How about going deeper? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H2gErRDiwU4.html What is consciousness? After watching the video, INxx types are truly connected to their consciousness but most people just follow the programs constructed by the system before reaching their consciousness. I just ❤️ true and wise INXx types. Lol 😆 I can not help it Ps; MBTI is a general thumb to see a person, who touches something hidden in their soul. However, MBTI is a great tool to understand our behaviors. I want to say INxx types are experts on that 🙃🙃🙃🙃
You nailed it essentially there isn't any substance in conversation with other people when talking about Big 5. I think big five is an example of something being scientifically valid but not very useful in day to day which there are many examples in science of these things that they're just not practical in day to day.
Chris, I pretty much agree with your assessment about the limitations of the Big Five in terms of practical use. My illustration is to think of the oil level stick in a car engine. The oil level stick is dependable for letting you know if your car engine oil is at a low level. However it does nothing to tell you WHY the oil is low. It doesn't diagnose why it has leaked or evaporated lower. In other words, the Big Five detects your "level" of five categories of personality, but it does nothing to explain WHY they are at that level or WHAT you should do with your levels of those five categories.
The world we live in is very chaotic where human consciousness doesn’t exist any more but humans just should follow dogma ; basically humans have been indoctrinated in order to be programmed under certain system vs culture teaches value and wisdom in order to think deeper level of spiritual realm. I assume INxx types are suffering from it. I think that INxx type live in objective reality on the universal scale not like a frog in the well. Now I know how to get along with anyone thanks to MBTI but I need time to touch my deep inner self in order to keep me something in this world. My hub INTJ is a perfect buddy for me. INxx types cheers millions times ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well done...Finally an easy explanation for why MBTI is much more popular and used, even though Big 5 is more scientific. Now I can refer all of those "but Big 5 is much better than MBTI" to this video so they can see that being more "scientific" and "accurate" is not always the end goal - because what is even a point in 100% accurate thing that nobody can apply?
That wasn't his argument. The Big 5 is much better than the MBTI model in assessing personality traits because that's what it was made for, the MBTI however is the more practically useful tool to the general public because that's what it was made for.
It sucks that the MBTI isn’t really discussed in university or college psychology programs because of the fact that it’s not as useful to academic researchers. I’ve found the MBTI much more useful as a tool than the Big 5
I find that this is a myth for many psych degrees. I took two classes that taught MBTI - Theories of Personality and Career Development. I do wish it was discussed a bit more though.
The thing with Big 5 is also that the categories are so obvious and little insightful in my opinion. Like take neuroticism: Most people who often deal with anxiety issues are already aware of that, a Big 5 test won't tell them anything new in regard to that. MBTI on the other hand can tell you more specifically - according to the 3rd and expecially 4th function - in which category your anxiety issues are more likely to fall into (thinking for IxFPs and ExFJs, intuition for ISxJs and ESxPs etc), which types are more likely to trigger your weak spots etc.
Chris, I respect you a lot for making this. Neither 'MBTI is objectively true' or 'MBTI is BS astrology pseudoscience' are accurate or useful positions. You've articulated the case for MBTI well, without claiming that it's a flawless or scientific model.
I do find that even the Big 5 can be useful for an individual. It wasn't with MBTi, but doing the Big 5 I realized more some of my traits that might keeping me down. Like high neuroticism (way much higher than the average man), low consciensness, introversion. Now on the other hand, my MBTi gives INFP, which is as correlated by some people studying of MBTi, as that feeling based depressed living in the clouds person. I also believe, no matter the personality test, there might be some interesting correlations statistically speaking. Both MBTi and Big 5 might reveal certain tendencies in groups. But yeah, I get that MBTi is more easy for an individual to position themselves in relation to others. It sometimes becomes like astrology though, or in a sense "Every type is lovely" while Big 5 might tell you your negative/positive traits, so that you know what to work with.
Perfectly described. Big 5 is truly not applicable directly, especially towards an individual only. I would rather get a medical diagnose rather than doing big 5 if I want to know if there's problem with myself. Big 5 is as good as 'so what' response when brought up in conversation.
