Is MBTI becoming old?

[John K]

Fashions come and go in all parts of our lives and that seems to be so with popular psychological models too. Has MBTI come to the end of its use by date do you think? And if it has, what does this say about the way that fashion can choose truth and value?

 

[Elis]

I think MBTI as a psychological framework has been outdated and discredited for a long time; it simply doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. We don't fall into these perfectly shaped molds where cognitive functions are structured discretely.

Where I think MBTI shines is as a tool to outline that there are different perspectives and angles on how people approach life. It gives people a good and quick outline of the complexities of human interaction.

This community has always been very niche, even for MBTI. I think there are more vibrant communities out there. I hear more people in day-to-day life that are aware of MBTI today than 10 years ago.

 

[moonsea]

I think we should also bear in mind that long-form social communities, like a forum much like this one, has been dying out since towards the end of 2010's. It was when short-form social media apps, the kind you can scroll through quickly and get short bursts of dopamine with shorter posts from other people as quickly as possible, became the hot new thing on the block. Even I fell for the psyop, and got addicted for the majority of the pandemic years when nothing else could be done due to lockdowns.

A part of me regrets it, though. There is beauty to be found when we take things slower and digest things little by little instead of through short bursts. As a Gen Y, I practically grew up on forums of any topics that interested me at the time. MBTI is no different. The only difference now, is that most people's attention spans have shortened that could compete with goldfishes.

That said, there's nothing wrong with this forum being more tight knit! It's nice to have several familiar faces rather than always getting lost in a sea of a million strangers. I could maybe see myself dipping my toes in another community once I get more clear about my own typing so that I can find people of my own type to talk to from time to time, but I love this place so far and am learning a lot these days about the functions.

If it means anything: I recall a time where forums in general were at their peak when people created events in them. Contests, sweepstakes, games to play together, a live chat room and/or video call events to get together from time to time.. these all can keep morale high and keep things light hearted and fun in between serious long posts and threads and blogs. Balance, you know? Of course, this is just what I remember, and I don't know if it's something that can be done on this forum if no one is interested, but something to throw out there.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Same weaknesses by not having enough resolution so to speak to accurately discern all or at least most demographics without letting outliers fall through the cracks. It at the very least establishes the basics like other typology systems while the root of most problems is lack of research then there is the dark legacy of things like eugenics.

 

[John K]

I think MBTI as a psychological framework has been outdated and discredited for a long time; it simply doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. We don't fall into these perfectly shaped molds where cognitive functions are structured discretely.

Where I think MBTI shines is as a tool to outline that there are different perspectives and angles on how people approach life. It gives people a good and quick outline of the complexities of human interaction.

This community has always been very niche, even for MBTI. I think there are more vibrant communities out there. I hear more people in day-to-day life that are aware of MBTI today than 10 years ago.

I think there are two separate aspects - one is whether MBTI lacks robust validity, but the other is whether it is going out of fashion, like even good music can go out of fashion. I do wonder about its validity, yet it provides a strangely useful vocabulary for expressing personality tendencies that are hard to individuate without something like it. The first time I came across it was on a management course with 22 people - we took the test and were sorted into our different types, and it really did bring folks together who were obviously similar in their psychological orientations along the MBTI type boundaries.

It's interesting what you say about awareness of MBTI being greater than 10 years ago - I wonder if more folks know about it, but fewer try and learn it in depth and use it as a way of developing themselves?

 

[John K]

A part of me regrets it, though. There is beauty to be found when we take things slower and digest things little by little instead of through short bursts. As a Gen Y, I practically grew up on forums of any topics that interested me at the time. MBTI is no different. The only difference now, is that most people's attention spans have shortened that could compete with goldfishes.

I very much agree. I suspect that MBTI, and other models, can fall out of favour both because people don't take the trouble to understand it, and because they often mis-type themselves. It's impossible to understand any psychological model in a few soundbites, and finding your best fit type within a model takes a lot of introspection and trial and error for many of us. I wonder how many folks are turned off MBTI, or the Enneagram as well, because they hit on the wrong type, then become disillusioned with it because that's like wearing the wrong sized shoes. We should probably take a number of years before really feeling confident we've hit on our type - and enjoy the fun of the exploration.

 

[John K]

Same weaknesses by not having enough resolution so to speak to accurately discern all or at least most demographics without letting outliers fall through the cracks. It at the very least establishes the basics like other typology systems while the root of most problems is lack of research then there is the dark legacy of things like eugenics.

Part of the problem seems to me that people think of these models like a GPS of the psyche by analogy, when they are more like a basic 16 point compass. That doesn't make them invalid necessarily, but they are simplified and don't span the whole of our psyches - a lot of stuff on MBTI seems to stretch it beyond what it is made to give. It does seem to provide enough of the basics, doesn't it, to provide a useful structured vocabulary - I find it possible to say things about psychological orientation with far greater precision using MBTI terms that without them.

 

[aeon]

There is more public awareness of MBTI than there was in, say, the mid-1980s when Please Understand Me was published.

At the same time, it has been dismissed by those reductionists who make the clinical with peer review their God. These are those who are uncomfortable with mystery, and ambiguity. They prefer questions which have an answer, as opposed to those which give rise to further questions.

And of course, as it happens with all psychometric and diagnostic typers and criteria, over time it becomes a pop psychology and a slur, e.g., cretin, nimrod, and retard.

I also think MBTI would be given greater consideration (in the current context) if it had moved beyond description of the normative, and incorporated aspects of shadow presentation and work which would speak to trauma, schema, and maladaptive behaviors.

Those who are too comfortable with black and white thinking toss it out, just as they do with things like comparative religion and IQ. Those who are more fluid in their ascertainment, and live in a world of varying hues, have room for MBTI. Because they understand the limit of its utility, they by turn know its utility, and put it to use as they may.

So it goes with any heuristic tool. Scorn from those with no insight, and a wink and a nod from those who do.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[just me]

Cell phones have replaced many things, though few of them were wrong or harmless. Dissection has been one of my many tools of survival, and woe unto me if I cannot dig deeper and look farther. I can see for miles and miles, taking moments to see the things I pass on my journey. Though I may move past my peripheral understanding and vision of things, they still remain important parts of my ever-learning self.

 

[John K]

There is more public awareness of MBTI than there was in, say, the mid-1980s when Please Understand Me was published.

That's interesting - I don't think it's the same in the UK though. Mind you, I don't think the British have ever been very into such things, except as an amusing and ephemeral Sunday supplement questionnaire pastime. Large companies like the one I worked for trained supervisory staff in it as part of general training courses, but I don't think that happens much here any more. I could be wrong though.

At the same time, it has been dismissed by those reductionists who make the clinical with peer review their God. These are those who are uncomfortable with mystery, and ambiguity. They prefer questions which have an answer, as opposed to those which give rise to further questions.

It's really interesting exploring this fault line. Some of those who approach psychology bottom up, from neural science, can seem to get caught up in a logical positivist perspective that insists on reality only being bestowed on the concrete. But on that basis, it's possible not only to dismiss models like MBTI, but the whole of subjective, conscious experience. I look forward to the day when the language of brain bioelectronics can express my experience of the beauty of a red sunset, or the high emotion of the charge of the Rohirrim at the relief of Minas Tirith. Maybe it can be done eventually, but the equivalent is like trying to understand the Lord of the Rings novel by studying the way ink and paper molecules interact with each other, and how paper is made and assembled into a physical book!

I also think MBTI would be given greater consideration (in the current context) if it had moved beyond description of the normative, and incorporated aspects of shadow presentation and work which would speak to trauma, schema, and maladaptive behaviors.

It's fascinating to compare MBTI with the Enneagram here, with it's extensive analysis of psychological health levels and how this is manifest in the differentiated and dynamic behaviours within each Enneagram type. In many ways, MBTI is a bit like a branch cut off from the tree of Jungian psychology because Jung created his typology within the wider context of his psychology of the unconscious. I can't find the quote now, but something he commented on has stuck with me for a long time - one of the motivators in creating his theory of types came from the need to approach the same unconscious disorders of his patients from different angles according to their type. He found that the inferior function was a key point of entry into our unconscious minds at the outset of a series of therapy sessions, and it worked far better if he identified which this was from the start. I'm not saying that was the sole or main reason for his typology, because it took off in its own right, but it's only really alive in my view in the context of his wider psychology - perhaps as it has evolved over the last 100 years of course.

 

[moonsea]

I also think MBTI would be given greater consideration (in the current context) if it had moved beyond description of the normative, and incorporated aspects of shadow presentation and work which would speak to trauma, schema, and maladaptive behaviors.

I actually agree with this strongly. I've noticed so far the youngins nowadays are especially aware of how trauma contextualizes our human experience and how we relate to ourselves and the reality that exists around them. It's so nice to hear younger people talk openly about how important healing the family dynamics that plagues so many generations of households ('Breaking the family generational trauma') and how to challenge ourselves via internalized racism/homophobia/misogyny to deconstruct who we are as a person.

MBTI is great in the sense that it can sometimes act as a replacement fodder for the western zodiac crowd, but not for the deeper topics such as the ones you listed. If I ever do happen to read anything about MBTI/enneagram types being affected by trauma, I have to really dig deep for the resources; most websites popping up first on a search engine is about happy-clappy descriptions that a lot of people can't relate upon first glance.

 

[aeon]

I've noticed so far the youngins nowadays are especially aware of how trauma contextualizes our human experience and how we relate to ourselves and the reality that exists around them. It's so nice to hear younger people talk openly about how important healing the family dynamics that plagues so many generations of households ('Breaking the family generational trauma') and how to challenge ourselves via internalized racism/homophobia/misogyny to deconstruct who we are as a person.

Yes, it’s du jour.

That said, there’s so little talk of the self-work required to accept, integrate, and heal, vague suggestions of “therapy” notwithstanding.

Trauma always has a somatic component. One cannot get there cognitively. One’s persona will thrash in the death throes.

Yet, there are ways.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Umai]

I don't personally feel it's getting old: I still use it to get a handle on people and how I'll jive with them, which is it's main utility I think. For deeper stuff like neurosis and trigger points, it's the Enneagram.

What is probably getting old is the online discussion of it across all mediums: forums, social media, youtube. It's reached saturation point and offers little new.

I don't think it's ever really caught on in the uk.

G I Gurdjieff, Idries Shah and other illuminators of esoteric teachings said that teachings come and go in various guises as befits the needs of a time and society. I suspect the MBTI (the pop incarnation of a Jungian idea) and the pop Enneagram have been sufficiently pulverised by modern marketing and commercialism that it could be time to move on.

 

[charlatan]

It seems like the Big 5 is still considered to have solid enough backing (although a closely related alternate the HEXACO also emerged).

Given that the MBTI has close parallels to four of the five Big 5 dimensions, it seems that it's still a good idea. The fun thing about MBTI is that it connects these ideas to a much less empirical, more philosophical framework like that of Jungian typology, albeit the connection is not obvious or anything like an equivalence.

It seems like, just as we don't need to discard the Big 5 for the HEXACO, we don't need to discard the MBTI, but can view it within the context of other systems to gain the most complete understanding.

I'd of course present the caveat that the idea that MBTI really measures binary dichotomies seems the hardest to support. I'd rather view the 4 as continuous dimensions on which you can have a range of strengths and weaknesses, including being closer to the middle on any given one of the 4.

 

[aeon]

It seems like the Big 5 is still considered to have solid enough backing

This is the result of it being clinically verified. One can thus use it in research.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[RedInAK]

I don't think the concept/theory of MBTI in and of itself is outdated, however, the way in which people try to use it very much is.

Cognitive functions, Jungian thought, and the theories within are very multifaceted. They shouldn't be used as yet another way for human beings to get shoved in a box. I've seen many people use MBTI (along with pretty much any other personality type system) as a way to make excuses for behaviour, talk bad about someone they don't like, or make assumptions about people around them. Of course, I'm not saying that everyone does this, just a trend I've noticed within the general population. (I know this isn't necessarily what this post is talking about, but my brain got on a bit of a tangent, sorry haha)

I believe that the theories at the core of MBTI could be a continuous source of new knowledge, should we allow it to be. There is a lot of potential for further depth and understanding. Looking at the cognitive function theories, shadow theory, how trauma can change the way people show up, along with the subtypes that have been established by Dr. Dario Nardi through brain scans, I think it's safe to say that there is so much more to delve into... Now if we're talking about the very surface of MBTI, without the further intricacies, then yes. It could be getting old. But even at that, it is still a very valuable data point.

Just to kind of sum up what I'm trying to say in a few words; Simply put, you can get as much out of MBTI as you put into it. Or rather, MBTI is as outdated as one allows it to be. Should one desire to get more out of it, there is almost always another depth the discover.

 

[John K]

I agree @RedInAK - in my experience MBTI does seem to sort people into groups who orient in similar ways to life while contrasting clearly with those from other groups. It's not a precise grouping though - the boundaries are fuzzy and the different groups aren't separated by clear space from each other. It's a bit like a 16 point compass that's pretty useful, but the world's directions are not discrete and separate like this simplified model, but vary continuously around a circle.

