Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

16 Personalities Website and K-Pop

@Tommyhyouka: Please read WP:BRD and WP:WAR. It is not the duty of people who revert your additions to explain why they are reverting, it is your duty to give a reason on the Talk page and gain a consensus before reinserting.

Yes, those links are spammy. YouTube is not a good source, see WP:RSPYT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is like a very disappointing response that proved you did not bother to at least check first before deleting. If you watched those videos just even for a few seconds instead of just saying "deleting spammy" you would know the two people speaking were from MBTI Institute who work for 12 years in Korea. Why are they not good sources?

Second, those links are not Spammy since they provided proofs from different groups. Oh my gosh... Really... You know K-Pop groups are different, right? If I didn't put those sources, some people might just delete them by saying "no proofs" (which you actually deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhyouka (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Third, the 16personalities.com is important because it's responsible for MBTI popularity. As I explained, the test was taken half billion times, and taken by K-Pop celebs with millions of global followers. But it's not MBTI. I put a source there from the website's disclaimer page. What you are doing here, by deleting the explanation and disclaimer, is potentially spreading misinformation.

Wikipedia requires admin to work collaboratively, and I am ready to work together. I am just asking you to avoid dismissive gesture in editing. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The content does not matter. The source does. Read WP:RS.

"Edit war" has a pretty clear definition, and I supplied it. I also supplied the BRD page. Calling an edit war "edit war" is not misinformation. After you said something like that, I am not interested in having a discussion with you, but others may. Go read the Wikipedia policies. And I am not an admin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your approach here. So first, you deleted my sources without checking them. And then you were asking for explanations. After I gave explanations, you left? That's it? So where are we now? @Hob Gadling Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. It does not say that the person who reverts your revert of a revert must debate you. I already explained to you why your reasoning is bad: The content does not matter. The source does. Read WP:RS. You need to convince people here that your YouTube link is a reliable source, and first, you need to find out what a reliable source is. So, read WP:RS.

And do not ping me. There are other people here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My take on all this is that the K-POP stuff is undue trivia, deserving at most one sentence (we should have a "Popular culture" section). Bon courage (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For Bon Courage, with all due respect, I disagree. I think generational understanding is crucial here. For millennials and gen z, the involvement of K-Pop is crucial. It's exactly because of K-Pop stars and their millions of followers that MBTI has entered the mainstream conversation.

It is completely out of touch to dismiss it into just "one sentence." Without the K-Pop stars and their millions of followers, MBTI would still be largely unknown.

And that brings us to the 16Personalities.com. As I mentioned above, that website is how people took the test. That test was taken Half Billion times. It's wrong to dismiss it, however it's not MBTI which is why it's important to provide explanation. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I did read it. Here:

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

People who apply a pseudoscientific concept are not specialists and recognized experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage

Dear Bon Courage, I do believe this 16personalities addition in K-Pop section is important, as I explained above, Please help us to settle. Thank you in advance. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've given my view. You'd need to get consensus for your desired addition. Bon courage (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And what is the solution if the consensus couldn't be reached because of bad faith? Just let it be? I don't think restricting edits for information clarification is a bad way. I have solid argument why 16personalities and K-Pop should not be dismissed. In good faith, nobody should dismiss the involvement of millions of people. So I don't think we should go with Appeal to Consensus.

If you think my arguments have any weaknesses, please direct me so I can fix it. My stance is this K-Pop section is factually important to be dismissed as just triviality. It's not a good faith argument to dismiss it as that. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a failed attempt at psychology. Yes, there are lots of laypeople who wrongly believe it did not fail, just as with every other pseudoscience. Neither they nor the pseudoscientists themselves are reliable sources. If there is a news organization which wrote about that craze without embracing it, that would be a reliable source. WP:FRINGE is another good page for reading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There you go. "This article is about a failed attempt at psychology". That is not a good faith argument, because you clearly already have openly biased point-of-view. It's like telling fans of Football Club A to edit the page for the rival club Football Club B. How could we reach good faith consensus? @Bon courage

"if there is a news organization which wrote about that craze without embracing it, that would be a reliable source."

