Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

This article was written with extreme bias

The contributors to this article seem to be seeking out faults with the MBTI personality typology, rather than defining what it is. Articles written with such extreme bias are not common on Wikipedia and I found it extremely off-putting. I have found the MBTI typology extremely useful and tremendously accurate in interpersonal relationships. 97.82.125.50 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your personal experience with MBTI doesn't impact how reliable sources describe it. MBTI has no empirical evidence supporting it.

I'm an INTP EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So, every article on Wikipedia needs to have “empirical evidence supporting it”?

Dreams are pseudoscientific.

Love is pseudoscientific

Pizza is pseudoscientific.

This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal.

The article needs to describe the definition and purpose of the subject, not just it’s critical opposition. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pizzas are not pseudoscientific. But if they were, it would need to be mentioned prominently per WP:PSCI. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the experimental hypothesis for a pizza then?

My point is that there are many social constructs that are “pseudoscientific”.

The term is mainly used by adherents of scientism who don’t even understand the purpose and function of the scientific method. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources, and don't make the WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia newbie.

Sources support an article, but don’t describe how to arrange themselves in order of relevance.

Even ChatGPT would do a much better job at writing this article:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychological instrument designed to measure and categorize individuals' personality types. Developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, it is based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. The MBTI aims to identify how individuals perceive the world and make decisions through a questionnaire that classifies personalities into 16 distinctive types. These types are determined based on four dichotomies: Introversion (I) versus Extraversion (E), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F), and Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). Each personality type is represented by a four-letter code, reflecting the individual's preferences across these dichotomies. Despite its widespread application in areas such as career counseling, team building, and personal development, the MBTI has faced criticism from the scientific community regarding its reliability, validity, and lack of empirical support. Nonetheless, it continues to be a popular tool for personal and professional assessment. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia newbie. Then you should know that whataboutism is not valid reasoning here. And that AI is neither a reliable source nor can it be trusted not to invent sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

And WP:CATW#7 strikes again. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the language concerns related to WP:PROFRINGE. It’s crucial to use precise and neutral terminology, especially in topics that can easily veer into contentious or fringe territory. Adhering to this guidance helps maintain the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia as a resource. Let's ensure our discussions and the article's language reflect this commitment to neutrality and factual accuracy. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate the reminder about whataboutism and the reliability of AI.

My intent is to highlight the need for a balanced representation of MBTI on Wikipedia, beyond its pseudoscientific classification. It's essential we present a full spectrum of perspectives, including its practical applications and value to many, within the framework of Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and sourced content. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically does not do 'balanced representation', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the best sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Will these sources be good enough for you to remove the controversial term "pseudoscience"? @MrOllie, @Hob Gadling, @Avatar317 etc.

[1]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13674676.2022.2158794?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Quote:"Specific criticisms of psychological type

Incoherence

In their recent attack on Psychological Type, Stein and Swan (2019, Abstract) conclude that Type theory “lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions”. This harsh and sweeping criticism is perhaps justifiable if Type Theory is taken to embrace not simply the basic postulates already alluded to, but also the elaborate superstructure that has been built upon it. In Type literature, the latter is designated Type Dynamics, which is ramifying and constantly increasing in detail. It postulates complex relationships between the four dual-polarities. Added to that are elements from Jung’s writings that are equally conjectural. I submit that Type needs to distinguish more clearly between its basic postulates and the speculative material that has accreted around it in recent decades. Reynierse (2009, p. 18) agrees: It is only the eight individual MBTI preferences that have demonstrated validity – not type dynamics or the type categories formed by type dynamics. The time has come for the type community to abandon their enthusiasm for type dynamics and to discard it. A seemingly un-noticed example of internal contradictions is seen in MBTI Step II, an extension of MBTI™ in which each of the preference pairs (e.g., Extraversion/Introversion) is further divided into five subsets. Each subset is regarded as independent of the others, and each can be scored. A logical implication of this exercise is that the overall score for Extraversion/Introversion is a composite. However, this negates the core Type postulate that each individual prefers either Extraversion or Introversion (Lloyd, 2012a). These are serious and valid criticisms of Type. However, I do not believe that Stein and Swan (2019) provide convincing evidence that the fundamental postulates of Type are incoherent. They are no more so than the basic postulates of the Five-Factor model."

o0o

Even in the Dictionary of Psychology by the American Psychology Association I can't find any word stating that it's "pseudoscience", so you can't say that it has been consensually approved by most psychologist scientists that MBTI is "pseudoscience", perhaps by some colleagues.

https://dictionary.apa.org/myers-briggs-type-indicator

o0o

Even in your own source https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554264

stating that " These studies agree that the instrument has reasonable construct validity. The three studies of test-retest reliability did allow a meta-analysis to be performed, albeit with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Results indicate that the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, and Judging-Perceiving Subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of .75 or higher and that the Thinking-Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61. The majority of studies were conducted on college-age students; thus, the evidence to support the tool's utility applies more to this group, and careful thought should be given when applying it to other individuals."

o0o

Another source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017728/#B17

Quote: "We sampled 529 participants who were graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in business administration programs from Colombian universities. Results show conclusive evidence of the psychometric measurement of both MBTI and leadership practices, even though the relationship between MBTI and the leadership practices inventory proved to be weak" NgHanoi (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on, ( I'm sorry, I'm new, not trying to come off as rude, if I do please correct me )

Though only one section is marked as non-encyclopedic, reading through the article, there's a lot of strange analogies put as a fact.

