Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

This article was written with extreme bias

The contributors to this article seem to be seeking out faults with the MBTI personality typology, rather than defining what it is. Articles written with such extreme bias are not common on Wikipedia and I found it extremely off-putting. I have found the MBTI typology extremely useful and tremendously accurate in interpersonal relationships. 97.82.125.50 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your personal experience with MBTI doesn't impact how reliable sources describe it. MBTI has no empirical evidence supporting it.

I'm an INTP EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So, every article on Wikipedia needs to have “empirical evidence supporting it”?

Dreams are pseudoscientific.

Love is pseudoscientific

Pizza is pseudoscientific.

This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal.

The article needs to describe the definition and purpose of the subject, not just it’s critical opposition. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pizzas are not pseudoscientific. But if they were, it would need to be mentioned prominently per WP:PSCI. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the experimental hypothesis for a pizza then?

My point is that there are many social constructs that are “pseudoscientific”.

The term is mainly used by adherents of scientism who don’t even understand the purpose and function of the scientific method. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources, and don't make the WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia newbie.

Sources support an article, but don’t describe how to arrange themselves in order of relevance.

Even ChatGPT would do a much better job at writing this article:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychological instrument designed to measure and categorize individuals' personality types. Developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, it is based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. The MBTI aims to identify how individuals perceive the world and make decisions through a questionnaire that classifies personalities into 16 distinctive types. These types are determined based on four dichotomies: Introversion (I) versus Extraversion (E), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F), and Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). Each personality type is represented by a four-letter code, reflecting the individual's preferences across these dichotomies. Despite its widespread application in areas such as career counseling, team building, and personal development, the MBTI has faced criticism from the scientific community regarding its reliability, validity, and lack of empirical support. Nonetheless, it continues to be a popular tool for personal and professional assessment. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia newbie. Then you should know that whataboutism is not valid reasoning here. And that AI is neither a reliable source nor can it be trusted not to invent sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

And WP:CATW#7 strikes again. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the language concerns related to WP:PROFRINGE. It’s crucial to use precise and neutral terminology, especially in topics that can easily veer into contentious or fringe territory. Adhering to this guidance helps maintain the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia as a resource. Let's ensure our discussions and the article's language reflect this commitment to neutrality and factual accuracy. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate the reminder about whataboutism and the reliability of AI.

My intent is to highlight the need for a balanced representation of MBTI on Wikipedia, beyond its pseudoscientific classification. It's essential we present a full spectrum of perspectives, including its practical applications and value to many, within the framework of Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and sourced content. 136.29.86.181 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically does not do 'balanced representation', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the best sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Will these sources be good enough for you to remove the controversial term "pseudoscience"? @MrOllie, @Hob Gadling, @Avatar317 etc.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13674676.2022.2158794?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Quote:"Specific criticisms of psychological type

Incoherence

In their recent attack on Psychological Type, Stein and Swan (2019, Abstract) conclude that Type theory “lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions”. This harsh and sweeping criticism is perhaps justifiable if Type Theory is taken to embrace not simply the basic postulates already alluded to, but also the elaborate superstructure that has been built upon it. In Type literature, the latter is designated Type Dynamics, which is ramifying and constantly increasing in detail. It postulates complex relationships between the four dual-polarities. Added to that are elements from Jung’s writings that are equally conjectural. I submit that Type needs to distinguish more clearly between its basic postulates and the speculative material that has accreted around it in recent decades. Reynierse (2009, p. 18) agrees: It is only the eight individual MBTI preferences that have demonstrated validity – not type dynamics or the type categories formed by type dynamics. The time has come for the type community to abandon their enthusiasm for type dynamics and to discard it. A seemingly un-noticed example of internal contradictions is seen in MBTI Step II, an extension of MBTI™ in which each of the preference pairs (e.g., Extraversion/Introversion) is further divided into five subsets. Each subset is regarded as independent of the others, and each can be scored. A logical implication of this exercise is that the overall score for Extraversion/Introversion is a composite. However, this negates the core Type postulate that each individual prefers either Extraversion or Introversion (Lloyd, 2012a). These are serious and valid criticisms of Type. However, I do not believe that Stein and Swan (2019) provide convincing evidence that the fundamental postulates of Type are incoherent. They are no more so than the basic postulates of the Five-Factor model."

o0o

Even in the Dictionary of Psychology by the American Psychology Association I can't find any word stating that it's "pseudoscience", so you can't say that it has been consensually approved by most psychologist scientists that MBTI is "pseudoscience", perhaps by some colleagues.

https://dictionary.apa.org/myers-briggs-type-indicator

o0o

Even in your own source https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554264

stating that " These studies agree that the instrument has reasonable construct validity. The three studies of test-retest reliability did allow a meta-analysis to be performed, albeit with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Results indicate that the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, and Judging-Perceiving Subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of .75 or higher and that the Thinking-Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61. The majority of studies were conducted on college-age students; thus, the evidence to support the tool's utility applies more to this group, and careful thought should be given when applying it to other individuals."

o0o

Another source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017728/#B17

Quote: "We sampled 529 participants who were graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in business administration programs from Colombian universities. Results show conclusive evidence of the psychometric measurement of both MBTI and leadership practices, even though the relationship between MBTI and the leadership practices inventory proved to be weak" NgHanoi (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on, ( I'm sorry, I'm new, not trying to come off as rude, if I do please correct me )

Though only one section is marked as non-encyclopedic, reading through the article, there's a lot of strange analogies put as a fact.

