Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Pseudoscience[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Reliability[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Types[edit]

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[edit]

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)

ambiverts[edit]

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

Remove all self-published, self-serving refs[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Does this article misrepresent Jung?[edit]

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)

The Myers & Briggs Foundation official website[edit]

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)

Jungian Extraversion and Introversion[edit]

"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[edit]

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

Proposed merge with INTJ[edit]

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)