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to just put the negatives in a separate criticism section? As a psychology student and APA member, I can say pretty confidently that overall in the scientific world, MBTI is seen as at least moderately accurate. Jasperthejas (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the practice on Wikipedia is not to divide criticism into a separate section, that has been found to create large neutrality problems. And with respect, on Wikipedia the practice is to follow what is in reliable, independent sources, not your personal opinion as a psychology student. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Barnum statements are often seen as at least moderately accurate, but that wouldn't be enough to undermine valid criticism. As they say, 'accurate' is not the same as 'precise', and neither are synonymous with 'useful'. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mr. @Grayfell's assessment that MBTI uses Barnum effect is based on a media source (not a journalistic source) without any critical data backing it off. Here's the whole statement from your cited source:

"Oddly enough, people are so willing to believe anything about their personalities that they'll fall for even the lamest explanations. In what's called the Barnum Effect, psychologists show that many people will fall (become "suckers") for generic personality explanations such as horoscopes and magazine self-tests as well as supposedly "scientific" tests administered by an "expert." "

For a full citation, the next paragraph is just a hand-waving statement, which could be contested:

"A good personality test can take what you’ve said and turn it to a useful analysis that gives you insights you didn’t have before. However, that analysis has to be based on sound statistical methods. The MBTI, at this point in time, is not." NgHanoi (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My comment about MBTI using Barnum statements was intended to explain the issue. I was not citing any particular source for this. I don't know what you mean by the source being "a media source". The author is Susan Krauss Whitbourne, who is a Professor Emerita of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

If you want a journalistic source, here's "What Is MBTI: Is the Myers-Briggs Test Still Valid?" published in Discover Magazine a few months ago:

“Tests like the MBTI help us to organize our self-perceptions and experiences into coherent wholes,” says Stephen Benning, director of the Psychophysiology of Emotion and Personality Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The MBTI promises rich narratives to describe a respondent's personality, whereas other descriptions may feel more fragmented.”

Even though personality profiles are generic, people often feel that the descriptions accurately portray the image they have of themselves. This fallacy of personal validation is called the Barnum effect, which describes a person’s tendency to believe that vague personality descriptions are specifically tailored to them. The psychological phenomenon may also explain the appeal of astrology and fortune-telling.

Yes, any of this could be contested, but it has to be directly contested by reliable sources, not individual editors. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Was wondering if anyone else thought the same. Someone REALLY hates MBTI.

Obviously you cannot 1:1 know someone's personality by a test...but that isn't the point of MBTI... You are your own person and you are the one who has to research and determine that on your own. Also comparing this to Astrology is such a good joke LOL. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Article reads like a hit piece

It reads like a hit piece against MBTI from the very outset. Even if you disagree with MBTI, there's no way you can look at the article in its current state and call it NPOV or encyclopedic in tone. Yes, we know it's not completely scientific. Yes, we know it has issues. And yet, many people very strongly believe it works as at least a basic way of categorizing personality types despite that.

Do we really need a full paragraph in the introduction dedicated to tearing the thing apart before MBTI has chance to be explained? Shouldn't the critisism be limited to a sentence or two and the end of the intro mentioning the cristiscisms, and then expand upon them later in the article after an explanation about MBTI itself has a chance to be laid out?

Even the articles on astrology and enneagrams seem less aggressively hostile than this one does in it's current state while still manage that each concept has detractors. It really seems like a certain population of editors has some sort of hard on in particular for ripping MBTI to shreds, and it really doesn't seem appropriate on a medium that's attempting to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:YESBIAS. When the mainstream sources are critical, so to will be the Wikipedia article. That is what Wikipedia means by NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that "50 million people have taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and that 10,000 businesses, 2,500 colleges and universities, and 200 government agencies" kind of belie the idea that all "mainstream" sources are critical of MBTI? Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The "mainsteam" sources are academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals (and in this case, the ones _not_ published by the Myers–Briggs Foundation). Nearly every newspaper prints horoscopes, but we do not include those sources in our coverage of the solar system. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, that really sounds like the main issue. It's not supposed to be some perfect, infallible measurement of personality that can provide repeatable results. It's a tool of self analysis. If you try to apply clinical standards to it, you're going to have people messing up the results for all sorts of reasons: they don't understand the purpose of the test; they try to skew it to some outcome, for various reasons, including wanting a "good" result or just to mess with the test givers for whatever perverse reason; maybe you just test them on a bad day when they aren't interested in answering accurately. The whole premise is ridiculous.

Should criticism be leveled towards its shortcomings and wrong applications (trying to use it for hiring/firing decisions, ignoring the possibilities for manipulation/reporting errors)? Sure.

I guess I'm not really sure how to incorporate what I'm saying here into the article, but I wish that the stance taken towards MBTI was more moderate from both critics and supporters. If there was way of conveying its uses in self-analysis by individuals engaged in the results with honesty, that'd be great. As it stands, someone reading this article with no knowledge of the subject would be pretty put off by the opening paragraphs, and that just seems wrong to me, as many people, including myself, would say it has been helpful to them. (P.S. Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers are dead, so if the foundation in their name is trying to misuse what they created, is it really their fault? Perhaps a rhetorical question, I know...) Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with what the sources are saying, but Wikipedia really does not evaluate things that way. For better or worse, this is a site that exists to summarize what the independent experts have to say about a topic. Sometimes one might suspect that the expert position is leaving something out or is otherwise misguided, but nothing can be done to fix that here. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, it would be helpful in this debate if participants actually read their opponents' comments carefully and kept an open mind. You are asserting objectivity where there is none, and pretend to be speaking in the name of the whole Wikipedia project to support your personal stance.

