A Psychometric Instrument Better than Myers Briggs.

As I understand, x is more of a matter of standard of deviation in regards to the personality taxonomy which they propose.

From what I've read, not all of the dimensions get the same validity. For skeptics, they point out the J-P scale for inaccuracy or correspondence with the S-N scale. for proponents, they cite the E-I and T-F scales.

I don't think MB is the end all be all, but if a personality model can be built it might be the tent to the house, if you dig.

A
R
T

Perhaps you should go read up on what the Myers-Briggs measures, if you don't know.

This is a very apt analogy. There might be better shelters, but a tent is cheap, easy to assemble, and will at least keep out the rain. There might be better psychological tests, but the MBTI is quick, easy, and can provide some insight that you might not have had before.

I did read up on it a long time ago. My problem is that none of the literature, including the literature you provided, gives a definition of "x" independent of "whatever it is that the Myers Briggs test happens to measure". That's why I'm asking you.

Perhaps you should start with the Wikipedia entry and go from there.

You're either not listening, or you're confusing me with ebrown p. I have read the Wikipedia entry long before this thread. I also have read the "Personality" chapter in David Myers' college textbook Psychology (Seventh Edition, 2004). My problem is that little of what I've read there supports the conclusion that the test reveals anything that the testers haven't already put in there.

For example, you would have little respect for a psychometric test where the testers simply feed back your answers to you. There's just no use when they ask you, "do you like to read books?", you answere "yes", and they diagnose that "you are a book-reading type." For a test to mean something, it has to predict something the testers didn't know already because you told them.

Moreover, you wouldn't even have much respect for a test that predicted something if the prediction was obvious. As in: "If you score low in the likeability dimension, your relationships will tend to be less stable." (Stop the presses! Douchebags are hard to associate with!)

With these points in mind, let me rephrase my question to you: What useful, novel, and non-obvious observations do you know of that Myers-Briggs test results predict correctly?

Ah. I wasn't aware you were looking for anecdotal evidence.

OK, then. I, personally, have seen the MBTI improve my relationship with my wife. My understanding her MBTI type, and her understanding my MBTI type, and the ways both of our personality types approach solving problems has led to a dramatic decrease in the level of conflict in our marriage.

Now, I'm not saying that the MBTI is the only tool that would have worked, or that it will work for all couples in all situations, but it was definitely a useful tool for us.

Just as an example, let's discuss the Thinking/Feeling dichotomy.

I'm a fairly extreme T. Rational to a fault. One of my friends is an F; he makes decisions based on how he feels about things.

After 9/11, I rationally decided that another airline hijacking is very unlikely. Passengers will fight back, because the hijacker's goal is no longer to take and exchange hostages, but to use the airplane as a weapon.

My friend, though, just didn't feel safe, and so refused to fly.

Understanding his MBTI helped me understand where he was coming from, even though I disagreed with his conclusion.

Thanks for offering, but actually I prefer statistical regressions. By the standards of anecdotal evidence, even astrology can be useful. I have seen New-Age-ish couples successfully use astrological compatibility charts to maintain their relationships. Nevertheless, we both agree astrology is garbage. Granted, I would expect that Myers Briggs work better, and I've said as much in my first post to the other thread. Unlike astrology, Myers-Briggs does pay attention to input relevant to your personality, which should at least to some good. Still, anecdotal evidence alone is fairly weak.

My confidence in Myers-Briggs would be much improved if you could point me to studies where, say, the performance of high-school students in particular classes is correlated to their Myers-Briggs types. For example, if the test can demonstrate with statistical significance that INTPs are better math students than ESFJs, and that ESFJs are more likely to be class presidents, that would help.

Or better yet, make it a prediction, not a correlation. Divide the testers into two groups. Have Group 1 administer the tests to the students. Then give the results to Group 2, and let the psychologists in it predict who the best three math students are and who the class president is. I know psychology isn't physics, and I know that their predictions can't be perfect. But if together the Myers-Briggs testers can split the difference between perfection and a coin toss, that would be clear and convincing evidence that the test works.

The Myers-Briggs is not designed to measure ability; it is designed to measure personality preferences. It is essentially a tool to assist with interpersonal relationships (IMO).

The MBTI is used in career counseling, but I haven't ever been involved in that so I don't know how reliable it is.

(Our posts crossed, I didn't see the new one.)

But you'd been knowing your friend from observation, and could have reached the same conclusion just by common sense and empathy. What extra value did the test generate beyond what common sense would have already told you?

I could have done that, but I probably wouldn't have. I'm notably short on empathy, and I don't suffer fools gladly.

I think you're trying to make the MBTI into something it's not. The MBTI is one test, and it helps folks describe their personality preferences.

A ruler can tell you length, but it can't tell you mass. You don't use a scale to measure resistance in an electrical circuit.

Fair enough. In this case, you should be able to use it to make an honest version of astrological compatibility charts. It should be able to generate testable predictions of the type: "If an INTP male marries an ESFJ female, the relationship has a probability p of surviving the next five years. If the relationship breaks up, the conflict that broke it will most likely have been about issue x."

What kind of research is there along lines like these?

Why don't you go look and tell me?

For two reasons. First, you seem to know what you're talking about, so it's easier for me to ask you.

Second, since I'm fairly cynical about the matter, I expect there to be no such research at all. But since it's practically impossible to prove a negative, I will never be able to say "there's no such research". And then I will have wasted my time.

I see the problem. You seem to have mistaken me for the MBTI evangelist. I'm not that person.

I decided to point out ebrownp's logical fallacy and his intellectual dishonesty because it provided some entertainment value. I'm not really interested in evaluating precisely how accurate or inaccurate the MBTI is.

Ah.

DrewDad, apparently disagreeing with you is a logical fallacy.

You are suggesting that the Myers-Briggs is a "valid instrument". I am suggesting that any claim of validity should be subject to an objective scientific test.

There is no logical fallacy in suggesting that such claims should be tested objectively.

That is the problem here. The claims you are making about the MBTI's "usefulness" or "validity" are unsupported by any scientific test.

((I considering titling this thread; "The cult of Myers-Briggs"... which I still think would have been a little funny if people understood it in the context of other recent threads.)).

From DrewDad's explanations (and yes I do know he can speak for himself), I get the impression that he isn't actually using Myers Briggs as a scientific device. Rather, he's using it as a rhetorical device. When DrewDad observes people irritating each other, Myers-Briggs character types help him frame issues that might cause the irritation. As a rhetorical device, Myers Briggs does make sense to me.