Return to “Polls”

What is your Myers-Briggs type?

ESTP
Total votes: 2 (3%)
ESFP
(No votes)
ISTP
(No votes)
ISFP
Total votes: 2 (3%)
ESTJ
Total votes: 1 (2%)
ESFJ
(No votes)
ISTJ
Total votes: 5 (8%)
ISFJ
Total votes: 2 (3%)
ENTP
Total votes: 4 (6%)
ENTJ
Total votes: 5 (8%)
INTP
Total votes: 21 (33%)
INTJ
Total votes: 6 (9%)
ENFP
Total votes: 7 (11%)
ENFJ
(No votes)
INFP
Total votes: 3 (5%)
INFJ
Total votes: 6 (9%)
Total votes: 64
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Type Survey II

#61
DigitalDuck wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 4:45 am
Flatfingers wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 11:37 am
They don't like the MBTI's "forced dichotomization."
But doesn't the Big Five model do exactly the same thing?
I guess in MBTI having even a small score in say, N, still puts you in the N 'box' just like someone with a big score. With Big Five you just get a score across the five categories. There's no "you're a this, not a that"

Comes to the same thing in my opinion, but whatever~
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Type Survey II

#62
DigitalDuck wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 4:45 am
Flatfingers wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 11:37 am
They don't like the MBTI's "forced dichotomization."
But doesn't the Big Five model do exactly the same thing?

Big Five adherents would say no, their scales are built like Josh's scales for NPC personality traits: as a single trait whose strength ranges from 0 to 100. So someone might be very Conscientious, or only somewhat Conscientious.

This is said to be different from the MBTI model, which identifies two endpoints for each of the four axes with the 0 point between them. If you score even a single point more in favor of Thinking versus Feeling, for example, you get put in the "T" box. (I don't actually recommend believing a "test" for figuring out MB type, but this is how Big Five critics of MBTI often frame their objection.)

Functionally, of course, you're right. The Openness index, for example, is described by Big Five fans as ranging from "totally open to everything" to "not open to everything." But I agree that it's not unreasonable to look at this as functionally -- meaning as humans express psychological preferences as actual behaviors -- ranging from "totally open to everything" to "actively rejects everything." In other words, an MBTI adherent would say the 0 point on each of the Big Five axes is actually the opposite preference, not just the lack of that preference, effectively making each of the OCEAN axes a two-value trait just as in MBTI.

I personally find a two-valued model more useful. I think it captures more of the true range of human motivation. I also agree somewhat with the Big Five criticism of MBTI as putting people in boxes -- as though if you prefer Judging over Perceiving even slightly, You Are A Judger. In reality, I expect a plot of each of the four MBTI axes would show a bimodal distribution, with humps somewhere around the midpoint of each of the two preferences for each axis. That would better reflect that these preferences are analog, not binary, but that there are still real and meaningful patterns of preference -- most people really do have a visible preference either for wanting to get things settled now (Judging), or for wanting to get more information before making a decision (Perceiving), and so on for the other three axes identified in the MBTI model.

This utility of a model with bi-valued axes is, BTW, one of the reasons why I've suggested to Josh that he might consider adapting his NPC personality model to this style. This would avoid naming any individual trait in a negative way (e.g., "Greedy"), and treat each trait as having two equally-valuable (unless taken to the extreme values) ways of expressing that trait (e.g., a range from "Acquisitive" to "Charitable").

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron