The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is both a theory and a self-report questionnaire designed to measure how people perceive the world based on their beliefs. Based largely on Carl Jung’s psychological types and Isabel Myers Briggs’s theory, it describes the various personality types in the world by compiling their beliefs, providing a meaningful description of the various types.
The types would refer to a combination of functions such as Extroverted-Introverted (E-I), Intuitive-Sensing (I-S), Thinking-Feeling(T-F) and Judging-Perceiving(J-P) dichotomies , resulting in a type (e.g. ENTJ), this derived type can then be used to predict various beliefs and behaviours. It is commonly understood that these beliefs and behaviours constitute a personality.
This paper investigates if the Myers and Briggs type indicator is science or pseudo science, and also investigates how such knowledge was constructed.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Construction of knowledge via the MBTI
3.1 The Natural-Scientific Method in the Social Sciences
3.2 Knowledge of the Individual’s type via the hypothetico-deductive Method
3.3 Nature of Knowledge derived from the MBTI via the hypothetico-deductive method
3.3.1 Justification
3.3.2 Truth
3.3.3 Validity
4. Science vs Pseudoscience
4.1 Criterion for Demarcation
4.1.1 Lakatos’s criteria for demarcation
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
1. Introduction
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is both a theory and a self-report questionnaire designed to measure how people perceive the world based on their beliefs[1]. Based largely on Carl Jung’s psychological types and Isabel Myers Briggs’s theory[2], it describes the various personality types in the world by compiling their beliefs[3], providing a meaningful description of the various types. The types would refer to a combination of functions such as Extroverted-Introverted (E-I), Intuitive-Sensing (I-S), Thinking-Feeling(T-F) and Judging-Perceiving(J-P) dichotomies[4], resulting in a type (e.g. ENTJ), this derived type can then be used to predict various beliefs and behaviours. It is commonly understood that these beliefs and behaviours constitute a personality.[5]
Skeptics have, however, challenged claims arising from the MBTI, contending that such knowledge is not epistemologically valid based on 3 premises. First, the MBTI is unreliable since it appears to provide inconsistent results within a short time span.[6] Second, traits derived from the MBTI do not correspond to reality as it fails to accurately predict the traits of the individual.[7] Third, the MBTI therefore lacks validity since it is not reliable and correspondent.[8] [9] This indicates that the MBTI would not be considered knowledge from a skeptical perspective since it does not adhere to the tripartite criterion for knowledge, justified true belief.[10]
2. Objectives
This paper firstly investigates if the MBTI constructs knowledge of the personality types of an individual based on the scientific method. Secondly, through referencing Popper’s and Lakatos’s criteria to distinguish between a science and a pseudoscience, this paper discusses whether the MBTI can be considered a scientific inquiry. Third, this paper measures the validity of knowledge claims derived from the MBTI against the tripartite criterion of knowledge - justified true belief.
As a point of clarification, this paper focuses on how knowledge of an individual’s personality type was constructed, rather than how the theory of the MBTI was constructed.
3. Construction of knowledge via the MBTI
3.1 The Natural-Scientific Method in the Social Sciences
Robert Bishop claims that ‘ the mainstream consensus on the scientific method is that they provide the best, perhaps the only, model for social inquiry’.[11] Though quite a limiting viewpoint, it is true that the scientific method is the foundation for many branches of science[12]. Henceforth, this section investigates whether the MBTI constructs knowledge under the natural scientific method. There are two main contending methods in the scientific realm, Mill’s method of difference[13] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[14] The latter was chosen since Mill’s method involves the isolation of variables to accurately determine causal links, and this is inapt vis-à-vis the MBTI as it is almost impossible to isolate variables in humans, as man operates based on a combination of variables, and these variables should not be observed individually.[15]
Hence, this section explores how personality profiles were created via the hypothetico-deductive method.
The hypothetico-deductive[16] method is a way of ‘supplying factual rather than opinionated judgements about the phenomenal world’[17], constructing knowledge to explain and/or solve naturally occurring phenomena.[18]
It could be divided into 4 steps:
Step 1: Data Collection: Identify a problem or natural phenomena and then collect empirical data. Empirical data can be defined as data derived from a reliable method or observation.[19]
Step 2: Hypothesis Formation: Formulate a hypothesis, which can be defined as the best explanation based on limited empirical data as a starting point for further investigation
Step 3: Deduction: Deduce predictions from the hypothesis and predict consequences.
Step 4: Experimentation: Test for the predictions, if correct when tested, it is accurately deduced.[20]
3.2 Knowledge of the Individual’s type via the hypothetico-deductive Method
The MBTI questionnaire could arguably be said to construct knowledge on a person’s personality type via the hypothetico-deductive method.
In this case, the starting problem is that the individual’s personality type is unknown[21] to the practitioner, and the practitioner then attempts to obtain quantitative data about this individual by administering the questionnaire. The questionnaire contains descriptive empirical questions, which are questions that describe behaviours in certain contexts with the main aim to obtain empirical data about the said behaviour by receiving quantitative answers.[22] [23]
The individual then responds based on his testimony and memory, attempting to provide an account for his behaviours. With each answer, the questionnaire provides empirical data for the individual’s preference for each dichotomy. For instance, the questionnaire puts forth several questions relating to the individual’s behaviour, and the individual chooses from 2 options, indicating his preferred. Each option would add to a cumulative score, and the total score determines the individual’s personality type.[24]
He interprets the data given and then moves on to step 2, where he refers to the MBTI theory and posits a hypothesis[25] for the person’s type, for example, INFP, after adding the cumulative scores for each respective dichotomy.[26]
Moving on to step 3, the practitioner then makes certain predictions about the various traits of the INFP based on the MBTI theory.
Proceeding with step 4, he conducts an experiment and attempts to obtain empirical validations by verifying the predictions with the individual, and if they are true, the deductions are accurate, and the hypothesis is correct. The professional also conducts an additional step not required by the hypothetico-deductive model whereby he attempts to falsify the current hypothesis by suggesting the traits of another possible type with the purpose of discovering the individual’s true type[27]
Since knowledge about one’s personality type is derived closely with the hypothetico-deductive method, it can therefore be said that its construction is analogous to the scientific method framework, and that it can also be seen as a social science. This then brings into question if the nature of this knowledge is valid and this will be discussed in the next chapter.
[...]
[1] Gifts Differing - Isabel Briggs Myers with Peter B. Myers
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] MBTI Manual Third Edition, Isabel Briggs Myers, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L.Quenk, Allen L Hammer
[6] Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die – Adam Grant Ph.D. , Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
[10] Epistemology: The Theory of Knowledge Daniel Cardinal
[11] The Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Robert Bishop
[12] Gauch’s Scientific Method in Practice
[13] A system of Logic: John Stuart Mill
[14] Andersen, Hanne and Hepburn, Brian, "Scientific Method", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/scientific-method/>.
[15] The Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Robert Bishop
[16] Philosophy: Themes and Thinkers J.W. Phelan
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Philosophy: Themes and Thinkers J.W. Phelan
[21] MBTI Manual Third Edition, Isabel Briggs Myers, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L.Quenk, Allen L Hammer
[22] Benjamin B.Lahey Psychology: An Introduction Tenth edition
[23] MBTI Manual Third Edition, Isabel Briggs Myers, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L.Quenk, Allen L Hammer
[24] Ibid
[25] MBTI Manual Third Edition, Isabel Briggs Myers, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L.Quenk, Allen L Hammer
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibid