64.78.100.163 RE: Attitude of the tertiary
You said the tertiary is in the opposite attitude of the dominant and changed the article to reflect your thought. Consider this fair use photograph I have just taken for your reference. It is of the MBTI Manual - A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Third Edition ISBN 0891061304



Do you have a citation for your claim?

-- Alterego 10:53 on 11/29/04

RE: Attitude of the tertiary
I can get you several resources if you wish which will show the opposite, if you go to most MBTI sites they talk about how there is a debate going on about the tertiary function. I have editted the page to show the same, left the chart the same.

--Travis 2:27 on 12/4/04


 * Travis, please do not edit in this manner again without providing a specific and official citation for your claim. I am going to give you a link right now to the official ethical guidlines for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which states that the indicator must be used in accordance with The Manual, the most recent version of which I have provided a photograph of above. Citation. Citation. Citation!


 * Cite: "Administer and score the Indicator in accordance with the technical Manual".
 * Cite: "The Indicator should be used according to the instructions on the booklet and in the Manual."
 * --Alterego 1:30 12/4/2004

Just a personal note:

I have yet to meet anyone whose tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant. In my 20 years of observation and teaching, every type has only one configuration, as Jung predicted, that the dominant function operates all alone in its preferred realm, introverted or extraverted. I am an INTP, my sensing is DEFINITELY extraverted, and I've never met an INTP who could bear to fit into the introverted sensing world of rules, procedures, and historical perspective. Could someone point me to an INTP who has introverted sensing? RSGracey 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a &reg; after every instance of MBTI?
It is unnecessary and distracting. Stating that it is a trademark in the first paragraph is sufficient. Nohat 06:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi. I checked the trademark usage guidlines and you are right! So I have fixed the article.
 * On web sites use the ® or ™ symbol at the most prominent use of the trademark (typically in a header) and again on the first occurrence in the body of the text – use of the ® or ™ symbol must be repeated on every separate web page in which the trademark appears.
 * --Alterego 11:08 12/6/04
 * Just FYI, since we have not entered into any contract or other legal agreement with CPP, inc., we have no legal obligation to abide by those guidelines. We need only obey trademark law, which only gives CPP the right to control how their mark is used in commercial speech, not artistic and journalistic speech, which Wikipedia qualifies as and is covered by the first amendment. I won't begrudge the single instance on this page, but for example it will not be necessary to add ® to every other Wikipedia page that mentions MBTI, even though their trademark guidelines might imply otherwise. Nohat 07:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you have a cite for that by chance so I may research it further? Alterego 12:16 (AM, eep!) 12/7/04
 * You could start with Trademark, which indicates that trademark owners can request that people use their marks in a particular way but that they have no authority or jurisdiction to force them to do so, legally. And even if CPP were to complain to us, we're not using the mark in a generic way that might dilute it. We're using it correctly as a proper noun to refer to their product. On the other hand, if we were to describe all personality tests as MBTI tests, then CPP would have a legitimate argument that we were genericizing their trademark. But even then, they would not likely win if they sued us because we're wouldn't be trading using their trademark. The beauty of free speech is that we really can say whatever we want so long as it doesn't specifically violate some law that limits speech, and as far as I can see, nothing about trademark law restricts usage of trademarks outside of commercial speech.
 * See also the answer to "When can the owner of a trademark stop others from using it?" at . Also you could read the text of the Lanham Act. Hope that gives you a good start. Nohat 08:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, this is from : "Trademark law, however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered or unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is made in good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to which the mark relates " Nohat 09:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: Nohat
I must ask you to rethink this edit where you question the validity of the test. The test is actually quite valid, and if you reread the skeptics dictionary article you will notice that he does not attack that point. Further, I am working with a wikipedian who is a professional psychometrician to explain this point using Tex and technical terms for a seperate article soley on the psychometrics of the test. The aspect of the MBTI that is debateable is the theory, not the statistics. --Alterego 12:30 AM (eep!) 12/7/2004


 * Ah, I think you meant to send me to validity (psychometric). I didn't realize that validity has a technical definition in this context. I only meant it in the more general meaning of "having value" as in "a forged document has no validity". I will change it to "value" instead. Nohat 08:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --Alterego 9:42 12/7/04

RE: introvert extravert
In this edit you claimed that Jung did not coin the english terms 'introvert' and 'extravert'. He did, as a matter of fact, and if you search Google you will this is rather widely known! Also consider the etymology of extravert from Mirriam-Webster, "modification of German extravertiert, from Latin extra- + vertere". Jung was the Swiss-German who made this modification! The method of creating the word introvert was rather similar, "intro- + -vert". Other terms he coined include 'new age', animus, synchronicity, and 'collective unconscious'.

Regarding the spelling of extravert, I don't know how it is you who can make this call! The Myers & Briggs Foundation, who comprise the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust, who own the trademark to the indicator and delineate it's usage have made a public statement regarding how it should be used in the context of the MBTI. I do not mean to be contrary, however I have done everything in this article quite thoughtfully, and have provided citations in all instances where something could be debatebale. I do not appreciate you whimsically reverting edits I have made, especially when I have provided citations and sources at the time of making that edit.

Myers & Briggs Foundation"Direction of energy and attention: Extraversion and Introversion indicate how a person is energized. Do you naturally turn to the outer world of people and things (Extraversion) or to the inner world of ideas and images (Introversion)? (Notice that Extraversion in psychological type terms is spelled Extraversion not Extroversion)." Continuing with the usage of the "more popular" spelling is spreading disinformation.

