I agree with Ebola, the MBTI is definitely not scientific.
Eh...that's not quite what I meant (I would qualify the MBTI as "somewhat scientific"). One needn't empirically derive all of his/her objects of investigation (indeed, it's impossible to do so in the absence of
any pre-imposed framework). Similarly, it is impossible to atheoretically generalize the dynamics of one's object of study; one must apply some theoretical lens to intelligibly describe personality dynamics in the first place.
So where does the MBTI stand in all this? It draws its theoretical framework and objects of study (eg, which characteristics of behavior and perception are relevant, what preferences for types of cognition one can have, how all these interrelate dynamically, etc.) from non-scientific Jungian supposition of how the mind is structured to produce personalities. So we have invested heavily in hoping that Jung-inspired theoretical inference will hold up to various types of scrutiny. But insofar as the categories and dynamic relations suggested by the MBTI's framework produce inferences that are later confirmed through testing, the typology becomes scientific. Some of these studies have been done (eg, looking to make sure that the predicted clusters of cognitive preferences actually hang together--they do). Some have not, for the most part (eg, longitudinal empirical verification of life-outcomes predicted by prior measured personality type), sometimes due to lack of interest in the typology, sometimes due to the difficulty of implementing relevant empirical testing. So at this point, some facets of the MBTI are spottily and incompletely scientifically validated.
I like the Big Five, too. It can be used in similar ways as the MBTI, and does a good job. But it feels somehow... less fun to me. It feels switching from a local folk measurement that just seemed fitting and sensible to a metric unit that makes for easy math but seems awkward, because it's not a quantity that I encounter in my everyday world. The Big Five's gains in precise language and empirical backing are offset, I think, by a loss of charm and accessibility. I can't help but wonder if a personality test, especially one that's transparent in its methods and results to the test taker, is doomed from the start if the people being tested can't get into it.
This isn't the feel I have for the big 5 AT ALL. The five dimensions don't point to a 'deeper' framework of cognitive proclivities that structure them, so any given personality description in the Big 5 won't be nearly as rich. I think an important part of producing personality
theory is establishing personality metrics that are generative, presenting implications beyond what follows directly from a straightforward description of those characteristics. This can even facilitate predictive testing of personality theory.
...
Also, while I think that some of the dimensions of the MBTI can be accounted for by Big 5 measures (introversion/extroversion is used by both frameworks, openness to experience is essentially preference for intuition over sensing), other parts of the two frameworks don't as easily speak to one another. But, I bet there's a correlation to be found statistically between them, and if there is, the MBTI's description of cognitive function could be used to explain presentation of remaining Big 5 traits. If this were validated empirically, it too would be scientific.
Ricolasnice, I don't know what you're talking about. I relate not at all to most of the 'S' types' descriptions, and a bunch of the other ones too. I'll grant you there's more than one profile I relate to, but definitely not more than 3 or 4.
Hah...I only relate to 2 of the sixteen possible profiles. Perhaps that's why I like the test so much.
ebola
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
)
).
