Battle of the introverts

[andrewducker]

When I first met Jane I told her that I was introverted. And about two weeks later she laughed at me, pointing out how many friends I have, and how much I socialise.

Last night, when I couldn't sleep at 5am, I did a Myers-Briggs test* (to check that I was still INTP - I still am). And then this morning I got her to do it too.

Turns out that I'm 61% introvert/39% extrovert. And she's 94% introvert/6% extrovert. So to her, I look all the same as those extroverted people who leave the house, and talk to other people. And to me she looks like a tiny dot, fleeing into the introverted distance.

Preempting some of the comments - if you want to claim that MBTI is just a horoscope then you'll have to explain its correlation with the Big Five.

Comments

[zotz]

Well, you could have a look here.

[andrewducker]

You left off the http:// bit (I think).

Meant to be this I think. Although that page isn't loading for me either.

However! I more meant "Any suggestions as to why MBTI continues to be popular despite lack of rigorous scientific support?"

[zotz]

Yes, that's what happened. Appropriately enough given that we're discussing poor design decisions, that's because Vivaldi doesn't show that part in the address box.

Why is it popular? It's marketed to the public in a way that other tests aren't, and the suggested personality types are both generally flattering and subject to the Barnum effect.

[snippy]

Thank you for the link to the IPIP test, I found it illuminating to take the test and review the results.

[mountainkiss]

I can't make either of the pages load.

I'd argue that it's popular because it's founded on a model that's easy to understand, feels generalisable / recognisable in terms of every day experience, and allows people to realise genuinely useful benefits in terms of their understanding of themselves and how they are like and different from others. That doesn't mean that everything about the model is perfect, but it gets people enough value to be worth its imperfections and hence it has staying power. The questionnaire is far from perfect but it is close enough to the model enough times to be useful.

[marrog]

I'd agree with this. It seems to help folk to relate to one another and to themselves. It's talking about pretty basic personality traits that help you think about your own personality when you read about them, and it focuses on the practical applications of the outcomes - that is, to help you work and play well with others with different personalities from you. Hard to see what's wrong with that.

[mountainkiss]

I think that's exactly right. The problems come, as always, when people misuse it: equating the questionnaire automatically with type rather than allowing people's understanding of themselves to have validity, or saying "all INTPS are...", or drawing inference beyond what the theory would support. Et cetera.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, I think it does a better job of telling a story than many other systems do. Each of the types feels like a character, someone you can either feel affinity for or not.

Whereas giving people their Big Five scores gives you some numbers, but it's too abstract for most to feel attached to it.