This article *is* particularly biased, and its tone is unfit for Wikipedia. I was equally off-put by it, as I just wanted to read on the history of this (obviously rather unscientific) personality test, which is quite popular all over the world and has had a large impact on culture.

The tone and structure of this article (and this has nothing to do with whatever sources are cited) is that of one about a dangerous cult that mutilates children, not of one about a silly test people take to find some meaning in or make team-building decisions. Laughing Vampire (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asserting 'objectivity'. I'm reiterating that when the independent sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. The sources are where the tone and structure come from - the sources are where everything comes from on Wikipedia. That is how this site works. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article uses direct language to explain that this test is pseudoscience in unambiguous terms. This is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The article doesn't imply anything about "mutilating children" and that comparison is not helpful.

To put it another way: many pseudoscientific things can be both popular and have an impact on culture. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is an encyclopedia, so a neutral summary of a popular form of pseudoscience will still describe it as pseudoscience in direct language. The use of evasive language or euphemisms would make the article less neutral. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has an inherent 'bias' towards science and against pseudoscience, because our goal is to provide information and dispel misconceptions and misinformation. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed a hit piece. At the very least it should keep the NPOV tag saying that its NPOV status is "disputed", as this Talk page shows that this is a plain fact, until a few external editors have pitched in. For that purpose, this article has been added to the NPOV board. --Jules.LT (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is a 'hit piece' in the opinion of a few editors that is still not a reason to apply a NPOV tag. The article reflects the reliable sources. When they are critical, the Wikipedia article will be as well. That is what WP:NPOV requires. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Previously cite-bombed source in lead

@NgHanoi: This is the place to discuss your proposed changed. You have already edited this page, so I assume you still have the ability to edit it now.

For context, I removed this source from the article:

• Randall, Ken; Isaacson, Mary; Ciro, Carrie (2017). "Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity. 10 (1): 1–27. ISSN 2475-2843. JSTOR 26554264.

The source isn't inherently bad, but it's worth a closer look. It's a meta-analysis of three studies from 1977, 1986, and 2006. The study's authors emphasize over-and-over again that this set is, at best, barely sufficient for a meta-analysis.

It appears it was first added as part of a 'cite-bomb' in 2022 which was added to support MBTI's pseudoscientific status. This was then whittled down as a compromise. The source may be usable for something, but it isn't so valuable that it must be preserved. It's also not particularly helpful to demonstrating the consensus that MBTI is pseudoscience, so what, exactly, is it doing in this article?

Here are the other sources which were added for that cite-bomb:

References

Perhaps some of them are useful, but we need to look at what they are actually saying and evaluate them in that context. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Mr.@Grayfell, thank you for your response. I intended to write a lengthy response but my guess is that you guys won't bother (Significant correlation with Big Five, researches confirming the Validity and Reliability existed, the historical perspective - MBTI existed long before Karl Popper and Factor analysis etc. will just be tossed out of the window)

The thing is that "the consensus that MBTI is pseudoscience" is just your thinking and my personal opinion MBTI is not pseudoscience (certainly based on peer-reviewed sources). As I looked up on Wikipedia's guide, at worst, MBTI might be classified (by Wikipedia's standard) as a Questionable science (WP:FRINGE/QS):

"Questionable science

Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists" NgHanoi (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't really address my comment. If you wish to discuss these specific sources, do so. Otherwise, there are already many discussions on this talk page of why MBTI is regarded as pseudoscientific by the mainstream. But since you mention it, I will clarify that factor analysis was first applied to psychology decades before the MBTI was formalized during WWII. I'm not sure why that would even matter, though. Pseudoscience does not get an exemption for being old. Phrenology, for example, is a pseudoscience now, and was a pseudoscience when it was first popularized a century before Popper or MBTI. Popper's writing may or may not help reliable sources to identify pseudoscience, but we would have to look at those sources directly. Wikipedia does not publish original research.

As an aside, you do not know me well enough to know if I am a "Mr." or not. Calling me "Mr. Grayfell" is presumptuous. I don't take offense, but others might. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to remove the "pseudoscience" wording from the very first sentence on two separate occasions a long time ago, at one point succeeding for a few months until more sources were scrapped together, but I won't retread any more of that now. I just wanted to point out the extreme opposition that has been repeatedly demonstrated towards the unambiguous classification of the MBTI as pseudoscience in the very first sentence of the lede. This opposition has been shrugged off repeatedly with poorly argued responses that make clear the original posts were not read in full, nor taken seriously. What we have here is a small vanguard of highly active Wikipedia nobility stonewalling against the actual consensus that has repeatedly been reached by those outside of this very limited oligarchy. I would advise everyone to not waste further effort pursuing changes to the article in opposition to this oligarchy. You will not succeed.

- PillageMe (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is exaggerated to describe the MBTI as pseudoscientific in the first sentence of the lead, and due to the lengthy and recurring debates I am going to post it on WP:NPOV/N. Vells (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator. --Vells (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a good effort, but very few people on this website will be able to get past Grayfell, MrOllie, and EvergreenFir. The only way would be if some people with a bit more Wikipedia clout came by and happened to side with a more nuanced take. I've learned that in practice "consensus" is reached through the decisions of the most active community members, not the actual consensus as it exists among all community members.