There is a lot of misunderstanding concerning the MBTI. If you peek around the net you will see that it is not explained in such a careful and accurate way anywhere else. Please, let's keep it that way! --Alterego 9:39 12/7/04


 * The Oxford English Dictionary has quotations containing the words "introvert" and "extravert" dating back to the 1600s, long before Jung. I'll put up the quotations in a bit. I also have information showing "extrovert" to be much more commonly used. Stay tuned. Nohat 18:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Standing by! :)  --Alterego 11:53 12/7/04
 * Here are OED's entries for 'introvert':


 * Nohat 19:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I had just gone and looked it up myself, but, to my dismay we were missing the volume containing introvert. Thank you for posting this here, it is quite amazing and will make for wonderful discussions and an accurate article.  This material will be quite handy in the articles on introversion and extroversion as well, and I have just noticed that the article on Carl Jung contains the factual errancy as well.
 * That aside, I still believe we should use the spelling of 'extravert' in the article, as it has been deemed proper usage. Perhaps a comment such as, "(more populary spelled 'extrovert') would be appropriate.  --Alterego 2:05 12/7/05
 * Worth noting as well is the entry on "Extrovert," as this is likely where Jung first happened upon the term, as he was interested in mystics.
 * "Extroversion 1656-81 Blount, Glossogr., "Extroversion...in mystical Divinity...a scattering or distracting one's thoughts on exterior objects. --Alterego 2:14PM 12/7/04


 * Well, the notion of "correctness" with respect to words in English is one that is widely misunderstood. The only arbiter of correctness is usage; that is, something that has a majority of usage is inherently correct. See prescription and description. We can certainly mention that the Myers & Briggs Foundation prefers one spelling when used in connection with the MBTI, but we are under no obligation to do what they say, and indeed it is Wikipedia policy to to "use common names", which has been interpreted to apply to spelling. If you compare Google search results, you will see that the spelling extrovert outnumbers extravert by a factor of more than 6 to 1, establishing a clear preference of usage based on empirical evidence. This is of course notwithstanding the fact that all three of Merriam-Webster , American Heritage , and the OED list extravert as a variant of extrovert, with extrovert receiving the main definition. Major English dictionaries as well as the bulk of usage support preference of extrovert, and Wikipedia should do so as well. Nohat 21:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A large reason the "popular" usage is extrovert and not extravert is because of the popularity of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.  Keirsey uses the term "extrovert," however the MBTI uses the term "extravert," and had done so several decades before Keirsey came around.  Further, because this is an encyclopedia which is intended to document facts, we should document this one.  If you would like an example of Keirsey's theories being spread as disinformation, please take a look at early versions of this article.  --Alterego 3:15 12/7/04

The reason one spelling is more popular has no bearing on its correctness. Only volume of usage has bearing, and that is borne out by the fact that three major English dictionaries only list the spelling extravert as a "variant", meaning it is dispreferred. Like I said, we should certainly mention that M&BF prefers extravert, but it would not be NPOV to just assert that it's correct. You are correct that we should document facts, and the facts are: (1) 'extrovert' is the most common spelling for the word; (2) 'extrovert' is preferred by 3 major dictionaries; (2) M&BF prefer 'extravert' in connection with MBTI. I don't see how any of these facts obligates us to spell the word 'extravert'. As with the use of the &reg; symbol, Wikipedia is beholden to no policy save its own in matters of spelling and usage. And Wikipedia policy is to use the most common spelling. 22:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. There is nothing called "extroversion" associated with the MBTI.  There is, however, something called "extraversion".  Whatever the common usage is, it is incorrect, and associated with the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.  Also,  please provide a link to the policy.  (If the article is truly NPOV perhaps we should alternate spellings, heh :) ) --Alterego 3:34 12/7/04
 * Also, it should be mentioned that three major english dictionaries do not have the definitions of what the four MBTI dichotomies actually are. For example, "feeling" does not mean what you think. It means "making decisions based on values.  The MBTI have their own definitions that you will not find in these dictionaries. It is called Jargon.  And here is another source, this time CAPT, which states quite plainly the correct usage. Thus, the thing your dictionaries are talking about and the thing we are talking about are quite different beasts. --Alterego
 * You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of words. A word exists independently from its spelling and from the particular definitions given in dictionaries. This is why we don't say that realize and realise are different words: the latter is merely a spelling used in certain dialects of written English. A word is a group of related concepts associated with a series of sounds (or more precisely, phonemes). Sometimes two different words are pronounced the same but spelled differently, like "bare" and "bear", but this is not the case with "extravert" and "extrovert"&mdash;they are merely two spellings of the same word. Just because these words are being used to mean something specific that isn't covered in the dictionaries doesn't mean that they aren't the same words&mdash;in fact they are the same words because their meanings are very closely related. Claiming that they are separate words with totally different meanings that is distinguished by different spellings really is disingenuous.


