Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pseudoscience label

The label of "pseudoscience" is being questioned and edit-warred over. Please discuss here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for alerting me to the rules regarding reverting. I'm fairly new to Wiki, and I didn't really know the best way to resolve disputes. I also appreciate the addition of more sources, but I've gone through them (albeit briefly), and I'm still not seeing anything clearly labeling it pseudoscience. I'm seeing a lot of criticisms published in journals with "pseudoscience" in the name and many with "pseudoscience" in their title, but the substance of those articles does not refer to it as pseudoscience. I don't see much to warrant claims as strong as "generally considered pseudoscience". It is certainly generally thought to be extremely questionable, and its use for career aptitude specifically is all but entirely debunked as pseudoscience. I just don't think this warrants the claim that it is in general pseudoscience. Its validity and reliability are extremely contested, and while it is not really contested that it is far worse than the Big Five, this doesn't immediately mean very much as to it being pseudoscience or not. I don't necessarily even disagree that it is pseudoscience, just that we can confidently say that it is generally considered to be with the sources provided (or even available to my knowledge). The other thing is that even if I'm completely wrong, the citations should be moved up to the top of the page where the pseudoscience claim is also made but has no citations. I also initially mistakenly posted this on your talk page, but I removed that and am reposting it here. My name is pseudonym (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing a majority of the online-refs, I cannot find verification for "pseudoscience". Where exactly is it? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are listed under Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Utility: "other studies suggest that the MBTI "lacks convincing validity data" and that it is pseudoscience.[10][52][71][72][94][95]".

Please also see the sources that EvergreenFir recently added [1]. And this article says that The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, is... widely criticized by professional psychologists as pseudoscience." Some1 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not seeing how it's verified with the current references.

The MentalFloss link above does, though it looks possibly WP:CIRCULAR. I'm not seeing any general consensus against using mentalfloss articles, so I guess it's ok. A RSN discussion would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal/Ronz (is this how you refer to someone?) and I both said that we went through the references. It isn't that we don't see them. I also clearly see that someone on Wiki added the claim that it is pseudoscience, but this of course does not constitute support for the same claim at the top of the page. What we don't see is support for calling Myers-Briggs pseudoscience within those references. As I've pointed out, all that they say about pseudoscience is indirect and is by virtue of having pseudoscience in the title of the article or name of the journal. The The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, is... widely criticized by professional psychologists as pseudoscience." article does provide some support for the claim, but it is not a journal article, and in the absence of other supporting evidence, I really don't find that sufficient for such a hefty claim (but maybe Wiki doesn't have such high standards). Additionally, it uses the phrase "widely considered" and doesn't say "generally considered" - a much heavier claim. This notwithstanding though, I don't think the article provides sufficient support. Also, the other citations are misleading because they don't actually make the claim and are yet tacked onto the claim. If we wish to use the MentalFloss article, the others should be removed or moved somewhere else. I also feel the need to reiterate my point that any references also need to be moved to the top of the page to support the claim there where it is unsupported. My name is pseudonym (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Yes, that notified me. See Template:Reply to)

At this point it appears that there no references in use that support the content. I'm hoping that someone will come along shortly to point out something that's been overlooked.

If we end up with only the mentalfloss article as a ref, then some rewording or even qualification might be appropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and so the references should not be at the top of the page but in the body of the article. It isn't just the lack of respect for the approach in psychology departments it is also the growing body of evidence about the complete lack of rigour in it's initial development and its failure to find any correspondence in any cognitive science. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I see; thank you for bearing with me while I learn more about Wikipedia. There's a lot of information for me to go over, and there's quite a bit I haven't gotten to. This is my first ever dispute on here. I'm open to any other information anyone cares to provide for me that might improve my ability to communicate more effectively on Wiki or to correct any mistakes I've made thus far.

I'm certainly aware of the general lack of respect towards MBTI that User:Snowded points out, and I think this is for good reason because, compared to other approaches, it is certainly lacking in scientific rigor. However, I just don't think the pseudoscience label is appropriate, and it is even less appropriate to say that it is "widely considered" as pseudoscience. Its application to certain things (i.e. occupation aptitude) is undoubtedly pseudoscientific (perhaps say this instead?), however, and I am confident we would have no issue finding articles to support that particular assertion. Labeling it as a whole as pseudoscience seems to me to be quite premature. Various articles point towards acceptable but comparatively (to the best personality theories) not very good validity and reliability, although, granted, this is disputed. It is precisely the fact that it is disputed though that I find the "widely considered" pseudoscience label inappropriate. Now, I don't mean to downplay its misuse in career aptitude testing. This is extremely unscientific, and it is where much if not most of the criticism surrounding the MBTI comes from as well as where its bad reputation comes from, but this represents the misuse of an inferior but still valid and scientific method of personality measurement. Another big component contributing to its negative perception is that junk pop psychology peddles it while ignoring better measurements. Notably, though, none of this leads us to the conclusion that it is pseudoscience, just that a lot of psychologists don't like it. As for its initial development, it has since been altered somewhat, and even if it was come up with by a 5-year-old that made it by randomly scrambling words together, this does not actually say anything about its correspondence to reality. I'd also be interested to hear what you mean when you say that it hasn't found correspondence in cognitive science. I'm not doubting this; I'd just like some elaboration.

