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.

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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)

"They" in the History section[edit]

Late sentence in second graph references "they" but there appears to be only a single antecedent (Briggs). I didn't want to change it, though, in case I'm either misreading it, or there is supposed to, in fact, be another person referenced that someone might want to insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3F48:8300:59E9:C369:BCD7:ED93 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a title above your comment as I believe you are referring to the History section.
"They" would most obviously refer to both Briggs and Myers... but the sentences before and after indicate to me that it refers just to Briggs. Perhaps we should change it from "they" to "Briggs".
Yaris678 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

More detail about how the test was developed?[edit]

Perhaps the development of the Myers-Briggs test was mostly subjective, but the current article does say "From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test construction, scoring, validation, and statistical methods.[1]", What were the scoring, validation, and statistical methods used by Hay?

It would be useful to explain how a test using Hay's methods was developed and to say how this compares to the methods used to develop other personality tests. For example, I speculate that one method of developing a "personality test" would be to find a set of questions and a method of scoring the answers such that the test effectively divides a large sample of people into distinct categories and then have clinical psychologists examine the test subjects and classify (perhaps through interviews) the traits common to people who fall in the same category. Is that what Briggs and Briggs-Myers did? Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


I removed the sentence "Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability,[citation needed] where every possible outcome can be interpreted in support of a theory." A quick search on Google Scholar for Myers+Briggs+falsifiability reveals, near the top of the results, an article critical of the MBTI that says exactly the opposite about falsifiability: Pittenger, David J. (2005). "Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" (PDF). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 57 (3): 210–221. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210. The strong theoretical background of the MBTI affords many falsifiable hypotheses regarding the psychometric properties of the MBTI results.  The MBTI has many problems, but nonfalsifiability does not appear to be one of them, unless others can find reliable sources stating otherwise. Biogeographist (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)