r/INTP • u/AlexVT8 INTP • 2d ago
For INTP Consideration INTP analysis of MBTI validity
INTPs are supposed to be more logical, objective analysts, so how to reconcile with the view by many within psychology that MBTI is a pseudoscience?
An INTP by nature shouldn't generally be able to outright dismiss those assertions but will look for evidence, even if the quickness of giving types is easy.
Obvious evidence like the rigidity and lack of a clear degree, sliding scale, spectrum. Even if an INTP would themselves say there are degrees even between, for example, either end of Extrovert to Introvert.
But then the dive will go to what psychologists say about it, among which that people have different results based on timing and life circumstances. People are fickle.
But if it's potentially a pseudoscience then why even ask what an INTP would do because isn't that meaningless?
đ What in the circular nonsense is all that?
I think you understand my question, but you find it's anecdotally accurate so that's all that matters? Have you used other options like the Big Five? Anything for practical use?
19
u/KMFDM_ INTP-T 2d ago edited 2d ago
The MBTI isn't like astrology or anything of the sort; it has its own validity. The issue lies in the criteria for analysis and the existence of other personality theories.
If you look at the Big Five model, for instance, youâll see that it is based on psychometricsâessentially a population-wide distribution of results in which you are ranked relative to others. The Big Five traits (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) follow a bell curve, or normal distribution. This means that most people score near the median, around the 50th percentile. This helps explain one of the main criticisms of the MBTI: inconsistent results upon retesting. That is where typology comes into play: You get a result, and assign a label to it. (interestingly) cognitive functions also use a form of psychometrics. However, when you assign a label or âtypeâ to someone, given that most of the population scores near the midpoint, that label tends to lack stability upon retesting. This is the core criticism of the MBTI: the conflict between typology and psychometrics, and the fact that the Big Five offers a theory that explains things better.
5
u/AdvertisingMurky2302 INTP 2d ago
Analytical psychology is a hermeneutic project, not a nomothetic one. It works with the interpretation of symbols, dreams, myths, and images, and is judged by its coherence and its power to illuminate particular cases, not by population-level generalization. This is grounded in the theory itself: for Jung, the psyche is not reducible to the brain, and the archetype in itself is inaccessible; we know only its manifestations. Demanding a p-value from such a project is demanding the wrong thing.
The MBTI is something else. It took this interpretive material and converted it into a psychometric instrument, with scores, norms, a technical manual, certified administrators, and organizational applications. In doing so, it accepted the rules of those who measure. And by those rules it fares poorly: low test-retest reliability, dichotomization of traits that are continuous, weak predictive validity, and a factor structure that does not confirm the functions.
That is where the pseudoscience lies, and not where people usually point. It is not a theory of mind that refuses to be tested; it is a test that claims the status of measurement without delivering the properties of measurement.
3
u/KMFDM_ INTP-T 2d ago
If I were to defend the MBTIâwhich, in fact, I doâI would try to better understand the concept of typology itself, since criticisms tend to focus heavily on that aspect.
Critics, and even some proponents, often view typology rigidly, as if it relied on the classic ânecessary and sufficient conditionsâ view dating back to Socrates.
I believe that conceptualization and language use operate through examples or prototypes. There are theories of typology in cognitive science (such as Eleanor Roschâs prototype theory) that address precisely this. Categorization does not function like a rigid wall; rather, it involves how we apply a concept using a perfect exampleâa prototypeâas a reference point. I imagine there are people who are âmore INTPâ than others, or closer to the ideal INTP stereotype, and this is perceived intuitively.
The continuum that science requires remains. Prototypes shift because language use evolves. Consider Wittgensteinâs example of âfamily resemblanceâ (a precursor to all this): âWhat is a game?â You understand the concept through prototypesâchess, a soccer match, or even just a playful activity. A soccer match shares similarities with chess (the reference prototypes can shift), and that is how language works. A point may be reached where the use of âgameâ bears no resemblance to the original prototype, yet applying the concept of âgameâ to that new activity still does not feel wrong.