 * M&BF believe that they can control the spelling of ordinary words that are associated with their product and they seem to have convinced you of the same. They are wrong&mdash;no one person or entity can control the spelling of ordinary words. The best way to maintain neutrality in the article with respect to spelling is to make the decision about which spelling to use based not on what various people and entities say is "correct", but by using a neutral criterion, which in the case of spelling would be using the most common spelling. Nohat 23:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the common usage, in the Myers-Briggs world, the spelling is "extravert". Spelling it "extrovert" in this article is incorrect. Dictionaries do not cover all specialized words and spellings. --Ben Kovitz 05:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ben. Common usage is not the main criterion here. Besides, consider the following:


 * 453,000 Google hits for extroversion
 * 1,140,000 Google hits for extrAversion
 * 8,100 Google hits for extroversion (Google Scholar)
 * 35,800 Google hits for extrAversion (Google Scholar)


 * Extraversion is more common, more linguistically correct, more utilized by professional psychologists, and officially part of the MBTI. Carl Jung used "extrAvert". Go to Amazon and search the terms Carl Jung Extraversion and you find books by Jung. Search Carl Jung Extroversion and you find books written by other people. This seems like a no brainer. Jcbutler 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Last edit
I stuck the last edit in the todo list so we can beautify it and make it a bit easier to understand! --Alterego 01:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I want to mention that I am colorblind, so if the colors I put in these tables do not jive, please make them easier on the eyes :) I do think they improve the readability of tables, though. --Alterego 02:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am going to be playing with the organization of the article. I think that jumping into the psychometrics of the test before we explain what it is trying to test is jumping the gun --Alterego 02:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A discussion of the scoring and psychometrics is, in effect, and argument in favor of the MBTI. For that reason, I am going to put it right next to the skeptical view section, which will provide balance in the article. --Alterego 02:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: Nohat
Dude, I am not going to put up with this this time. I deleted a point because it simply restated confirmation bias in a new way. I want you to be able to see this from an outside perspective: The skeptical view section sucked, so I brought in a whole bunch of valid information that beefed it up. Then, you, an obvious skeptic, came and in appreciated this information and reworded it to your liking. You have gone out of your way to make this article lean as much as possible towards the skeptical viewpoint. Before you revert my edits again, I ask that you addresss EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Obviously, this is not about your or me, it is about the article, however your behavior has been poor. You can start with defining just what exactly "scientifically meaningless" means, because that statement in and of itself is pretty meaningless. --Alterego 06:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Judging - Perceiving
The VfD on Judging - Perceiving decided to merge that article here. The content was:
 * The Perceiving seeks the life as it comes whereas Judging prefers organizations and making plans. People with Perceive Preference, tend to adapt to changing situations well but at the same time, they may be taking some decision and change it later when new information is made available. They would start a new project but would not follow through to its completion. They are more often seen as “in-decisive”. People with Judging preference like order and structure. They make decisions and move on to complete it. Their work place is organized. They are time oriented and make most out of available valuable resources.

I don't see anything useful that isn't already in the article, so I've put the text here. dbenbenn | talk 02:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Skeptical view
Consider adding in some of the psychometric objections to the MBTI (e.g. problems with dichotomous scoring, lack of reliability) outlined in the Skeptics Dictionary article and the bmj.com link?
 * While the bmj link is interesting, the guy (student) makes a lot of errors. Working from memory, he makes a comparison to measuring tall people and short people. Someone should point out to him that we don't have a ruler, and that this is a psychometric tool, not gym class.  Also, the skeptic's dictionary doesn't talk much about statistics, because in general it stands up very well, especially in terms of reliability.  If you have specific points Im willing to help reference them. --Alterego 16:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the contrast between the reliability of dichotomous classifications (E-I) and whole profiles (ENTP) as contrasted with the reliability of the continuous variables (mentioned in both links), and also the lack of evidence for different types of people (as opposed to continuous personality dimensions) mentioned in the bmj.com link (e.g. bimodality, interactions). I actually quite like the reference to height, what it is saying is that if the MBTI scales are only measuring continuous personality traits (as 5 factor theory would argue) then dividing people into Is and Ns actually reduces the information provided by the test, rather than adding to it.
 * "The fundamental weakness of the MBTI, that must be appreciated, is that it classifies people together who have very different scores on the continuous dimensional measures, and then uses this categorisation to infer characteristics of those individuals. At the same time it contrasts those falling either side of the cut-off, but scoring closely numerically, as qualitatively different. For this approach to be valid the sixteen different personality types in the MBTI should contain some predictive power over and above the continuous dimensions they dichotomise – that is they should tell us more than simply that someone scored above or below the cut-off score on the continuous dimension. This is a view endorsed by the designers of the instrument:


 * “The eight characteristics that are defined in the MBTI are not traits that vary in quantity; they are dichotomous constructs…” [14].


 * “The Indicator does not attempt to measure degrees of preference; according to the theory the opposites of the dichotomies are qualitatively different categories…” [11]."--Coroebus 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The theory states that types are inborn; one of the largest complaints is that this cannot, as of yet, be proven physiologically. But that is the statement that was made by Jung and Myers - whole types exist, and we are born preferring certain characteristics over others (calling them traits is another argument to be discussed). Whole types, however, are made up of the dynamic interactions of their parts - they are a gestalt.  It may sound strange, but simply looking at a single dichotomy and making a critique that information is being lost is to, in that action itself, discard information. Is Matthews aware of midpoint discrimination?  He mentions briefly the decision that is made when an individual preference is on one side of the line or other, but examining the test construction brings about another light to this: if the item does not discriminate at the midpoint, it is thrown out. That is to say, the test is not designed to to discriminate between N+15 and N+20, it is designed to discriminate between S+5 and N+5.  In that aim, then, he is critiquing the MBTI for a feature it does not have that it does not aspire to have.  It may be possible to indeed design a psychological test which does discriminate between N+5 and N+20, but that is simply not the goal of the MBTI.  Further, saying the test is not perfect at what it does is a sort of fallacy. The reason there are 93 items on Form M is because there is not a perfect, 4 item test.  Don't get me wrong - there are real critiques to be made of the MBTI, but it seems that these "skeptical claims" (I question the validity of them themselves) are drilling down so deeply as to miss the real problems to be found. Such as, why is it that after the decade of the brain, the Center of Applications of Psychological Type has advanced no research into using dynamic brain imaging techniques to identify the physiological aspects of the theory?  If the theory is valid, why, in CAPT's own publications, is the tertiary found in two diferent directions for all types?  Perhaps specifically, the question of traits/types raises some interesting points, but by and large the skeptical claims are few, far between, and shallow compared to the 1300 masters and doctoral theses written which validify the theory in many ways.  If Matthew's points are valid, he needs to get them published in a reputed journal. There is an audience for valid claims; over two million people take the test every year. --Alterego 22:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The MBTI owes its profile, to a large extent, to its popularity outside of mainstream academic psychometrics. I believe that around 50% of all research on the MBTI is published in what are effectively the in house journals of type believers.  And Matthews has given references for his views, which seem justified to me.  What he is saying is that the MBTI scales are, in fact, the same as the big 5 scales (which is a point made in the wiki article itself).  What he then goes on to say is that, if this is indeed the case, what do we gain from dichotomising the scales, where is the evidence for the types?  If whole types are a gestalt it should be possible to show some kind of interaction between the subscales.  This is the main argument against the MBTI by five factor theorists and has been since McRae and Costa, I referenced the Matthews link because I can't find the article by Pittenger(1993) online anymore (it is here -> http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf ).  What evidence do you think validates the MBTI may I ask, and consider whether this evidence could supervene on the underlying continuous scale rather than depending on a 'type' - that is the essence of the height analogy, and I think it captures the objection very well, do tall people have properties about them that are in addition to the definitional property of being above average height, the same question applies to Es, do they have any properties that don't supervene on their score on the E-I subscale?  Incidentally, the midpoint discrimination design of the IRT scoring was based on scores on the previous instrument, so is circular.  Also, while MBTI IRT scoring was designed to maximise discrimination at the cut-off (for obvious reasons), you can hardly claim that it cannot discriminate at the extremes, you can, just not as well as at the mid range.  I appreciate that CPP argue against treating the scales as continuous, but they are also happy to treat them as such when it suits them (e.g. running correlations between five factor dimensions and raw scores or taking reliability measures on raw scores) --Coroebus 11:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think something like this should go into the statistical studies bit:
 * Split-half reliability of the MBTI scales is good, although test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. However, because the MBTI dichotomises scores in the middle of the distribution, type allocations are less reliable.  Within each scale about 83% of categorisations remain the same when retested within nine months, and around 75% when retested after nine months.  About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months.
 * Harvey, R J (1996) Reliability and Validity, in MBTI Applications. A.L. Hammer, Editor. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA. p. 5- 29.
 * And maybe something like this in the skeptical bit:
 * Scores on the individual subscales are distributed in a centre weighted platykurtic manner similar, but not identical, to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the centre of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type.  This leads to people who are very small distances apart on their scores being categorised as being qualitatively different to one another because they fall on opposite sides of the cut-off, while being lumped in with much more extreme scores that fall on the same side of the cut-off.  For this approach to be valid the sixteen different personality types in the MBTI should do more than simply tell us that someone scored above or below the cut-off score, it should pick-out a real subgroup of people who share characteristics over and above the score. This is in fact the view of the designers of the MBTI.  However, evidence for the existence of these subtypes, independent of the underlying subscales, is difficult to prove.
 * I'm in two minds about whether you actually want to go into the attempts to prove the existence of subtypes --Coroebus 12:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll catch up on this in a couple days (over the weekend). In the meantime, I just wanted to point out that User:Amead has a doctorate in psychometrics, so it'd be apt to invite him here. --Alterego 14:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

"And Matthews has given references for his views, which seem justified to me. What he is saying is that the MBTI scales are, in fact, the same as the big 5 scales (which is a point made in the wiki article itself)"

Why is it that a strong correlation with the Big 5 invalidates the MBTI, which was developed first, and not the other way around? Frankly, with correlations in the .7 range for two of the scales and a .6 overall, it means the two tests are largely the same. Ergo, if the Big 5 is valid, the MBTI is also valid, and if the MBTI is NOT valid, then neither is the Big 5. RJ Harvey's work shows that many of the test-retest issues occur in cases where the subject's score was near the midpoint to begin with. In Big 5 terms, a 5% variation in the Extraversion score is seen as nothing, but on the MBTI, a 5% variance can cause the dichotomy to change its letter. This is a semantic distinction in the scoring language of the two tests and, IMHO, not a serious flaw in either of them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.182.41 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC2)

Is there a reason for singling out Australia in this sentence: "It is not taught as part of Master's level programs in Psychology at any Australian University"? I'm sure the MBTI isn't taught in e.g. any Bangladeshi Master's level programs either. Is Australia highly regarded for its Master's level Psychology programs? If not, that fact is irrelevant for a general encyclopedia, and should be revised or removed. Oswaldojh 12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Qualified MBTI Instructors/Interpreters' input?
I'm curious to know whether this article has been handed to the Association for Psychological Type for review..?
 * That wouldn't be very NPOV --Alterego 02:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Double Blind
Re: skeptics ...