- PillageMe (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

When you link to a username, that notifies that user. Please see WP:AGF. As I said on the NPOV noticeboard, these kinds of conspiratorial assumptions of bad faith sure don't help your case. I am not interested in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The larger community has, over time, developed a strong aversion to WP:PROFRINGE arguments. Sources document MBTI's flaws and severe limitations, and this article should reflect those sources. To downplay those sources due to the personal preference of some editors, or to insert false balance based on flimsy, out-of-date, or outright predatory sources, would be a disservice to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and would subvert the consensus of the wider community. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the etiquette about linking to users here. I just thought that if I was mentioned somewhere, I'd want a notification for it. It sounds like that's inappropriate, so I'll stop doing it and will remove the links now.

I'm not assuming bad faith. I think you're doing what you think is best for the article, but I don't think it actually represents the consensus, even though you probably think that it does (good faith) because you have highly reputable people supporting you, and you are yourself highly reputable here. That said, this is hardly local consensus. I was last here I want to say about four years ago arguing this exact same thing with you three and was surprised to come back and see that you're all still here and that the compromise we had come to had been reverted and that the exact same arguments have been had continuously by MANY different users since then. I'm not interested in downplaying other sources. The MBTI is HIGHLY flawed, and this fact should absolutely be detailed and emphasized. I just think the unambiguous classification of it as pseudoscience in the first sentence is inappropriate (for reasons others have already argued for, such as the sources not directly and unambiguously calling it pseudoscience and its decent correlations with the Big Five, which, love it or hate it, is highly regarded within psychology as a whole). This same viewpoint has been shared by MANY people over the years, far more than who argue against it.

PillageMe (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Template:MBTI Instrument" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:MBTI Instrument has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 29 § Template:MBTI Instrument until a consensus is reached. Paradoctor (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research?

NgHanoi, you wrote on WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator that none of the peer-reviewed sources is outright claiming that MBTI is pseudoscience. If this is true then the article contains original research from the first sentence. Would it then make sense to discuss this question on WP:NOR/N? --Vells (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the word "pseudoscientific" be in the first sentence of the lead? Vells (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

