| Rhetorical question: is eye color scientific? Do you believe in eye colors? Saying that MB is "not scientific" is laughable. It is a measure. Probably more scientific than deriving a measure called QI from 20 random questions You can of course question if conclusions based on each MB type are scientific. The personality descriptions for the most part are just concluded from the measure (which of course have some variance between people, it's not a cookie cutter approach) and of course some people have a different measure in each axis. If the descriptions fit you you're probably in the middle, because some of them certainly don't fit me From the link you quoted: "The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you'll be in a situation, how you'll perform at your job, or how happy you'll be in your marriage." Apart from the 1st measure, I wholeheartedly agree. But that's not how it should be used "Actual data tells psychologists that these traits do not have a bimodal distribution. Tracking a group of people's interactions with others, for instance, shows that as Jung noted, there aren't really pure extroverts and introverts, but mostly people who fall somewhere in between." Correct. And people may be more introverted or extroverted in some situations. But it still measures if a certain person is more introverted than extroverted Now the warning about taking it as a clear-cut indicator of performance in a certain job or position is definitely correct |