(I'm now mostly attempting to address to the general emotional distaste people in this discussion seem to have for the MBTI [why else would we currently have an article labeling the MBTI as pseudoscience without a proper citation for such a weighty claim?] rather than its label as pseudoscience, so feel free to ignore this bit if you find my efforts misguided.)

It is also throwing out the baby with the bathwater because despite its shortcomings, it has real value in scratching the same itch real pseudoscience (or at least, and I'm sure you'd agree, much more egregiously flimsy pseudoscience) like astrology scratches. This itch is not scratched by the Big Five or any other superior model of personality. I'd personally prefer the Myers-Briggs or even its flimsier online derivatives that are based upon its same principles see more success than astrology any day. The simple fact of the matter is that the general public does not care about the Big Five and never will because it is boring and is derived from number crunching and not theory that then leads to number crunching. I'd like to see less hate for the biggest detractor from astrology within mainstream culture that also gets a great many people interested in psychology, many of whom will go on to work on much more substantive things in the field. My name is pseudonym (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Having conducted an experiment in which astroogy proved a more useful predictor than MB I might diagree with you on that. However that is irrelevant as is most of your argument above. Wikipedia summarises what is contained in the literature it is not about the opinions of editors -----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you possibly link me to that? That sounds interesting. I don't suppose it wasn't published... Did you find that astrological type more accurately predicts birthday than Myers-Briggs? If so, I'd say you've thoroughly debunked MBTI. In all seriousness though, until I see such a study, I won't indulge this notion further because I'm almost positive you don't genuinely believe astrology represents a more valid personality theory than MBTI, and you're just emotionally connected to this subject, probably not without good reason because MBTI has brought quite a bit of shame to psychology. It seems you lack all nuance on this subject though (or you're messing with me). I'm aware of the most essential function of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not some autonomous entity that automatically writes perfectly neutral articles. Currently, the literature for the claim you champion is lacking, so I'm making separate arguments to the people, not to Wikipedia, that are stopping Wikipedia from hosting an article that properly summarizes the literature. My name is pseudonym (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede, as no one can identify a verifying reference currently in the article. The mentalfloss link mentioned above verifies it, but it's quality has been questioned. I'd also add there's the question of how much weight to give it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Interested how " psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie ..." can refer to anything other than a pseudo-science? Open to removing the word but not with the very weak replacement related to prediction. We could go with "It is generally regarded as a controversial approach, and is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the field" which is in Bailey et al and their article is titled "The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and neuromyths Amoing Sports Coaches" May 2018 Frontiers in Psychology. Although the title itself would support the origina text. I would prefer to gain agreement on this so I have not simply reverted back to the previous text, but I would point out that we do not yet have consensus on a change. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus at this point is it's not verified. Let's work from that. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That isn't the case - we have one very new editor who doesn't like it, two editors who have reverted its removal and your opinion. I'm not getting into a edit war and its nice to see another editor removing a lot of the promotional material but how about you answer the points, and references in my statment -----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't just not like it, and I think I've made my reasons clear. You, on the other hand, just seem to enjoy calling it pseudoscience and attempting to back it up with references that don't actually support that claim. Also, we don't exactly have many people in this conversation, so I'm not certain what more you expect a consensus to be unless you suggest we wait for input from other users. I'm not opposed to reverting this if we get support for the claim and other users clearly form a new consensus, but the default position should be the removal of unsourced claims, not the continued hosting of the article with said claims. You can add as many references as you like to the claim, but if none of them support it, you're acting in bad faith and doing little more than tacking on links to random websites to make it look like you have a lot of support in terms of sheer number of citations. The use of "pseudoscience" in a title does not constitute a claim of pseudoscience within that article unless that claim is also made in the body. It represents an investigation of the potential of pseudoscience, which is what that article is. "It is generally regarded as a controversial approach, and is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the field" sounds acceptable to me. I'd go further and say we could also call its use particularly in career aptitude testing pseudoscience, assuming we get an appropriately respectable reference for that, which I'm confident can be found because I know that that claim is actually valid. They key phrase of "psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie ..." is "little more than", which explicitly stops short of calling it pseudoscience. As of right now, I'm avoiding making edits of my own to this page so that I don't get reverted to oblivion. My name is pseudonym (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If we cannot verify it, we're not going to make any progress. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To add my input to the evolving state of the article, I think it is improving, but the primary issue remains. I'm honestly more concerned about the pseudoscience claim in the Utility section than in the lede because its references are extremely misleading and dishonest, which is worse than no references. You can't just tack on random articles that appeared when you typed in "Myers-Briggs pseudoscience" without actually reading them and call this support. My name is pseudonym (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think taking the mentalfloss article to RSN would be a good next step, assuming no other reference verifies the information.

