Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External link MBTI

Hello,

I've read WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:COPYVIO.

I would like to add this MBTI test to the external links : https://mbti.bz/en

The subject is totally related to the MBTI and it's a totally non-commercial Test.

I think that many of users after reading this wiki page about the MBTI would be interested to pass a Test to have an idea of their type.

And I recommend this Test which give results with potential development areas.

I really think that this link can be usefull.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

I've removed it twice because looks fundamentally promotional in nature, possibly a copyright or license violation, that gives an example of the test rather than providing any information about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view but the fact is that the only aim of this link is to be a suggestion for the visitor to learn more about the MBTI Test by experimenting directly an example of MBTI Test for free. In the surest way, it's a psychologist who takes charge of deducing the psychological type of someone. But I believe that every person can have an idea of their type with an effort of introspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that you understand. Do you understand, "possibly a copyright or license violation"? --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand "possibly", which you can use for most of the things around you, and on my side I don't see any copyright or license violation. Why being rude when I'm being totally respectful with you ? If you find any concret problem related to this link, I'll delete it by myself, right now I don't see any, it's a non-commercial service for the visitor, totally related to the subject of this page, and it permits to learn more about the subject by experiencing it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was rude. I'm happy to rewrite any of it at your request.

I see no copyright. I see no licensing information. As such, I don't think we should include it regardless of any other problems. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a copyright symbol down the site, and what kind of licence information would you like to see there ? You seem very attached to these kind of things. Is it required for some reasons ? If so, I can contact their administrator by their Contact service to notice him about that. If it's not required, I don't see why you make so much story when it's a free usefull service with an original content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to WP:ELN to see if you can get anyone to make a case for including the link. In the meantime, the link should remain out per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Can't we have a consensus ? Just tell me what you need if you need more information and I'll try to contact the administrator if you think he should add something. The content of this site is unique, I've checked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take it up at ELN. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain me what is your problem seriously man ? It's good to protect Wikipedia from bad utilisations so it doesn't become a commercial place to serve personal interests. But currently it's not commercial, it's 100% related to the subject, 100% not commercial and 100% usefull for the visitor visiting this page, so you shouldn't be acting like this. I find it unfair and anyway I can't do anything because I'm a little noob who just popped out here to put a link and you think that it's only for my interests. But this link is here to serve people, this link isn't commercial, and this link would be usefull for this page. The fact is that you were fighting against your idea of my person and not against my content. Continue to be proud of yourself, it's nice to have aims on this life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

Insisting on an external link to a SPECIFIC external resource that has no recognized authority or expertise, in preference to recognized authoritative external resources, appears as promotional. I see no great need for an external link to a test, and I do see a need to remove links to non authoritative external resources. T.Randall.Scales (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) T.Randall.Scales (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205043419/http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf to http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208094819/http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/SIOPhandoutBess-HarveyMBTI2001.pdf to http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/SIOPhandoutBess-HarveyMBTI2001.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708030447/http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf to http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Majames5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Types

I added "Extroversion or Introversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, and Judging or Perceiving" after the part where it says "The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs." I also added "that result from the interactions of preferences" at the end of the last sentence

as well as this who paragraph defining each of the four pairs.. "Extroversion is associated with how people direct their energy when they are interacting with people, things situations, and the outside world. While introversion is associated with how people direct their energy when they have to deal with ideas, information, explanations or beliefs, and the inner world. Sensing is associated with dealing with facts, what you know, and what you see. Intuition is more so associated with dealing with ideas, or the unknown. Thinking involves the decision-making based of logic, while feeling is based off using values to make decisions. Judging is when you prefer to have your life all planned out ahead of time, and perception is when you just go with the flow as things arise."

Majames5 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

sources

The last sentence says, "It is argued that the MBTI continues to be popular because many people lack psychometric sophistication, it is not difficult to understand, and there are many supporting books, websites and other sources which are readily available to the general public." It cites journal " title=Career development: What's your type? |journal=Nature |volume=488 |issue=7412 |pages=545–7 |year=2012 |last1=Lok |first1=Corie" however, this source does not support that preceding sentence. The opinion article in Nature, it (1) does not provide any evidence as to why MBTI is popular, (2) does not assert anything about people lacking psychometric sophistication, (3) nor does it provide any evidence about books, websites or other sources, supporting or otherwise. --Notgain (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I have removed the pseudoscience category. This is because there is no section of the article which adequately discusses whether it is a psuedoscience or not. In fact the word "pseudoscience" is only mentioned three times in the article - twice in the external links and once as the category. I'm not arguing that MBTI isn't a pseudoscience, just that there isn't enough in the article to allow the pseudoscience category. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the sources. I have added it just before a relevant source in the article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that this article is at all appropriate for that category. There are major differences between pseudosciences and MBTI.   — C M B J   01:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Only two of the six sources have links to online versions, and I'm not seeing verification from those two. Could someone provide a quote the verifies the information in the article and the category? --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The four sources I can access have no support for the inline statement, much less the category.   — C M B J   04:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So which do we still need to check? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, more sources should be added, I'm careful with labelling things pseudoscience here. However, Myers–Briggs Type Indicator is a thoroughly discredited inventory and this should be pointed out.Miacek (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