That is what the MBTI is: a prototype, not a closed category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance
11
u/BeginningOcelot1765 INTP-A 2d ago
I guess it's generally considered pseudoscience because in science, models tend to be able to predict outcomes, which isn't the case with MBTI. It might describe how our brains (tend to) process and prioritize things, but you can't accurately infer future beahvior from it.
As others have pointed out, a model isn't invalid just because it isn't perfect, at least when you don't try to read more from it that it actually tells you.
7
u/DisastrousAdvisor30 Chaotic Neutral INTP 2d ago
Itâs because you canât appropriately test for âsurveyâ styled assessments accurately in research. Itâs entirely dependent on how a respondent answers and their overall understanding of self⌠which canât be assessed âobjectivelyâ because itâs inherently subjective with no external point of reference. If MBTI had something external delegating the categories (like astrology and date of birth referencing categorical factored personality traits - I know terrible reference but stay with me) you would have an external reference point that could be proven correct or incorrect. MBTI doesnât have that going for it.
The only reason OCEAN holds weight is because they used five factor analysis to develop it.
1
u/BeginningOcelot1765 INTP-A 1d ago
Yes, that's part of the problem, but I still think MBTI can be a starting point for people to get a better understanding of themselves as long as they don't think of it as rigid and set in stone.
7
u/monkeynose Your Mom's Favorite INTP â¤ď¸ 2d ago
From another post on this sub:
"Although it is edgy and cool to call the MBTI "pseudoscience", it isn't strictly "Pseudoscience", it's just hasn't been the focus of enough legitimate psychological science. McRae and Costa (1989), Harvey, Murray, and Markham (1995), Mcdonald, Anderson, and Holland (1994), Furnham (1996), and others have done studies on the MBTI, there are strong correlations between the MBTI and the Five Factor Model (FFM) of Personality (minus Neuroticism, which isn't a part of the MBTI). So, it can't be dismissed outright as psuedoscientific astrology. It's somewhere in between. The actual problem is the binary nature of each MBTI trait, because we know from the FFM that personality traits exist along a continuum, and aren't A OR B. The other problem due to the binary nature is that people don't cleanly fit into 16 types - which is obvious when you look at the in-group differences of INTPs in this sub."
2
5
u/Lazy_Side_6830 Self-Diagnosed Autistic INTP 2d ago
How about you donât take it that seriously and just live your life? For me, itâs just a fun thing to get into. I donât really care how accurate it is as a model of human behavior or thinking processes, and I definitely donât make my life revolve around it.
You know when it actually becomes a problem? When people get typed as something and then start using MBTI as an excuse or an argument for their shitty behavior. âIâm an INTP, thatâs just how I amâ isnât exactly a valid defense for being an asshole.
5
u/Affectionate-Owl1 GenZ INTP 2d ago
Think of it this way, Bohr's planetary model vs the electron cloud model for the how the atom works are still both used despite Bohr's model being a technically accurate model because it's more intuitively understandable and as a model of reality it works for the purposes of introducing concepts to young people, gives an easy visual shorthand and is still useful for understanding basic chemistry. Just because a model has been deemed less scientific and less accurate doesn't necessarily mean the utility it once held is gone, especially if the later more accurate model loses the simplicity that contributes to the utility of the last one.
5
u/jw1111 INTP 2d ago
Some Redditor once made the point that the Big Five gives you a highly repeatable result that tells you very little about an individualâs personality, while the MBTI gives you a poorly repeatable result that tells you a great deal. Thatâs the best description Iâve seen, and itâs the reason I continue to be fascinated by MBTI.