I see it was added to the article body three years ago by @PaleoNeonate: [2]

There was a discussion, but no one identified a verifying reference then either: Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator/Archive_4#Pseudoscience.

It was added to the lede more than a year ago by @Ethanpet113: [3].

Given this history, CIRCULAR seems very likely for the mentalfloss article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In Ref #89 'Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice', chapter 2 lists pseudosciences that are used in clinical assessment and the Myers-Briggs is listed as one of them. Some1 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be an appropriate citation in support of the claim that it has been considered as pseudoscience but not the claim that it generally is classified as such. This said, it still is not directly stated to be pseudoscience, and it is only very lightly cautioned against, mostly in the specific context of career aptitude testing. Perhaps I am expecting too much by asking them to actually directly make the claim, though, because it certainly is implied. However, if we are to leave the claim as is, it certainly requires some qualification, as there is a great deal of evidence supporting both validity and reliability from non-MBTI journals, and the article clearly gives the impression that this is entirely one-sided, only providing one citation and sentence supporting it in the lede. I won't as of right now add any citations of my own, but here are some for those in this discussion to review (that I'm not bothering to properly cite at the moment because I'm not putting them on the Wiki yet, once again because I don't wish to waste my efforts, as I fully expect to be reverted): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164402062004004?casa_token=IKeLbkturakAAAAA:M_0-PY00x8A1b3juWkG9saXJrda_ZHZurjyHnV1ZQEoF-QQ_43wu-LxkK2-iGGDkGo--OG10VhNNyA, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.555.3131&rep=rep1&type=pdf, https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_4, and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164486463032. Only two of these are currently present in the article. One of them provides criticism of the MBTI in career aptitude testing specifically and says nothing about pseudoscience, just "caution", while the other supports its construct validity. My point in including ones already in the article is that when you use the key terms "myers briggs meta analysis" and "myers briggs validity" - extremely neutral terms - these studies (only two of which are currently in the article) are the first you come up with. How exactly did those supporting the pseudoscience label come to the fair and honest conclusion that the MBTI is generally considered to be pseudoscience with information like this? It seems this article is extremely guilty of cherry picking. Of extremely important note, the ONLY meta-analysis present in the entire article supports the MBTI. My name is pseudonym (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and an overwhelming majority of reliable sources thoroughly discredits the MBTI. Also, one can cherrypick and find sources "supporting" Myers Briggs, Neuro-linguistic programming, socionics, astrology, etc. but that doesn't make them not pseudoscience. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Some1 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You should direct this logic towards yourself and the references currently on this article because I 100% agree with you on the point that not all evidence is equally valid and that you can cherry pick, but that's exactly what I'm accusing this page of having done. The citations I've provided are the ones that come up first from an unbiased search for research using neutral keywords. Additionally, they are not tied to the MBTI foundation and are reliable. The overwhelming major of reliable sources do not thoroughly discredit the MBTI. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources show acceptable but not very good validity and reliability for the MBTI in general. However, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources also show that its use in career aptitude testing - its primary use in the modern era - is complete pseudoscience. The truth is nuanced. My name is pseudonym (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I see there's another meta-analysis on this page, contrary to my claim that there was only one. This meta-analysis by Gardner et al. is consistent with my viewpoint that its career aptitude usages are pseudo-scientific. My name is pseudonym (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"The overwhelming majority of reliable sources show acceptable" That is not true. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources debunk and discredit the MBTI. From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-accurate-are-personality-tests/ (which is not in this article): "One famous example of a popular but dubious commercial personality test is the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.... psychologists say the questionnaire is one of the worst personality tests in existence for a wide range of reasons... Vazire sums it up as “shockingly bad.”" Some1 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you really just send me an opinion piece in the Scientific American when talking about reliable sources and after I just sent multiple peer-reviewed articles? I'm honestly looking really hard and can't find a single meta-analysis/literature review that concludes the MBTI has unacceptably low validity and reliability. Find me one meta-analysis superior to the meta-analysis that concludes it has good validity and reliability, and I will immediately drop my position without question. I'm really not married to this position of defending the MBTI. I just currently find that the bad reputation around it is entirely based on studies on its application to career aptitude specifically and to a lesser extent its test-retest reliability, which is actually not that low. Everything I've found merely says that its use in career aptitude testing does not hold up to scrutiny, and many of the articles cited here to purportedly support the claim that it is pseudoscience also only say that. It seems like a conflation of the MBTI's usage in a particular context being pseudoscientific with the construct itself being pseudoscientific. Would we call the Big Five pseudoscience if someone used it for a purpose for which it does not work? The other main criticism I've seen is test-retest reliability specifically, and it isn't even actually that low. My name is pseudonym (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources in this article that discredits the MBTI and not just in the "career-aptitude" way. Also, Simine Vazire from the Scientific American article linked above is a personality researcher at the University of California, Davis. Some1 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis. There is not a single meta-analysis that does so, and meta-analyses should be deferred to because they represent the overall result of a review of the literature. Also, I can't even find individual studies in here that do so, but I wouldn't be that surprised if there are some that I'm overlooking. Her being a researcher from a university does not mean that that article is a reliable source. No studies are cited. The entire thing is her giving her personal opinion. My name is pseudonym (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Simine Vazire is a "she" and she has her own article on Wikipedia, by the way: Simine Vazire. Some1 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really stop to think about that and got tunnel vision on the substance of it while defaulting to "he" without thought, which is certainly quite a bad habit. I'll update my comment. If she happens to see this (very unlikely), I sincerely apologize. In any case, thank you for pointing that out. My name is pseudonym (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an alteration but not a removal of the pseudoscience claim. If it read something to the effect of "Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, its use in hiring and other career aptitude-related purposes is generally classified as pseudoscience. Additionally, it is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the field," I think the article could be much closer to being in-line with what the research actually suggests. The only meta-analysis criticizing it criticizes it specifically when it comes to career aptitude testing. The other meta-analysis supports it. Individual studies cited in the article follow much the same pattern, but these should hold less weight than the meta-analyses. My name is pseudonym (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The majority of criticism against MBTI is not related to hiring or career-aptitude; read the Criticism section and its related sources. And the source cited for the sentence says the MBTI is a pseudoscience used in clinical assessment. Some1 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The majority of the criticism that might lead us to the conclusion of pseudoscience absolutely is related to hiring or career aptitude. The criticism section is perfectly valid but does not support such a claim of pseudoscience. I'm waiting for a meta-analysis countering the one that supports the MBTI's validity and reliability. In the absence of that, the pseudoscience label is without merit. My name is pseudonym (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, the source says the MBTI is pseudoscience used in clinical assessment and is a pseudoscientific assessment method. Some1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, this is insufficient for the broad claim of pseudoscience. 1.) It does not ever directly make the claim, 2.) it once again discusses the MBTI in terms of its use in a particular function and not the construct itself, which is what the claim in contention is made about, and 3.) even if it did support what you say it supported, it contradicts a body of literature as analyzed in the meta-analysis. I'm going to wait to reply now until someone else joins in because I don't think it is possible for me to change your mind. My name is pseudonym (talk)

