Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oddeivind (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 10 June 2019 (→‎Proposed merge with INTJ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateMyers–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
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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 (article contribs).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ambiverts

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Jungian Extraversion and Introversion

"Myers–Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them."

This isn't true.

Extraversion as defined by Jung is "when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decision and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective condition." (Jung, "Psychological Types", p. 4) Inversely, introversion is when orientation towards the subject predominate in such a way that subjective views determine decision and actions.

So when Myers--Briggs defines extraversion as "drawing energy from action," this goes against the Jungian usage. Both introverts and extraverts can draw energy from action and be action-focused, the difference being that introverts will determine the action subjectively and extraverts will determine the action objectively.

I would suggest changing the first line to "Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion in their current psychological sense. These definitions differ somewhat from popular and Jungian usage."

Proposed merge with INTP

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

Proposed merge with INTJ

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

I support the merges. Someone963852 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to merge. There is plenty of space on Wikipedia. Oddeivind (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator&oldid=901283075"