It's a model. Like all models, it's wrong as soon as you delve into the details. Under certain circumstances it can be useful, though.
The reason INTJs seem to be disproportionately drawn to it (actually, like most statements, that's inaccurate - in my experience INTJs and INFJs are most drawn to the MBTI, followed by other N types...which is what the theory would predict) is because INTJs like to make systems and models of how reality works, and MBTI is one model of how psychology works. Any halfway-mature INTJ (or person, really) will recognize that the model is not reality, and that once you dive into the details, you'll find numerous ways where the facts don't line up with theory. But as a tool for orienting yourself, it's a handy first approximation.
So, where is the evidence that it is a handy first approximation? That is, that it makes any kind of testable predictions? Even if they don't always hold, there should be some correlations with some kind of quantifiable metric. So what quantifiable metrics to these personality categories correlate with?
Astrology's a fun model to think about too. I wouldn't necessarily want to make predictions about an individual's behavior from it, but then, if I could actually predict an individual's behavior I'd rule the world.
Comments
It's a model. Like all models, it's wrong as soon as you delve into the details. Under certain circumstances it can be useful, though.
The reason INTJs seem to be disproportionately drawn to it (actually, like most statements, that's inaccurate - in my experience INTJs and INFJs are most drawn to the MBTI, followed by other N types...which is what the theory would predict) is because INTJs like to make systems and models of how reality works, and MBTI is one model of how psychology works. Any halfway-mature INTJ (or person, really) will recognize that the model is not reality, and that once you dive into the details, you'll find numerous ways where the facts don't line up with theory. But as a tool for orienting yourself, it's a handy first approximation.
So, where is the evidence that it is a handy first approximation? That is, that it makes any kind of testable predictions? Even if they don't always hold, there should be some correlations with some kind of quantifiable metric. So what quantifiable metrics to these personality categories correlate with?
As it happens, he answered exactly this question elsewhere:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9412144
The MBTI is reasonably well correlated with 4 of the "Big Five" personality traits, which are on good empirical footing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
So is astrology.
Astrology's a fun model to think about too. I wouldn't necessarily want to make predictions about an individual's behavior from it, but then, if I could actually predict an individual's behavior I'd rule the world.
I also think astrology is fun. In my experience it yields better results than MBTI - which is one reason why I think very poorly of MBTI.
I'm sure you're already familiar with Gary Goldschneider's work: http://thesecretlanguage.com