I think the whole idea that “MBTI is Pseudoscience” I think is perpetuated by RU-vid creators specifically, since they sacrifice authenticity for their own viewership. There are also RU-vidr’s (like one that has the initials CSJ) who perpetuated this mindset that everyone who is confident about who they are isn’t actually informed, or that most people don’t know their type. To me I highly doubt that most people don’t know their type given how small the mbti community actually is, and that community doesn’t represent the majority of people
Where I am in France, rares are the people who know deeply MBTI. Only certains recruiters in companies know it, but only the surface. Temporary work agencies have multiples tests to "help" people, but they don't help as much and deeply than MBTI does. Theses multiples other "tests" have no deep at all, they just guide a little, nothing meaningfull. They are nothing next to the deep understanding of human behavior and more through the MBTI. It's the best thing I discovered. Recently by the deep analysis of my self in 2022, I realised I misstyped myself for 1 year in 2021 during depression. OP and cognitives functions tests helped me a lot, to finally find what really correspond to me. Without that, I considered myself just as an Ni Dom. The tests : personalitymax, attitudinal psyche, enneagram helped me too in others aspects. What is fun with the Big 5 results: we can determine the personality type MBTI. But the reverse is not possible. The most usefull, helpful and practical in every aspects of life is MBTI for me.
To me I think humans are like a car, you can’t really question the behaviors and actions of every car in a way that is objectively accurate, because in the course of time itself, it is inherently unpredictable. Sure you can look at the mechanics objectively, or the rules of the road objectively, but the behaviors or actions of it, you can’t given that it is a product of the continuity of life
Yes scientists and highly intellectual people tend to not have high levels of emotional or social intelligence. So them not valuing a tool that focuses on social, emotional, and relational understanding isn't surprising.
No. Big-5 is like enumerating 5 personality traits. MBTI is an extension of what Jung taught in the first place and follows naturally from that. He’s the one who invented the words “introvert” and “extrovert” as we know them in the first. The socionics/Myers-Briggs model is a natural elaborate extension of it and it’s deep.
I understand the point you are making and I get the difference between being focused for research and practical purposes ( communicating with others). For reference, I am a PhD student who also does scientific communication so trust me I get the difference. That being said It has been shown that MBTI results of people can change quite a lot over time so that MBTI is not consistent or predictive in the long run. While the benefit of MBTI is ease of communicating with others about it if the info you are communicating is potentially inconsistent or inaccurate than thats a problem. I have also heard complaints about MBTI from psychologists saying that it forces people to box themselves and in doing so limits them while big 5 being more difficult to communicate doesn't actually box you and allows you to grow and change over time which is more representative of your personality development over time. MBTI just locks your personality into a corner that you will then believe can never change when that goes against how human personality develops. While I like the idea and ease of communicating that I am an INTJ I am very much against misinformation for the ease of communication and overly attaching my constantly evolving personality into a 4 letter code that I then have to identify myself with for the rest of my life. I get humans have a need for better understanding themselves and wanting to communicate who they are and their preferences easily with others but I don't think MBTI is the right system to sacrifice accuracy and consistency for in favor of simplicity. I would rather be stuck in the difficult to understand and communicate truth than the easy to understand and simple to communicate lie. To me, MBTI seems like believing in a pantheon of gods that explains everything in a simple way vs a complex reality that is science and requires a lot of time and effort to understand. My 2 cents.
Appreciate your input. I would like to note that peer review has actually shown MBTI to be both valid and reliable from a scientific standpoint. Such as Randall, K., Isaacson, M., & Ciro, C. (2017). Validity and reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity, 10(1), 1-27. and Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-briggs type indicator score reliability across: Studies a meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590-602. Now, while you can find conflicting evidence on the contraire as well, the main point I am trying to make is that people overhype the lack of scientific rigor the system has. People often get pushed away and enter the "dont box me in" mindset when they see MBTI but if you read Gifts Differing, and even Jung, you will note that having a "type" isn't the primary point. Briggs liked to refer to these aspects of personality as personality preferences. E.G., an INTJ can show traits of extroversion, sensing, thinking, and perception, but much like being right handed and trying to write with your left, it will be difficult or a struggle to - but it can be done. To put this into perspective we use similar methods of heuristically explaining aspects of human psychology all throughout the field. Attachment styles, personality disorders. All of these are "types" of something, groupings that don't represent something we can objectively point to and state as fact. This is actually a common argument in clinical psychology now because some researchers think a spectrum approach to disorders (much like autism is classified) would be more scientific - except the other side is arguing that a lack of classification for disorders is of almost no practical benefit to practitioners. Having clusters and common trends of aspects of psychology helps us better understand and communicate the specifics. The specifics are absolutely needed, but so are the grouping in my opinion. Imagine we took the Big 5 and split each scale into 2 at the 50th percentile then made a type - would look something like ECOAN vs the opposite of those. What this does is tell someone "This is the general ball park of scores this person is within." This is pretty much what MBTI is (if you don't look at it from a Jungian perspective) except MBTI leaves out neuroticism. So while I think its very sensible to argue that the "types" themselves may not exist, I think it is a lacking perspective to think that the types don't represent an observable and measurable aspect of human psychology that has inherent truth to it in some regard.
