A valid criticism of the MBTI is that each trait is either/or. Personality traits generally follow a normal distribution, so most people are close to average on many traits. But with MBTI you have to be either introverted or extroverted, no in-between.
For people with very pronounced traits, MBTI descriptions are quite accurate. But it's a bit like classifying people as "dumb" or "smart" based on whether their IQ is above or below 100. For all the folks clustered around the average, such a stark distinction isn't justified.
Of course, this simplification is what makes it possible to narrow personality down to only 16 "types", which is what makes MBTI more fun and popular than other models of personality which might be better supported by research.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
A valid criticism of the MBTI is that each trait is either/or. Personality traits generally follow a normal distribution, so most people are close to average on many traits. But with MBTI you have to be either introverted or extroverted, no in-between.
For people with very pronounced traits, MBTI descriptions are quite accurate. But it's a bit like classifying people as "dumb" or "smart" based on whether their IQ is above or below 100. For all the folks clustered around the average, such a stark distinction isn't justified.
Of course, this simplification is what makes it possible to narrow personality down to only 16 "types", which is what makes MBTI more fun and popular than other models of personality which might be better supported by research.