Has no-one ever done a double-blind test with MBTI, where subjects are given descriptions of the 16 types and asked which one most represents them vs. the results of their scores on a test (obviously randomizing order of the test and the self-typing)? This seems like such obvious and simple research. I couldn't find it on the web, but I don't read the MBTI literature. dml 16:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the bmj article "In true-type studies (where the personal evaluation of the MBTI type is compared with the score allocated MBTI type), Carskadon & Cook [2] found that 50% of people picked their MBTI profile, while 13% picked the completely opposite profile...[2] Carskadon, T.G. and D.D. Cook, Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type. Research in Psychological Type, 1982. 5: p. 89-94." Couldn't say whether it was double blind but could be a good place to start. --Coroebus 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Double-bind would be quite difficult because not everyone understands that the MBTI is based on preference not current attitude. In my own experience i have found that when asked what type they are, they choose what they like, not what they are.


 * Although not quite "correct", i have found it helpful to type people based on Jungian attitude/function and Keirsian temperament. When the two coincide, i know i have the type correct. --Chacham 7:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that the British Psychological Society has standards of validity and reliability that can be applied to psychometric instruments, because the instrument I use has just passed them! A self-perception double-blind however would tell us little because all you're measuring is their self-perception (measured by the MBTI) against their self-perception (measured by sticking the 16 profiles in front of them and asking them to choose one).  The real value (or otherwise) of these tools comes from combining personal and peer perceptions. TeamCoachingNetwork 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But since the self-perception types obtained from each method don't agree very well, it tells you something rather interesting about the reliability of the test, something that is further highlighted by the poor test-retest reliability. --Coroebus 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Function descriptions
The functions are still being explained from a Keirsian view.

Introvert / Extrovert


 * "extroverted attitude the energy flow is outward". Jung explained it simply as the Extravert is objective to the outer world, and the introvert is subjective to the outer world. That is, an Extravert accepts what he senses whereas the introvert stands back and resists blindly accepting that which happens in the outer world.


 * Although i have not seen it said directly, the attitude towards the inner world of ideas is the exact opposite. That is, the Introvert is objective to the inner world (accepts all ideas as they are), whereas the extravert is subjective and can reject abnormal ideas.


 * I do not remember seeing anything about "energy flow" in Gifts Differing.

Sensing / Intuition


 * "They indicate how a person prefers to receive data." That is incorrect. They indicate how a person prefers to perceive it. Everyone uses both. Intuition can only work after the senses receive data. (And ultimately, any data to be judged on must be intuited first. Though this is van der Hoop.) The Sensor remembers information, whereas the Intuitive understands it.


 * "intuition prefers to receive data from the unconscious" I know Keirsey says that, but this is not Jungian. Otherwise, how could where be an extraverted intuitive? van der Hoop explains this best (Character and the Unconcious) by saying that Intuition is pattern recognition. That is, recognition that there is a pattern, not what the pattern is.

Thinking / Feeling


 * Feeling uses "more or less, better-worse" evaluations. IIRC, Gifts Differing says that the judgement unlike the binary true/false logic judgements, are trinary less than/equal to/greater than judgements.


 * "When introverted, Thinking and Feeling judgments tend to be subjective, relying on internally generated ideas for logical organization and evaluation." This is absurd. The introverted thinkers are by far the most objective of all the types in the realm of thought. Specifically, the INTP takes little to no prejudice into arguments, and thus come up with new approaches. Jung himself was INTP and he took a very objective view in identifing the four functions.


 * Thinking is always objective and feeling is always subjective (van der Hoop). The extraverted thinkers are only objective in as far as society allows, and once they latch into an idea they reject all others. The introverted thinker rejects what society thinks are goes on his own, but ultimately is always open to hear new ideas.


 * Extraverted feelers base their values on current society. Introverted feelers base their values on personal feelings. The INFP is the most subjective of all the types.

--Chacham 7:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Energy flow"

 * Introverted vs extroverted "show how a person orients and receives their energy. In the extroverted attitude the energy flow is outward, and the preferred focus is on other people and things, whereas in the introverted attitude the energy flow is inward, and the preferred focus is on one's own thoughts and ideas."

This reference to energy is unscientific beyond belief. If it's original to this article then it desperately needs rewriting; if it's taken from an "official" source then I have been sadly mistaken about the validity of this technique. I thought it was a reasonably respectable psychological test - if this inward and outward "energy flow" is official then it sounds more akin to feng shui and crystal healing. PeteVerdon 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The MBTI does indeed refer to energy, although I think they mean it in a more metaphorical sense than feng shui. And no, it is not a respectable psychological test. --Coroebus 15:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Energy flow is just F speak for "what is easier". i.e for introverts, it's HARD WORK and TIRING dealing with lots of people all the time, whereas for the extrovert, it's much easier (in fact they sometimes thrive on it).  The problem with the word 'energy' is that it has a different meaning depending on if you're a T or an F.  For a T, energy is actually a 'scientific' unit of measurement called the Joule.  For an F, energy refers to some sort of feely, spiritual, cosmic thing that you can't put your finger on but you can 'feel' it's there.

source of the mbti functions?
What are your sources of the mbti functions? I´ve know only funkction models with alternating introversion and extraversion and not three introversion or extraversion functions in a row. e.g. or  --Gronau 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased "Introverted Feeling" definition
This entry uses phrases that imply the average Introverted Feeler has psychological and/or emotional disorders (i.e. "childish mask" and "...generally fails to respond to the feelings of others, which makes them incompatible with others...").

Such biased wording is a disservice to the MBTI. It portrays many people, who either label themselves or are labeled by others as Introverted Feelers, as unfit members of society. This lack of objectivity is unscientific, which devalues the MBTI as a valid personality indicator.

The use of "generally" should be deleted, while qualifiers such as "may" should be added, when describing supposed positive or negative character traits.