“I have also heard complaints about MBTI from psychologists saying that it forces people to box themselves” They’re misinformed. It’s not true, unless they’re getting information from people using the tool incorrectly. “To me, MBTI seems like believing in a pantheon of gods that explains everything in a simple way” You must have it mistaken for Astrology.
Very interesting, and from the sounds of it, it may be best to know both and not just one or the other. Of course, I feel that way just because of knowledge, just for knowing it. I do feel that the MBTI is very practical and does help people learn more about themselves just like you said. I admit I have learned a good bit about the MBTI and have not learned much about the Big 5 so I do want to learn more about it in the future. I do love learning
Sure. The notable study referenced in the video was McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality A 2017 Meta Analysis found it had both acceptable reliability and validity Randall, K., Isaacson, M., & Ciro, C. (2017). Validity and reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity, 10(1), 1-27. Quote: "These studies agree that the instrument has reasonable construct validity. The three studies of test-retest reliability did allow a meta-analysis to be performed, albeit with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Results indicate that the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, and Judging-Perceiving Subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of .75 or higher and that the Thinking-Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61. " A 2002 Meta analysis found it to have acceptable reliability. Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-briggs type indicator score reliability across: Studies a meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590-602. Quote: "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was submitted to a descriptive reliability generalization (RG) analysis to characterize the variability of measurement error in MBTI scores across administrations. In general, the MBTI and its scales yielded scores with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates, although variation was observed."
Well, I agree that if you weight everything in MBTI has the potential to be much more useful in general. Big 5 for me is something that seems useful to a psychologist, so he could in essence know who is he dealing with and how to approach with this person, where there isn't really a discussion about Big 5 as a system, but you simply could discuss the results with the client. As I said, MBTI has a potential to be useful in general, and you definitely pointed out the positive aspects of such system, which I entirely agree with. But I find that in this state it creates more problems than it solves. Sure some people approach it with an open mind, and take the system exactly in the manner "Ok I know who or what type I am talking to and this makes me understand their point of view much better", of course approached with an open mind that the person's personality type might not be what they think it is or that it deviates from the stereotype. But considering my observations online, majority of people think MBTI is scientifically valid, and considering the same majority just approaches the MBTI superficially, it just creates this idea that where one can just take the test and adopt this persona that he think's he is, because one tested as that personality type, instead of being who he actually is. And in turn start justifying their ill behaviors with "It just the type I am", start using it in the manner: "I think you are stupid and hence you are an ESFP or INFP" or "I disagree with you and you are not the type you say you are because of it", and lastly "I'm this type and you just don't understand me" (Usually arises in disagreement when one thinks he is intuitive and thinks the other party is a sensor). And any time someone starts talking and and starts or ends with "I'm this type", I just can't take their result seriously, as I am aware that results on various tests do vary for a lot of people, as I have asked a lot of people to take the test even multiple times, which of course I match with what I can observe in their behavior. Also if one does dive deeper in the MBTI/cognitive functions, one can see that certain interactions between some functions could create certain behaviors that mimic the behavior produced by some other function, and hence always keep an open mind when approaching this subject. As you already mentioned MBTI should be taken as a philosophy, and philosophical discussions don't usually end with "I am right" (unless you start going into scientific method) or simply said the point of the discussions is rarely to achieve or reach "an end", but rather open new ways of thinking, adds new angles/points of view, where you might get to I point that is actually verifiable in some way.
The people you mention, namely the thousands of interwebsers who find out about the MBTI but keep it very superficial are part of the reason the system itself is looked down on. They do us all a disservice.
If you know what to look for and have studied MBTI extensively then you should be able to avoid those situations and assess a person's type yourself without them needing to take a test. If they disagree with your assessment then explain to them why the test isn't always accurate and why you believe them to be a certain type. Educate don't ignore.
It‘s the opposite, I believe. MBTI is practical at the expense of accuracy because you turn the quantitative scale into a binary system. Of course you‘re left with 16 types, but Big Five doesn‘t limit itself to any number of types, it‘s infinite because it‘s a scale; you could say it‘s 100^5(>>16).
@@nepomukullmann3013 I agree. Also MBTI's 4 degrees of freedom allows for being able to process intertype relationships/interactions in ones head. Big5 doesn't give us the luxury to understand that and quickly see the patterns.
@@nepomukullmann3013 But the Big Five doesn't give insight into how people's minds work because it doesn't have the Jungian cognitive functions, that's why it's useless for 99% of people.