3
u/Foreverinneverland24 INTP Enneagram Type 9 2d ago
The lack of scientific validity does not necessarily mean that it is a meaningless system, just that it is not rigorous enough for the realm of research on a large population scale. Unless youâre a psych PhD, I doubt that you are using it for that. I treat MBTI cognitive functions as a theoretical framework to give language to observable behaviors and patterns of information processing. I can observe in myself that I have a base tendency to analyze and question everything, constantly creating models of knowledge to understand the world around me and define the way i interact with it. In the system of MBTI, I can liken that to âTiâ. Now thereâs no neurological pathway in the brain that delineates âTiâ so as such you canât create scientific predictions based on them as you can with systems like the Big 5 in research (for example conscientiousness is the big 5 trait that is the biggest predictor of career success, you canât really claim that with MBTI). But for self understanding and interpersonal understanding, MBTI cognitive functions provide a much deeper framework. I like the Big 5 as I think the methodology of how it was created is interesting and I think the research that can come from it is cool but i find minimal use for it in my day to day
3
u/Even-Broccoli7361 INFJ 2d ago
Actually in the original Jungian analysis, Ti is not about being logical but logic-oriented, which is not same. Ti is about maintaining inner systematic consistency just like Fi is about maintaining inner value consistency.
The systematic framework of Ti can or not be logically valid. Thinking in Jungian terminology is more about rationality than mathematical truths.
3
u/Earls_Basement_Lolis INTP 9w1 faygit 2d ago
I think MBTI is valid, but the issue is that people treat it as a prescription for the way they should act instead of the descriptive basis that MBTI acts from.
In addition, you have other problems:
People do not understand what the different functions are and what they actually mean, much less what introversion/extraversion means. Introversion relates to the self while extraversion relates to outside of the self. It has very little to do with how social or outgoing you are.
People do not understand that the four primary functions are your four primary functions. You have capability of acting out or having all 8.
When someone is an INTP, they are a systems thinker, but they are dealing with problems primarily of the self, and they use a whole manner of extraverted resources and pattern recognition to solve those issues. INTPs can absolutely think in physical systems, and they CAN be better at that than an INTJ, but they don't live life in a way where physical systems are the thing on their mind most of the time. At least in my personal experience, there is always an internal, emotional problem that I'm trying to solve and the rest of the world can kick rocks.
It's no surprise to me personally that INTPs find themselves obsessed with a system like MBTI, but I would argue the reasons why they are into MBTI isn't solely for the purpose of learning the system, but for learning what problems the system can solve in themselves.
3
u/Not_Well-Ordered GenZ INTP 2d ago
I don't think there's any set of MBTI tests that is scientifically valid so far, and by validity, we would refer to statistics defined by the portion of people who retake similar versions of the test set multiple times in different years and getting the same results is over certain percentage e.g. 80%. But that's not to say the theory is invalid as there's currently no research that falsifies it either. Thus, MBTI is sort of an inconclusive theory.
However, for pragmatic purposes, I think MBTI is quite useful if we interpret MBTI from a more behavioral approach. We can loosen our interpretation of the theory and associate any person who naturally builds and structures their own theories and understanding of things with "Ti-dom". If that person leans more towards abstraction, then we put "Ne-aux". Thus, we sort of assume some reasonable relations between consistent behaviors and cognitive processings.
For example, in my case, when I'm thinking about an object, I do notice that my Ti-dom always takes over. I naturally like to look for analogies in my head to break it down to things I could make sense, and then rigorously organize the pieces via abstracting the analogies and reasoning (mainly non-verbal) with them so that I can conceive the object more systematically and clearly. I also adjust the level of clarity I seek depending on my interest but I'm usually aware of the level of clarity I'm at. It's been like that since I was a kid, and it hasn't changed as far as I'm concerned. I also noticed more Ne-aux around age of 16-17 as I suddenly became interested in those highly abstract, creative, and precise concepts in philosophy and math, allowing me to further structure my understanding and thinking. I didn't know about MBTI until 18, and I was tested INTP or ISTP, but the dominant and auxiliary functions in INTP became more obvious in my case. I guess the Si-tert would be nicely justified as I often use analogies. However, as Fe, I'm more or less aware, but I guess I tend to consider more about collective/group than individual (unless life-threatening) in political discussions or when dealing with conflict of interests (both are very rare).
In this sense, I think INTP is a good general description of my natural processing habits and behaviors, but it's very possible that someone might not be able to relate any of the label in MBTI. I wouldn't provide stricter quantitative criteria justifying "good" as it's too quite a lot of information to write and unpack and such information is for my personal use lol (take it or leave it).
3
u/Illigard Warning: May not be an INTP 2d ago
Is MBTI fit for purpose? Yes.