See also previous comments. --Vells (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No. I cannot believe this is such a controversial topic. The article has nothing to gain by being written in such a biased tone and it damages its educational value. Toot (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to point us to reliable sources that say something else that we could use. Remsense ‥ 论 11:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• Yes. It is well sourced and Wikipedia is obliged to make this classification prominent per WP:PSCI. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. The person who started this should read this Talk page and all seven archives, they contain several instances of the reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  You said the archive contain several instances of the reason but I don't see any convincing one, just arguing back and forth. Could you point out more concrete one instead of making a vague statement? @Hob Gadling NgHanoi (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Essentially, there are people who tell their own opinion (it is not pseudoscience) and people who say the sources say it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling: Did you ignore the post that I specifically tagged you some time ago?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#c-NgHanoi-20240421175100-97.82.125.50-20240315023000 NgHanoi (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You are annoying me with your constant pinging and demands that I respond to your walls of text. I do not want to talk to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yet you demanded people to "read this Talk page and all seven archives" and it seems fine to you! NgHanoi (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There are numerous sources that classify this as pseudoscience. Also per Bon courage. --_ZZ^Z'S 08:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is to be included, it should always be closer to the lede's end than its start. The notability and strengths of the model should be briefly presented first. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It’s well sourced and omitting it from the lead would not be helpful to the reader. As of now it’s still in wide (mis)use, such as in career counseling courses at community colleges, and one of my best bros can’t stop talking about it, unfortunately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It is well sourced and important context for understanding the rest of the lead and article. It should be present and one of the first facts presented. - MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• No. The current phrasing MBTI is a self-report questionnaire that pseudoscientific claims purport can indicate differing "psychological types" or "personality types" is non-grammatical and a non-sequitur; we should discuss what the model is, not what the psuedo-scientific claims about it are, in the lead sentence. A statement that MBTI is "one of the most reliable and accurate personality assessments" [2] is clearly not accurate; but inaccurate means something different than pseudoscientific. Other words, such as "flawed" or "pop science" would be more accurate. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Haha. Yes, it's a lot like astrology. And since Astrology is already described as such, I don't see why this page shouldn't follow. FelipeFritschF (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it's just a modern star sign. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• No It can be discussed later in the lead, but the first sentence of an article about a "fun" personality test doesn't need to identify its scientific merit. Another attempt to shoehorn the word into Google snippets and metadata so people can "gotcha" their friends and family and anyone who enjoys the test. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As Bon Courage mentioned below, sadly the MBTI is often used in organizations to assign roles, choose job applicants, and otherwise have experiences that are not at all fun. Feoffer (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not to mention, some people view the results from this "fun personality test" as a defining feature of themselves. Just browse through those MBTI dedicated subreddits, e.g. r/INTJ, r/INFJ, to see what I mean. Some1 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• No. I prefer using the noun "pseudoscience" rather than the adjective "pseudoscientific" because adjectives like this almost always come across as non-neutral WP:LABEL language. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• No. As NgHanoi stated here the peer-reviewed sources don't use the word for the MBTI, so it is an interpretation of what sources say and thus original research. --Vells (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's not actually true, though. The cited sources currently in the article do in fact use the word. You (and anyone else looking at this RFC) should definitely read the sources for yourself if you haven't yet rather than relying on someone's claim about what the sources say. MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  You are right, I and anyone should read it. --Vells (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you at least strike your !vote then? I think it was extraordinarily irresponsible to start this RfC if you hadn't even checked the sources in question. Remsense ‥ 论 05:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, this was negative assertion. --Vells (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  More importantly, it was confusing. Remsense ‥ 论 05:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  It still is. Something very strange is going on here, and starting a RfC without reading the sources (or making dishonest statements about the sources, or making dishonest answer to questions, if that is what is happening) looks suspiciously like WP:TEND. Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to clarify my own reading, which was they tried to make a coy remark about "yes, I agree the sources are important (and I think they agree with me)" that didn't land with me. I didn't read anything more than that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you be more specific about the dishonesty you are accusing? @Bon courage NgHanoi (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @MrOllie: Which *peer-reviewed* source used the word "MBTI is pseudoscience"? NgHanoi (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to ask a very specific question: are you trying to make a distinction between the noun pseudoscience versus the adjective pseudoscientific? Because Stein & Swan 2019; Theyer & Pignotti 2015; and Lilienfeld, Lynn & Lohr 2014 each explicitly use one of the two, and each are plainly in the footnote in the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 03:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I'm sorry: your heightened level of skepticism for metascientific claims is simply unwarranted either way. Reliable sourcing of the term pseudoscience doesn't need to be treated like it's a medical claim. Why would many papers use this term: it has a clear, logical but not domain-specific meaning, so it would be of little applicability to the readership. Remsense ‥ 论 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Remsense Did you actually read the sources or you just make a guess? And I'm specifically asking about *peer-reviewed* sources. Not like you I did read all four sources before asking the question. Please see my other comment. NgHanoi (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's why I'm confused, because I double-checked. Does the part where Stein and Swan say We think the evaluation below is an excellent way to use an intrinsically interesting topic to teach how to distinguish valid science from pseudoscientific “woo.” not count? What other "woo" would they be speaking in reference to? If you don't allow that they are obviously referring to MBTI as pseudoscience here, you are being deliberately obtuse. Remsense ‥ 论 06:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Remsense: If it's so obvious that MBTI is pseudoscience then why did the author need to use an indirect statement? Why just claim it outright? And the paper didnot even bother to provide adequate support for the extra-ordinary claim that MBTI is pseudo-science beside the usual ramble about what you've already know about how precise the theory is. As I stated somewhere, the same statements can be said about Neutonian Universal Law of Gravity with such kind of precision. Besides, this particular paper is debated and refused by another peer-review source, then why bias to an opinon? The final point: are you supposed to label an entire theory based on a single peer-reviewed source that the notion does not even considered by the APA? NgHanoi (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  How is it an extraordinary claim? It is a rather pedestrian claim. That is what I think you are hung up on: it's not this deeply arcane or deliberative process to make a discernment that something is pseudoscience, or to identify when something is characterized as pseudoscience. You're acting like the description requires some secondary mental analysis of those who partake, when it is instead fairly ascertainable from an analysis of the statements of the theory itself. We rely on RS to do this analysis and use the word in the invocation, but requiring that every source use the word for us to be able to to is conflating their job with ours for no good reason. There's no misrepresentation of the sources going on here you've been able to demonstrate beyond the most literal possible usage counting: this is simply unwarranted because the term has a clear meaning and we are able to discern in our tertiary analysis that sources using the term and sources describing it as such using other terms are indeed making compatible statements we can accurately summarize with said term. Remsense ‥ 论 06:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's just your thought or anything backing you up @Remsense? How about those peer-reviewed sources that are contradicting your claims? NgHanoi (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm making a very basic observation that you have this sacred heightened level of scrutiny as to whether something is being called pseudoscience: this is an assumption that you yourself are bringing to the table, and others are not required to accept or refute it.Remsense ‥ 论 07:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Remsense With your answer I guess you have no more source to present your claim, just your thoughts.

  The issues of putting the "pseudoscience" label on MBTI has going on for the recent years with never ending various people making the case for removing the label and being rejected, so it's not a universal consensus on the issue as you may think. You should also know the previous version of it back in the 2010s didnot have that label. NgHanoi (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has had years of the same problem with (e.g.) homeopathy and acupuncture. Consensus is however governed by sources and the WP:PAGs, not reflexive push-back from believers who are offended by the reality sources convey. Surely a moment's though is enough for anybody to see why? Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You asked for a direct quote in the source I said had one, but you weren't happy with it when you got it so I'm not going to bother with that, no. Remsense ‥ 论 07:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  All this said, it can not be in the first sentence. Vells (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Could you articulate why? Remsense ‥ 论 05:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, due to all that has been said --Vells (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, you can't articulate why? Most of what has been said is in support of the possibility. Remsense ‥ 论 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe when suitably sourced, such labels are appropriate, which this one is. Andre🚐 05:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, this reflects the prevailing consensus within the psychological field.  novov talk edits 04:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Maybe you could quibble cover how the phrasing incorporates the word 'pseudoscientific', but the word should definitely be in the first sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - The lead should be a summary of the body, which should summarize reliable sources. To downplay this label, or to cast doubt on it via WP:WEASEL, would be a misrepresentation of the substance of those sources, and would be a WP:PROFRINGE issue. Grayfell (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• No in the first sentence per MOS:LEADSENTENCE – the first sentence should give a concise definition. Yes in the second sentence – per NPOV, pseudoscientific views should be "clearly described" as such. We need to make it "clear" to our readers, provide some context, instead of just slapping the label on in the first sentence with no explanation as to how and why we are using that label. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes If a preponderance of sources call it pseudoscience, then Wikipedia should call it pseudoscience. If reliable authorities have discredited it, then the reader should know it has been discredited. I'm taking into account how widespread this system still is and how many of our readers I feel do not yet have this information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Isn't this just a rerun of this Where consensus seemed clear? Also, the choice of subject areas for notification of this RfC seems odd. Bon courage (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Which consensus seemed clear for you? @Bon courage NgHanoi (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna list the Abstract and Conclusion of *peer-review* sources that you think supporting the notion of MBTI being pseudoscience, so that you all know that 1) I read the sources and 2) Nothing found to outright claim that MBTI is pseudocience. @Bon courage, @Remsense, @MrOllie, @Grayfell