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to just put the negatives in a separate criticism section? As a psychology student and APA member, I can say pretty confidently that overall in the scientific world, MBTI is seen as at least moderately accurate. Jasperthejas (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the practice on Wikipedia is not to divide criticism into a separate section, that has been found to create large neutrality problems. And with respect, on Wikipedia the practice is to follow what is in reliable, independent sources, not your personal opinion as a psychology student. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Barnum statements are often seen as at least moderately accurate, but that wouldn't be enough to undermine valid criticism. As they say, 'accurate' is not the same as 'precise', and neither are synonymous with 'useful'. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mr. @Grayfell's assessment that MBTI uses Barnum effect is based on a media source (not a journalistic source) without any critical data backing it off. Here's the whole statement from your cited source:

"Oddly enough, people are so willing to believe anything about their personalities that they'll fall for even the lamest explanations. In what's called the Barnum Effect, psychologists show that many people will fall (become "suckers") for generic personality explanations such as horoscopes and magazine self-tests as well as supposedly "scientific" tests administered by an "expert." "

For a full citation, the next paragraph is just a hand-waving statement, which could be contested:

"A good personality test can take what you’ve said and turn it to a useful analysis that gives you insights you didn’t have before. However, that analysis has to be based on sound statistical methods. The MBTI, at this point in time, is not." NgHanoi (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My comment about MBTI using Barnum statements was intended to explain the issue. I was not citing any particular source for this. I don't know what you mean by the source being "a media source". The author is Susan Krauss Whitbourne, who is a Professor Emerita of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

If you want a journalistic source, here's "What Is MBTI: Is the Myers-Briggs Test Still Valid?" published in Discover Magazine a few months ago:

“Tests like the MBTI help us to organize our self-perceptions and experiences into coherent wholes,” says Stephen Benning, director of the Psychophysiology of Emotion and Personality Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The MBTI promises rich narratives to describe a respondent's personality, whereas other descriptions may feel more fragmented.”

Even though personality profiles are generic, people often feel that the descriptions accurately portray the image they have of themselves. This fallacy of personal validation is called the Barnum effect, which describes a person’s tendency to believe that vague personality descriptions are specifically tailored to them. The psychological phenomenon may also explain the appeal of astrology and fortune-telling.

Yes, any of this could be contested, but it has to be directly contested by reliable sources, not individual editors. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You are talking about scientific sources but the sources you quote do not *at all* employ scientific principles to prove that MBTI relies on any of these. They make a grand sweeping statement that it's actually cold reading and inaccurate and then explain how it could still be liked. That is not proof of anything. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Was wondering if anyone else thought the same. Someone REALLY hates MBTI.

Obviously you cannot 1:1 know someone's personality by a test...but that isn't the point of MBTI... You are your own person and you are the one who has to research and determine that on your own. Also comparing this to Astrology is such a good joke LOL. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Every personality test is based on traits (science), like Big Five, or types (pseudoscience), like MBTI. If MBTI is pseudoscience, then Big Five is pseudoscience too. The reason be that MBTI has 4/5 traits of Big Five, a 80% correlation!

Ex­tra­ver­sion - (E/I) is 'energy'

Openness - (S/N) is openness

Agreeableness - (T/F) is 'empathy',

Conscientiousness - (J/P) is 'discipline'

Neuroticism - (T/A) is 'self-esteem' // This trait is not on mbti, but is present on 16p, most popular test. So in practice, MBTI = 100% Big Five. MBTI (energy+openness+empathy+discipline) (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you have misunderstood. Personality traits like the Big 5 are not pseudoscience. Suggesting that combinations of traits form distinct 'types' with predictive power as the MBTI does is pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That is logically incorrect. If traits are a thing then organizing those traits does create valid types. The fact that you are using obviously logically incorrect statements (because any measurable trait can be organized into types) to support your point suggests you have some sort of personal bias against the subject matter. I implore some admins to clear this up. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

By that reasoning, even using dice to determine what traits you have must be valid, because traits are valid. Your logic is bad, and that is one of the reasons Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on the reasoning of random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Article reads like a hit piece

It reads like a hit piece against MBTI from the very outset. Even if you disagree with MBTI, there's no way you can look at the article in its current state and call it NPOV or encyclopedic in tone. Yes, we know it's not completely scientific. Yes, we know it has issues. And yet, many people very strongly believe it works as at least a basic way of categorizing personality types despite that.

Do we really need a full paragraph in the introduction dedicated to tearing the thing apart before MBTI has chance to be explained? Shouldn't the critisism be limited to a sentence or two and the end of the intro mentioning the cristiscisms, and then expand upon them later in the article after an explanation about MBTI itself has a chance to be laid out?

Even the articles on astrology and enneagrams seem less aggressively hostile than this one does in it's current state while still manage that each concept has detractors. It really seems like a certain population of editors has some sort of hard on in particular for ripping MBTI to shreds, and it really doesn't seem appropriate on a medium that's attempting to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:YESBIAS. When the mainstream sources are critical, so to will be the Wikipedia article. That is what Wikipedia means by NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that "50 million people have taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and that 10,000 businesses, 2,500 colleges and universities, and 200 government agencies" kind of belie the idea that all "mainstream" sources are critical of MBTI? Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The "mainsteam" sources are academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals (and in this case, the ones _not_ published by the Myers–Briggs Foundation). Nearly every newspaper prints horoscopes, but we do not include those sources in our coverage of the solar system. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, that really sounds like the main issue. It's not supposed to be some perfect, infallible measurement of personality that can provide repeatable results. It's a tool of self analysis. If you try to apply clinical standards to it, you're going to have people messing up the results for all sorts of reasons: they don't understand the purpose of the test; they try to skew it to some outcome, for various reasons, including wanting a "good" result or just to mess with the test givers for whatever perverse reason; maybe you just test them on a bad day when they aren't interested in answering accurately. The whole premise is ridiculous.

Should criticism be leveled towards its shortcomings and wrong applications (trying to use it for hiring/firing decisions, ignoring the possibilities for manipulation/reporting errors)? Sure.

I guess I'm not really sure how to incorporate what I'm saying here into the article, but I wish that the stance taken towards MBTI was more moderate from both critics and supporters. If there was way of conveying its uses in self-analysis by individuals engaged in the results with honesty, that'd be great. As it stands, someone reading this article with no knowledge of the subject would be pretty put off by the opening paragraphs, and that just seems wrong to me, as many people, including myself, would say it has been helpful to them. (P.S. Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers are dead, so if the foundation in their name is trying to misuse what they created, is it really their fault? Perhaps a rhetorical question, I know...) Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with what the sources are saying, but Wikipedia really does not evaluate things that way. For better or worse, this is a site that exists to summarize what the independent experts have to say about a topic. Sometimes one might suspect that the expert position is leaving something out or is otherwise misguided, but nothing can be done to fix that here. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, it would be helpful in this debate if participants actually read their opponents' comments carefully and kept an open mind. You are asserting objectivity where there is none, and pretend to be speaking in the name of the whole Wikipedia project to support your personal stance.

This article *is* particularly biased, and its tone is unfit for Wikipedia. I was equally off-put by it, as I just wanted to read on the history of this (obviously rather unscientific) personality test, which is quite popular all over the world and has had a large impact on culture.

The tone and structure of this article (and this has nothing to do with whatever sources are cited) is that of one about a dangerous cult that mutilates children, not of one about a silly test people take to find some meaning in or make team-building decisions. Laughing Vampire (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asserting 'objectivity'. I'm reiterating that when the independent sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. The sources are where the tone and structure come from - the sources are where everything comes from on Wikipedia. That is how this site works. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a lie. None of the sources use the same bombastic structure and narrative to allege complete unusability and falsehood of the test. The sources that DO talk about *potential* harm talk about specific and well contained potential to do harm in specific circumstances. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The article uses direct language to explain that this test is pseudoscience in unambiguous terms. This is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The article doesn't imply anything about "mutilating children" and that comparison is not helpful.

To put it another way: many pseudoscientific things can be both popular and have an impact on culture. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is an encyclopedia, so a neutral summary of a popular form of pseudoscience will still describe it as pseudoscience in direct language. The use of evasive language or euphemisms would make the article less neutral. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has an inherent 'bias' towards science and against pseudoscience, because our goal is to provide information and dispel misconceptions and misinformation. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the article should NOT be to explain that the test *IS* pseudoscience as that is not universally agreed upon.

Either wikipedia needs to be scientific and in that case scientific rigor is necessary and half of the sources linked are inadmissible as they just allege things without proof.

Or wikipedia needs to be a neutral point of information in which case it can state that something is *considered by many* to be pseudoscience, but cannot make the statement that it IS pseudoscience as long as a significant number in the relevant field disagree. Otherwise that would be encouraging bandwagoning and tyranny by majority instead of factual accuracy.

Your defense of the tone is not valid. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since @Avatar317 keep deleting my comment, although he conveniently ignored the part at his own link WP:LLMCOMM that "This does not apply to using LLMs to refine the expression of one's authentic ideas: for instance, a non-native English speaker might permissibly use an LLM to check their grammar or to translate words they are unfamiliar with", I'm gonna rephrase my response here.

Note that to assign MBTI the tag "pseudoscience" the editors of this page have been basing on ONLY a single peer-reviewed level article, namely Stein and Swan (2019) which didnot published on a Psychology-related journal. ALL other sources are media sources without the highest integrity to warrant such charges. Thus we need to look closely at Stein and Swan (2019).

From a philosophy of science perspective, Stein and Swan’s (2019) classification of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as pseudoscientific was overly categorical. As I mentioned in an early comment, the differentiation between science and pseudoscience, should go back to the definition of what theory is considered science, so the reading go back to Popper (1959) and later refined by Lakatos (1970) (see the reference at the end of the comment). The level of scientific classification of a theory hinges not on a theory’s truth but on its capacity for empirical engagement and progressive refinement (so the falsification criterion).

While the MBTI’s Jungian typology is conceptually limited, its dimensions exhibit nontrivial empirical correlations with the Big Five model (the current dominant framework in personality psychology) which has been mentioned on the main article. This correlation (partial alignment) suggests that the MBTI does not wholly reside outside the empirical domain as other here suggested. I myself mentioned sometime ago, as an example, about the analogy to Newtonian gravitation theory, which has been conviniently ignored by all editor here, but I should remid that it remained scientifically legitimate despite later on being theoretical displacement by General relativity theory.

In Lakatos' classification, MBTI may be better understood as a degenerating research program (in Lakatosian terms) rather than a pseudoscience. Its explanatory mechanisms may be obsolete, yet its predictive correspondences with validated personality dimensions imply a transitional theory (from the blank state to a fully-developed field) rather than deceptive status. MBTI should be considered as an early intuitive model that captured fragments of later scientific truth. I suggest (again) to use the term a proto-scientific theory instead of pseudoscience.

