I approve of the methodology used to construct Big Five. Specifically the part where there actually was one. I’d be a little surprised if the submitter happened to have access to big 5 test results for a sufficient number of peers for it to have been significantly useful for her. Most people don’t. In such cases I don’t sneer at use of MBTI nomenclature because it is being used as a partial replacement to implicit ‘common sense’ cultural psychological nomenclature that is inevitable in any human language and which is even less rigorous.
I’d be a little surprised if the submitter happened to have access to big 5 test results for a sufficient number of peers for it to have been significantly useful for her. Most people don’t.
I guess most people don’t have access to MBTI test results for their peers, either, so that’s not a good reason to prefer MBTI to Big Five.
I guess most people don’t have access to MBTI test results for their peers, either
Well, in my experience they’re frequently self-reported on forums, social networks, etc. And—again, in my experience—knowing people’s MBTI (with some confidence that they’re honestly reporting actual results from a real test) is certainly better for very broadly predicting someone’s personality (and constraining expectations about at least their social actions, so not just Forer effect) than their star sign or political affiliation (barring the more extreme options… although I have seen a few fascists who were just generally confused and alienated and liked cute things) or religious self-identification or whatever!
I approve of the methodology used to construct Big Five. Specifically the part where there actually was one. I’d be a little surprised if the submitter happened to have access to big 5 test results for a sufficient number of peers for it to have been significantly useful for her. Most people don’t. In such cases I don’t sneer at use of MBTI nomenclature because it is being used as a partial replacement to implicit ‘common sense’ cultural psychological nomenclature that is inevitable in any human language and which is even less rigorous.
I guess most people don’t have access to MBTI test results for their peers, either, so that’s not a good reason to prefer MBTI to Big Five.
Well, in my experience they’re frequently self-reported on forums, social networks, etc. And—again, in my experience—knowing people’s MBTI (with some confidence that they’re honestly reporting actual results from a real test) is certainly better for very broadly predicting someone’s personality (and constraining expectations about at least their social actions, so not just Forer effect) than their star sign or political affiliation (barring the more extreme options… although I have seen a few fascists who were just generally confused and alienated and liked cute things) or religious self-identification or whatever!