ambiverts

Why no mention of ambiverts? Just granpa (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove all self-published, self-serving refs

I realize this and related articles have many of such sources (eg [1]), but I think the articles have matured beyond any need for them. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of External links section

I've trimmed down to leaving just the vox.com link, which would be better incorporated as a reference. It's a nice summary, and cuts through the SOAP problems that the article currently has. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Myers & Briggs Foundation official website

For some reason I have been asked to seek consensus for including the The Myers & Briggs Foundation official website as an external link. As this appears to be an official organisation representing Myers and Briggs then it seems both appropriate and acceptable on MOS principles to include it as an external link in the article. If there are any objections to including the link then they should only be made on clear principles of the relevant MOS policies. Ontologicos (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This seems fair enough, and I would have no objections if the website of the Myers-Brigg Foundation were used as an external link. Vorbee (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It was misspelled during the back-and-forth editing.

I'm not seeing separate article for the Foundation, so it shouldn't be a big problem here.

It is a bit iffy given the purpose of this encyclopedia and ELOFFICIAL, but people expect some sort of official link regardless of it's value. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with INTP

See Talk:INTP. Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with INTJ

See Talk:INTP Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I support the merges. Someone963852 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to merge. There is plenty of space on Wikipedia. Oddeivind (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose to the merge. 2601:190:580:18:ACB6:8867:2299:E458 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Fad

Looking over the recent editing, I think that more about it being a fad (and it's popularity in general) should be in the article body at least. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though as we had fan-editors of the E-meter article, in the past editing that particular article(are they back again?). So too we appear to be having here on this article as well, highly motivated editing usually with some undisclosed conflict of interest. We're really facing the same on all these strongly held "self-discovery" pseudosciences...we face the same with all these which are actual cult induction 101 "self discovery tests", that exploit the "rubes" in the very same underlying fashion that "E-meters, astrology, tarot reading, the polygraph test and hundreds of other variants on the same thing do. The only "power" they have, is proportional to how much you believe in them. Even what many think is the "highly regarded" polygraph test, is also a total nonsense fad and is simply used by law enforcement to trick people into confessing or giving more details of their whereabouts.

The specific foot in the door with the polygraph is "can you spot a liar", have you ever spotted one, well, then what about a machine that can detect them? This, appeal to machine infallibilty alongside your likely sense that if you believe lies can be spotted, then they can spot a lie, serves to combine and mix in the participant's mind, to give the outcome of the totally junk test a preceived weight...when it actually doesnt. Though the police have bern getting a lot of mileage out of it, for decades. Though they know the polygraph is total junk. Likewise with these "personality tests" that disturbingly, cults use, the foot in the door here is "don't you think people are different, have a type", to which you may agree, followed by a vague name-drop of Jung(appeals to authority are important to disarm you)...then before you know it you're taking a test and a serial number(4 letter string) is assigned to you, then once you are branded, you are released to roam free to go search for other members of the flock, the farm-animals "who you now belong to, or with". It's sad really. The amount of junk people "long" to be part of, the desire to be accepted by a group, welcomed into the fold and what they'll suspend their mental faculties, in order to not question and believe in.

In any event, disappointment with humanity aside, readers do need to be made aware that the MBPT is a psuedoscience, and a "dangerous fad", which is not at all clear in the introduction of the article, as it is precisely the process used in every single cult. Ever. So our fence-sitting only serves to bolster the traction these "self-discovery" charlatans are gaining. The WP:LEDE states we should include all major controvery. Right now, due to those with a potential conflict of interest, the article dilutes this, to the point of grotesquely suggesting these "tests" are anything but a confidence trick. "Now here's a list of movie stars just like you". Good job they do That, as otherwise god knows how many people might go "hold on, what the **** is this and furthermore what evidence exists to support any of it, not least these purported movie stars, ever actually, you know, taking your culty-test?