Chapter 2 lists pseudoscience that are used in clinical assessment and the Myers-Briggs is listed as one of them (along with Neuro-linguistic programming, Reiki, etc.) since the MBTI itself is a pseudoscience. Some1 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur, My name is pseudonym you ar arguing a position rather that referencing sources -----Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I'm arguing the position that the referenced sources do not actually support the claim and that other sources counter the claim. Chapter 2 lists the Myers-Briggs as pseudoscience within clinical assessment, which is not the claim in the article. Even if it was the claim in the article, it seems quite bad faith to use it in the face of reliable evidence to the contrary - a meta-analysis analyzing its reliability, which is opposed by mere individual studies which study it in specific usages. Additionally, if you actually read the scientific sources, you will quickly find that almost all of them discuss the MBTI in terms of its applications to certain things, which it has been used improperly and pseudoscientifically for. Honestly, though, I'm growing tired of this because if at the end of the day you just want to call it pseudoscience because you dislike it I can't possibly change your mind. If I wanted to call anything pseudoscience at all, I could find some opinion pieces to support it, but Wiki articles aren't generally like that when evidence opposes those opinion pieces. I've made a very reasonable compromise proposal, and I think I've made a very coherent case for why the citations do not match the claim and that even if they did, they're insufficient in the face of contradictory evidence. I'll rest my case now either permanently or until someone new joins the discussion so that we can make progress because it has become clear to me that we will not make progress. My name is pseudonym (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Myers-Briggs itself is pseudoscience, just like Neuro-linguistic programming and Reiki themselves are pseudoscience. The source lists pseudoscience that are used in clinical assessment and lists those three, since they themselves are pseudoscience and are also being used in clinical assessment. Those three are themselves pseudoscience no matter what they are being used for. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: @Some1: @Hipal: Having had more time to familiarize myself with Wiki and its rules, I'm even more confident that the "generally classified as pseudoscience" statement is inappropriate. It is clearly original research. The sources do not say that it is generally classified as pseudoscience. Additionally, "and is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the field" is original research because this is also not stated anywhere. Rather, both of these claims represent an unjustified synthesis of literature (i.e. original research). While I disagree that they even explicitly call it pseudoscience broadly at all, this is not even necessary to justify altering the statement. I know that I will not make any headway arguing that the sources don't actually call it pseudoscience broadly, which is why I stopped discussing, but it is clear that there is nothing calling it "generally pseudoscience". If I grant that the sources call it broadly pseudoscience, the strongest claim we can possibly make that is "justified" by the citations would be something along the lines of, "Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, some sources have classified it as pseudoscience." I'm not saying that we need to use this exactly, just something like that. My name is pseudonym (talk)

