Tony,

I'm not sure I agree with your "non-scientific" position and putting the MBTI into the same box as astrology. Remember, the MBTI never claims to be anything other than a model of trends or tendencies. My understanding is that the model was derived from the multidimensional analysis of experimental data and observations. It is, in that sense, a hypothesis, or theory if you like, that was developed to structure and organize the observed phenomenon. Astrology has been shown quite extensively to have little or no correlation with observed phenomenon. This is definitely not the case with the MBTI.

Does it model the observations with 100% fidelity or accuracy? No. Neither does Newton's Law of Gravitation (hence, Relativity), though one would be hard-pressed to call it unscientific. Both are useful, though limited. It is important to keep in mind the context of the hypothesis and the data. As Robert Persig says beautifully, it is not correct to discuss whether these systems are "true", but only if they are *convenient*. That is, are they helpful models.

I think it is important to remember what "scientific" really means. It doesn't mean 100% predictable, or 100% accurate, or even True (whatever that means). It just means that it follows a specific system of development, validation, and invalidation called the scientific method. That's all.

I'm not saying that I don't sympathize with some of your concerns. I see concerns about the MBTI and any other psychological model as follows:

1. Misuse and/or misinterpretation. Yes, the MBTI is often used for employment screening, mediation, promotion evaluation, etc. This is very concerning.

2. Confusion about general population tendencies vs. applicability of a model to a specific individual. Our culture is filled with these problems, which result from a logical mistake and are a personal pet peeve of mine. Simply put, people ascribe results of a large statistical sample to individuals (within or even ouside of the sample) and come to conclusions that are not rationally sound. It can be true that the MBTI is very accurate and scientific and sound for large population samples and trends, but that doesn't mean that it is applicable for every individual. We see this everywhere, as another example, USDA recommendations (which are population averages and *never* intended to be interpreted as recommendations for individual diet). Many of the so-called "implications" of medical research reported by the media are flawed in this very way. This "category error" is similar, but not the same issue as:

3. Confusion of causality and correlation. Lay followers of science (especially medicine) are more often confused by this than scientists, but media specializing in science make this mistake often, and the general media make it almost every time. Most of the members of this bbs have some formal scientific training and know what I'm talking about, but for completeness I'll give an example. If people who live under high voltage power lines have higher incidence of cancer, that is correlation. It is not correct (knowning only that fact) to assume that high voltage power lines *cause* cancer. They might. They might not. There may be other things that occur in environments that have high voltage power lines (more pollution, for instance) that is the "real" cause. It might be a combination of causes. This one you see every day: obesity and diabetes, etc. I could go on and on. People make similar comments regarding MBTI or other personality results. One of the most dangerous, IMHO is the confused interpretation of the MMPI, which is a test which *correlates* with so-called "mental illness" in certain population groups. The problem is many people give this test as a screen to large populations making this error and the category error described above at the same time.

4. Most importantly, people fail to see this system (and often any other system) as a *model*. That's all it is: a model. The actual individual may fit this model more or less accurately, depending on many, many factors. Technologists, (though often not research scientists) often make this error in thinking, for example, Hooke's Law, or Ohm's Law, or whatever, are True. They forget that these are merely models which experience has validated as particularly useful. They are, at best, descriptive and predictive of reality. They are not the reality itself (except, of course, to the extent that the ever expanding sphere of rational understanding, or the noosphere as Ken Wilber calls it, is a *part* of reality). Note that I am not falling into "constructivism" and saying that all reality is simply a construction, nor am I claiming that all models are equally valid. They are not. Some are more *convenient* than others.

I think the MBTI is convenient in some circumstances, though not all of those in which it is employed. For one thing, it makes the important statement that not everyone is (or should be) the same. That there *are* different types of people and that it is OK if not everyone is, for instance, an extravert. As an "I" myself, I have experienced (as a younger man) feelings of inadequacy because I didn't feel as comfortable in certain social situations. I saw these as defects or shortcomings in me. Maybe the MBTI can help people to move past social conventions. It was a *start* for me along that path many years ago. It wasn't the final model for me, but it was a start. If it can help people in that way, I'm all for it.

Jim
INTP