From e.p.zachte at chello.nl Tue Jun 1 08:36:49 2004 From: e.p.zachte at chello.nl (Erik Zachte) Date: Tue Jun 1 08:36:57 2004 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] MBTI Message-ID: NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNIEJECIAA.e.p.zachte@chello.nl
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Could it be that NTs are more willing than others to fill in a questionary in order to categorize themselves, without a job selector looking over their shoulders?
I did complete the questionaire and put my name on the list, but still I'm rather skeptical, or should I be according to my type? :)
For fun try to convince yourself that you scored any other type than you did and read the description, part of it will still seem to describe you, at least that was my experience. Just like with astrology charts, people tend to agree with all niceties written about them.
Erik Zachte
It is my WAG that Wikipedians are predominantly NT, and specifically INTJ, because they love facts and they love citations. INTJs are your classic intellectuals and enjoy a statistical majority in college / graduate school despite being a statistical minority (Did I mention Rhodes scholars?). Looking at the numbers, you would also find it quite strange that INTP's, another of the rarest types, would be so bountiful on Wikipedia. They, however, are your classic computer nerds :)
I also want to point out that the Wikipedia article on the MBTI is not neutral and it is inherently skewed. I keep meaning to go in there and redo it. There are not different ways of interpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - there is only one way and that is prescribed by Consulting Psychologists Press, the Myers & Briggs Foundation, and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Note that you will never see Keirsey's name associated with any of these. If someone were to use "Jung-like methods" they would sit someone down in their office and start asking them questions lol. Jung didn't have a test, and further, it's not even a test - its an indicator of preferences! Keirsey also has his own indicator, built off of Jung's writings, called the Keirsey Temperament. It is completely separate from the MBTI.
I will try to redo that article soon. If anyone wants to help me that would be cool - I haven't created a Wikipedia account yet.
One last thing, I noticed that on this page (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type) there is a link to an "Online Myers-Briggs test". I would like to include a cite directly from the 2004 CAPT catalog (on my desk):
"Qualified users of the MBTI instrument must meet two basic requirements: Have a four-year college degree from an accredited college or university /and either/ Have passed a college course in psychological educational tests and measurements and have acquired a basic understanding of the theory and uses of the MBTI instrument /or/ have successfully completed a recognized qualifying program, such as the one offered by CAPT.
Hence, you cannot take the MBTI on the Internet! If someone put a test on the Internet and called it the SAT, and it looked like the SAT and smelled like the SAT, but wasn't endorsed y The College Board, would it still be the SAT? Nope!
postscriptum: I am an ISTP =)
Brian
From ts4294967296 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 1 05:40:19 2004 From: ts4294967296 at hotmail.com (Tim Starling) Date: Tue Jun 1 05:40:35 2004 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: MBTI References: 20040531125858.23258.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com Message-ID: 40BC16C3.5090406@hotmail.com
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.
-- Tim Starling
Tim I am a big fan of that Skeptic's Dictionary article because it does a good job of bringing awareness to both sides of type, however, nowhere in that article does it state that the MBTI is pseudoscience (though admittantly there are inferences). The system of preferences as it was when Jung invented it was indeed pseudoscience because he was akin to guessing peoples types and was not a fan of statistics. The MBTI didn't come around until afterwards, though.
The MBTI as it is today is backed by statistics, something not mentioned in that article. Of course he didn't know this because you have to be qualified to administer the test before you have access to purchasing the statistics, a prerequisite thereof being having a BA. See capt.org for more information on that.
Brian