I tweaked it to say "it has been criticized as pseudoscience" to avoid mentions of classification. And regarding "is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the field" is original research because this is also not stated anywhere"... it is supported by reference #10. Some1 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable tweak. I also now see the support in reference #10. Thank you. My name is pseudonym (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi,

I've removed the pseudoscience category again, as this was only added due to the mistaken deletion of Category:Protoscience at MfD. I've been a silent volunteer for WikiProject Skepticism for over ten years and have worked persistently to combat the presence of pseudoscience across our project, but MBTI is more properly a protoscience and needs to be correctly identified as such.   — C M B J   03:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You need WP:Reliable sources calling it a "protoscience" first. Some1 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories are descriptive and not prescriptive, intended explicitly to assist viewers in navigating similar articles, and both the subject matter and the article itself are perfectly consistent with the literal definition of an existing category that is more specific than this broader one that, frankly, fundamentally describes something else.

A protoscience is, by definition, faulty and precocious just like a pseudoscience, but the defining difference is that a protoscience has some independently verified scientific basis, which the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator does by any reasonable account. And even if that weren't the case, consensus has already been against the use of the pseudoscience category, despite extensive and exhaustive debate in past times, and the correct category remained on this article for years until a string of summary deletions by well-intentioned contributors who had little familiarity with the subject and who did so as an oversight while performing routine housekeeping, and even this was not done because of its use here specifically.

The current categorization spreads misinformation, ironically not unlike pseudoscience itself, and should not continue to be re-added without an affirmative argument. And there is no justification for removing the other, even if they were to both stay, which should not happen.   — C M B J   04:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories are based on the content of the article; and there's nothing in this article about the MBTI being a "protoscience", but reliable sources characterizing and criticizing it as a pseudoscience (see the whole section above). All of what you're saying is based on your personal opinions, which is WP:Original research. Some1 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Perform the duck test. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quack likes a duck, it is not original research to call something a duck. The word duck does not have to be used in the content; this is how swaths of articles throughout the project are categorized, as a practical matter, because we're just using language to describe something so people can navigate.

We have an article here that says things like "some studies claim support for validity and reliability" and "two disorders with significant correlations of all four MBTI dimensions were schizotypal (INTP) and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (ISTJ)", and we now have this article in a category next to psychic mediums and snake oil instead of the one for unscientific but rational systems like alchemy. This is not helpful at all to readers; it's confusing and misleading, and contradictory of the article's content.   — C M B J   06:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-read the essay you linked (Wikipedia:The duck test) again, because it clearly says: "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view." All of what you've said is WP:OR; now please provide WP:Reliable sources instead. Also, the category wasn't "mistakenly deleted"; it was closed as Delete: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Protoscience. Some1 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's just a saying -- I just linked the essay to be jovial. I haven't re-read the thing for a long time, and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue would probably have been more befitting.

Yes, we can't use our own original research. I am well aware of the guideline, and again, have for many years now worked to help eradicate pseudoscience from many different corners of the project that often even consists of original research. But that's not at play here, because the article itself already has verifiable content that ascribes at least some scientific validity to MBTI and describes its characterization as pseudoscience by critics in that context. At minimum, the article doesn't belong in Category:Pseudoscience, but it would be helpful for readers to include it in Category:Protoscience due to it being perfectly suitable and accurate. (And for reference, the MfD you linked is years after the original deletion.)   — C M B J   07:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Then you know you would need to find a balance of references that would support that position. Personally I think you are on the wrong track, proto-science (which is a dubious term anyway) if valid would only apply to something emerging, not something long present and long discredited -----Snowded ^TALK 12:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but a key and widely referenced example of protoscience is alchemy. It's debatable as to whether there should be explicit sources to support this specific term in the case of MBTI, but it's an accurate one that does not confer any kind of validity or importancy or status or anything else. Protoscience is still unscientific by its very definition, it's just a more accurate descriptor that allows differentiation between a rational prescientific system and the likes of crop circles or witch doctors.   — C M B J   13:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you ever get any evidence in support let us know, for the moment you are only expressing a personal opinion -----Snowded ^TALK 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This article's content itself cites its own evidence and it's not an opinion to describe something using the most feasible word in the dictionary. And even if that were the case, there is not sufficient support in the article for retaining the existing category. Simultaneously describing studies that suggest something is at least somewhat scientific and then citing a subset of critics who say something is pseudoscience is not a basis to justify that kind of black and white labeling.   — C M B J   13:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources in this article have criticized and characterized the MBTI as pseudoscience and have called it a pseudoscientific assessment, hence the category is pertinent and stays. I know you personally disagree with the pseudoscience label; I'm sure other editors on different pseudoscience topics also disagree with the label on their preferred topics; but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal beliefs or opinions. As Snowded said, if you ever get any evidence (in this case, reliable sources), let us know. Some1 (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This article no longer makes claims of pseudoscience outside of the scope of its sources. You'd be right when you say "Simultaneously describing studies that suggest something is at least somewhat scientific and then citing a subset of critics who say something is pseudoscience is not a basis to justify that kind of black and white labeling," if the article still made the synthesized claim of the MBTI being generally considered as pseudoscience. It doesn't; it simply says that it has been criticized as pseudoscience, which it has been. Given this, I think it makes sense to leave the pseudoscience category because it is legitimately related to the MBTI in that it is something that some people have labeled it as, rightfully or not (I think not). However, there's a legitimate question as to whether placing the pseudoscience claim so prominently in the article (and without refutation) represents granting too much weight to minority viewpoints as per due and undue weight, which, if true, could mean the categorization is also improper. Also, I see what you're saying regarding a label for something in between science and pseudoscience, but the Wiki page for protoscience doesn't seem to fit with your understanding of the term ("the defining difference is that a protoscience has some independently verified scientific basis"). The closest thing to what you're describing seems to be fringe science. My name is pseudonym (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

YouTube hits

I did not add up all the videos, but 16personalities seems to have around 1/2 billion views on YouTube. Maybe that is worth mentioning, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkZ6Dfyautw .

Calling something "pseudoscience" is rather dangerous. Better wording would be logical: true, false, we don't know. Unless your quantum computer can handle probabilistic states to emulate the human mind, I suggest that "pseudoscience" is a black hole for truth.

You are also turning off a lot of teenagers (to the study of psychology) who like this test, along with their grandpa, too (me). Young people reading this article will also rebel against Wikipedia for hosting such an article, and we need them in the future to maintain this encyclopedia. Charles Juvon (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If they study pyschology they will not find much support for Myers Briggs and I very much doubt that their motivation to study the subject or edit wikipedia will be impacted by basing the article on reliable sources rather than a count of YouTube hits (a lot of pseudo-science such as Young Earth Creationism can probably get more) or the desiresy of grandparents (however worthy the individual. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

With a quick look at YouTube views, 16personalities is getting about 500 times more hits than YEC's. Please appreciate this test test has gone viral with high school and college students. My problem is the declaration of "pseudoscience". What study proved 16personalities to be pseudoscience? I don't mean this to be inflammatory, but is "pseudoscience" the correct term to use for the historic DSM-3 diagnosis of homosexuality? Charles Juvon (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Check the references in the article and you are being provocative so please stop; come here with some evidence in reliable sources, not your opinions-----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

In the Criticism section, the individual criticsms either directly contradict each other or the sources used actually validate other parts of MBTI, without the article openly saying so. This should either be pointed out within the article in detail, or it may even be reason to delete the criticisms from the article.

For starters, the content of sub-section Little evidence for dichotomies could well be titled High evidence for dynamic type stacks, and the content of sub-section Little evidence for "dynamic" type stack could well be called High evidence for dichtomies. In other words, both criticisms are based on specific, deliberately biased radical misreadings or misquotations of MBTI that are directly opposed to and contradticting each other, each to make it look questionable. But at least the latter sub-section is fair by quoting as much as that Bess & Harvey admit that the validity of MBTI is not refuted, even if the sub-section glosses over the fact that the premises of their criticism of MBTI are refuted by the prior "criticism".

The contents of sub-section Validity and utility could well be re-titled to Competition, as it basically relates to competition-related smearing statements by advocates of different systems, akin to the competition between Pepsi vs. Cola. In short, that sub-section simply covers the fact that the NAS was miffed that MBTI partly favors some concepts over others favored by institutions. The very fact that the 1991 NAS criticism directly validates the scale and valdity of the E-I as well as the J-P scale is entirely glossed over by the article. On top of that, the 1991 NAS criticism that MBTI wouldn't use concepts favored by institutions considered more scientific, namely introversion vs. extroversion, as presented in the article directly contradicts Eysenck's critism below.

The sub-section Lack of objectivity is basically a complaint about the phenomenon of social integration and social adaptibility (or conformism) where people "have something to lose" that you can't blame om MBTI, and where lack of honesty is rather easy to determine also with MBTI. In other words, it complains about the use of MBTI in specific pressure scenarios where the sub-section then correctly goes on to point out that this criticism is entirely based on not actually paying attention to actual MBTI sources, material, and guidelines. On top of that, the sub-section as it stands entirely fails to mention the higher objectivity in scenarios outside those addressed by the sub-section, thus making it look like another criticism of overall validity of MBTI and its soundness when it's not. Also, types can well exist and be valid, even if they're only the result of social pressure, dynamics, and developments; see some of the specific theory and practical evidence of interaction between MBTI type development and social factors discussed at [4]. For a similar concept of types due to social pressure and adaptation, see The Authoritarian Personality and Right-Wing Authoritarianism, for instance.