Here are the list of references (I remember Grayfell once ask me about the writing of K. Popper):

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books.

Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers–Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434 NgHanoi (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I ever asked you about Popper. I know who Popper is and I have no interest in reading LLM-generated text about him or any other topic. The one source here which mentions MBTI has already been discussed, and that source says We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, perhaps you forget this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#:~:text=19%3A36%2C%2029%20May%202024%20(UTC)

where you said: "Popper's writing may or may not help reliable sources to identify pseudoscience, but we would have to look at those sources directly."

So I'm just doing the service to provide the source.

Also you conveniently ignore sources that refute Swain and Stein (2019) OR sources that confirm MBTI reliability.

Anyway, since my previous point of view got suppressed under your designation, I'll just directly state the point here. According to Popper and especially Lakatos (the source can be read online here: https://www.csun.edu/~vcsoc00i/classes/s680f14/Lakatos.pdf), MBTI should be classified as degenerating research program, instead of pseudo-science, since it significantly correlate with Big 5 and hence has some predictive power. Perhaps a better term should be a proto-science theory. NgHanoi (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask you about Popper in that discussion, so it appears you have badly misunderstood what I was saying. I was explaining to you why we cannot cite Popper in this article unless we cite Popper specifically discussing MBTI. Neither the Popper book nor the Laktos PDF discuss MBTI (if I'm wrong, cite specific page numbers). If reliable sources use Popper to directly explain anything about MBTI, present those sources here for discussion. Using an LLM to misinterpret what I was saying isn't doing me, or anyone else, a service. As has already been explained to you, Wikipedia does not publish original research, and this article is not the place to post general discussions about the philosophy of science. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This is indeed a hit piece. At the very least it should keep the NPOV tag saying that its NPOV status is "disputed", as this Talk page shows that this is a plain fact, until a few external editors have pitched in. For that purpose, this article has been added to the NPOV board. --Jules.LT (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is a 'hit piece' in the opinion of a few editors that is still not a reason to apply a NPOV tag. The article reflects the reliable sources. When they are critical, the Wikipedia article will be as well. That is what WP:NPOV requires. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

But the sources are not critical in a way the article is. The sources criticize individual parts and aspects of application and the whole article does read like a hitpiece. Many people believe that the way it is currently phrased does not align with NPOW standards. You and to a lesser extent grayfell are alone in believing that it aligns with them. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Mr. UnderhiIl. I don't think @MrOllie is a neutral supervisor of this page. It is challenging to assume good faith while this page does sound like a hit piece. Someone was poisoning the well and then gatekeeping the page from revisions. When I added mainstream resources (including from The Psychology Today and British Psychology Society and the World Economic Forum) the gatekeepers (including @Grayfell) refuse to allow any revision.

Southeastviewer (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This article misinforms readers about the scientific consensus. It also stomps NPOV into the dust and spits on it.

The article obviously wants to be a debunking / hit piece on the MBTI, rather than an encyclopedic article about it. But it would do this job better if it actually used citations from the scientific community to back its claims. The sentence claiming that "The MBTI is widely regarded as "totally meaningless" by the scientific community." cites two articles: one from BBC News and the other from the Economist. These are hardly renowned scholarly journals. They do not tell us the scientific consensus on anything and their incentives are aligned with getting people to click, not truth-seeking.

If you want to figure out the scientific consensus on something, the answer is not to read newspapers but meta-analyses. Randall et. al. 2017 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554264) is a good recent one, and it concludes:

"These studies agree that the instrument has reasonable construct validity. The three studies of test-retest reliability did allow a meta-analysis to be performed, albeit with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Results indicate that the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, and Judging-Perceiving Subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of .75 or higher and that the Thinking-Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61. " 

Not an amazing tool, but not "pseudoscientific."

This article could have a reasonable and helpful discussion of exactly what this means and exactly what the strengths and weaknesses of the test are. Instead it shouts "pseudoscience!" on the basis of a nonexistent scientific consensus while ignoring actual published research.

Interestingly, it used to have this. As late as 2018, this article had far less of an editorializing tone and accurately reflected the scientific consensus on this issue: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator&oldid=817716628). It documented the flaws of the MBTI, but did not claim it as pseudoscience. I wonder: what has changed in the last seven years? Has the academic community undergone a seismic shift in their evaluation of the MTBI? Can anyone provide a reliable source documenting this shift? When did academia decide that the MBTI is pseudoscientific? I suspect this shift is more due to changes in Wikipedia's underlying philosophy than changes in the academic consensus regarding the MBTI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collisteru (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Their main source is usually a single pop article from Vox.

You are totally right some of the editors really require self-discipline to understand the purpose of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic and not gotcha hit piece.

Southeastviewer (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The “totally meaningless” part does come from the Vox article, which is used elsewhere in the references instead of here. It argues MBTI is “largely disregarded by psychologists” and “essentially meaningless” as a measure, but that’s a journalist summarizing a set of expert opinions, not a formal survey of the scientific community. The lede currently cites the NYT and BBC references instead of Vox itself for that sentence. That’s a straight citation mismatch in my opinion. Tam01 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the MBTI is perfect or even all that valid. The consensus seems to be that it's inferior to more quantitative characterizations like the big 5 OCEAN traits. But the consensus is *not* that it's pseudoscience, and this article constitutes misinformation by claiming that. It completely ignores other views in the scientific community that defend the MBTI, like this one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-brothers-keeper/202002/in-defense-the-myers-briggs

I'd love to edit this article to bring it more in line with the actual scientific consensus. But over time on Wikipedia I've learned that these sorts of issues are untouchable: the wikipolice will come undo your hard work if you try to unslant an article they worked so hard to lean.

I'd love regular article editors to come and defend this sorry state of affairs. I'm not the only one who's noticed how terrible this article is. I'd love to improve it. Will y'all let me?

Collisteru (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

To be blunt, this is too wordy, too vague, and strangely defeatist. If you phrase this using loaded questions like "Will y'all let me?", than are you going get a disappointing and non-committal answer?

Multiple talk pages have already seen many discussions of this specific wording already, such as at #Request for comment above. I've already seen that "In Defense of the Myers-Briggs" blog post, because it's one of relatively few semi-usable sources which openly defends MBTI. I don't find it persuasive.

As for the 2017 meta-analysis of seven studies (out of 221 potential studies): The newest is from 2006, and most are from the eighties (meaning, among other things, they used different version of the test). By the authors' admission, the studies are the best they could find but are only of 'medium quality', are highly heterogeneous, and were exclusively of university students. So according to an article in the Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity, more research is needed. That's fine and valid, but it probably doesn't belong in this article. Grayfell (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Collister, I agree that MBTI is not pseudoscientific (per RS) though some of its 21st century applications may be. I also agree with Grayfell: Don't be defeatist! Propose changes here on talk and see if they get consensus. I'm sure it's possible for this article to be improved to better-reflect the decades-old scholarly consensus that MBTI is a rotated subspace of Big5, while still cautioning readers about the dangers of MBTI 'web tests' being used to decide the fates of job applicants. Feoffer (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just want to put in another word that the article reads as extremely non-neutral. The line that I got in my undergraduate psychology class was that MBTI was like Big 5 except worse - a crude precursor rather than laughable psuedoscience. I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the basic type construct and certainly of broad application in e.g. employment; the long and and questionable afterlife of MBTI in pop psych and HR questionnaires is an important part of any encyclopedia article on it. That said, I think the current scientific consensus is that MBTI was a stepping stone towards modern methods of quantifying aspects of human personality, now used for all manner of purposes, many of which are psuedoscientific. The current lede is dripping with venom and disdain and does not present this with a NPOV. Krb19 (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern: lead and tone read editorialized; propose neutral rewrite

I’m not disputing that MBTI is widely criticized and often described as lacking scientific validity. My concern is tone and Wikipedia voice: parts of the lead read like an editorial (e.g., “widely regarded as ‘totally meaningless’ by the scientific community”), which combines weasel wording and very broad attribution. My edit was undone (sources are media articles), but I digress.

Per NPOV and MOS guidance, I think the lead should be rewritten to:

1. use neutral summaries rather than punchy quotes,
2. attribute criticism precisely (psychologists/psychometricians vs “scientific community”), and
3. maintain due weight by separating description of MBTI, its use, and the scholarly critiques, without advocacy language. If editors agree in principle, I’m happy to propose specific replacement lead text with published citations.

Ideally, much of what is in the lead can be moved into criticism or scientific reception. AdamAvix (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I concur. "Totally meaningless" is not a fair summary of MBTI's role in personality theory. There is a widespread consensus that personality is a five dimensional construct: Big Five personality traits. One dimension, Neuroticism, is neglected by MBTI, while another, Extroversion, is a valid part of MBTI. The other three dimensions are shared by both MBTI and BigFive, in rotated form. MBTI's applications are riddled with pseudoscience, but it IS A valid instrument in the hands of research psychologist in the theory of personality. MBTI is like Aristotle to BigFive's Isaac Newton -- it's not quite right, but it's not all wrong either. Feoffer (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

How about this, emphasizing that it's the application to industrial psych prediction that's problem. "Totally meaningless" implies the test items are wholly without validity. Feoffer (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The quote you added was an almost verbatim duplicate of the sentence immediately following. Regardless, the sentence still needs to be a summary of the cited sources. Neither of those sources mentions organizational psychology.

More generally, I don't think those of us who are part of 'camp pseudoscience' have ever said that it's "all wrong". If anything, if it were completely wrong, it would have more predictive power than it does. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Weasel Words and Adam Grant

First of all, this article is quite embarrassing that it potentially violates NPOV. I removed the jarringly weasel word at the beginning that began with "psychology regards." There's no such thing as "psychology regards". That sounds comical and unfit to be in Wikipedia. Psychology is not a human being, it's a field. There are people who work in that field.

Second, I also added others psychologists (including experts from the Psychological Today and the British Psychology Society) which criticized those criticism. If you're actually "pro-science" then you should write/think in a balanced manner.

Third, Adam Grant's quote should not be at the beginning of the article. It's embarrassing that some editors really use his words as the sole authority. He is not and his words should be treated with intellectual nuances. Moreover, Adam Grant is not necessarily neutral. Previously he attacked personality theory, and then he made his own personality theory. That should be mentioned.

Adam Grant's tweet attacking personality theory as a whole (including MBTI):

https://x.com/AdamMGrant/status/986255991548280832

Adam Grant later made his own personality theory:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/ray-dalio-created-principleyou-personality-test-anyone-can-take-free.html Southeastviewer (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your understanding of the WP:MOS is flawed. Astronomy regards the Earth as approximately spherical, physics regards perpetual motion machines as impossible, and psychology regards MBTI as lacking in predictive power.

As was already explained to you above at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Why is this article quoting Adam Grant's words?, your assessment of Grant is not persuasive nor supported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You're just repeating the weasel words about "psychology regards MBTI as lacking in predictive power."

