[Wikipedia-l] MBTI and Wikipedia

Tue Jun 22 08:56:56 UTC 2004

>From e.p.zachte at chello.nl  Tue Jun  1 08:36:49 2004
>From: e.p.zachte at chello.nl (Erik Zachte)
>Date: Tue Jun  1 08:36:57 2004
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] MBTI
>Message-ID: <NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNIEJECIAA.e.p.zachte at chello.nl>

>Anthere wrote:

>>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>
>>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>

>Could it be that NTs are more willing than others to fill in a questionary
>in order to categorize themselves, without a job selector looking over their
>shoulders?

>I did complete the questionaire and put my name on the list, but still I'm
>rather skeptical, or should I be according to my type? :)

>For fun try to convince yourself that you scored any other type than you did
>and read the description, part of it will still seem to describe you, at
>least that was my experience. Just like with astrology charts, people tend
>to agree with all niceties written about them.
>
>Erik Zachte

It is my WAG that Wikipedians are predominantly NT, and specifically
INTJ, because they love facts and they love citations.  INTJs are your
classic intellectuals and enjoy a statistical majority in college /
graduate school despite being a statistical minority (Did I mention
Rhodes scholars?).  Looking at the numbers, you would also find it
quite strange that INTP's, another of the rarest types, would be so
bountiful on Wikipedia.  They, however, are your classic computer
nerds :)

I also want to point out that the Wikipedia article on the MBTI is not
neutral and it is inherently skewed.  I keep meaning to go in there
and redo it.  There are not different ways of interpreting the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - there is only one way and that is
prescribed by Consulting Psychologists Press, the Myers & Briggs
Foundation, and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. 
Note that you will never see Keirsey's name associated with any of
these. If someone were to use "Jung-like methods" they would sit
someone down in their office and start asking them questions lol. 
Jung didn't have a test, and further, it's not even a test - its an
indicator of preferences!  Keirsey also has his own indicator, built
off of Jung's writings, called the Keirsey Temperament.  It is
completely separate from the MBTI.

I will try to redo that article soon. If anyone wants to help me that
would be cool - I haven't created a Wikipedia account yet.

One last thing, I noticed that on this page
(http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type) there is a
link to an "Online Myers-Briggs test".    I would like to include a
cite directly from the 2004 CAPT catalog (on my desk):

"Qualified users of the MBTI instrument must meet two basic
requirements: Have a four-year college degree from an accredited
college or university /and either/ Have passed a college course in
psychological educational tests and measurements and have acquired a
basic understanding of the theory and uses of the MBTI instrument /or/
have successfully completed a recognized qualifying program, such as
the one offered by CAPT.

Hence, you cannot take the MBTI on the Internet!  If someone put a
test on the Internet and called it the SAT, and it looked like the SAT
and smelled like the SAT, but wasn't endorsed y The College Board,
would it still be the SAT?  Nope!

postscriptum:  I am an ISTP =)

Brian

>From ts4294967296 at hotmail.com  Tue Jun  1 05:40:19 2004
>From: ts4294967296 at hotmail.com (Tim Starling)
>Date: Tue Jun  1 05:40:35 2004
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: MBTI
>References: <20040531125858.23258.qmail at web41803.mail.yahoo.com>
>Message-ID: <40BC16C3.5090406 at hotmail.com>

>Anthere wrote:
>> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>
>> How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>

>MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.

>http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

>-- Tim Starling

Tim I am a big fan of that Skeptic's Dictionary article because it
does a good job of bringing awareness to both sides of type, however,
nowhere in that article does it state that the MBTI is pseudoscience
(though admittantly there are inferences). The system of preferences
as it was when Jung invented it was indeed pseudoscience because he
was akin to guessing peoples types and was
not a fan of statistics.  The MBTI didn't come around until afterwards, though.

The MBTI as it is today is backed by statistics, something not
mentioned in that article.  Of course he didn't know this because you
have to be qualified to administer the test before you have access to
purchasing the statistics, a prerequisite thereof being having a BA.
See capt.org for more information on that.

Brian