The sub-section of Terminology ironically complains about not enough and not specific enough traits, when the fact is that all competing systems considered "more scientific", such as the Big 5, actually use even less traits that are even more vague than those used in MBTI. There is another problem that the validity of this criticism is not properly adressed, even though the sub-section hints in very vague terms at the fact that Keirsey finds plenty of support for the preciseness and specificity of MBTI among the scientific community.

The sub-section Factor analysis is not even an actual criticism against the fundamental premises of MBTI, which is how it's presented by being used in a section titled Criticism, and is more an advocation of additional improvements to MBTI.

The sub-section Correlates, while actually validifying some parts of MBTI, is mainly a complaint by Eysenck (somebody who believed that all personality traits would be exclusively related to DNA genetics, advocating that future personality tests should be entirely based on genome studies once we've identified all relevant markers and their resulting personality traits) that MBTI doesn't use the same attributes as he does.

The sub-section Reliability could either be entirely folded into the sub-section Little evidence for dichotomies, as its contents are identical to it (and thus in direct contradiction to the sub-section Little evidence for "dynamic" type stack - which, as discussed, could well be re-titled to High evidence for dichotomies), or are a direct result of the issues described in the Lack of objectivity sub-section where they have been presented incorrectly already, as pointed out above. Additionally, the sub-section grossly contradicts itself a number of times on the number of people and time periods within which MBTI test results stay the same or change, while not discusisng this inconsistency among critics of MBTI (where critics of MBTI actually find significantly high type stability), acting instead as if the tendency in these percentages would make a clear case against MBTI type stability when they don't. --2003:EF:1709:2994:314B:CD77:ECE1:E03A (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I’ve been looking through this article and it seems clear that a whole lot of it does not use NPOV, especially the quotes at the end of paragraph 2. These quotes should be in the criticism section, if they are to be kept at all. I an thinking of deleting them. Any thoughts? Veilure (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 starts off with how "[m]ost of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type" which has raised "questions of independence, bias, and conflict of interest." The quotes at the end of paragraph 2 shows how independent sources view the MBTI (which is not favorably). The MBTI is widely criticized and the lead should reflect that per NPOV. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Some1 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO, many articles about things that are widely criticized don't have quotes using such derogatory language. The content within these lines is stated in a much more elegant way later in the article. The second quote in particular seems to be at least slightly dramatized, as the exact words quoted earlier in the article are different. I get where you are coming from, but it still feels blunt to me. Veilure (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If one of the quotes had said "bullshit" (which it actually used to say), then sure, but general criticism directed towards the MBTI aren't "derogatory". Some1 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That is definitely better... I'm fine with keeping it for now, but this is still sketchy IMO. Veilure (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aight. I've checked a few things out and articles such as acupuncture, which are quite literally pseudoscience, have a much less critical point of view than this article, which has not even been categorized as pseudoscience yet. After careful consideration, I think I will probably remove those quotes at some point. Veilure (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the quotes to the Criticism section instead since that's where the independence/lack of independence issues come in. Some1 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. To be honest, I probably should have done that, lol. Veilure (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We have articles about say Scorpio (astrology) on Wikipedia, but no articles about each MBTI type? There used to be articles for each type, but now they are all removed and redirected to this article, where a biased criticism of MBTI is presented. How is the difference in your coverage of astrology and MBTI logically justified?

The article states that MBTI categories are poorly defined, and can't be measured with validity and reliability. The same article talks about these invalid categories being correlated to certain mental health issues! How can something that don't exist correlate with something else?

Your treatment of MBTI in this article is so one-sided that it may be the result of some coordinated troll activity. Aminv (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree- the first section doesn't even cover the fact that a good deal of research, even as recent as 2020, has found evidence of reliability, validity, etc as a measure. But yes there are also studies that haven't found evidence of strong reliability etc- just like with most studies there is competing evidence. That's why the topic of MBTI is complex and deserves further research to really uncover what works and what doesn't in terms of potential applications... But this intro is so one-sided it feels like it was written by a company that owns a competing indicator (which sounds absurd but it is truly a lucrative business). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E06E:1400:653C:A7F8:6B9F:95C0 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to actually mention these 2020 sources.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Megaman en m: I've found this article [5]. Could anyone with background on psychology and/or systematic review/meta-analysis reading scrutinize it? Handarii (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was published in 'Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity' and not a journal that specializes in psychology, which is a bit of a red flag. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

After having read the article, I am left with the impression that much of the criticism summarized within it either predates the latest MBTI Manual (1998) and its Supplement (2009) or cites scholarly criticism that does. The revision of Form M that required the revision to the Manual was substantial, using a completely different methodology (2-parameter Item Response Theory) to select items to be included on the various scales, as well as revisions/additions/deletions to the MBTI items. Consequently, whether the reader is left to assume that all of the earlier criticisms pertain equally to the current MBTI Form M. The current MBTI manual and Supplement, both referenced in the article, contain extensive information regarding the reliability of MBTI continuous scores (now called Preference Clarity Indexes), preference and type agreement over time, and evidence for the validity of inferences that can be drawn from the PCIs, preferences, and type. None of the evidence provided in these two documents is directly referenced in the article in support of the utility of the MBTI. In addition, there is no discussion of the validity of the Type Verification process that is central to the use of the MBTI in counseling, training, and other contexts. The supplement provides evidence regarding the consistency of measured type (MBTI output) and type verified by the client before the MBTI results are presented. [Type verification can be thought of as an indicator of credibility, a process designed to contrast with "astrology" analogy used to make MBTI results seem less than credible.]