I literally put sources from The Psychological Today and the British Psychological Society. Why are you ignoring the sources that disagree with you? @Grayfell

(And if you read what you quoted above, your co-editor simply could not answer my question and he was avoiding my questioning about Adam Grant's consistency. Grant was eventually making his own personality test after bashing MBTI, is this consistency? No. And MrOllie literally refused to answer the question).

Southeastviewer (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted because I do not accept that your edits were improvements. MrOllie answered your question, and you apparently either didn't like the answer or didn't understand it. Nobody owes you an interminable debate, especially one framed with loaded questions and assumptions of bad faith (such as your insinuation that a paragraph was "suspiciously fabricated" when it was a routine citation error).

The burden is on you to gain consensus for the changes you wish to make, and you do not have consensus. Your edits introduced weasel words, such as "some experts") which introduced editorializing. Further, your edit misrepresented at least one source. The Wharton Business School source, (republished by the WEF) specifically says "there is very little, if any, science behind it" and never used the phrase real-life utility. Do not misrepresent sources for editorializing purposes. Grayfell (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

- "(such as your insinuation that a paragraph was "suspiciously fabricated" when it was a routine citation error)."

Did you make that error in this first place? How was I supposed to know you are giving the wrong sourcing?

- "Your edits introduced weasel words, such as "some experts") which introduced editorializing."

Disgusting and dishonest framing. I used some because there are clearly some who disagreed with you (the sources that you deleted from The Psychological Today and British Psychological Society). It began when you (or other editor) used the weasel word "psychology regards" while ignoring the experts who disagree with you.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The way to change consensus, especially for a controversial article, is through discussion. If you can't do that without personal insults, you shouldn't be editing at all.

Again, you have to be civil. Accusing me of lying isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Please stop deleting the sources that you dislike.
2. You are accusing me of using "weasel words", using "insinuation", and "misrepresenting sources for editorializing purposes" and then you deleted that thread of evidence.
3. You were accusing me of using "insinuation" when I deleted "fabricated" sentence. Yet, you were the one using wrong source in the first place, that's why I called it fabricated. It's your own error for leaving a wrong citation for years on wikipedia page. Don't get angry for being called out for your own sloppiness.
4. You don't get to be the one calling for civility after you single-handedly deleted the sources (valid sources, psychological articles) that go against your POV. It's not neutral.

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Another of your misinterpretation:

specifically says "there is very little, if any, science behind it" and never used the phrase real-life utility. Do not misrepresent sources for editorializing purposes

I specifically used the word "real-life" utility because the article is titled: "This personality test is used by the military and major corporations"

Military and major corporations are in real life. I did not insinuate anything. I never said that part was scientific argument. The ones with scientific arguments were the sources that you deleted.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely nobody was disputing that the test is popular, so this is a false dichotomy. Further, being widely taken isn't the same thing as "utility". That source specifically disputes that the test has any utility:

For the people who sell and market and teach based off of the indicator, the only thing that really matters is whether or not you’re satisfied with the results that you’re given. The larger argument that I make in the book is that, ultimately, I don’t care that much about these debates about validity or reliability. I kind of take for granted that it’s not valid or reliable....

Further, calling this "more nuanced" is editorializing, since it implies that the critics are not nuanced enough. From what I have read, reliable academic sources which study the MBTI bend over backwards to provide context and nuance. Grayfell (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

My goodness... Nobody is arguing about popularity. You are demanding civility and then keep misrepresenting my positions.

My edit (that you keep reverting and deleting) essentially said that there are some experts (actual scholars) with different perspectives toward the MBTI, and you keep deleting them.

British Psychology Society: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/defence-mbti

The Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-brothers-keeper/202002/in-defense-the-myers-briggs

If it is possible please stop using strawman.

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Adam Grant, if you know of a reliable source regarding the test he contributed to, I would like to see it, but right now, the PrinciplesYou test doesn't appear independently notable. This source does mention both Grant's involvement in PrinciplesYou and his criticism of MBTI, but only in passing and since it cites the same Vox source as this article, it doesn't dispute his reliability.

Regarding this source, which you have added multiple times to the lead, the article already explains that the test is used by governments and corporations. This doesn't demonstrate 'real-life utility' in simplistic terms. As I said, being popular (widely used) is not defense against criticisms of its lack of predictive power, so it does not add 'nuance' to those criticisms.

The British Psychology Society source is a letter from a retired academic in response to an article written by a high school student about her personal experiences. It fails WP:DUE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:RSHEADLINES.

I'm open to discuss the The Psychology Today article, but there are WP:FRINGE issues. Despite chastising critics for not citing sources, it is very thin on sources, and at least a couple of those scant few sources appear to be self-published and fringe. Perhaps WP:FRINGEN would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

On Adam Grant:

He made the test alongside Ray Dalio in his own words. (Ray Dalio was the one fascinated with the MBTI). Grant was promoting it actively with Ray Dalio, and he did all of those things not long after he was attacking MBTI and other personality test as a whole.

Adam Grant made his own PrinciplesYou (if you pay attention, the interface looks quite similar to the test from 16personalities.com) https://www.linkedin.com/posts/adammgrant_ray-dalio-and-i-have-created-a-new-personality-share-6792259313818750976-WK_1/

Adam Grant promoting that personality test with Ray Dalio himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRW3Nv0X1Uw&t=70s

Not long before that, Adam Grant himself said disparaging things toward MBTI and personality test as a whole:https://x.com/AdamMGrant/status/986255991548280832

I'm not saying he's wholly unreliable, but it's undue/excessive to put his quote in the opening paragraphs as if he were the sole authority while he changed his positions on the issue. That's why I moved it to the other sections with other criticism.

