Myers Briggs is categorizing some aspect of personality. Never understood why people call it unscientific. Even bad theories can be useful even if they aren’t perfect. Categorizing high dimensional things like personality will never be perfect.
@jb55 One reason is that it gives very random results. The only thing constant in Myers-Briggs for me is introversion.
Introversion is a part of the big five too but it puts it on a scale. All the tests I've taken for the big five gave me very consistent results.
The traits in the big five were based on how answers tend to group together and the names of the traits came from the language used in the questions.
@jb55 IIRC there are several aspects:
1. Scales employed aren't dichotomic
2. Four-letter results are unstable: tests are unreproducible in a non-trivial amount of cases.
#SGU had an OK coverage, as well as a wondefully-written article in some newsletter of a psychology journal.
I think that what annoys people the most about MBTI is that it became an industry that sells the very same product eugenics used to sell.
Same thing with mindfulness. I'm the first to defend the subjective positive effects of meditation and subjective joy of naturalistic Buddhism. But when a harmless (and maybe helpful) hobby starts to get aggressively marketed to a degree when *individual* fake gurus make millions a year, scientific community absolutely has to make a stance.
Bitcoin Maston Instance