Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Description of MBTI attributes in Lead

The current Lead section does a great job introducing the background and common critiques of the MBTI system, but it doesn't address the system itself.

In previous iterations of this article (namely, the ones that were nominated as featured articles), the lead included an overview of the MBTI's structure. I think it would be okay to leave the introduction of critiques, but it should also introduce the test itself (and possibly its methodology). The lead section was also immediately followed by an overview of the four "dichotomies" (I/E, N/S, F/T, J/P) and a brief description of each. I recommend adding a couple sentences in the lead section to this end, and reintroducing the section describing the four letters included in each MBTI personality type. MinatureNalgene (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this. Neither leads (the 2005 nor the 2006 version) appears to me to provide more detail about the structure of these tests.

Both of those older versions include a 'About the test' subsection near the top. Is that what you mean? This subsection lacked sources. How do independent sources explain this? One of the problems that has faced the article over the years has been an over-reliance on Myers-Briggs Foundation-affiliated sources. This is not ideal for multiple reasons. Since much of the current article's explanation of this relies on such sources, the way to fix the lead should probably start with adjusting the body per better sources, and then working backwards to expand the lead. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have only beginning familiarity with this article, but as Grayfell says: WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Improving the body before the lead makes sense. Thank y'all!

This article initially struck me as unusually critical of MBTI. Case in point: the lead transitions quickly to addressing criticisms (which fits the content of the body well), instead of providing background information on what MBTI is. Considering NPOV and its value in producing a reliable encyclopedic source, I thought that might be problematic. However, the published literature on MBTI, if it is not using the typology as a method for studying leadership/management, etc., is almost invariably critical of the system. Could that account for the critical tone of this article, and would that even need to be changed? MinatureNalgene (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means that we follow the tone of the sources, not that we take no position (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Since most independent sources are critical, so is the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd first like to apologize for editing before thoroughly checking the talk page, as my second edit is partially addressed here. However, both of my edits are justifiable, and one of them should be quite uncontroversial.

The first edit simply added commas and improved wording. One of the changes in it is quite literally just adding a comma preceding a conjunction to correctly join two independent clauses. This is simply correct and should not have been reverted.

I expected there might be some resistance to my second edit but not without an explanation, as I had justified why I made it. "It enjoys popularity despite being widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community," seems to me to be quite clearly in violation of WP:NOR (in particular, WP:SYNTH), as the sources listed in support of the claim do not themselves make the claim. For the record, even though it should be irrelevant, I view the MBTI as pseudoscience, and the second classification of it as such in the lead is appropriate, so I did not modify nor remove it.

Can you please justify why you reverted both of my changes MrOllie?

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

As per the discussions on this talk page, including the ones in the archive from the last time you tried to remove the term 'pseudoscience' from this article. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What you're referring to happened 3 years ago while I was still 19 years old, less wise, and in college still studying philosophy and psychology, which the Myers-Briggs played a major role in making me interested in, although I no longer have much respect for the test; admittedly, I had also barely read the rules at that time, but that is no longer the case. I then stopped editing (but continued reading) Wikipedia for years. You see, I had an unpleasant time with hostile editors, harassment on my talk page, and with reversions on my other, unrelated edits. I love this website, so I decided to give editing another go. I eventually returned to this page to see how it had developed. I think that's quite natural, and I'd rather not be accused of being a sock puppet again, which I think may be imminent.

Regardless, my previous activity on this page is irrelevant to the point I'm currently making, especially given that I'm not even trying to remove the word "pseudoscience" from the lead, just the ostensibly improperly sourced claim from the lead. Can you please explain why you reverted both of my edits (including the first edit I made, which seems to me to just be an objective improvement on grammatical grounds; this is why I made 2 separate edits - so that the more controversial one could be easily reverted without reverting the seemingly uncontroversial one)? I'm willing to accept I may be incorrect and misunderstanding Wikipedia's rules, seeing as you've been editing this website for far longer than I have. That's why I didn't revert your reversion before first coming here. I just want to understand why you reverted my edits first and foremost. As far as I can see, the concerns I cited in my edit summary have not been addressed. Please correct me if I'm missing something.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on the edit itself, here's the abstract for the first study cited for the removed sentence:

Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian-based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories.doi:10.1111/spc3.12434

This directly supports the wording "it enjoys popularity" and the source also clearly regards it as pseudoscience (saying it's in "a parallel universe to social and personality psychology" is about as clear as one can get without saying "it's pseudoscience").

So, per sources, it is widely regarded as pseudoscience despite its popularity. This is supported not just by the attached sources in the lead, but in the rest of the article as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith and reasonable response (not sarcasm). However, this still seems to be WP:NOR, as the source does not use the word "pseudoscience", and it is the editor's opinion that "a parallel universe to social and personality psychology" is equivalent or sufficiently closely equivalent to pseudoscience to not violate this rule. The source does not use the word, so consequently, the statement seems to be in violation of said rule. By any definition, pseudoscience is not defined as "a parallel universe to social and personality psychology," so it is necessarily subjective as to whether one considers them equivalent. For example, I personally would not consider them equivalent, as "parallel universe" implies that the MBTI exists alongside (i.e., parallel to, not perpendicular to) social and personality psychology, not necessarily in contradiction with them, although the source is no doubt justifiably critical of the MBTI. What, in your view, makes it not violate WP:NOR?

As for the wording "it enjoys popularity," I have no objection.

All of this notwithstanding, I still see no justification for reverting my grammatical corrections, so I still fail to understand why this edit was reverted and would like to see it immediately restored. I remain open to further discussion on the previously discussed subject, but I see no reason to not revert the reversion to my grammatical corrections. If any reason fails to materialize, I will take this action myself (as is appropriate if I am not contested, which is currently the case).

My name is pseudonym (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not saying it's in parallel, it's saying it's "in a parallel universe", and also that it has "conceptual flaws" and "lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions". The source supports pseudoscience by going into detail about why its pseudoscience in ways that leave very little room for ambiguity. Whether or not it uses the word "pseudoscience" in its abstract is a distraction.

Another way to think of this is that sources do not have to be in English (although its preferable for the English-language Wikipedia). If we cited a Japanese source, we couldn't say that because it says "疑似科学" instead of "pseudoscience" it cannot be used to support the use of the English-language term. We wouldn't need to cite a dictionary, and even if we did for some reason, that wouldn't be WP:SYNTH, it would just be clarifying a point of confusion. Maybe that was more confusing than helpful, but the gist is that we can, and should, look at the context and summarize in simple, direct language.

Our goal with Wikipedia is to summarize, and that means we often have to use synonyms or rephrase in other ways. This isn't just to prevent plagiarism and similar, this approach is basic for any tertiary source. It's specifically useful for the lead, which is intended to be a summary of the body, meaning the rest of the article in its entirety. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, as for the grammatical changes, those changes do seem to change the meaning somewhat. There are many "psychological fields", but there is only one "field of psychology", and MBTI isn't really part of that field. For "comprehensiveness" I'm not sure. I read it as saying that the test fails at being comprehensive, not that it would benefit from having more comprehensiveness. It's a subtle difference, but may be important, however I do not have full access to the relevant source right now, so I don't know exactly what this is about. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It saying "in a parallel universe" seems to imply much more strongly that it is in parallel than anything else. The more common and natural phrases to use would be "alternative universe" or "alternate universe" if what they were going for is the meaning that it's completely detached from and in contradiction with academic psychology. My understanding of what they're saying there is that it has been developing outside of mainstream psychology, which is absolutely true, since the vast majority of research on it has been done through their own biased journal, while other studies cite fairly good correlations with some of The Big Five factors, but that's just about its only redeeming quality that can be found from actual reliable sources (ones that don't have a conflict of interest, like the MBTI's own journal, which obviously has a profit incentive). Regardless of the exact meaning of "in a parallel universe", it is definitely original research to summarize it with a technical term like "pseudoscience" without that term actually being used by the authors. The later claim in the lead is unproblematic because it simply says that it has been called pseudoscience, which is true and is supported by the citations.

Another issue - what I'd call the main issue - with the statement is that saying that it is "widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is not something taken from a single source. It violates WP:SYNTH, unless you can find a source that says that. Per this rule, you cannot combine multiple journal articles to synthesize the view that it is "widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community." That is synthesis. Read: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore, C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says 'A' in one context, and 'B' in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of 'therefore C', then 'therefore C' cannot be used in any article," [emphasis mine]. I want to point out the use of "explicitly" in this quote. This is clearly an example of finding a source that says "A", another source that says "B", and then an editor saying "C", even though "C" is not explicitly stated by any source.

Again, pseudoscience is a technical term. It is not fair to simply summarize other wording as "pseudoscience", especially when there are other related but distinct or semi-distinct terms like protoscience, fringe theory, junk science, and pseudo-scholarship, some of which can be argued to fit just about as well or better based off of what the authors are saying. Personally, I find pseudoscience to be the most apt descriptor, although I could see there being a sound argument for "fringe theory" or "pseudo-scholarship" in particular, especially given the wording "parallel universe", implying that the MBTI exists outside of mainstream academia and research, although I'd have to think about it more. But this is exactly my point: the editor here is inserting their own opinion in place of what the citations actually say.

The grammatical changes do not change the meaning to any significant extent. The phrasing in my edit was "the psychological field" [emphasis mine], meaning that all of the subfields you're referring to are part of the psychological field. I made this change because "psychological" is an adjective, while "psychology" is a noun and has no business being used as an adjective. Regarding "comprehensiveness", that is a correct reading of it. I simply rephrased it because the way it is currently written is very clunky. "The indicator exhibits significant scientific (psychometric) deficiencies, including poor validity, poor reliability, measuring categories that are not independent, and not being comprehensive," is the sentence in question. The issue with it is that if you read the list as only having the last component, it reads very sloppily, and I'd argue it reads even worse in the full context, although this is less clear. It would read like this: "The indicator exhibits significant scientific (psychometric) deficiencies, including not being comprehensive." Changing the phrasing slightly is a way of modifying what the original source says that is not in violation of WP:NOR, and I think the change is very fair. Read in full context, this last part of the list seems at odds with the rest of the list based off of the grammatical form it takes. I suppose this part of my grammatical corrections isn't technically a correction per say, but it is very easy to argue that it is a clear improvement. I think these changes were reverted without reading them simply because I was the one that made the edit.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You're really reaching there. When something is 'in a parallel universe' that means it is out of touch with this universe (that is, reality). They're not making some sort of abstract point about how the research is published. The full quote is However, by existing in a “parallel universe” governed mostly by commerce rather than peer review, MBTI is not at all limited by the theoretical scrutiny assumed to be a normal part of rigorous psychological science. Hence, it is not altogether surprising that they seem to prioritize what sells over what is correct. They also write that they are using the topic to teach how to distinguish valid science from pseudoscientific “woo.”. At any rate, additional sources for this are quite plentiful, I added another one. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it's reaching. I think the full quote helps this point because it correctly claims that the parallel universe it exists in is a primarily commercial, rather than academic one, which is a space that exists alongside the academic space, although it is undoubtedly a far less valid one. But, again, this is exactly my point. We are having a disagreement over an opinion that the source does not state explicitly.

I appreciate the additional source, and I am well aware that there are many other sources that are critical of it and that call it pseudoscience. My problem is the violation of WP:SYNTH. What I called "the main issue" you did not address. I said, in part (and now slightly modified): Another issue - what I'd call the main issue - with the statement is that saying that it is "widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is not something taken from a single source. It violates WP:SYNTH, unless you can find a source that says that. Per this rule, you cannot combine multiple journal articles to synthesize the view that it is "widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community." That is synthesis. Read: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source," [emphasis mine].

The reversion to my grammatical edit you likewise did not address, and I would like to understand better why you made it.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The source I just added: Since then dozens of scientists have pointed out that Myers-Briggs is pseudoscience. WP:SYNTH does not mean we are forbidden from paraphrasing. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I read that, but it still does not make the claim explicitly. I know that you are not forbidden from paraphrasing. The problem is that the level of severity of these claims is very different, so they are far from equivalent. Since it is in clear violation of WP:SYNTH, I think we should start considering practical proposals for revision. I propose firstly restoring my grammatical corrections. Secondly, I propose that we change it to read something like "It enjoys popularity, despite dozens of scientists considering it pseudoscience." Alternatively, we could remove the claim entirely and move the second claim of pseudoscience in the lead higher up in the article so that it is more readily seen by people coming to the article.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply repeating "clear violation of WP:SYNTH" over and over does not make that assertion true. MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, but I've clearly explained why it is in violation of said rule and quoted directly from the rule's associated article. Why do you deem it to be so important that it says something that the sources don't actually say? I'm making realistic proposals for revision, and you're stonewalling.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You're making proposals that are based on a misunderstanding of policy, such proposals are almost never successful. Pointing this out is not 'stonewalling'. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." What part of this am I misunderstanding? At the very least, the other sources, besides the one you just added should be removed, as those are even further from paraphrasing. A bunch of analyses are being synthesized for the sake of the claim.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is that you have read WP:SYNTH and invented a prohibition of paraphrasing that does not exist. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not paraphrasing. The source makes a drastically different and far weaker statement than the one presently in this article. Okay, let me try to argue this a different way. My proposal to revise it to read, "It enjoys popularity, despite dozens of scientists considering it pseudoscience," is simply factually closer to what the source actually says. Regardless of anything else, it is more accurate to what the source is saying. Are you opposed to improving an article by modifying it to make it more closely aligned with reliable sources?

Also, since you have not contested it further, I am restoring my grammatical corrections.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This idea that we should parrot the wording of the source exactly is a common misinterpretation of WP:NOR - but it is nonetheless wrong and need not be encouraged. I reject the premise of your question - making your proposed change would not improve the article. That said, we're now simply repeating ourselves, which is unhelpful. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else arrives to support your proposals. Greyfell as well as myself have contested your edits, restoring them is inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I made sound counterpoints to Grayfell's arguments against my grammatical corrections that have not been refuted, and you have not provided any reasons for why they should've been reverted. I will hold off on restoring them for now, as you still believe them to be inappropriate, and I don't wish to start an edit war. I await reasoning to back it up though.

It feels as if you aren't hearing me and are just writing me off as a confused and/or ill-intentioned new editor. I am NOT saying that it is in violation of WP:NOR in general or WP:SYNTH in particular because I believe that we should parrot the wording of the source exactly. I am saying that what the sources actually say and what the article here says is significantly and drastically different. I am also saying that the other articles, with the exception of the one you recently added and one other, say nothing even remotely resembling the claim in the article, as they're essentially just validity and reliability analyses.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see them as being drastically different. The current wording is a reasonable summary of many cited sources.

It looks like we've both responded to your comments in good faith. From what I'm reading, your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines differs from ours. The end result of your edit would be to decrease the prominence of the word pseudoscience in the lead, regardless of your beliefs or intentions. This is very unlikely to gain consensus due to WP:FRINGE and many other reasons.

So, maybe we understand what your saying and we simply disagree for this and other reasons, or maybe we haven't understood what you're saying. In either case, you have two options, either attempt to make your case in a different way, or you can let it go. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you shouldn't get hung up on ONE source for LEAD statements. Per WP:LEADCITE the lead does not need to have ANY citations, as long as its statements are satisfactorily sourced in the article (though it is good to have citations on contested terms/statements.) So for your issue with "pseudoscience", you should be looking at other sources currently in the article before you complain about its use in the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

While I still disagree, Grayfell's latest message was sufficient for me to stop my efforts because he's right that I don't have the consensus of the editors on this article, quite clearly, despite my best efforts. However, Avatar317, I would like to correct mistakes you're making in your understanding of what I'm arguing, and you seem to misunderstand WP:LEADCITE.

Firstly, my issue is not with the word "pseudoscience." This is evidently the case because I did not attempt to modify later such claims in the article. My issue is with the extremely strong claim that it is "widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community."

Secondly, a claim like that should have citations. From the very rule you're referring to, read: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Clearly this material is challenged or is likely to be challenged, and it is in fact being challenged right now and has been by multiple editors in the past.

Lastly, I have looked at other sources that are currently in the article. My disagreement with this statement being on Wikipedia is that it should not be justified by a woven together strand of analyses - a strand that Wikipedia editors, not published sources, have woven. Poor reliability and poor validity do not, on their own, equate to pseudoscience. Therefore, providing citations to reliability and validity analyses (which is currently what is listed next to the claim, with a single exception) in support of the claim is not sufficient on its own, not unless a source makes the claim directly. I assert that it is WP:SYNTH because it seems to be combining multiple analyses for the sake of the claim (because you, of course, cannot make the claim that something is "widely regarded" as anything unless you can find multiple instances of it). The claim is justified by a hodgepodge of statistical analyses rather than sources that actually make the claim, with the partial exception of one that only claims that it is pseudoscience, not that it is widely regarded as pseudoscience - a far stronger statement. At the very least, the in-line citing of statistical analyses should be removed because they have no place supporting the claim. If we wish to support such a strong statement with only the one other article - one that was added after I expressed my objections - then I'd be much more willing to accept that than to see the statement propped up by what is clear WP:SYNTH. The article that directly claims it is pseudoscience is worlds closer to the claim made in the article, even if it is still at least one world apart, because it actually makes the statement, rather than simply demonstrating (egregious) flaws in the MBTI.

My name is pseudonym (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit. Just as a basic starting point, do any reliable sources actually contest the view that it is widely viewed as pseudoscience? Of course it would be nice to have more direct sources, and the combination of direct and indirect sources to make this point in the lead is not ideal. But I'm not really sure that's enough to call this SYNTH. Many sources say its pseudoscience as a basic starting position for further analaysis, and many more sources document specific reasons it is pseudoscience. Therefor this seems like a fair summary of those sources, even though I think I understand why you disagree.

Above you mention some other possible categories this could be placed in. If you have a reliable (and independent) source which describes MBTI as protoscience, or which describes in in any other way as both fringe and specifically distinct from pseudoscience, I would like to see it. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to address your question and points, but I'd first just like to say that I really appreciate this response. I have no doubt you've been acting in good faith this entire time; I just had the sense previously that I wasn't being heard and understood because it felt like many of my points were not being engaged with. I'm sure that over the years this article has had many crank editors try to modify it in an attempt to hold up the MBTI as the pinnacle of personality psychology, and I imagine that must be very frustrating, so dismissing such cranks without fully reading and thinking about their unhinged essays is certainly justifiable. I'm not saying you necessarily did that, but it felt like many of the points I was trying my best to make were left unaddressed in favor of attacking the points of mine that were more easily contestable. It feels like you are hearing me now though, even if you disagree, which is fair.

There may be some reliable sources that call it protoscience or fringe science, but I'm not familiar with any, and I'm not especially interested in actually replacing the word "pseudoscience" with either of those. I can attempt to look for some, although I doubt I'll find any, especially not for protoscience because it's extremely unlikely the MBTI is going to miraculously develop into a rigorous, well-renowned part of established science. However, my point in bringing up alternative conceptions of the MBTI was not that the MBTI actually is protoscience or fringe science, rather than pseudoscience; my point was that the statistical analyses justify the labels "protoscience" or "fringe science" (or the other examples I named) just as much, if not more so (in a couple of cases), than "pseudoscience." In particular, pseudo-scholarship, especially the Wikipedia page for it, seems to me to be more fitting a claim per the statistical analyses. The statistical analyses don't seem to portray the MBTI as "incompatible with the scientific method" (per the pseudoscience article). Rather, they indicate that it is compatible but simply has worse reliability and validity than other, much better, models of personality, like The Big Five and HEXACO, the prior of which the MBTI incidentally tends to have decent correlations with on at least 3 out of the 4 factors (which I can find sources for, but I think you're already aware of them because they're already on this article). Read (from the pseudo-scholarship Wikipedia article): "...a body of work that is presented as, but is not, the product of rigorous and objective study or research..." This is much more closely aligned with what poor validity and reliability indicate, on their own. Because "pseudo-scholarship" is a rarely used term, especially when compared to "pseudoscience," I would not actually advocate replacing "pseudoscience" with "pseudo-scholarship" though. As I've mentioned earlier, I actually agree that the MBTI is pseudoscience (even though I didn't previously); the sources just don't seem to support such a bold claim as one stating that it is widely regarded as pseudoscience, with the exception of one source. I think the later claim in the lead about how it has been called pseudoscience is much more appropriate. That is why I suggested possibly moving it up in the lead to make it more visible, while replacing the less justified claim.

It looks like the article has since been modified, and the current version is more acceptable to me, although just unambiguously labeling it as pseudoscience seems a bit much, although not quite as extreme as the previous claim. "It enjoys great popularity despite concerns raised by psychologists," however, seems like a fair claim.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the previous statement we were discussing MrOllie. I was working on doing so but was then notified that you had already done so. I agree that complete removal is unacceptable without restoring the previous claim, as consensus has not been arrived at.

- My name is pseudonym (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

the sources just don't seem to support such a bold claim as one stating that it is widely regarded as pseudoscience, with the exception of one source. We have something like a dozen sources that support this (as Avatar317 says, you have to look in the body when evaluating the lead section as well). I have heard and understood your points, but I still disagree. And as a volunteer with limited time (as we all are), I don't really like the implication that anyone has to engage with every point you make. - MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying about 'pseudo-scholarship' but I think that this is, still, pseudoscience and calling it that by name is appropriate. These two are not mutually exclusive, after all. Really, we shouldn't be using other Wikipedia articles to decide these kinds of things (WP:CIRC, WP:OR, etc.) but pragmatically, we absolutely should make sure these things are logically coherent and pass the sniff-test. So even with that in mind, Wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience applies to MBTI as these things are described by reliable sources. Per the lead of this article, "poor validity, poor reliability, measuring categories that are not independent, and not being comprehensive" are defining problems, but they are only problems for those who wish to sell MBTI by presenting it as a science, so...

Anyway, I have added this source:

• Stromberg, Joseph; Caswell, Estelle (15 July 2014). "Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless". Vox. Retrieved 24 August 2023. All this is why psychologists — the people who focus on understanding and analyzing human behavior — almost completely disregard the Myers-Briggs in contemporary research.

Hopefully that will spell things out more clearly. Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I was saying that it makes sense for you to not engage with every point that I make ("I'm sure that over the years this article has had many crank editors try to modify it in an attempt to hold up the MBTI as the pinnacle of personality psychology, and I imagine that must be very frustrating, so dismissing such cranks without fully reading and thinking about their unhinged essays is certainly justifiable."). I was trying to extend an olive branch because I completely agree with you on this point.

The source that you added certainly helps make the point, but I again think that it is insufficient for such a bold claim. I'd have absolutely no problem with stating that it "is now thoroughly disregarded by the psychology community," (or the statement from the source you directly quote here) per the source. I have looked at the other sources in the article; what I fail to understand is why we are justifying the claim with a bunch of statistical analyses that don't even say the word "pseudoscience." That is why I claim WP:SYNTH. If we wish to justify it with the other sources, I'd have much less of an objection, although I would admittedly probably still have one.

My name is pseudonym (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

with a bunch of statistical analyses that don't even say the word "pseudoscience." Many cited sources do use the word 'Pseudoscience'. You don't even have to read them all to find this out - in many cases it is in the title of the source. I've also quoted two of them earlier in this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pop-sci sources, like the Vox article, are more willing to use direct language. They are more likely to just say "pseudoscience" because that gets the point across clearly and saves time. Academic publications are less likely to use direct language, for a few reasons. One reason is, simply, because academics don't want save time. As I'm sure we've all noticed, academic writing is supposed to support every claim made at a granular level. But Wikipedia isn't a journal, and this article isn't a primary or secondary source documenting these flaws. As I mentioned above, this is a tertiary source. We summarize sources without the use of WP:EUPHEMISMS. Since, per sources, this is pseudoscience, and these specific sources support that this is pseudoscience, we can and should summarize this by saying "this is pseudoscience". Plenty of sources are willing to just say "pseudoscience" and even more go into detail about it without emphasizing the point as much, so I still do not agree that this is a problem. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources listed directly after the claim do not. Regardless, because it seems I have no support from other editors, and you have both been editors (and much more active ones) for much longer than I have been, I give up. No point in debating further. I cannot change your minds regarding the appropriateness of the claim based on the sources immediately following it.

My name is pseudonym (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

MBTI is often criticzed as pseudoscience of personality assessment, while 16PF often widely accepted as scientific version of personality assessment. However, the market are more favor MBTI than 16PF. Actually I would say the "pseudoscientific" version of MBTI is far better the "scientific" version of 16PF. Here is why :

(a) MBTI is labelled as pseudoscience because it has violate the reality of human psychology and cognitive science in two way. First, MBTI do not provide a scale. Say one may be 55% introvert and 45% extrovert, but MBTI will simply say he is introvert, which is not accurate. Second, MBTI ignore that thinker and feeler, perceiver and judger are often coexist in one's personality. Many person both feeler and thinker, but MBTI may just say you are feeling type not thinking type. This may "hurt" many outstanding "feeling" type of scholar, psychologist and scientist, therefore academic tends to reject this type of personality classification.

However, MBTI provide a simple, intitutive, comprehensible and direct classification of human type. It allow us to conduct a global-scale, in-depth analysis of each type of personality easily, and help us to understand each type of personality easily.

