Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups
Former featured article candidate Myers–Briggs Type Indicator is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 3, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Celebrity Types[edit]

Celebrity Types is indeed a notable site; it has been mentioned by name in The Washington Post as well as referenced in BBC News Magazine (not by name, but by description). The site deserves mention in some form, as does the practice of typing others since it was done by both Jung and Myers. If you disagree, please state why.

As for your second point, you are right that Jung did not use the letters. The proper terms should be used instead. Thanks, --Nightbraker 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see anything about this website which in any way makes it notable or deserving mentioning. There are numerous popular MBTI sites of this kind on the Internet and such sites are normally avoided in articles and not referred to or used for references. We know nothing about the credentials of the people behind this website. Just being mentioned in non-scholarly media articles isn't sufficient to establish notability. Also, the way in which you called it "notable" is a common trick by spammers to cunningly promote websites in articles. I doubt that this was your intention but the effect is still the same.
Some information on the issues concerning the speculative typing of other people along the lines of what you wrote would be appropriate but there would also need to be more precise references to support the comments. Afterwriting (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Consistency between the sub articles[edit]

I've noticed that the sub articles (e.g. ISTJ, ESTP) all list the individual traits of that specific personality differently.

For example, notice that the begging of the page ISTJ is "ISTJ (introversion, sensing, thinking, judgment)"

The page for ISFJ begins with "ISFJ (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging)" (note capital letters, no bold)

Some even have links. I think since these pages are directly related, we should have a standard way for writing the beginning. My only problem is that I can't decide which way to write it out. Thoughts? --Jdc1197 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the subarticles should be merged into one article. They have a lot of duplicate information (most of the second section, for instance, seems to be shared across all the articles) and are about extremely similar topics. Thoughts? Turdas (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ersatz Test[edit]

Almost no casual reader is going to pay actual money to take the MBTI, I think an example of what the test is actually like is extremely relevant and useful even if it is a knockoff. Thoughts? —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Any "knockoff" isn't the MBTI and has no place anywhere in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And, for your information, the "" website is a self-published website which appears to include copyright violations. On both of these grounds it cannot be included anywhere in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 16 pairs of articles[edit]

I'm referring to the most predictable 16 pairs given that there are 16 of them. For example, I don't see why Architect (role variant) has to be distinct from INTP, my type. The articles contain basically the same content. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy mistake[edit]

Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

Because the INTJ type is introverted, however, the J instead indicates that the auxiliary function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The INTJ type introverts the dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is feeling and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.

I'm pretty sure the second paragraph has been copy-and-pasted from the first and the "extraverted thinking" and "introverted intuition" need to be changed (possibly also the feeling/extraverted sensing). However, I don't know enough about this topic to do this with certainty. (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

myers briggs trademark infringement[edit]

Hello, i know myers briggs and MBTI are trademarks. But is "Briggs Myers" trademark infringement as well?

thanks for answer (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


What is it? The TLA is used twice in the article, neither time says what it stands for. Huw Powell (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the first use in the text and indicated the acronym properly. Huw Powell (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)