196

16441 readers

1674 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

352

MBTI rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ironically, the best thing done to MBTI in the later years is 16personalities test. It's crude, it's stupid, but it did promote the idea and had this well-designed avatars, so it brought many people on the path of self-discovery.

But making it a science? Everyone was more occupied by selling it, than researching it.

There're also Socionics, an exUSSR bastard that rewire many things in MBTI, and is too focused on the idea of pairing types: https://mysocio.ru/ I find it a little deeper but more cringe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

16personalities is Big5 dressed up in MBTI terminology -- yes Big5 has a good methodology, but it doesn't even try to measure the stuff that Jung was getting at, if you get an "I" on 16personalities that means you rank low on Big5 sociability which just isn't what introversion is. Big5, more or less, can tell you how other people, society in general see you as. You probably know that you're sociable or not, Big5 can give you a very precise place on the bell curve, and you may or may not know whether you're neurotic, which can be very helpful. But it just doesn't have anything to do with cognition, and Big5 results very much aren't innate, which Jungian types are supposed to be.

Overall, each time I see a type ending in -T or -A I automatically assume the thing to be a mistype. From my experience it's quite a bit worse than chance.

The avatars are cute though and the wider typing community has adopted them wholesale.