And I already explained above (see it), that I also welcome the criticism, but you need to learn this phrase: Audi alteram partem. That should be the requirements for every Wikipedia editor. The question is can you use the same standard about the articles which criticize MBTI? Adam Grant for example. He openly, disdainfully, attacked MBTI. He went so far to say "personality types are myth" until he released his own personality test. Does that mean we should delete all his references? I really think you need to rectify your approach.

The observations from the two MBTI Experts in Korea (which you deleted) should also be considered reliable based on Wikipedia's policy (that you copied for me). So far, your assessment is based on bad faith. I will just say that this is not a Medium page. This is Wikipedia. And I'm not trying to be scientist, I'm trying to capture it from the social point-of-views which, as it happened, involved millions of people. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tommyhyouka: You're wrong about bad faith, and note that WP:AGF is recommended. If you want more eyes, I started a thread at WP:FT/N#MBTI. The K-POP stuff does not help our readers understand MTBI better. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point is not just about "understand" MBTI in its technicalities. I'm putting it to describe the fact that K-Pop helped to popularize it. So people can understand the cultural/contemporary impacts. My addition will actually help them to understand from that point-of-view.

To be honest, I found your dismissal problematic, if not subtly ageist. K-Pop has strong presence right now for the young generation, and as it happened, the MBTI in K-Pop brought a social phenomena that made MBTI so popular online.

16Personalities also played a role. Half billion times that test was taken, but it's not actually MBTI. How could anyone trivialize that? Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As you have added popular culture. I think it's fitting to add the 16Personalities explanation there. Otherwise, the risk is accidental misinformation since those K-Pop Stars (and their millions of fans) took the MBTI test from 16Personalities which is not MBTI but Big 5. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The section does not have a single reliable source. Youtube videos and 'koreaboo' are unusable on Wikipedia. I removed the whole thing. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please approach this issue without bad faith, ageism, and less western-centered approach. If you checked for only three seconds you would find that Koreaboo sources were only compiling the posts from the verified accounts. Not to mention not all sources were from Koreaboo, but some are from the official channels of those celebs, yet you nonchalantly deleted them all. You did not check? Koreaboo is well-known in Asia. And the YouTube is a commentary from two MBTI Institute experts (as already explained above).

I hope I already explained this well. It's absurd if people just reversed and reversed just simply they don't want to check the Talk. That is not how editors should work. cc: @Bon courage 2001:448A:2082:FC15:6545:8857:E39D:9DFD (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, we do not use social media or reposts of social media. This is a combination of original research and trivia, and it should not be in this article. Edit warring against several other editors is more likely to get you blocked than keep the content in this article. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you at least bother to check? It's from the official channels. If we follow your approach, most of K-Pop pages would have to be deleted. But this is 2022. The gen z is using social media to hear directly, officially, from their celebs. The businesses know that, the marketers know that. It's bad faith to just dismiss it because it's not the "conservative" source. That's why I touched the issue of ageism here.

Millions of people were involved in K-Pop and online MBTI. Your rationale is triviliazing what is happening in Asia. Hence, I found your western-centered approach to be very problematic. Why do you feel like to trivialize it? We're talking of millions of people. It's wrong to use threat of "Edit War" and Blocking while your approach wasn't exactly in good faith it the first place. TheWandering (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked. It doesn't matter if the channels are official or not. It does not belong in this article. If all the K-Pop articles are sourced like that, then yes they should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It does belong in the Popular Section which Bon Courage put rightly in the below. The K-Pop celebs have relation to MBTI as they published it to millions of people. Please stop trivializing the experiences of millions of people with your western-centered approach. Just because it's happening in Asia and outside your comfort zone of understanding, that does not mean it's "trivial". Millions of people found MBTI through K-Pop. That is a fact that you choose to trivialize.