Finally, more positive traits should be included. Perhaps references to how Intorverted Feelers are highly self-aware and how they strive to live in accordance with their values.

--216.80.125.207 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, this whole subject lacks scientific validity. And the fact that you think "more positive traits should be included" is hypocritical coming from someone who believes that a "lack of objectivity is unscientific" and therefore "devalues the MBTI as a valid personality indicator." --216.165.32.126 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
The skeptical view point presented is quite weak. Also, there are logical and factual errors in the main section. I suspect the hand of ccp! It is really a pity when there are well articulated arguments for why the MBTI is very, very bad. Google is just as bad, thanks to the link spamming.Tony Danza 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is based on the skepics dictionary directly, it needs organising and expanding. Any volunteers? --Coroebus 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rearranged the arguments in skeptical views, but haven't really changed it's contents apart from moving some stuff from talk. What more should be covered?  We talk about the potential invalidity of 16 dichotomous types and the less than sterling reliability of the test, what else needs to be covered? --Coroebus 15:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To Do list
-FYI- Consulting Phycologist Press Inc. is now officially titled "Cpp, Inc." I don't have time to do the research- but someone can follow up

I had a look at the to do list Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/to do and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/to do, both contain completly different content and the last major changes were over a year ago. Is this TODO still current? Should still be included? (if not the conent of both should probably me included here). --Salix alba (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More to the point. Anyone object if I delete the to-do list and copy content without surronding bok into talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections so pasting content of page here.
 * I notice that the internal link to Katharine Cook Briggs simply redirects to the article on Isabel Briggs Myers, therefore either the redirect needs to be fixed or the link removed. Thoughts?--wee paddy 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Old To Do Page

 * Create a table explaining the dynamic name of each dichotomy and how to combine them. This will go in the MBTI secction.
 * Create a specific section for MBTI.
 * Create a specific section for the specific MBTI involved in the MBTI, including a discussion of reliability and validity. Also discuss this in the MBTI section.
 * Under the MBTI section, do a writeup of the points covered by Annie Murphie Paul in the recent book "The Cult of Personality" (ISBN 1102158959)
 * Create a MBTI of specialized terms and jargon which can be linked to when using those words.
 * De-obfuscate the language in MBTI

Here is the glossary in progress. I typed it up on a recent flight :)

Glossary
Tip: Hit your browser’s back button to return to your last reading point.


 * Attitude refers to whether an individual function is introverted or extroverted.
 * Attitude-functions are things such as “introverted thinking.” Introversion is the attitudeof the function thinking.
 * Dichotomy is a division of two mutually exclusive groups, or preferences, such as thinking and feeling. Although each person uses thinking and feeling to make decisions, the test looks to find which is dominant in the personality, which is how they come to be put into dichotomies.
 * Differentiated refers to the order in which your ‘’functions’’ develop throughout life. According to type theory, thedominant function develops until around age 12, at which point the auxiliary will begin to develop. The tertiary begins development around midlife, and later the inferior.
 * Functions are sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling.
 * Irrational functions are sensing and intuition. These two functions indicate how data is preferentially gathered in the personality.  If sensing, by using the five senses. If intuition, then by what Jung described as “perceptions via the unconscious.”  Although we can bring conscious attention to these data gathering functions, we are not usually in direct control over them.  For example, if one were to recall a memory of a place and try to think of the temperature, they would have a sensory memory of whether it was hot warm or cold, and might even be able to give an estimate of the degree, regardless of whether they consciously thought of the weather at that time or not. This is just as one cannot control if they spontaneously see a relationship between two ideas in their morning shower.
 * Perception refers to the irrational functions, sensing and intuition. In a dichotomy with ‘’judgement,’’ it is also the last letter of the four letter acronym, e.g., ESTJ and INFP. This dichotomy was added to Jung’s theory by Myers in order to identify which was more ‘’differentiated’’ in the personality, the ‘’auxiliary’’ or the ‘’tertiary’’.  This interaction is explained in the type dynamics section.
 * Rational functions are thinking and feeling. They indicate the personality prefers to make decisions.  If thinking, then by logic and analysis, and if feeling, by values.
 * Judgement refers to the rational functions, thinking and feeling. See ‘’’perception’’’.
 * Orientation to the outer world

History
Jung first wrote of two distinct differences in personality in 1913, in what he later described as his "...need to define the ways in which my outlook differed from Freud's and Adler's." In 1921, Jung extrapolated on his ideas of introversion and extraversion in his work Psychological Types, and two years later the work was translated from german into english.

Two years later, Myers's family adopted Jung's ideas into their home and became avid "type-watchers," testing Jung's theory among family and friends for the next 2 decades, until the United States entered World War II in 1941.


 * Jung, Carl Gustav. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage Books: New York, 1965. p. 207.
 * "Myers, Isabel Briggs (1970). Personal letter to Mary McCaulley. The MBTI Qualifying Program: The Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 2004. p. 20.
 * Myers later described her motivation for starting the type indicator as thus: "In the darkest days of World War II when the Germans were rolling irresistibly along and my shoulders ached with trying to hold them back and a horrible sinking feeling lived in the pit of my stomach, the thought came to me one day (I was making my bed at the time) that by letting them spoil my life that way i was helping them win, bringing destruction to pass by my own doing...What I did, as it turned out, was the Type Indicator."

The different types
I was just curious as to why the actual articles for the individual types simply refer back to the main article. How come there aren't articles explaining those types in more detail? ONEder Boy 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Maybe because those types don't make sense outside of the MBTI universe.


