| >yet the popular narrative remains that one is dogma while the other is pseudo-science. Because it's not "the popular narrative", it's a factual statement. MBTI is unsupported pseudoscience while the Five-Factor Model is the more widely accepted model in psychology. You seem fixated on the correlation point, as if that provides any validity to MBTI. For instance, you cite the study you mention being referenced on Wikipedia but ignore the numerous other studies cited in the lengthy section detailing the various criticisms and problems with MBTI. The article even opens with: >Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, it is commonly classified as pseudoscience, especially as it pertains to its supposed predictive abilities. The test exhibits significant scientific (psychometric) deficiencies, notably including poor validity (i.e. not measuring what it purports to measure, not having predictive power or not having items that can be generalized), poor reliability (giving different results for the same person on different occasions), measuring categories that are not independent (some dichotomous traits have been noted to correlate with each other), and not being comprehensive (due to missing neuroticism).[10][11][12][13] The four scales used in the MBTI have some correlation with four of the Big Five personality traits, which are a more commonly accepted framework. Your fixation on the correlation between the two models is noted, but MBTI otherwise lacks a valid scientific basis. Again, you are simply wrong on the facts. MBTI is indeed pseudo-science, and selective use of sources doesn't change that. You keep trying to frame this as a popular misconception when it is simply the academic consensus. |