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you have multiple sources [2], feel free to add it to the Criticism section of the article. Someone963852 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects and a new hatnote

I would like to redirect to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator the 16 pages that correspond to the 16 personality types — e.g. ISTJ, ENFP — to replace the current disambiguation pages that contain only two entries. (Actually there are 14: I wouldn't include ESTP and ISTP as those disambiguation pages have more than 2 entries). Note that several pages of the form PPPP (personality type) already redirect here. That would require a hatnote, and I suggest:

Several terms e.g. ISTJ and ENFP redirect here. These are Myers–Briggs personality types but are also used in Socionics and Keirsey Temperament Sorter.

Comment and improvements are welcome, with due regard to WP:ONESHORTHAT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are proposing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to literally put the text Several terms e.g. ISTJ and ENFP redirect here. These are Myers–Briggs personality types but are also used in Socionics and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. at the top of this article. Seems like a tidy solution to me, and will help with management every time a new article on a system that uses these is found. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. Thanks for the feedback. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this article misrepresent Jung?

This article says that Jung talks about the four functions of feeling, intuition, sensation and thinking and says that one function predominates. It then says that the remaining functions work together in the opposite orientation. This sounds like a misrepresentation of Jung to me. What Jung said is that feeling is the opposite of thinking and sensation the opposite of intuition, and thus only one function would be working in the opposite direction. Vorbee (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're 100% correct. According to Jung, the opposing functions are of opposing attitudes but that doesn't mean the auxiliary function is the opposite attitude because it's not opposing the dominant. The people who wrote this article definitely misrepresented Jung. Steph.st (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability

Quite early on, this article says that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has poor reliability, and then goes on to define reliability as "giving different results for the same person on different occasions". This is only one type of reliability, i.e. test re-test reliability; there are different types of reliability, such as internal consistency of a test. Vorbee (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "poor reliability" is a judgment, rather than an objective evaluation of any assessment's reliability. "Poor" compared to what? Although there are general rules of thumb often used in evaluating whether a reliability estimate is, for example, "high," "moderate," or "low," the sufficiency of reliability when using an assessment for a specific purpose depends on many factors. In addition to the numerical level of a reliability estimate (whether estimated over time, test forms, samples of content/behavior, raters, and other factors), how the assessment is used and the cost of making decision errors must be considered in deciding whether an assessment is "reliable enough." For example, an assessment used as the primary source of information in making high-stakes decisions (e.g., employment, educational selection) demands much higher reliability than when the same assessment is used as a minor part of the decision-making process. Ultimately, estimates of reliability are important because they support (or fail to support) the validity of an assessment, that is, the logic of inferences, and the quality of decisions, made by those using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbb01 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see this article refer to whether poor test-retest reliability applies all four dimensions of the MBTI, or only some dimensions. I did the MBTI tonight (Monday 11 May 2020) and came out as an INFP, but normally when I do it, I come out as an INFJ. Vorbee (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Poor source

One of the sources characterising MBTI - rightly - as 'bullshit', namely source five, does not appear to be a reputable one, nor does that seem to me to be appropriate language for an encyclopedia in this context. The source is VICE, a popular culture magazine and the author does not appear to have any expertise in the relevant fields, hence his language. Other sources are invoked and are perfectly sound, but source five and the accompanying expletive should be removed. Daedalus 96 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I have removed it. Some1 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it me, or are the changes to MBTI and its associated pages a bit strange?

I'm one of the few people that apparently found value in the pages on MBTI type indicators to be useful in distinguishing between different categories, (scientific or not). What I've found is that over the last several months, editing by a few motivated users has resulted in the complete gutting of most content related to this classification system. I find it really perplexing, for example, that Talk:INTP has a deletion verdict header that indicates that the decision was "keep" but the underlying page is now a redirect to this article. Anyone attempting to discern between information that referenced an old type is now left to flounder around looking for sprinkles of details on this page. Reading the talk pages and the contributions made to this page, it seems like there's a pretty decent cabal of people working together on this. Even if you assume that the MBTI stuff doesn't hold water, I'm curious why the conclusion was made to remove approximately 14 pages of content, rather than take the traditional approach of building individual pages up (e.g., with proper sources). It sincerely seems to me like there's a very strong motive to "erase" the idea of the MBTI as if it doesn't pass the notability threshold, by means of gutting pages or just merging them in complex ways. At a minimum, it seems like there should be notes on major decisions made by consensus at the top of talk pages for individual types, and clear decisions made on merges and redirects with a larger consensus than a few people. Are these changes strange to anyone else? Is there a clear and obvious project page that can be linked to describing what precisely has changed in terms of perspective about the pages and associated content? Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added EvergreenFir for their awareness and input. From what I can tell as someone who has had no interaction with the topic, this is an action being undertaken by two individuals who seem to have heavy bias towards the topic without greater consensus and due discussion from the community at large. Their actions are directly having a negative impact on the discourse and information available, both for and against, this topic. Based simply on the amount of content and sourcing for each individual article that has been affected by these users' actions, along with the general acceptance and teaching of the MBTI, as a "science" or not...warrants keeping the articles similar to how they were. To the editors attempting to dominate this discussion and topic, remember that Wikipedia isn't about winning. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 01:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like content merges from the individual types happened last year ([3]) after a discussion, turned into disambiguation pages, and the dabs were changed to redirect in April in the discussion above: Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects_and_a_new_hatnote. (I only poked around the old INTP, but the other articles are probably a similar situation.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The changes are inappropriate, but I don't think they're very strange. I find it very unlikely the changes are the result of a group/"cabal" secretly scheming. Rather, they are likely merely the result of a vocal minority of like-minded individuals emotionally connected to the notion that the Myers-Briggs is utterly irredeemable pseudoscience despite considerable research highlighting its flaws while affirming that it does indeed hold some scientific merit. I'm fairly new to all this, so I'd like to ask, what is the appropriate action to take in a situation such as this? My name is pseudonym (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow all of these articles, just came across the discussion inadvertently (and enjoyed the short puzzle of "where did this start?"), but I'd suggest that somebody who is interested in the whole matter contact the editors doing whatever it is that you're all bothered by and ask them about it. Schazjmd (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