In my experience it takes quite a bit of effort to close in on your closest fit type, and it needs some understanding of the underlying concepts to do it well. It's a journey of self-exploration, which is not the same thing as a casual completing of an online questionnaire and the reading of a few pages on line about your results. I suspect a lot of folks try it, but end up mis-typed, or even try and identify with what they would like to be rather than what they are - and this can partially discredit the model over a number of years in the public eye. It's still good fun to have a go of course, but I suspect many folks do have a go, get a result, then promptly forget it, like with many another online questionnaire - such as which is your Hogwarts house?

 

[Quarkmaster]

I recall a time where forums in general were at their peak when people created events in them. Contests, sweepstakes, games to play together, a live chat room and/or video call

When I was young, all the kids in the neighborhood would gather together, the boys mostly, and play baseball. That was our forum. I don't know what the girls did, but I don't think they were interested. We also played football, depending on the season. And basketball. And between seasons we would wrestle. We would watch WWF wrestling on TV with Gordon Solie, and afterwards, we'd all go outside and hurl ourselves at each other.

Many years later (like about 30), I found the Yahoo chat rooms, and eventually landed in a room called "Current Events" and ended up making friends with most of the people in it. And once, just once, we all decided to meet in Indiana, at one of the chat room favs' home. There, I met all of these people I'd known for a few years, in person. I can't recall what became of that. One day it just stopped. Maybe I went back to college and didn't have time for it.

Ironically, my name (web handle) in that socialization was Quarkmaster. I've kept it over the years.

 

[Quarkmaster]

I don't think MBTI is going away. I think it's evolving. It has evolved since I first learned about it, and the last I heard, they still teach it to college students in psychology courses. Traditionally it is INTPs who build theoretical structures like this, which was first devised by Carl Yung, who was an INTP himself. But he only came up with, as I recall, Extrovert/Introvert, Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling. It was Myers and Briggs who added in the Judger/Perceiver layers. And even these days, these things are being expanded and evolved.

Until someone comes up with something better. People exist on a Bell curve in most aspects of life, but this seems to be something that the Bell curve ignores. Taking up Thinking and Feeling as "opposites" for example, seems to create a double-humped Bell curve, suggesting that these are two ends of a continuum, while a better view might be to see each existing on its own Bell curve. Thinkers feel and Feelers think, which we all are aware, there is likely another factor in our makeup or predisposition, or even our DNA which sets us to prioritize one over the other.

I think that the J/P preference is genetic. You see the Ps out there racing motorcycles and playing action games, while the Js are standing out of the way, be very cautious. I think if there is one thing that separates Js from Ps, it is reaction time. I believe that Ps are faster. Js, therefore in order to survive, tend to be more cautious. They might see Ps and being too reckless.

I have no science to back this up - simply observation and reading. But I'm convinced that this is genetic. And the only reason for these things to be in our makeup is survival. Ps survive by being fast. Js survive by being cautious. Here again is not a double-humped Bell curve, but rather a differentiation in our DNA. A P cannot become a J, any more than a J can turn him/herself into a P. There could of course, be many genes or only a few that make us one or the other, and perhaps tipping us extremely in one direction or the other. Or perhaps only part of the way. Some Js are more cautious that some other Js. Some Ps are faster than some other Ps.

I think that Introversion and Extroversion are dependent on our own sensitivity. Again, I'm convinced that this is genetic. We introverts tend to be highly sensitive to everything, touch, hearing, smell, taste, and sight. But we're also highly sensitive emotionally and intellectually. Again, each of these can be mapped on a Bell curve, but not one that is double-humped. Too many extroverts literally thrive on constant sensory input, loud music, loud people, constant touching, constant taste and constant visual excitement. Introvert are quickly overwhelmed by this massive sensory input, and this can only be genetic. Again, it comes down to survival, in this case, mostly of the tribe.

Introverts would not exist in this world, except that we help to keep the tribe alive. We're the early warning system. We smell, we hear, we see, the danger. The tribe dies without us.

 

[Asa]

Over the weekend, I heard an interview* claiming Americans have grown more isolated and less social since the 1950s. It stated tech like TVs, computers, and phones are contributing. The interesting aspect of this is that the sensation of loneliness is also declining and people are more likely to socialize due to obligation either to themselves ("I should get out more,") or to others.

As we, as a society, feel less social and less lonely, our MBTI results (on the whole) are going to shift toward introversion. This does make me feel like MBTI is outdated. The person said we NEED to socialize to stay healthy and for society to work properly (and mentioned how this affects society, politics, community, etc) which makes me wonder if a system of personality categorization could still measure the amount of socializing each person needs to stay balanced within a more introverted society.


*I was in a car. Two quick searches didn't give me the result I wanted, and I can't be bothered to spend more time searching for the link right now.