Please help. @Bon courage TheWandering (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added something from a CNN source which seems decent enough. Bon courage (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a great improvement. MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Western-Centered Approach and Trivialization

I am dumbfounded by the reaction of a few editors here, especially against K-Pop. The MBTI and K-Pop are related in the contemporary culture, and involved millions of people, and those are official results from the celebs/agencies. It's absurd to dismiss them from the article since they are now part of MBTI history in popular culture, and then just trivialize them while in fact millions and millions of people are involved.

I am wondering whether western-centered approach is at play here, and I feel some ageism too, which lead to trivialization. It's very problematic. TheWandering (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than attacking your fellow editors my advice would be to concentrate instead on finding the WP:BESTSOURCES for the material you are interested in. That is the route to improving the article. Bon courage (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"During the latter stages of COVID-19 pandemic MBTI testing became highly popular among young Koreans, who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners. The craze led to a rise in MTBI-themed products including beers and computer games. One surevy reported that by December 2021, half the population had taken a test."

You misspelt MBTI. And you (unintentionally?) put the wrong focus with "during the latter stages". The article is from the latter stage of pandemic (June 2022), but the popularity is not from that date. The writer also never asserted that MBTI popularity started during the pandemic. Hope you kindly fix it. TheWandering (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

From source:

The rise of the MBTI over the past two to three years coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic

Bon courage (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am also, again, hoping you doing it in good faith. The usage of word craze is misrepresenting and mischaracterizing the author's writing. They didn't write it as craze, but popularity. The usage of craze also echoed that user above who is openly biased. You should check his openly biased approach here.

But did @‪ScottishFinnishRadish check Hob Galding's wording against MBTI? TheWandering (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

From source, with my bold:

But its most recent surge in popularity is among hip young South Koreans, for whom knowing your MBTI type has become the latest craze

Bon courage (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Title: How Koreans fell in love with an American World War II era personality test"

Why don't we simply use popularity? I don't think you have negative intention, but the words from Hob Galding has given bad impression about the word.

About the date

The authors do not specify the date. "latest" is loose here. But they clearly didn't say "the latter stage" of pandemic. Why they didn't say it? Because it's factually wrong to characterize it that way.

Some quotes that dispel the "latter stage":

"The rise of the MBTI over the past two to three years coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, said Lim, the professor. Part of the appeal lay in group psychology, as people took comfort in being able to categorize themselves alongside others."

"In the early 2010s, the MZ Generation was popularly referred to as the “n-po” generation – a reference to how many were choosing to give up things to the nth degree, by foregoing marriage, children, home ownership and personal friendships.

Those who are willing to join the rat race often have too little time or patience for dating – which, for some, is where the MBTI comes in."

Just for context BTS, Girls Generation, EXO, and many other members with millions of followers already spread this before the pandemic. It could be misleading to say MBTI is only popular in latter stage of pandemic. TheWandering (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Craze" captures the sense of the source well. I have changed the wording to clarify the craze was co-incident with the pandemic (not just its latter stages). Bon courage (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

More: These are more sources about Korean MBTI.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220906000728

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/09/113_335268.html

The article of Korea Times point out the roles of the celebrities, and also show how politics use it:

"MBTI even became a presidential election issue. Candidates during the latest presidential race tried to woo younger voters by sharing their MBTI results online."

"As MBTI has gone viral among younger Koreans, businesses and media have begun to unveil products using the personality test. Kakao has introduced fashion items like T-shirts bearing each of the 16 MBTI personality types and have seen their stocks sold out. Women's apparel company MIXXO unveiled outerwear matched with personality types to ride the MBTI boom among younger consumers."

"Several television programs have encouraged celebrities to discuss their MBTI types, while countless MBTI-themed YouTube videos ― including music playlists, dating tips and even vocal mimicries of different MBTI types ― are viewed by millions."

And I ask you to consider including my edit about on 16Personalities.com, because that's where the K-Pop stars mostly took it. But 16Personalities is not MBTI in the first place. That should be clarified. Again, that test was taken half billion times. It is noteworthy to be included. TheWandering (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Korean Times is already cited. There's a question about how much material on Korean culture is WP:DUE in an article on MBTI, but I am glad we are at least now discussing material based on decent sources. I don't think there is any appropriate sourcing for 16Personalities.com. Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure, may I ask why we cannot use this source? The one speaking is Kim Jae Hyung who is a research director of MBTI Institute in Korea. He is a practitioner for 15 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_of2L20GCg

I am trying to use him just as a specific reference: that the famous 16 Personalities is actually not MBTI (and yet half billion times the test was taken as MBTI). In that limited context, his commentary should be acceptable. What do you think?

And the 16personalities website has admitted they're Big Five: https://www.16personalities.com/articles/our-theory TheWandering (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's not a reliable source and the stuff about 16personalities is undue. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Twitter and Adam Grant

Why do we need that Twitter stuff by Adam Grant and Ray Dalio? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Because nuance. Adam Grant is a famous person who is used as reference to criticize MBTI. As stated, he said personality types were myth, MBTI was astrology for nerds, fad, etc. But then he was not just imitating MBTI's (16Personalities) style in making personality test, he was also working on it at the behest of the billionaire Ray Dalio who openly loves MBTI. That is something noteworthy that the readers should be aware of. TheWandering (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are not valid reasons. Twitter is a bad, self-published source, and it looks as if somebody wants to make a WP:PROFRINGE point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you either didn't read what you copy, or simply not doing it in good faith.

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Adam Grant works in an established expert and his works in relevant fields have been published by reliable, independent publications that you also cite here, so his words on Twitter are citable. I think we should reinstate the Adam Grant's criticism, plus adding explanation about his own personality test with new link from Inc.com which also explains his working relationship with Ray Dalio. https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/adam-grant-ray-dalio-principlesyou-self-assessment-personality-profile-test-relationships-leadership.html. cc: @Bon courage TheWandering (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you either didn't read what you copy, or simply not doing it in good faith. Third possibility: You overlooked the words may be in Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when and are therefore overestimating the power of that sentence.

Grant's astrology Twitter thing does not add anything, and the Dalio Twitter thing is neither here nor there - without more context (which would be undue here), one cannot conclude anything. I am guessing that the person who added that wanted to discredit Grant as someone who is just against it because he has a rival system to sell, which does not make sense in light of his remarks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable"

And my argument is he is reliable because he was talking about the topic and he is expert in this topic. You should explain why he may not be reliable here especially when you keep his citation about fad in this same topic.

"I am guessing that the person who added that wanted to discredit Grant as someone who is just against it because he has a rival system to sell"

I am guessing someone is trying to protect Grant? If someone trashed product A for years, and then later made a similar rival product, then I would want someone to tell me about it. And the people also deserve to know about it.

His "astrology" and "personality types are myth" are both related to MBTI here as criticism, and then he worked with a pro-MBTI billionaire to create something similar. That is noteworthy. 2001:448A:2082:8AB3:B026:6EB5:9B4A:785 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a reliable source and an unreliable source from the same person. They both say the same thing. So we only use the reliable one because the other is redundant.

And that billionaire crap is simply UNDUE insinuations. Removing it is to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Find a reliable source saying that thing if you want the thing in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

“In popular culture” section is irrelevant and of poor quality.

“At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, MBTI testing became highly popular among young Koreans who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners. The craze led to a rise in MBTI-themed products including beers and computer games.[113] One survey reported that by December 2021, half the population had taken a test.[114]”

“In popular culture” must incorporate a balanced approach to mbti in popular culture. Reference indicates the MBTI is only relevant in pop culture of relatively current South Korean youth. This is false. Section should be removed entirely or should be comprised of: Association of trends in interest in the MBTI by geographical setting time period. If the subject of a trend in modern day South Korean interest in MBTI is considered by consensus to be highly relevant it is better that it is a seperate article.

The quality of the excerpt is also poor.

“At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic“ The COVID-19 pandemic still persists, the wording here implies it has passed.

“young Koreans who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners.” The spike of interest is seen among young southern Koreans. This distinction must be made obvious as we surprisingly do not have tangible data concerning an interest in MBTI by Northern Koreans. SarahMalkmus (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine as is. You could help by expanding the section; blanking it is not good. Bon courage (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XingboGao (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Editing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinatureNalgene (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MinatureNalgene (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Correlation with Big Five only for men

Above the table with the correlations between MBTI and Big Five by McCrae and Costa, it is explicitly stated that "The following correlations are based on the results from 267 men and 201 women". However in the paper the correlations are given separately for men and women, and the numbers in the table only match up exactly with those for men, not for woman. Wouldn't it be better to calculate the average between men and woman? 131.188.6.14 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 141ii, Hellooow, Iams1fa^ (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 141ii (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Popularity in Asian countries

The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) has seen a significant rise in popularity in Asian countries such as China, particularly among the youth in the past two years​​. ^[1] It has transcended its original use as a self-assessment tool and become a cultural phenomenon, with even those not fluent in English learning to understand the 16 personality types it delineates​​. The MBTI's rise in popularity signifies a growing fascination with personality frameworks that enhance social interaction, personal insight, and career development, while also affecting self-cognition.

The MBTI test has also become popular in South Korea and other Asian countries. The test's principles have been woven into entertainment, with TV shows and celebrity culture often referencing MBTI types. This trend reflects a cultural inclination towards introspection and a collective journey toward recognizing and celebrating the diversity of human personalities. ^[2] Iams1fa^ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See "In popular culture" section. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Criticism/Lack of" accuracy and validity

The 'Accuracy and validity' section of the page is (obviously) critical of MBTI. And so I propose that we change the title to "Criticism" or "Lack of accuracy and validity." This is just so people are able to easy tell what the nature of the section is. Sour ^(talk) 09:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, not WP:CRITS. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, was just made aware of this policy. Assumed that it was normal practice since I've seen sections labelled as 'Criticisms' elsewhere, not knowing there were certain criteria to meet before adopting it. Thanks for pointing me to the policy. Sour ^(talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not really policy, but it's bad style. Bon courage (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV and Globalization

Reading this article and the talk page, it's pretty obvious there's some WP:CPP going on here. It reads like a hit piece, or perhaps a text from a jilted lover. Not even astrology has it this bad, sheesh.

This article needs some major rebalancing and especially restructuring. A full rewrite probably isn't feasible but I would welcome anyone to try. Let's do what we can to cover this subject from a balanced perspective.

On top of this, the HUGE cultural impact the Myers-Briggs has on East Asian culture is relegated to a footnote at the end! The Korean and Japanese versions of this article read like a completely different topic compared to this one. Some elaboration and synchronizing is necessary, preferably by someone more qualified than me. Veilure (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't your first time making this argument on this talk page, nor is this the first time you've added that template to this article, so re-adding this template doesn't seem appropriate until you have real, actionable suggestions based on policies and guidelines. Such template absolutely should not be used as badges of shame, and since you do not have consensus for such changes, that's all this is for now.

Just saying it "reads like a hit piece" immediately after invoking WP:CPP is... ironic, let's say, but you still need to be much, much more specific about the problem, and you need to build consensus for how to address that problem. Specifically, you will need to explain why this fails to summarize reliable source regarding a WP:FRINGE topic -because this is a fringe topic.

For that and other reasons, making the article more balanced should not be an excuse for adding false balance.

If you have reliable sources for the impact on one or more East Asian cultures, feel free to propose them.

Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If I had all the answers, I wouldn't need to make the banner, would I?

I'm doing what I can to draw attention to this problem. The fact I can't singlehandedly fix everything wrong here doesn't mean I'm not allowed to point it out.

I brought up WP:CPP because several users (including you!) have repeatedly valued point of view over information. As the article stands, it provides an inaccurate and biased viewpoint on a complicated subject, which is so obvious that *multiple* users have pointed it out only to be shushed by once again, users like you. Because I'm not the only one complaining about this, a banner is certainly necessary.

Until you provide some sort of revolutionary new evidence that contradicts every other version of this article, there is no excuse for the English version to be so out of step. Which do you think is more likely? That everyone else is wrong? Or that we have an NPOV problem?

Just by a cursory search of Google Scholar I found a whole bunch of Korean papers on the subject. I haven't read Korean in years, so I frankly don't trust myself to cite them... maybe we could get some fluent people to help us out? 😅

In the meantime, this CNN article and these JoongAng Ilbo articles seem readable in English. I'll have to take a look at them when I have more time. Veilure (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is now about two completely separate issues. I suggest starting a new talk page section for the globalization issue, since this should be discussed further.

Regarding neutrality, again, this is a WP:FRINGE topic. Euphemistically accusing me of POV-pushing is, again, ironic, but not persuasive.

What, exactly is the issue, here? It's common for talk pages of fringe topics to get comments from users (multiple users, even) complaining about how Wikipedia handles such topics, but this alone isn't enough to change global consensus for how Wikipedia handles pseudoscience. To put it another way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and false balance is not neutral.

So get specific. Make actionable suggestions. You do not have consensus for removing the mention of the Barnum effect, so if you want to gain consensus, discuss that without edit warring.

Presumably that's not the only issue. So what else? Is it that reliable sources, including recognized topic experts, have specifically described why this is pseudoscience? Our goal is to reflect reliable sources. Dismissing reliable sources as valuing "point of view over information" is both misguided and also a form of POV-pushing (civility aside). Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To claim that we "valued point of view over information." depends on what YOU call "information". The anti-vax people make the same arguments, as do the chemtrail conspiracy theory people. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and this essay WP:YESBIAS ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. This article follows WP:RS. So, what reliable sources do you have that contradicts it?

Korean and Japanese versions of this article - Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. This also holds for Wikipedia articles in East Asian languages.

this CNN article and these JoongAng Ilbo articles - On scientific subjects, journalistic sources are less reliable sources than scientific ones. The article is currently based on scientific ones.

You have nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Jungian Extraversion and Introversion

"Myers–Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them."

This isn't true.

Extraversion as defined by Jung is "when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decision and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective condition." (Jung, "Psychological Types", p. 4) Inversely, introversion is when orientation towards the subject predominate in such a way that subjective views determine decision and actions.

So when Myers--Briggs defines extraversion as "drawing energy from action," this goes against the Jungian usage. Both introverts and extraverts can draw energy from action and be action-focused, the difference being that introverts will determine the action subjectively and extraverts will determine the action objectively.

I would suggest changing the first line to "Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion in their current psychological sense. These definitions differ somewhat from popular and Jungian usage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.133.197 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I just rewrite the lead so that the pseudoscientific nature of the test is highlighted to the reader. It's crazy that in 2024 there are still so much misinformation about MBTI on the internet... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, the test is reek of scam everywhere, such as in this bogus research paper submitted to the Department of Education. There should be a documentation of the Myers–Briggs Foundation's attempts at astroturfing research and public perception. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding this edit, I have not factual objection to describing MBTI as ineffective. I don't, however, think Frontiers Media/Frontiers in Psychology should be used for this. It is not produced by a reputable publisher, and citing a borderline or arguably pseudoscientific journal for claims about pseudoscience is just asking for trouble, even if in this case the findings agree with more reputable sources. In this case, being pseudoscientific and being ineffective are also somewhat redundant. While it's hardly a mystery, it would also probably be better to spell-out what it fails to effectively do if we're going to point out that it's ineffective. Just calling it ineffective is not unreasonable, but it's too vague, in other words. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm going to remove ineffective in this one. Pseudoscience implies inefficacy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

