• andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 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.