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
My problem with MBTI is that really it’s trying to describes stacks of cognitive processes as proposed by Jung. Which I think has some merit as a thought experiment. But it relies on self reporting which is hugely inaccurate, and it tends to be interpreted as “absolute” instead of flexible based on mood and experience. Similarly, many people are not trained to read the labels or how they interact with one another, and essentially just superimpose their feelings about each “letter” onto a person – reducing the already tenuous efficacy further.
Latest Answers