MBTI is not really ineffective, but a flawed model. The most important thing is we have more accurate model such as 16PF, why still keep learning this flaw model if we have better one ? Cloud29371 (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether MBTI is pseudoscience is debatable. MBTI provide a straight forward, simple, easy to understand and easy to identify personality model, however it is not really accurate. There are much better personality model exists in psychology discipline, such as 16PF and Big Five personality traits, though it may have a little bit complicated compare with MBTI. Why still learn this flawed model if we have a much better and accurate personality model ? Cloud29371 (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Astroturfing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Cognitive function stacks

Why is there no emphasis on the widespread misunderstanding that each of the types isn’t actually functionally described by four dichotomies, but rather by the unique Jungian cognitive function stack that is encoded by the sequence of the four letters.

For example, an INFJs cognitive stack in order from most dominant to least dominant conscious function is: introverted intuition, extroverted feeling, introverted thinking, and extroverted sensing.

Introverts are only “Judgers” in terms of their first extroverted function, so INFJs actually have a dominant perceiving function.

A lot of the critique against the MBTI evolves around the misunderstanding that the types consist of simple four letters, but these letters determine a much more complex interactive hierarchy of cognitive functions that has practical applications.

Yes, it may not have been the original application of the MBTI, but much of the discourse on the MBTI today revolves around the cognitive function stacks, so there should at least be a section on it.

Yes, it’s still “pseudoscientific”, as is much of psychoanalysis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a useful model for understanding cognitive processes. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Um... yes, it does mean that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you even read any of Jung?

Do you even have a basic understanding of western psychology?

Or do you just form your opinions from “science” YouTube videos that tell you how to think and feel. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia Talk page. Read WP:TALK to find out what they are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, Hob Gadling. I've revisited WP:TALK to ensure my contributions adhere to its purpose of discussing improvements to the article content. My aim is to foster a constructive dialogue that enhances the article's balance and comprehensiveness in line with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for the reminder. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ok CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Rebalance of MBTI Article for Contextual Accuracy

I'd like to address the persistent classification of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as a pseudoscientific tool in the article. It’s important to clarify that while MBTI may lack stringent empirical validation typical of certain scientific metrics, labeling it purely as pseudoscientific might not fully represent its purpose and the context in which it is valued and utilized.

1. Purpose of MBTI: MBTI is primarily a psychological instrument designed for self-assessment, personal development, and understanding interpersonal differences—not for rigorous scientific research. Its main objective is to facilitate better workplace dynamics and personal growth, which are subjective areas that do not always require scientific measurement.

2. Application vs. Validation: Many tools used in psychology and counseling do not meet the rigorous standards of empirical science but are still valuable for their intended applications. The MBTI is widely used in corporate training, educational counseling, and other fields where the goal is to improve communication and understanding, not to provide scientifically validated assessments.

3. Scholarly Discussion: While it is true that MBTI has been critiqued by the academic community, it also receives significant positive coverage regarding its effectiveness in its application domains. These discussions should also be represented to ensure a balanced view.

4. Wikipedia’s Neutrality Policy (WP:NEUTRAL): The article should not reflect a singular perspective, especially one that could be seen as dismissive. It is crucial to present a balanced view that includes how MBTI is regarded in different circles, not just focusing on its scientific critiques.

5. Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE): By focusing predominantly on the pseudoscientific criticisms, we risk giving undue weight to one aspect of the narrative at the expense of the broader context in which the MBTI is used and appreciated.

