Scientific and unscientific typologies

[Singu]

Science... if you believe in such a thing.

Here is a critique of MBTI, not Socionics, but the premises of MBTI and Socionics are basically the same, except that some of the orderings are different, etc. They are both based on the Jungian dichotomies, namely the I/E, T/F, N/S and J/P.

The critique is mostly based on scientific enquiry, brain science and more evidence-based psychology:

Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die - Psychology Today


What are some of the main problems? Brain science says, they are based on false dichotomies:

3. Apples and Oranges are Both Fruit, and So is a Tomato—But a Potato Isn’t

Categories are mutually exclusive if they capture different traits that are separate, and combine traits that have commonalities. Here, too, the MBTI misses the mark. Let me illustrate with two (of many) examples:

• Exhibit A: in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions. (In fact, more often than not, they go hand in hand: research shows that people with stronger thinking and reasoning skills are also better at recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions.) When I scored as a thinker one time and a feeler one time, it’s because I like both thinking and feeling. I should have separate scores for the two.

• Exhibit B: the feeling type is supposed to tap into my orientation toward people and emotions. But this lumps together three separate traits that capture a positive orientation toward others, the tendency to feel negative emotions, and the receptivity toward these emotions.

It ignores your key features in your personality traits that already exist:

4. A Physical Exam That Ignores Your Torso and One of Your Arms

A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling, and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner, but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on the four domains it does sample.”

Even introversion-extraversion, the trait the MBTI captured best, is incomplete. According to the MBTI, extraversion is about where you get your energy: from the outside world or the inner world. This is partially right, but it’s not because of a preference for interacting with people. Our scores are heavily shaped by how our brains process neocortical arousal. As Susan Cain explains in Quiet, “more than a thousand studies conducted by scientists worldwide” suggest that introverts “are more sensitive than extroverts to various kinds of stimulation, from coffee to a loud bang to the dull roar of a networking event.” Besides, it turns out that like all personality traits, introversion-extraversion is shaped like a bell curve: it’s most common to be in the middle. The vast majority of us are ambiverts: in Dan Pink’s words from To Sell is Human, most people are“neither overly extraverted nor wildly introverted.

There is another problem, Jung's theories aren't exactly based on science:

Weaknesses of Carl Jung's Theory

Science

Jung was not concerned with scientific testing, and many of his theories are not ones that can be tested in a laboratory setting. He was not concerned with things that could be measured, and this is a weakness in his theory. Jung's ideas cannot be tested to see if they are true because there is no way to test things like chance, collective unconscious and archetypes in the real world. His ideas are mystical and stray very far from scientific thinking.

Okay, so what is actually based on science and backed up by science? Although not perfect, there seems to be growing support and scientific evidence for the Big Five:

Instead, psychologists have spent the past half century building a better car from scratch, using the scientific method. That car is called the Big Five personality traits, and it meets the standards above. Across many of the world’s cultures, five personality traits consistently emerge: extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. The Big Five traits have high reliability and considerable power in predicting job performance and team effectiveness. They even have genetic and biological bases, and researchers in the emerging field of personality neuroscience have begun mapping the Big Five to relevant brain regions.

The Big Five are far from perfect, and there’s growing support for a HEXACO model of personality that adds a sixth trait: honesty-humility. Right now, though, the biggest problem facing the Big Five is one of marketing. Most people prefer to be called agreeable than disagreeable—we need to repackage this trait as supportive versus challenging. I hope some of you will take up the challenge.

So, there you go. Amazing and insightful insights from the world of brain science.