For Stein and Swan, here's the abstract and conclusion:

Abstract:

"Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian‐based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories. "

(Conclusion) Final Note:

"A recent episode of NPR's “Hidden Brain” (Vedantam, 2017) focused on personality assessment. Though they did share some criticisms of MBTI, they also touted the usefulness of “typing” by presenting anecdotes of a woman find- ing dating success by screening on MBTI and, in service of the point that typing can foster positive feelings, present- ing results of a study suggesting that parenting is improved when parents think their children belong to a coveted zodiac type (Mocan & Yu, 2017). With this attempt at prioritizing even‐handedness over accuracy in mind, we cannot help but think the persis- tence of MBTI‐style thinking could fit in with and extend the current burgeoning literature on the communication of science in the “post‐truth” world (e.g., Lewandowsky, Ecker, & Cook, 2017), a literature which is itself grasping with questions of how people decide what is true and what is not, and what is capable of being studied at all. Con- versely, we expect that that many people see the “deep” insights that MBTI delivers as something that is quite divorced from scientific process. This is especially problematic if, as recent research suggests, people believe they are guided by deep, unobserv- able essences (see Strohminger et al., 2017, and Quillien, 2018, for recent reviews) and that basing decisions on those deep desires is key to decision satisfaction (Schlegel, Hicks, Davis, Hirsch, & Smith, 2013). The desire for this knowledge and the appeal of MBTI‐style theory is therefore an unfortunate combination, and attacking MBTI on theoret- ical or psychometric grounds might have little effect on what some people intuitively expect from MBTI, and/or encourage them to invent new reasons why MBTI is useful (cf. Effron, 2018). A challenge for academics is to get others to share their valuation of the scientific process in creating knowledge about human behavior. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article."

My comment:

+ This paper is harsh on MBTI. I also think that MBTI has drawback. But it's an old theory so drawback is normal. Besides, Validity and Reliability researches and meta-researches exist for MBTI so calling it "Pseudoscience" is just unjustified.

+ Refusal of the this particular paper can be found in John B. Lloyd's 2023's "Seeking truth in personality science: reconciling trait theory and psychological type" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13674676.2022.2158794?scroll=top&needAccess=true

+ Another side note: Why this paper is published in "Journal of Business Research" instead of some Psychology journals to make it a prominent point(?!?!)

For David M. Schweiger's "Measuring Managerial Cognitive Styles: On the Logical Validity of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator"

Abstract:

" This study examined the validity of the sensing-intuition and thinking-feeling scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a measure of cognitive styles (i.e., process). Using 20 full-time-employed graduate students in Business Administration as subjects, and simultaneous verbal protocols as a measure of process, only partial support for the scales was found. In particular, the sensing-intuition scale demonstrated greater convergence with processes hypothesized to be associated with it than did the thinking-feeling scale. Recommendations for improving the scales are made."

(Conclusion) Discussion:

" The purpose of this study was to shed some light on the validity of the sensing-intuition and thinking-feeling scales of the MBTI as measures of cognitive styles. Given the increasing use of this instrument in psychological research in general, and in managerial research in particular, studies such as this are essential.

The results of this study provide only partial support for the scales of the MBTI as valid measures of cognitive styles, with the sensing-intuition scale demonstrating greater convergence with the processes hypothesized to be associated with it than the thinking-feeling scale. In an attempt to explain why the findings were not more encouraging, two issues raised earlier in this paper appear reasonable. First, the MBTI was not developed as a measure of cognitive styles, and as such was not specifically designed to capture process.

Second, as Mendelsohn [15] and Schweiger and Locke [28] note, many of the MBTI items do not directly measure process and are quite vague in their meaning. Sundberg [32], in a critique of the MBTI comments that he, in his administration of the instrument, has noted that in many cases subjects’ have problems in interpreting several of the scale items. He notes that subjects he has administered the MBTI to “. . . went so far as to say that they felt less motivated to be careful [in answering the questionnaire] because of the unrealistic choices they were asked to make.” (p. 1129, emphasis mine).

A key issue becomes whether the MBTI is or can be a logically valid measure of style. The findings presented herein do suggest, that there is a relationship, albeit not very strong, between the MBTI scales and process. As such it is anticipated, that with additional refinements, the instrument might be a more useful measure of style. Consistent with the guidelines set forth by Loevinger [13] with respect to substantive validity, and further articulated as a problem with the MBTI by Mendelsohn [ 151, many of the items of the scales appear to need revision and/or replacement. In particular, more focus should be directed at including items that ask individuals directly about process. At a minimum, however, research should attempt to determine what the questionnaire items mean to those responding to it! In fact, Campbell [l] in a discussion of construct validity, mentions the importance of this issue. He argues that researchers should pay more attention to “process analysis.” �This would entail the detailed questioning of subjects as to why they responded a certain way to a test item . . . The S’s . . . should be using a process reasonably close to that which the researcher had in mind when he developed the instrument. Such process data is often an eye opener (p. 203).