The MBTI Manual is truly extensive (over 1000 pages), though the supplement is only 17 pages long, so incorporating the contrasting findings between the research and data currently summarized into the article may be a substantial task; however, it would make any new or continuing criticisms of the MBTI much more credible and would likely mitigate some of the scholarly criticism — particularly that related to reliability of scores and agreement of type over time, as well as some of the criticism directed at the validity of inferences that can me made from the MBTI results. Criticisms based on the underlying type theory, however, will remain because the 1998 MBTI revision continues to be based on Brigg's and Myers interpretation and extension of Jung's psychological type theory. Drbb01 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We cannot assume that these editions/supplements are meaningful unless reliable sources explain why they are meaningful. Since Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, our job isn't to mitigate some of the scholarly criticism, it is to fairly summarize the topic per reliable sources. Any sources which are unable or unwilling to critically assess this topic are inherently less reliable and therefor less weighty. The Manual and the Supplement would both be WP:PRIMARY sources, and therefor of limited value. The article is very heavily cited regardless, and plenty sources are relatively new.

However, I do agree that some sources are old enough that they should be more clearly contextualized as historical. One that jumps out is Hans Eysenck, who died in 1997. His work in psychometrics has been influential, but was and still is very controversial, and citing him as a mainstream figure without any context is muddying the waters.

Still, as always, it boils down to reliable, independent sources. Independent in this case means independent of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. If the best way to summarize the consensus of independent sources is via "derogatory" quotes, it is not automatically a problem for the article. There's no reason an encyclopedia must use evasive language when plain talk will convey the point just as well. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC about NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the amount of criticism in this article excessive or warranted? (For more info, see this archive.) Veilure (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

This question doesn't allow an easy yes/no answer. - Not exessive; warranted = yes. I read the criticism section, and it seems well sourced, with not too much content sourced to one source (which might be Undue); so I'd say it looks fine as it is. WP:NPOV says: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems pretty balanced. It's weird actually, the article is really neutral despite having a lot of other issues. I don't see that a lot. But basically, MBTI is heavily deprecated, and it was never a theoretically or empirically supported test. The creators did a really good job given that they didn't know what they were doing, but they still didn't know what they were doing. The only potential issue is that it should be updated with comparisons to the even better actual personality science we have now (as compared to big 5), such as HEXACO. But that's not urgent, it doesn't really have a substantial impact on its neutrality. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Probably. RS is pretty critical, so Wikipedia will reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RFC This RFC is pretty vague. It would be helpful if you made your question more specific. Do you have a specific concern you would like to remedy? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability

The existing Reliability section draws heavily on Form G (published in the late 1970s). Form M (published 1998) and the Global version (published 2018) have much better reliabilities than Form G. The Fortunate Magazine quoted in the existing page draws on data from Form G too. I was planning a modification along these lines:

The most recent version of the MBTI (Global Step I) Manual reports Cronbach's alpha reliabilities between .87 and .89 across all preference pairs. However, the reliability of the MBTI has been disputed, particularly earlier editions.

It has been argued that criticisms regarding the MBTI mostly come down to questions regarding the validity of its origins, not questions regarding the validity of the MBTI's usefulness. Others argue that the MBTI can be a reliable measurement of personality, and "like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are dependent on sample characteristics and testing conditions" .

I propose removing this text from the existing article as the article focuses on Form F (1962 edition): In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half of people chose the same profiles.

--HLR391 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

recent edits: NPOV is not what new editors often think it is

@Tommyhyouka: From your comment: "Please focus on making this page fair and balance. Not just to push the criticism" In Wikipedia, we say what Reliable Sources say WP:RS, and if they predominantly criticize this theory, than that's how we should describe it.

Please see: WP:NPOV "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity," and also specifically WP:BALANCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I agree with you, I do. First thing first, I do not question the Criticism part, but it became problematic when this page (or any other pages) was reduced to just criticism. Even if they "predominantly criticize" this theory, there are still other parts of this topic (MBTI): we have the history, concept, and the popular/contemporary impacts on the people. Those parts need to be featured, regardless we agree with MBTI or not.

And thus I added the part of how Myers conceived this theory, and the viral phenomenon, and the part of K-Pop. I am open for discussion, but it troubled me when I saw criticism in Bullet Points on the first paragraphs, but no mention of the history and many other important basics. I just don't understand why nobody bothered to fix it in the first place for so long. @Avatar317 Tommyhyouka (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)