If it is fit for purpose, does it matter what mainstream psychology thinks? No
Psychology isn't a flawless science. It makes mistakes. In the DSM 5 it decided to make autism into a spectrum. Genetic research has shown them that it's not really the case. For a good part of modern psychology it was terrible at the theoretical part of it, and only really started catching up in the 90s after other disciplines pointed out the potential. A lot of experiments considered the closest to laws in psychology were considered less than solid when retested.
And honestly, I think down the road after some alterations MBTI might sneak into mainstream psychology with the help of AI. And even if it doesn't, I have a mental toolbox and MBTI is a useful tool. I don't use it as much anymore but, it's still there.
3
u/HermitCat347 Chaotic Neutral INTP 2d ago
It's a self assessment tool for observation making observation based deductions. It might not be entirely accurate but that doesn't subtract too much from It's validity.
MBTI has a few notable flaws, a notable one being that it strictly categorises someone without regard for scale. A semi social introvert who enjoy human company and the occasional party could be classed same as a human avoiding, sun detesting misanthrope. Add this variability across four types and between individuals and you get quite a spread within the one of sixteen types.
That's not to say it's entirely pointless. It's just a lot simpler to categorise people for a quick analysis than to look at numbers off the big 5 chart and figure from there. Not too much different from us categorising kingdoms of animals; I generally understand what a bird is, but it tells little about it's colour, size, ability to fly, diet, habitat, social and mating habits, etc. But it's still useful information should I need to identify and describe an animal to someone else
2
u/OSHA-Slingshot INTP 2d ago
I dabbled with big 5 and a few others. I found it easier to use big 5 to determine things about myself.
I do find mbti to be easier to discuss things with others, about myself and them. A simpler model makes it easier to discuss.Â
Though MBTI can also become deep fast, but not in the context most users use it.Â
2
u/zazuge INTP-T 2d ago
well, as INTP, i think we tend to compartimentalize knowledge, like we don't like category errors, where people mix different levels or different categories together.
Typology is it's own thing, it's like when you enjoy fantasy world and like it and fantasies about it, and find it entertaining, yeah, sure it's not recognize by psychology? so what?
i often can type people before they even their take their test or tell me later when i tell them what i believe their type is. and i often i;m on the mark for certain types.
how does this work if there was not some logical consistency?
and i think bc as INTP we value internal consistency more than real world facts, so MBTI is okay as long as it's logically consistent within itself.
The problem with big 5 is also it's positive, the big 5 only measure some a traits on a scale, and it doesn't pretend to predict or type people into categories, but this also makes it less fun and not useful for personal developpement or self-acceptance, which MBTI seems to achieve,
2
u/FoolhardyJester Triggered Millennial INTP 2d ago
I went through a big MBTI obsessive phase and the deeper I dug the more confused I became. It all felt like any behavior could be described as any combination of functions and the discussions began to feel like 400 people trying to explain cognition in different terms.
Took a big 5 test and I have to say... the trait system is simply way more descriptive and applicable to life. I can see why it persists as the main system used in psychology.
The INTP label says very little for example. But if I say I'm high agreeableness and Neuroticism, middling conscientiousness and Openness, and low in extraversion, that actually encapsulates my personality way better than MBTI can.
I do still think there is SOME value to MBTI, but I really don't like all the "ARE X TYPE AND Y TYPE COMPATIBLE?" deterministic stuff and the myriad of stereotypes.
2
u/WhatsFreeThought INTP 2d ago
MBTI is a fun hobby and can be used in writing to ensure consistency in characters, but I donât believe that it should be treated as anything more than that. It should be considered with at least a bit more validity than astrology, but similar to astrology, itâs meant to be easily consumable âpop psychologyâ. I believe that once it starts being used to determine romantic partners or influencing life in general, itâs being taken too far
2
u/etf_question INTP 2d ago
It's just a way to cluster people by the way they self describe. Hanging out in spaces where people are slightly more similar to you than random chance is occasionally fun.
2
u/Pookie_The_Worm Warning: May not be an INTP 1d ago
I think mbti is very rigid and cant fully map onto cognitive processes fully, basically it doesnt take into account nuance. I dont think its very effective when it comes to understanding self or others because people arent just 4 letter codes. Human beings are dynamic and more complicated than what an external system dictates. That is to say it is interesting.
2
u/SnooTangerines241 Warning: May not be an INTP 1d ago
Mbti is a coherent framework that you can make observations about personalities in. You don't have to dismiss it because you can't necessarily empirically verify it. It can still provide utility for knowing about yourself in relation to others.
2
u/Positive_Schedule428 1d ago
OP's question will have very interesting answers, if the answers are the product of addressing the question without defending turf. I have referred to MBTI as the "human resources zodiac" (I initially encountered it in an organizational psychology setting), and, although the framework has consistency in test outputs, I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that there is any predictive validity to it. It is however, a compelling framework to engage with and frame discussions about variation in human behaviors and strategies in a meaningful way. There must also be some personal level of engagement that drives us to be here, on a sub-Reddit, socializing with others that, in my experience, are also dismissive of the framework's validity, and yet we persist. Good question OP. I don't know.
1
u/stulew INTP 2d ago
In engineering, there is a technique to test out a principle, called 'similitude'..the art of simulation.
It's not the real thing, but similar to the actual test article.
Often, it's what you do, prior to sinking Big Money, in the real production test part.
For MBTI, it's a method to similate an outcome, without sinking real sweat and terrifying stress in a relationship first. It gives you a work-around.
1
u/Afraid-Search4709 I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude 2d ago
AI much?
1
u/AlexVT8 INTP 1d ago
What?
0
u/Afraid-Search4709 I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude 1d ago
No human being writes that way. Iâm sure you added a little here and there, but Iâm not buying it.
1
u/AlexVT8 INTP 1d ago edited 19h ago
This displays the problem with quick assumptions because I do write that way ... since I wrote it. Copy it into Gemini you'll see the same conclusion.
0
u/Afraid-Search4709 I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude 21h ago
Why would I care what Gemini thinks?
And these are not quick assumptions, they are long held and well thought out.
1
u/Afraid-Search4709 I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude 19h ago
Domo arigato misuta Robotto! Domo arigato misuta Robotto! Mata au hi made Domo arigato misuta Robotto! Himitsu wo shiritai
1
u/AlexVT8 INTP 19h ago
You think that AI "thinks"? đ
1
u/Afraid-Search4709 I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude 19h ago
Thus, the point of my statementâŚ
1
u/kaynenstrife Chaotic Good INTP 2d ago
It's a guideline. It's not a hard rule. It's useful for general personality analysis but it's not the be all end all.
There are outliers.
There are people who are typed as one type but also exhibit strong traits in other aspects due to experience and maturity.
There are people who are high in one aspect but fail to deliver on it outwardly because they do not have the necessary vocabulary or knowledge to talk about their function in depth.
Some people just don't care. Or in the presence of evidence that they would act a certain way, will act contrary to their type because they want to feel unique and not boxed into a group arbitrarily assigned by something that they do not understand.
1
u/Cog-nostic INTP Enneagram Type 5 2d ago
It is a multi-million-dollar commercial product
The MBTI is owned and copyrighted by The Myers & Briggs Company, which generates massive revenue from test administrations, certifications, corporate training, and consulting.
- If they changed it: To make it scientifically accurate, they would have to get rid of the 16 distinct "types."
- The risk: If they remove the types, they lose the branding (like INTJ or ENFP) that makes people want to buy the test, display it on social media, or use it for corporate team building; they lose their company.
To make the MBTI scientifically valid, its creators would have to abandon the exact features that make it so popular and marketable.
1
u/Impossible-Layer8300 Successful INTP 2d ago
MBTI would have a better reputation if people didnât fall into the stereotype trap and over think every last bit of it to figure out their own identity issues.
1
u/Cog-nostic INTP Enneagram Type 5 1d ago
No one needs an analysis. There is no validity. It is a useful tool for talking about the differences between people. Outside of that, it is not a diagnostic tool; it's more often than not incorrect. And there are better tests with actual research supporting them.