On World Economic Forum:

Just to be clear, WEF articles does not violate WP:REPUTABLE. This page should not be entirely treated as a school science text book, because business and economic perspectives also matter. If we talk about source, the World Economic Forum has more influence than Adam Grant's words and Vox articles that you were using on the first section. The WEF actively engages with global politics and economy. It's not excessive to put at the opening paragraph. Wikipedia should welcome perspective from different credible views.

On The Psychology Today

This same page is using The Psychology Today's article for years. It's a credible and mainstream source. It's suspicious when an editor suddenly changes their perspective toward a publication when it published something they don't like. It's almost like a case when someone used a certain news source when they criticized Trump but denied the same source when it published a positive news about Trump. That behavior is biased.

Last but not least: The British Psychological Society:

I just have to say one thing here: You are committing Ad Hominem. You simply do not have anything against the content or the professor's academic expertise at all, and all you could do was to scrutinize the persons involved. YOU are the who is committing WP:UNDUE scrutiny against a reputable expert/source. Please check your own bias. @Grayfell

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Making a bunch of personal attacks on Greyfell is not going to help you get the article changed, you should stop doing that. Neither is slinging mud at Adam Grant, you're wasting your time here. MrOllie (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretending to be neutral while leaving a Wikipedia article to become like a hit piece is not a good behavior either. You are poisoning the well and gatekeeping this "hit piece" Wikipedia article from revision. @MrOllie

And please show me where I gave personal attack to him instead of throwing words around.

Southeastviewer (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, while Southeastviewer is resolving out their block for edit warring...

I never said the WEF article wasn't reliable. I think the book it is about (The Personality Brokers ISBN 978-0385541909) looks a lote more useful than the interview itself. My library has it. Maybe I'll check it out. The issue with the interview was that it wasn't being proportionately summarized. Neither the interviewer nor the interviewee made any claims about the 'utility' of the test, so its use here as WP:SYNTH (or worse). We can't use this source solely for its headline while ignoring what it says, per WP:RSHEADLINES.

As for the Psychology Today source, like I said, we could discuss that, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Right now the sidebar (on my browser) for that source lists two articles as 'Myers-Briggs Essential Reads': "Detecting Bull**it" and "Two Reasons Personality Tests Like Myers-Briggs Could Be Harmful". In addition, from that site we have "What You Don't Know about This Personality Test Can Hurt You" and "Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die". Just looking at Psychology Today's columnists, the 'In Defense' article is a minority viewpoint. From other sources already cited in this article, it's also a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. As I said, to present this as "more nuanced" is editorializing which misrepresents the context of this source. This appeared to be a case of false balance, so it won't work in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You give 4 articles from The Psychology Today. 1 is from Adam Grant himself, while 2 are referencing Adam Grant. You may add those articles if you want, but you cannot deny and delete that there are those who disagree with your viewpoint. (I also notice you are choosing to ignore how Adam Grant was biased in this matter even though I elaborated it above. Your pattern of ignoring sources that you dislike is noteworthy.)

You are also criticizing the WEF for abusing headlines (not true, content from WEF clearly states MBTI is being used in the military/corporations), and yet you are doing it yourself.

If you read those articles that you posted up there, you can see that all of them only criticize MBTI's dichotomy (I-E, S-N, F-T, P-J) on the surface level and none of them actually criticize the Cognitive Types theory (from Carl Jung) that become basis of the MBTI in Myers' book "Gifts Differing" (cited on this page). Her book uses the Jungian concept to construct the MBTI as explained on the Concept page in this MBTI page (scroll down to read).

Did you not read them? Instead you only focus on Headlines such as "Goodbye MBTI the Fad that Won't Die" and "Detecting Bull****" . You are the one violating the WP:RSHEADLINES. You also gave undue scrutiny toward the British Psychological Society's article (written by a scholar) by ridiculously attacking the questioner (committing ad hominem), yet you evidently fail to impose the same standard to your sources.

Please don't ignore this criticism. I am gathering evidence of the gatekeeping behavior around here and reporting both of you and @MrOllie

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus support for changes you would like to make. You cannot force other people to allow your changes without consensus, even by forbidding them on this talk page in bold text. Other editors are allowed to disagree with you, even if you personally don't like their reasoning. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it’s about consensus.

And it's already 17 against 2 (you and Greyfell). Despite so many editors say the article is like a hit piece and should be revised, yet you two always oppose that. But the consensus is against you.

This whole Talk page is the evidence itself how both of you are gatekeeping against other editors for around 2 years. You talk about consensus but both of you practically violating the WP:CONSENSUS.

Proof 1: This article was written with extreme bias

Proof 2: Article reads like a hit piece

Proof 3: Why is this article quoting Adam Grant's words

Proof 4: This article misinforms readers about the scientific consensus. It also stomps NPOV into the dust and spits on it

Proof 5: Concern: lead and tone read editorialized; propose neutral rewrite

Proof 6: Weasel Words and Adam Grant

That’s why I was reporting both of you. You don’t need to reply and I won't engage with you any further. I only tagged you to notify you (according to the rule) that I submitted your name along with my report.

Southeastviewer (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I see fine work from Greyfell and Mr Ollie here. Keep it up gentlemen. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You @Roxy the dog have never been in this page before. Your faux support would not change the fact the consensus was against them. And who loves talking consensus better than your two friends Greyfell and Mr Ollie here.