 * I think we could do with an individual page for each of the different types. There is one for ISTP and one for INFJ but the others just redirect to here. Jammycakes 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

XXXX
It appears that the "XXXX" and other derivitave identifiers are missing.

To see what I mean, if you take the test, and fall dead center between an "extrovert" and an "introvert", then the letter "X" would be used, instead of "E" or "I". If you took the test, and ALL answers were dead-center in all categories, you'd be an "XXXX".

I say that, because that's happened to me repeatedly.

Just thought I'd mention it. I don't feel like updating the main article, if someone else feels like doing that, have at it.

--Ron 03:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * More recent versions of the test do not have the 'x' identifier, everyone is forced into one or other of the categories. --Coroebus 10:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Manual, and as taught in qualifying seminars, ties break in favor of I, N, F and P. This, of course, is trumped by the best fit ethical practice that the client has the final say in determining his or her type. On the form M, there are 21 questions for E/I, 26 for S/N, 24 for T/F and 22 for J/P. Hence, unless one leaves a question blank, a 'tie' is only possible for three of the dichotomies (meaning that XXXX is impossible if all questions are answered. You can be EXXX or IXXX, but not XXXX.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.182.41 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC2)


 * Pretty sure IRT (computer) scoring doesn't produce this problem.--Coroebus 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
Argh! This article is a piece of shit. It is completely biased. The astrology articles make more sense. And really that whole thing about statistical studies is fucked up. What you have is three weak correalations. Every time I have tried to reword it to make it more balanced (and to point out that the correalations are weak), SOMEONE comes and changes it.

I give up. If you want to believe in it and pretend that it is all well validated and 'scientific' go for it. It is a load of shit.