When we consider that many of the MBTI items are vague, and that people differ in their knowledge, their verbal ability, their frames of reference, and their willingness to communicate, the interpretation of such items becomes highly problematic.

Further, from the perspective of managerial problem solving and decision making, it might be more useful to directly study individual problem-solving and decision-making processes (e.g., Quantitative Analysis) used by managers rather than global constructs (e.g., Thinking). For example, although both Quantitative Analysis and Nonquantitative Causal Analysis are “analytical” procedures, they both entail different processes with different implications. Although both are method oriented, Quantitative Analysis focuses on algorithmic computations to arrive at a decision, whereas Nonquantitative Causal Analysis makes use of a formal heuristic process of inference. Whereas the former may be well-suited to a standardized problem, the latter, conversely, appears to be most appropriate for an ill-structured one. Both processes, however, differ markedly from the use of No Reason in that no process is articulated. It seems likely that in this case, there is no formal conscious (i.e., analytical) process being used.

As a final caveat, it should be noted that this study was conducted on a relatively small sample of graduate students (due to the cost of obtaining protocols), using a single task, at one point in time. As such, the results should be interpreted with extreme caution. It cannot be emphasized enough that replication of this study using different process tracing instruments, different and larger samples, and different tasks is essential before any firm conclusion can be drawn with respect to the validity of the MBTI as a measure of cognitive style. It is hoped, however, that this study will initiate, if not continue, further research in improving and developing the methods by which we measure managerial cognitive styles."

My Comment:

+ The author admitted that it's a small sample size and not a broad research.

+ No where to be found that the author claim MBTI is pseudo-science. In fact, this particular can be considered as a source supporting MBTI.

For the 2 books, I don't know if they can be considered *peer-reviewed*, but I'm pasting the conclusion here anyway to show that none claim MBTI is pseudoscience:

2014 - Science and Pseudoscience in clinical Psychology:

Conclusions:

"The MBTI is based on an explicit theory of personality. It was developed and normed in a manner consistent with current standards, and it has been found to be reliable at the level of the four personality preferences. However, questions about the reliability and validity of the 16 personality types and evidence of limited correspondence between the MBTI and other global measures of personality and vocational interests render the test suspect as an assessment tool. Accordingly, psychologists are advised to rely on personality and vocational interest tests (e.g., the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory) that have a stronger empirical basis (cf. Boyle, 1995)."

My comment: The article actually said that the development of MBTI is consistent with current standard, found to be reliable... None to be found stating MBTI is pseudoscience

2015 - Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work practice:

End paragraph:

"The CAPT website claims that the MBTI is “based on well-researched and validated personality theory with proven applications in a variety of fields” (CAPT, para. 1). However, many of the studies published about the MBTI are in CAPT’s own journal, and reviews of the MBTI literature have revealed serious problems with the reliability and validity of the MBTI (Boyle, 1995; Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003; Lorr, 1991; Pittenger, 2005).

If clinical social workers find themselves in agency settings that utilize the MBTI, they should refrain from using the results to provide career advice, based on the lack of sound evidence for the validity of the 16 personality types and the scant evidence for a link between type and job suitability (Pittenger, 2005). To use the MBTI to steer a person away from a career he or she might be interested in, or from managerial positions based on the MBTI type, would do a grave disservice. Closer to home, we find social work educators recommending that the MBTI be used to facilitate social work field education by using it with students, faculty, and field instructors (Moore, Dietz, & Dettlaff, 2004). It was recommended that students and potential field instructors be “matched” by their MBTI in order to promote a more successful internship. We believe that such claims are premature."

My comment: Again: MBTI might not be very precise to use in clinical. However no calling MBTI as pseudoscience.

For the newly added source "How thousands of companies ended up using a bogus psychology test on their staff" - It's a media source and it should not even belong to the lead section because it's not peer-reviewed. But I guess the page's prominent editor just want to keep it for the sake of keeping their point. NgHanoi (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed, indeed some of the best sources considering pseudoscience often aren't: see WP:PARITY. Strictly speaking the lede doesn't need any sources; we do however need to be upfront about pseudoscience. If a source explicitly says MBTI is "not pseudoscience" that would be of interest. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So there're no standard at all, you just need to cite what ever fit your purpose? If you want a theory to be fringe then you just use any of your excuse to make it fringe? (even ignoring contrary evidences?) @Bon courage NgHanoi (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The general "standard" is WP:RS. Is there really "contrary evidence"? i.e. a source considering the pseudoscience question and deciding MBTI isn't one? Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: MBTI did not start out to be pseudoscience and was, in fact, embrased by the personality field in psychology before the arrival of Big Five in the 80s. Why does it need a source to "prove" that it's not pseudoscience in the first place? Just because a faction of "trait" theorists in the personality field wanted to spread the label and now people demand it to prove itself NOT a pseudoscience? And remember that you can only find a single source that doesnot published in the APA circle (that vaguely metioned something about pseudoscience)

And the contrary evidences are abundant, such as these sources that perform a meta analysis on numerous papers about the validity and reliability of MBTI:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554264