In contrast, 16PF provide scale of personality, if there are 16 personality with 10 scale exists, that means there are 16^10 = 1 trillion personality type exists, more than the entire planet population. How come you analysis 1 trillion personality ? It is totally infeasible. However, using MBTI, we can have many high quality analysis of each personality despite the oversimplification nature.

So The best practice is we still use MBTI as reference model rather than a scientific model or definitive model with understand its limitation and over-simplification. The pseudoscientific MBTI are actually better than the scientific 16PF due to its simplicity nature. Cloud29371 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not replying to the poster above specifically, just to the "thread". Bit of an amateur here.

Did a word search for "pseudoscience" on this page - this long thread is seemingly related to the use of the word pseudoscience, but respectfully I cant understand what there would be to debate: MBTI tests are pseudoscience. That's it. That's just a fact.

The wording in the article is good, but it perhaps seems a bit wishy-washy, indistinct and foggy: "It enjoys popularity despite being widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community". "Widely regarded"? Unless I'm wrong, surely this phrase implies that there are at least some who consider it to be a scientific process. Yet surely that isn't true?

I mean one could quibble about the specific word (fringe theory, pseudoscience, junk science, as discussed), but once one has landed on the right word, the introductory paragraph wording should then be less vague and indecisive.

In the UK it's not as popular as one suspects it is in the US and other places - one assumes that the company that is behind it is motivated to promote it over there and Korea... heck, everywhere. It brings Scientology to mind, and the aggressive manner that that organisation utilises: just because they're selling it, doesn't mean we have to buy it.

It simply lacks scientific evidence and validity as a psychological tool... it's shunned by academics.

Why is the introductory paragraph wording equivocal? Arguably the wording should be more matter-of-fact, and should read something like this:

"Although the test is pseudoscience and is shunned by the scientific community and academics, it enjoys popularity"

Thanks : ) Charliepenandink (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As to name something pseudoscience should be up to "peer-review", not some Wikipedia editor. Please have a clear citation for the debate instead of citing paper with indirect comments. In the same wiki page, MBTI is studied to have strong correlation with Big Five by a valid study of McCrae and Costa - renowned personality researchers. Is Big Five pseudoscience too? If Big Five is not pseudoscience then MBTI should be considered as a theory that has a significant prediction power, hence it's not pseudoscience.

Case in point, should we consider Newtonian mechanics "pseudoscience" too since it incorrectly described the orbit of Mercury and light bending from the general relativity effect and numerous other astronomical studies? If we consider Newtonian mechanics as a theory that is less accurate (less predictive power) than the general relativity theory then the same thing can be said about MBTI. And that's the evolution of science, NOT pseudoscience. NgHanoi (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There are clear citations, you can find them in the article. Click on the little numbers.

Your analogy is flawed because pseudoscience is about how the work was conducted, not the results. When you follow the scientific method and get an incomplete (or even wrong) result, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, that's not pseudoscience because the methodology at least was followed. This is why pseudoscience is commonly referred to as Not even wrong. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Newtonian mechanics has been proven valid in the realm of everyday human experience, and quantum mechanics for the realm of the very small, but the problem with MBTI is that there isn't ANY realm in which science has proved it valid. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I would favor to use the term "oversimplified personality model" or simply a flawed model Cloud29371 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In the main Wiki page for MBTI, the source "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Second Edition, Edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr" (given number 10 now) never claims that "Most of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center's own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT) ". This is another example of a Wiki editor trying to over-exaggerate a point by incorrectly citing a source. I suggest to change the wording "Most" to "Some" NgHanoi (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not have access to the source used for that, but the body of the article also at least potentially supports this claim. As the second paragraph of #Accuracy and validity explains, estimates run from a third to a half of the published material on the MBTI being produced by MBTI-affiliated organizations. To clarify, this isn't a third-to-half of supporting MBTI, this is a third or more of all material on MBTI. While I'm sure there is some supportive material being published in more reputable journals, (and perhaps some critical material being published in MBTI-affiliated journals) I strongly doubt that the majority of independent material on MBTI is supportive. From this, saying "most" in the lead seems entirely reasonable to me. If the cited source clarifies this, all the better. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Management Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 20 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soomin974 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Soomin974 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Scientific vs. journalistic sources

A lot of sources from the media are cited as validating references and they are mixed with scientific sources. I suggest to create a new section called "MBTI in the media" to group those journalistic sources, so that important topic like Validation and Accuracy are only sourced from the academic references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NgHanoi (talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)