My name is pseudonym please stop making general accusations against other editors who do not share your perspecitive, it breaks clear policy. If you think something is wrong then bring forward proposals, backed up by third party reliable sources and we can look at them. You have a welcome notice on your talk page then gives you a lot of material which explains how things work here; please use it -----Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I do believe the participants in these conversations have been acting in good faith and haven't made claims to the contrary (although I've made claims to the effect of "doing x action would be in bad faith if it was done"). I have not made any claims regarding malice either. On the contrary, I just stated that I don't think anyone is scheming (one way of acting in bad faith). I've just claimed emotional motivations, which is not bad faith. I've made several proposals and have linked several academic journal articles, all of which were disregarded without a provided reason other than, "Wiki used third party reliable sources," without any indication as to the issues with the sources. You need only scroll up. I won't rehash everything I've said thus far, but I'll briefly go over one of those things again. A claim that the Myers-Briggs is generally considered as pseudoscience as a whole needs support in excess of a few articles that don't even actually make the claim directly and discuss it specifically in the context of its use for a particular function. Furthermore, citing these articles to call it pseudoscience is inappropriate when other research contradicts this finding. Just because you can find a source that calls it pseudoscience (which we have only found here when referring to its use in a particular function) doesn't mean calling it pseudoscience in general is appropriate. A statement of calling it pseudoscience in general should be backed up by more than just someone calling it that. I am aware of the Criticism section, and it presents valid criticism. None of the criticism lends itself towards a claim of pseudoscience though. The simple fact that the Myers-Briggs sees considerable correlation with four of the Big Five should be sufficient to render the label null. There are validity and reliability studies that further support it as a scientific construct though. Its predictive usage is very questionable, but it was never intended for prediction in anywhere close to the extent we see it today. I have absolutely no qualms about calling the MBTI pseudoscience in regard to its modern usage in career aptitude testing and other such uses. The construct itself though very clearly has support, even if the support indicates validity and reliability inferior to that of other models. I'll concede, however, that I probably should be using the information Wiki provides me more so than I have been though. Forgive me; it is quite a bit to take in. My name is pseudonym (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For a start I can't see multiple sources from you, searching back I found two minor articles, both of which heavily qualify their results or express caution (I could be wrong here as I just skimed back). If you can find a source which says it is a pseudo-science in domain X, but not Y then we can look at it but you todate you haven't. What we have had is a lot of argument based your personal interpretation of what you have read rather than using reliable third party sources. I'll try and explain this more clearly for you. A third party source would look explicitly at the status of Myers-Briggs and would form a conclusion about its nature; that is what we are using. Taking a selection of papers and synthesising a statement, which is what you are doing is not encouraged. You are breaking Wikipedia practice when you talk about a vocal minority motivated by an emotional committment. I suggest you read the material in your welcome notice, possibly seek some advise from the links there where various editors help newcomers. It is also a good idea to edit some articles where you don't have a strong option. I confess to some retrospective coherence here as my first edits were in a subject where I held strong views (correcting a reference to my own work) and I fairly early on I got caught up in some controversy over Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher (in my view she isn't) before I really learnt how things work here. It is of course only advise, but without a third party source from you I think this is now closed.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ctrl F for "journals.sagepub". That will help you locate where I posted sources. I think there's a misunderstanding as to what I've been saying. I'm not just asserting my personal opinion that the MBTI is pseudoscience (and thereby doing "my own research") in particular domains but not overall (although I am also doing this). I'm pointing out that the articles used to "support" the claim of pseudoscience don't actually support that claim, so tacking them as sources onto the end of said claim isn't really correct. If you look into the meat of what those articles are actually saying, they don't outright call it pseudoscience. The two currently used to support it discuss it in social work practice and in clinical psychology. That is to say, they discuss its usage in a particular context. This is why I've proposed labeling the MBTI pseudoscience for these particular usages - because that's what the articles actually say. I don't have to provide my own sources to justify the removal of the broad pseudoscience claim; that is the default position. You have to support that claim with sources. To be fair, I've essentially been combining these points with my own personal opinions and have regularly stated both my opinions and pointed out the facts of the articles in the very same sentence, which has probably only served obfuscatory purposes. Additionally, although I'm far from an expert on Wiki, it seems unlikely to me to be good practice to label something as pseudoscience despite a body of evidence supporting it, even if you can find a source for that claim, which we currently can't. I'm trying to point out that it is inappropriate to make such a claim of pseudoscience in the face of this. If I found an article calling the Big Five pseudoscience, it would likewise be inappropriate to put it on the Wiki because it represents something contradictory to the literature at large. I believe you'd call that (paraphrasing Wiki terms) granting too much weight to minority viewpoints, which is a judgement that necessarily requires some degree of subjective evaluation, which you could alternatively call "original research". I can see how this could come off as me doing "original research" and trying to hold my personal conclusions up as fact, but the reality is that whenever we read any statement whatsoever we necessarily synthesize our own view on it unless we directly quote it. I am doing nothing more than anything else on Wikipedia that isn't literally a quotation. Now, just because we all necessarily interpret what we read doesn't mean that we always do so to the same extent, and there certainly is a degree of doing this that is inappropriate, which is why I assume the "no original research" rule exists. I'm just not going that far because all I'm doing is interpreting the article the same as you or any other Wikipedia editor in order to determine what it is saying and reduce it down to a key sentence or two. Specifically, I am saying that the articles don't actually call the MBTI pseudoscience as a whole, while you are saying that they do; we are both interpreting something in the absence of a direct quote. The page on assuming good faith is a page I actually read before you linked it. I said previously that I'm not failing to assume good faith. I'm quite confident you're acting in good faith. Acting in good faith and having emotional motivations are not mutually exclusive. Is it unnecessary and possibly even counter-productive to the conversation when I make such claims? Probably, and I apologize and will cease doing so. I don't, however, see it as violating that particular rule, although I wouldn't be that surprised if there was some other rule about discussing the editor rather than the content of what they're saying. To be fair, though, I was responding to someone else's claim about a "cabal" of people, and I expressed disagreement with their assertion while providing an alternative, so it isn't like it came out of nowhere. Regardless, I'll stop. I've actually edited many articles where I don't have strong opinions. I made this account because I started off IP editing minor grammatical errors that I found and decided I didn't like my IP being put on everything (hence, "My name is pseudonym"). I didn't have a strong opinion on this one initially either, and you can see the progression in my tone if you read my earlier comments. I developed it as I searched for research and came to the conclusion that it was being treated unfairly and not in accordance with the literature, which especially concerned me due to people drawing undue attention to the creators of the MBTI (I don't just mean in this discussion), which is at best elitism and at worst sexism because the creation of a model is entirely detached from the literature's current state in regard to it. I've been so active in this discussion because it struck me as unjust. My name is pseudonym (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

See this response and WP:Synth and WP:OR. Your elitist/sexist comment is a pure red herring. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I read that response and ignored it because I had already addressed it in my previous response, countering its points. That response is just an assertion with no backing. The source lists them as pseudoscience in those fields. It is a leap in logic, which may or may not be justified (I don't think it is), to say that the source both calls them pseudoscience and calls them pseudoscience in clinical assessment. This is an interpretation and does not represent what the article actually says. It feels like you didn't read a single word I just typed, which is why I originally ceased arguing; he also did not read what I said when writing that response. My elitist/sexist comment was merely me giving some personal information because you shared some with me, and I decided to reciprocate. It wasn't meant as a serious point in this argument, so it isn't really appropriate to call it a red herring. By the same token I could call you bringing up Ayn Rand a red herring, but I won't because that's silly. My name is pseudonym (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)