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013164402062004004

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13674676.2022.2158794?scroll=top&needAccess=true NgHanoi (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia relays what reliable sources say and has a special requirement to be upfront about pseudoscience. If the label is being maliciously spread by 'trait theorists' you need a source saying that – but I have to say, that sounds remarkably like a conspiracy theory. Maybe a cigar is just a cigar? Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I bet you didnot read the last source that I quoted @Bon courage NgHanoi (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. But a Ctrl-F on the text revealed the string "pseudo" wasn't even present, I judged it would not be relevant to this discussion. Remember WP:NOR. Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So now you're using Ctrl+F as the argument instead of the entire picture aren't you. Are we side-tracking to the issue of determining whether MBTI is "pseudoscience". I don't see your comments on those Validity and Reliability sources (don't use Ctrl+F next time). NgHanoi (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not going to indulge you by reading through every source kicked into the ring. Perhaps you can indulge me? If this source is relevant to the pseudoscience categorisation, quote the relevant bit. I'm open to changing my mind, but it must be based on evidence. Bon courage (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if you are looking only at the abstracts and conclusions rather than the whole article, one might miss that the specific wording is indeed present. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So, obviously the term pseudoscientific does belong somewhere in lede, probably when we discuss the applications of the test. But the current verbiage is sub-optimal: a questionnaire itself can't be "pseudoscientific". The test was designed using the "intuitive" method by relative amateurs, as was common for the psychometrics of its day. What's more, when empirical consensus on the factoral structure of personality finally emerged, it actually validated many of the assumptions of the MBTI model. The pseudoscience comes in its applications: the personality write-ups that use the Barnum effect, the horoscope/fortuneteller predictions made using the test, and worst of all the automatic assignation of people to roles based upon what is in essence a fortune cookie. That's my thinking, at least. Feoffer (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

a questionnaire itself can't be "pseudoscientific"

It can if the creation of the questions themselves are based in pseudoscience, it's not like they came out of the ether. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, sure -- if the questions were pure nonsense, I suppose that would count. But Jung and the Briggs' intuition of a personality construct of order >= 4 was actually validated. Their dimensions weren't exactly "right", but they were "right enough to be wrong". That said, there's a HUGE amount of pseudoscience associated with the MBTI and its applications, and readers do need to be warned about that. Feoffer (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Got to laugh at the ill-judged claim above that this is just a "fun" test. The MB company has a multi-million $ revenue and apparently 1 in 5 of F500 companies use it to sift their job applicants.[3] Probably not much fun if you get sorted out of the job market because of pseudoscience! Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Stein & Swan 2019 (pdf) (thanks above) make the interesting point that MBTI is itself the model, the application, the theory, the attempted science. And thus, as the paper goes on to suggest, MBTI itself is pseudoscientific. Because the purpose of taking the MBTI is to learn useful and presumably true things about oneself and others, the MBTI theory is in fact an attempt at a scientific theory. It is not that simply the application or misapplication is pseudoscientific, but the thing in its entirety is.

I'm not sure whether or not I'd fully endorse this assessment myself -- I'll have to give it some thought -- and as I'm certainly only a learning amateur at H&PoS, I don't know whether or not it's just a mainstream given. Regardless, it's fair enough, and there it is in an RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a very difficult needle to thread, and as always, I'd prefer to error on the side of warning the public about flim-flam. But the source never calls MBTI pseudoscience, and honestly, "an attempt at a scientific theory" is kind of the opposite of a pseudoscience. Far from being unfalsifiable, the model's predicted bimodal distribution has indeed been disproven. And the model's claimed dimension of Extraversion-Introversion has actually been empirically validated by Big Five. Putting a theory out that gets partially disproven and partially validated isn't 'pseudoscience', that's the scientific method. Feoffer (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it becomes pseudoscience when it's held as being other than it is (i.e. the True Guide™ to self/recruitment/romance) rather than a flaky categorisation system with maybe a grain of crude truth to it. Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's about where I land. Ptolemy was a scientist who took his best shot at explaining the movement of the stars and planets. But if you're teaching it as gospel truth in 2024, it's a problem. Feoffer (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between initial articulation of a theory and continued defense of its essence in the face of new evidence: science is a social process. Remsense ‥ 论 14:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel as if the oppose votes are responding disproportionately to a poorly phrased question: I want to note for whoever's closing this that they ensure a possible "no consensus" closing summary doesn't reflect something broader than was actually professed here. Remsense ‥ 论 05:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

After more thoughts... our first duty is definitely to warn readers about abuse and misuse of the test. But once that's accommplished, there really is a needle to thread here for students of the history of personality. Unlike Jung's fortune-teller psychobabble, MBTI was a objectively-scored, falsifiable psychometric instrument. In the historic narrative, it is a huge step forward towards Big Five, even though its use in 21st century contexts is utterly pseudo-scientific if not outright unethical and illegal. Despite the need for nuance, I support pseudoscientific in lede sentence. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No advertising, no negative advertising. --Vells (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The point of advertising is that it's for something in particular—what would use of the term be "negative advertising" for? It's exactly like referring to people who are skeptical of something—rightly or wrongly—as shills. It's just a clumsy attempt to turn the language around that misses the mark entirely.Remsense ‥ 论 05:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Controversy

The amount of reversed edits make this article look like an edit war. Would it be appropriate to call a moderator at this point? Jasperthejas (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There's been exactly one edit in the last week. Not much of an edit war! MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)