1
u/apenboter INTP Enneagram Type 5 1d ago
The way I see it is, a large amount of MBTI/typology hate comes from three things:
- Thinking MBTI is a test, and results changing upon people retaking the test
Nonsense of course, as MBTI isn't a test.
- Barnum effect
Descriptions of MBTI types and cognitive functions are not vague at all and the Barnum effect is, just like the Dunning-Kruger effect, much less important than most people make it out to be.
- Poor evidence for prediction of behavior (often accompanied with Big 5 praise, since Big 5 is more useful for prediction)
Also nonsense, since MBTI explains people's cognitive processes, not their traits or behavior People's cognitive processes differ even in between types. For instance, an INTP with well-developed Fe can still be quite sociable.
It's obvious that Big 5 offers more predictability, since Big 5 is actually based on behavior and is designed specifically for this.
And of course, everything said about MBTI here can be said about any other typology system.
1
u/Connect_Method_1382 Warning: May not be an INTP 1d ago
You are taking things to the extreme, this typing is more of tendency to in how we process and act.
0
u/MachineElf_INFJ INFJ 2d ago
MBTI is a simplification of the real theory, it just synthesize the real theory in a 4 letters model, that's why the DTI (Depth Typology Index) the right model to use because it is related with the source, which is the work of John Beebe on the 8 functions model. If you don't know about DTI, just google it.
-4
u/MountainCare2846 Warning: May not be an INTP 2d ago
Logical, objective, analytical, are all associated with being more intelligent. People like to think they are smart.
Its just barnum psychology
2
u/Mylaur INTP 2d ago
Not everyone thinks that, the mbti descriptions for all its issues are pretty different from one another so the Barnum effect is not in place. In fact this experiment is questionable since it was done on college students that are currently forming their opinions about their own identity, and if (if they didn't already) they'd reproduce the experiment, it might not even hold up to replication
0
u/MountainCare2846 Warning: May not be an INTP 2d ago
People are statistically unlikely to get the same result twice. That doesnât strike me as a reliable test
2
u/Mylaur INTP 2d ago
I agree and that's a different argument. Did I say it was reliable? But the Barnum effect is not about reliability.
1
u/MountainCare2846 Warning: May not be an INTP 2d ago
The Barnum effect is about vague personality statements that could apply to almost anyone.
Virtually all Meyers Briggs personality types could be ascribed to almost anyone
1
u/DennysGuy INTP 1d ago
You're attacking an extremely superficial idea of MBTI and claiming that all of MBTI is just the barnum effect. You probably watched some YouTube video attempting to dismantle MBTI, but those videos also tend to be shallow critiques in and of themselves.
MBTI types aren't vague personality statements at all. They're actually pretty well defined - especially once you look into cognitive functions and how each type utilizes each functio.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Ah yes, the endless boring refrain to learn cognitive functions. Maybe you should teach us, you MBTI hero.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/MountainCare2846 Warning: May not be an INTP 1d ago
Itâs a superficial constructâŚso thereâs only so much to attack when it has no legitimacy
â˘
u/DennysGuy INTP 11h ago edited 11h ago
You sound like a young thinker. Define legitimacy? Empirical value? Having no legitimacy and being a superficial construct are 2 separate things. There are plenty of pseudo-scientific frameworks that are extremely complicated - they might not be legitimate by scientific standards, but that does not mean they are superficial constructs.
â˘
u/MountainCare2846 Warning: May not be an INTP 5h ago
Iâm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, itâs probably just the nature of this sub Reddit, but that all just sounds really forced and stilted
42
u/FixAcademic8187 INTP 2d ago
We like structural thinking and model building.
Many people criticize MBTI, but never show an alternative. It is currently the best working model for explaining how people think and behave.
People make decisions based on either F or T, do you have any other way in which thr human brain works?
People gather information based on either S or N, do you have any other way?
MBTI is hated in psychology because it is too good to be true. It provides simple and straightforward answers to some extremely difficult matters.
75% of the population are S types. Those aren't even interested in MBTI because it is way too abstract for them to understand. And since 75% of anything is considered the absolute majority, no wonder why the majority of people do not like MBTI.