 * I don't think the MBTI is valid, I also think the article is a bit biased (note the discussion I had about putting in more qualifiers about the reliability), but, although the correlations reported in the article are weak, the standard paper quoted in the field is McCrae & Costa (1989) where the correlations are of the order .7, which is very good for a personality study (where even re-takes of the same test often correlate at .8 or less). Therefore, changing it read that there are only weak correlations would be misleading.  Obvously the use of that particular study was unwise, but I can't be bothered to change it. --Coroebus 10:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah, I lie, changed study to McCrae & Costa (1989).--Coroebus 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles on individual types
I noted that there are articles for ISTP and INFJ whereas all the others are redirect pages. As people will undoubtedly want more information on individual types (rather than the generalities in this article) I'm changing all these pages to stubs. Perhaps others more knowledgeable about the subject than myself could expand them? Jammycakes 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And having got most of the way through it I've discovered that INTP and ESFP once had articles but were changed to redirects. Personally, I think we need to be consistent, i.e. either all types should have their own articles or else all types should redirect to this one. Personally, I would be more in favour of the former, but I note that ESFP was nominated for deletion and the upshot of the discussion was to change it to a redirect. Anyone care to comment? Jammycakes 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it´s the best to change all types into redirects. First everybody who is interested in the material can read enough stuff in the internet and second aren´t types limited to MBTI - there are Keirsey, Socionics and some other theories. Do you want to have more than three describtions in the article? I don´t think so. --Gronau 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd beg to differ. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, we might as well not bother with Wikipedia at all because you can find most of the stuff on it elsewhere on the Internet, period. Besides, although this article goes into great detail about the generalities of Myers-Briggs, it doesn't distill it into specifics about the individual types, which would be useful particularly when they are mentioned in other articles. For example, the article Nerd mentions INTJ, INTP and INFP types, but if you just click through from these articles to this one, it can be difficult to figure out what the connection is, and it doesn't make an awful lot of sense unless you are actually aware of the specific descriptions of these types. Individual articles would in this case be a help. Jammycakes 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The personality types goes too much into detail for an own article, I think. And I don´t understand the phrase " is a personality type from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" because it is also a type from Keirsey and Socionics like said above. Why don´t you mention it, but reduce the types only to MBTI? There are some other problems like VIP typing, descriptions and so on. MBTI never typed any peoples, but Keirsey did and many of them wrong, e.g. Einstein as an INTP although he is an ENTP. How want you manage these problems? Just reducing to MBTI is poor... --Gronau 09:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you fully understood my last comment. Some Myers-Briggs types, especially INxx, are mentioned specifically in other articles, e.g. Nerd mentions INTJ, INTP and INFP; Asperger Syndrome mentions INTP and INFJ; Schizoid personality disorder mentions INTJ and INTP, Remorse mentions INTJ, and so on. Links from these articles to more detailed ones about these specific types, rather than just a general link to the MBTI discussion, would be helpful. The general intention is for these stubs " is a personality type from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" to be expanded into something a bit more informative. Jammycakes 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having individual entries for each is absurdly unwarranted. Just check out pages like ENFP, stubs almost entirely devoid of content with next to no chance of ever expanding with meaningful and significant information. If we are to have information on each individual type, what we should clearly do is have a single, centralized daughter article with a section for each type, something like List of MBTI types. A very similar practice has been used on pages like Solar system in astrology (as opposed to the older Mercury (astrology), etc. stubs), to great success. Much better to have two decent-sized pages (MBTI and MBTI types) than to have twenty stubs. -Silence 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already answered this in my previous comments above. Besides, the stubs are only four days old (check their edit histories) and are already being edited by others, so the time to make a judgment about that is probably in a month or two's time rather than at this early stage. Jammycakes 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, until it is not clear about which metric we are talking I just ignore all sentences about significant information or claiming significant non-information. Second, since there are far too many external links for the single types, I would really appreciate good Wikipedia entries about this topic. Third, if it really turns out that there are no contributions, we can change it anyway. And I completely agree with Jammycakes that this should not be right now.
 * Taking the "enough stuff in the internet and second aren´t types limited to MBTI - there are Keirsey, Socionics and some other theories" argument of Gronau into account, I really think it will not get better merging all information in one page.
 * JKW 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the articles on the individual types and I feel that I should express how I feel the articles should be written. First I feel that their should be a descriptor that describes the type and this should be folowed by general traits.  The INFJ article has two decent examples of this.  Then I think it should be followed by their congnitive functions.  Paul James (http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html ) has written a very extensive article about this topic.  I don't think anything close to what he did should be written but a general descriptor of how the cognitive functions are believed to be responsible for influencing the particular character type would be appropriate.  After the cognitive functions, I am tentatively wanting to include shadow functions.  I don't know much about them but they are listed here(http://www.bestfittype.com/cognitiveprocesses.html). They are the ones listed 5,6,7,8.  Perhaps a description of how the shadow processes are believed to influence the individual character type would be appopriate.  After the shadow functions, I feel their should be sections devoted to potential applications of the individual Myers' Briggs character types.  I know that there is information available for parenting, relationships, stressors, personal development, learning, and careers.  There appears to be some disagreement about what historical figures are what type so I am currently discouraging their inclusion in terms of Myers' Briggs type. I included historical figures in the case of Kiersey's temperament becuase the historical figures I listed came from a reputable source - Kiersey.com (Basically I feel Kiersey gets to claim who he feels falls into his categories as it is his model.  Plus its easier to do using his model considering Kiersey focuses on behaviors.)  I also feel that the individual type articles should be focused solely on Myers-Briggs.  Once they have been written, then we can link to Kiersey's types which are slightly different than their Myers' Briggs counterparts.  In terms of whether we should include claims or actual information, I think we need to focus on claims and actual information that come from reputable sources. I am not too concerned about this in the short term because right now we just need to get some information on the pages before we start to worry about the specific details. But verifiability is important in the long term. Eincrat 06:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also feel that the individual type articles should be focused solely on Myers-Briggs. Why? An encyclopedia should mention all aspects of the article and this means that at least Socionics must be mentioned. --Gronau 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Gronau's point that the othertype theories need to mentioned is vaild. However I feel we also need to be careful about treating the Myers' Briggs type descriptions and the Kiersey's role variants as being one and the same.  They are not.  Kiersey's model is different from Myers-Briggs and therefore Kiersey's descriptions of his role variants are going to be somewhat different from the Myers-Briggs descriptions of the character types.  I have been thinking about creating individual pages for the role variants for sometime but I was waiting to see how the Myers-Briggs types were going to be written.  And I also have been trying to give some format for how to create the Myers-Briggs types as I am fairly familiar with them.  In any case, I think we should create larger pages that describe the individual MBTI types in detail and then use links to individual pages of the Kiersey role variants.  The focus on the role variants should probably be less extensive than the focus of the Myers' Briggs types as we don't want to duplicate things like how the type or variant descriptions can be used to in things like career development. Eincrat 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The differences between the theories are indeed a big problem. My main intention was not referring to Keirsey, but to Socionics. It is in russia more popular than MBTI in the USA. Maybe the similarities of all theories can be mentioned in the introduction and then going into detail in two main paragraphs: 1) MBTI (and Keirsey) and 2) Socioncs. In both should be mentioned the functions (which are slightly different), some varieties and different person typings. --Gronau 09:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems there's been a reasonable uptake on this, which is pretty promising. Anyone got any thoughts on making it a WikiProject? Jammycakes 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. I am not familiar enough with WikiProjects to make any suggestions at the present time. Eincrat 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with Wikiproject, so I can´t say anything about it. What do you think about my changes of the types articles? Of course you can correct or delete it if you don´t like it. --Gronau 22:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization
I am sorry about earlier. I realize now I should have discussed what I was about to do in this talk section before I made all the edits. I am still pretty new to all this and it takes some getting used to. If you look at the ESTJ stub, you can see what I think should be done for all of the Myers' Briggs Character types. I feel that this will help with the organization of this article. I feel that this article needs a lot more organization and I am going to try and do it. I'll keep you posted about what I am tyring to do on here. Eincrat 19:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only wikipedia, don't stress about it mateJayKeaton 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Valuable resource
I have just added a link which contains a lot of information regarding Myers-Briggs. I haven't had a chance to look through it all yet, but it looks to be very useful http://www.gesher.org/Myers-Briggs/Myers_Briggs.html Eincrat 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the name?
Under History, the article says "The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®) in 1956." It must be brilliant sort of test, to change its own name! Who made the decision to change it? Cephal-odd 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Skeptic Claims
The very first paragraph has the language "claim" and an additional hypothesis "could be due to the Forer effect."

There has been no cited research on the Forer effect and the MBTI -- only a link to a hypothesis on another site that has never been researched.

This violates the no original research principle of the Wikipedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Skeptics do not claim anything.

Pseudo-skeptics make negative claims that are unsubstantiated and this page is getting overwhelmed with pseudo-skepticism when skepticism should be enough. JazzyGroove 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Type theory and Continuum hypothesis, in the validity section
These don't relate to whether real world phenomena such as a personality take discrete or continuous values in the slightest (this is what I whoever put them in meant). Now thw first sentance of validity sucks a bit because I had to pull the pseudo-set theory but didn't know what to replace it with. Can someone rewrite. A Geek Tragedy 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)