Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
Version 0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.

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)

Misspelled word[edit]

The word is spelled extroversion (extrovert, etc.) not extraversion.

17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Check dictionaries of psychology. The APA dictionary prefers the spelling with "a" in the prefix, and most general dictionaries note that that is the spelling in psychological literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Different Pittenger sources[edit]

There were two definitions of the reference name "Pittenger", one referring to a 1993 publication, and the other to a 2005 publication. I differentiated them between "Pittenger1993" and "Pittenger2005", checked the former and removed those references that I could not find there. Possibly they are in the other publication. I may also have overlooked some.

Some details:

  1. I let reference g (after "between 39% and 76%") stand, even though the article does not give that range, saying instead "as many as 50 percent".
  2. The statement "The different scales are correlated, and not independent as claimed." does not fit under the headline "Reliability, so I removed it. (The 1993 source does mention correlation among factors, but does not make the case that there is a problem.) If that can be sourced, it would better fit in the "Correlates" section. — Sebastian 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to mention any criticisms in the lead?[edit]

This article has a largish criticisms section: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Criticism

Do we want to reflect any of that in the lead?

In January, the lead included the sentence "Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor validity and reliability." with three references.

I expanded this to say "Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor validity (it does not measure what it purports to measure) and poor reliability (it will give different results for the same person on different occasions). The four scales used in MBTI have some correlation with four of the Big Five personality traits, which are still controversial, but more widely accepted than MBTI."

This last bit was a summary of Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Big Five.

On the 29th of February, the text was removed by IP, citing information provided with the MBTI.

If we don't want to reflect any criticisms in the lead, perhaps we need to change our criticisms sections (or perhaps we need to both change the criticism section and reflect some of it in the lead).

Yaris678 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response to the above, so I've brought back the text mentioning criticisms in the lead.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)