It’s been described as “basically a horoscope,” and I can see how the types are general and lean into confirmation bias, but why is it considered pseudoscientific specifically? Doesn’t it just describe personality traits people have? I’ve been seeing it as a shorthand way of describing general personality/worldview but I’m guessing that’s not the issue people have with it.
In: Other
MBTI is a pseudoscience because it isn’t a science (i.e. it’s not falsifiable or evidence led) but it’s presented in a way that is kind of scientific, so it’s a pseudoscience.
The bar to clear to be a pseudoscience is low. All you have to do is act like something is a science when it’s not.
If MBTI proponents said “It’s fun, it might be real, it might not be” then it’s not pseudoscience, because it never claimed to be science.
It’s the combination of *claiming* to be a science, but not actually *being* science.
Latest Answers