Imo, Peterson is significantly overrated in general; besides, he has long turned into this "media" personality who works for getting and keeping audience/viewership/etc (esp. now that he brought his daughter into this, the only way a sufficient-for-any kind of monetization - number of people would be interested in her is because of her father). And to keep his viewers interested, "iconoclastic/dismissing some-praising others/riling ppl up in general/etc." positions are the way to go. (I have another thought about a possible motivation for praising big 5 and dissing mbti, but few will understand, so I won't share it.)
Interesting. I disregarded the mbti as I didn’t believe it held enough validity in comparison to the big 5 can you recommend any books on mbti? Whenever I took this test I was always 2 marks of being either INTJ or ENTJ possibly ambiversion? Subscribed
Gifts Differing is the go source material. The other would be the MBTI manual, but thats less of a book and more room a researchers guide to the system. Thanks for watching!
They're not the worst, the worst are those naive ones who believe that Big 5 is "scientific" roflmao They parrot the phrase "The Big 5 is the only scientifically proven and academically accepted personality test" or something to that effect.
I actually really liked his "Understand Myself" Big 5 assessment and thought it was a step in the right direction towards making Big 5 useful to the everyday person.
@@AsuraPsych yea a person like him can confuse me that do i prefer mbti or big 5 but im neutral i think it depends on the purpose of the the individuals, what kind of direction they want to improve. For me i learned my strengths and weaknesses from typology but still confused wether i should improve my weaknesses rather than pursue and work on my strengths that i have been doing lately. I know taking my type as a justification is wrong for example i shouldnt improve on my empathy and feeling towards other as an intp is not the right way as u mentioned in some of your videos but i actually find strengthen my strengths are more important than improving weaknesses.
@@pandamanou Please elaborate on your points rather than label me something ambiguous. Also, I don't like Jordan Peterson. Please don't label me as his fan.
@@陳毅澂-c3h i appologize mate, i'll delete my comment. So Peterson said : "“well if you want to avoid conflict (dont offend people) use the mbti, if you want to help people to understand their personalities and use an accurate instrument well then use the 10 aspects of the big five scale” i found that your statement is close to his idea, that's why i linked to him. And you seem that you still have the idea that mbti is like astrology ? pseudoscience ? and the video explained that this is wrong.
You are great. I love your videos but it sounds like you are mentally carving out a respectable weak mbti position. The big five does not attempt to offer an explanation of the individual mind so sure it looks good with low expectations. The big five may offer suitable data for control questions or assist with determining subtypes. I guess I am a strong mbti person that feels sorry for people that have a hard time with the test because of some conflict (but don't blame the test).
Well aren’t the MBTI dichotomies correlated with Big 5 traits anyway? Also, is there evidence for cognitive functions? I have found a lot of studies that support dichotomies but not much on the functions.
Yes, they are. And no there isn't from a research perspective. This goes back to the idea that Jung didn't really think that these types of things could be proved through experimental psychology. I personally think we could find evidence of functions via research, it would just be difficult.
If you pay attention to the people in your life I would say there is plenty of evidence. For instance, in my friend group it is extremely obvious who are Fe users and who are Fi users, and it is interesting to see how that influences choices and discussions.
No. Big 5 has virtually nothing to do with MBTI. Big-5 introversion and Myers-Briggs’ introversion (likewise for extroversion) is like comparing spam sandwiches with seafood jollof rice. Two completely different things.
Yeeah I know, the natural pronunciation is just such a foreign way of speaking and I've built the bad habit of saying it wrong. Should probably work on that lol
@@timefortee It's not about translating. It's just that the "oong" in Jung sound combination doesn't exist in English. People usually pronounce foreign words with the sounds that already exist in their own language. Einstein is a great example because English speakers still don't pronounce the "stein" like Germans do. The 's' is supposed to be pronounced like the 'sh' in 'shop'.
@@senantiasa Yeah that's human intellectual laziness en masse and exists in every language basically. Doesn't mean it needs to be perpetuated by people who know better.
that's a fair testimony, but if the appeal of mbti is simply ease of use, would it not be better to aspire to educate your clients enough to understand how big 5 works?
I think the issue is not in that clients couldn't understand Big 5, it is more so in that Big 5 is not designed to be "used" in the same ways. It's inherent purpose is research and quantitative analysis whereas the MBTI was built from the ground up to be a useful tool in interpersonal communication. Big 5 asks: What metrics can we use to specifically define and measure your personality? MBTI asks: What are the primary generalizations of your personality that can be used to differentiate you from others?