To better align with Wikipedia's guidelines and to ensure the article is informative and unbiased, I propose that we revise the language to describe MBTI as a "psychological instrument with varied reception in scientific circles" rather than strictly "pseudoscientific." This acknowledges the critiques without negating the tool's utility and prevalence in non-scientific contexts.

User:MrOllie and User:Hob Gadling, I look forward to your thoughts and hope we can work together to enhance the article's accuracy and neutrality. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We follow what the best reliable sources have to say, and they are clear on this. Your personal opinions on the purpose of the MBTI are irrelevant. And you have greatly misunderstood the WP:NPOV policy, which explicitly rejects the idea that articles should be 'balanced', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the reliable sources (and the mainstream scientific consensus) are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article, and that is 100% what Wikipedia's policy requires. If Wikipedia functioned along the interpretations you suggest here, articles such as Astrology or Acupuncture would be very different. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, MrOllie, for your insights and emphasis on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. While it’s important that we adhere to the critique provided by mainstream scientific sources, we should also acknowledge that MBTI’s application in various non-scientific fields is documented by equally reliable sources.

1. Business and Educational Applications:

- Many business journals and books discuss the use of MBTI for team building and leadership development. For instance, publications like the *Harvard Business Review* have featured articles that discuss how understanding personality types through MBTI can enhance team communication and management strategies. These sources, while not scientific journals, are reputable in the realms of business and education.

2. Books and Scholarly Articles on MBTI Applications:

- Books like "Type Talk at Work (Revised): How the 16 Personality Types Determine Your Success on the Job" by Otto Kroeger provide detailed insights into how MBTI is utilized effectively in workplace settings, underscoring its perceived utility.

- Scholarly articles in journals focused on psychology and education often explore the qualitative benefits of personality assessments like MBTI in understanding student and employee behavior, even if they also acknowledge the test’s scientific limitations.

3. Criticisms and Scientific Perspective:

- It’s crucial that the article also faithfully represents the scientific perspective, as noted in sources like the *American Psychologist*, where the empirical support for MBTI has been critically analyzed. However, these criticisms should be balanced with the practical usage noted in other reliable sources.

4. Documenting Practical Use:

- The inclusion of how MBTI is employed in real-world scenarios, as described in various business and educational case studies, provides a broader context to its popularity and persistent use, which should be documented under Wikipedia guidelines.

This approach would ensure that the article reflects a more complete view of the MBTI, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for comprehensive and neutral reporting. By referencing both the critical views and practical applications documented in reliable sources, we provide a well-rounded encyclopedic entry that educates readers on both the strengths and limitations of MBTI.

I hope this provides a clearer view of the balanced approach I am suggesting. Let’s work together to enhance the article’s accuracy and neutrality in line with Wikipedia’s commitment to providing well-documented, reliable information. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lots of people read their horoscopes in the newspaper, but the application in various non-scientific fields is not a reason to water down what the actual reliable sources have to say. No number of non-scientific sources (that is, non-WP:RS) add up to a reason to undercut the scientific consensus on this. We can best maintain accuracy and neutrality in line with Wikipedia’s commitment to providing well-documented, reliable information by rejecting any effort to give equal validity to science and non-scientific fields. PS: copy and pasting AI generated text onto the talk page is not going to help you get the article changed, we have seen all this before many times. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mr Ollie, I get where you’re coming from. I really don’t care if the article gets changed or not. The MBTI isn’t a horoscope, it‘s a simple questionnaire based on concepts of Jungian psychology.

To say that it’s pseudoscientific misses the entire point. It is more of an embarrassment for Wikipedia than anything. There are concepts and constructs that may be critiqued by scientific sources, but that doesn’t mean they get defined by them. Definition, purpose, and meaning are matters beyond scientific inquiry.

As an AI language model, I cannot have any feelings or personal opinions. But, I do wish you all your best in the prison of your mind that you have created for yourself. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

ok CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)