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been on this page a lot, but find that it is adequately served by Greyfell and Mr Ollie. I also think you should give your consensus checker its annual service, and perhaps install a few updates. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 16:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I checked the archives until as far as 2017. You have never been here. You are openly lying here @Roxy the dog.

Good evidence.

Cc: @Grayfell @MrOllie

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a rather unprovable and shitty comment, that you should strike. I've been here years longer than you. The fact that I have made no signed comments on this page is neither here nor there. You really should take a step back, perhaps re-read this page carefully. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 16:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You made a claim, I checked, and I found you could not back up your claim. The fact is clear that you've never been involved in this page. You lied. @Roxy the dog

And now you are only lashing out and giving more unproven claim. I refuse to engage further.

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

False accusations of lying can get you banned. See WP:NPA. I wont report you this time. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 16:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I do not accuse you of lying. I found you lying after checking your own claim. You are casting aspersion by falsely accusing me of lying. And aspersion can actually lead to punishment.But I will not report you to Toadspike this time.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I provide an interpretation of I've been on this page a lot, but find that it is adequately served by Greyfell and Mr Ollie? That Roxy the dog has been aware of the goings on around this article for a long time (maybe evidenced by this edit last year to revert an unhelpful and potentially inflammatory comment), but has not ever felt the need to contribute to the discussions here? I wouldn't see that as a lie. -- Reconrabbit 20:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I only wanted to clarify the timeline because accuracy matters to everyone involved. When that account stated they had been present for a long time and positioned themselves alongside the other contributors who were active here (to demand a change), I felt it was my responsibility to verify their claim. It was a simple fact-checking of his/her good faith.

After checking the archives for their contributions to this discussion, I didn't find any record of their involvement at all. I didn't intend to escalate, but simply to ensure that what is being presented aligns honestly with the discussion record as faithfully as possible.

Southeastviewer (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"I felt it was my responsibility to verify their claim." It was not. If you wish to argue that this page is being gate-kept, this was the wrong way to go about it. Instead of linking to the phrase 'good faith', Wikipedia:Assume good faith is more relevant.

As a reminder, there was broad support in the RFC for describing MBTI as pseudoscience. To briefly re-summarize my position, yet again, the proposed use of 'more nuance' is editorializing, and the sources were not usable for the specific claim of 'utility' they were cited for. One is too flimsy, one needs more context (and this context would belong first in the body, not the lead) and one directly contradicts the attached claim. WP:OR about Adam Grant is not persuasive in this specific situation, and repeating this information on this talk page doesn't make it any more persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re selectively quoting me while sidestepping the other points that shows the inconsistency in your position. (You insist the WEF should be in the body, and yet Adam Grant's words verbatim on the lead based on an unconvincing reason on your part.)

Also, let’s be clear: you don’t get to unilaterally define the “wrong way or right way” means here. I will kindly remind you that you’re not the owner of this page, and you don’t hold any special authority over its standards. Over the past two years, your approach has often come across as gatekeeping, positioning yourself above other editors as though this space were exclusively yours. (Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Concerns about long-term POV problems)

This is a collaborative page, yes, not a personal platform, and no single editor gets to claim custodianship over it.

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of those 'other points', the user you're trying to gate-keep had made edits to this article before you had even created your account. I don't think your accusation of gate keeping against me carries a lot of weight.

Anyway... As I said, this was a summary of my position. I did not "insist" the WEF source should be in the body (I was referring to the positive Psychology Today source.)

I think the WEF source is an interesting one which is worth a closer look. As with any source, we have to summarize what it says without WP:SYNTH or editorializing, which the proposed edit does not do.

The WEF source is a transcript of a podcast/radio interview with Merve Emre, who wrote a book about the MBTI which was published by Doubleday. I don't have access to this book right now, but it's probably more useful than the interview about the book. Even if we stick with the interview, it does not add "nuance" to the position that the MBTI lacks predictive power, since the author specifically says she "takes it for granted" that it's not valid. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I first began editing on Wikipedia over 10 years ago (I have personal reasons why I transfer to other account, and it's not related to violations), so your remarks about the age of my account was misplaced.

More importantly, the central concern has always been the neutrality of the lead section. That issue has been raised repeatedly by multiple editors, and proposed revisions have been reverted several times despite a growing consensus.

You keep invoking “consensus,” yet the discussion record shows that both you and Mr. Ollie have repeatedly dismissed it when it didn’t align with your position.

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

And to be very clear: People are questioning about th writing style, violations of NPOV, hit piece, and weasel words. I am not talking about the pseudoscience part. Please do not move the goalpost.

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You keep invoking “consensus,” Do I, though? I've reverted your edits twice, several days ago, and I also warned you against edit warring at that time. That was the last time I invoked consensus.

Do you actually want to discuss consensus? The reason I mentioned pseudoscience as a reminder is because that shows that this is a fringe topic. Consensus comes in various levels (WP:CONLEVEL), so the sample of editors who've complained on this talk page doesn't over-rule site-wide consensus, and that is a very common issue with fringe topics. SYNTH and editorializing are inappropriate here, so the edits you made are not going to work. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I argued below that MBTI was protoscience rather than pseudoscience. But I would argue that now it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Removing a misleading paragraph.

This paragraph had been around for years at the beginning of the article:

"Most of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center's own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT), raising questions of independence, bias and conflict of interest."

I checked the source (a book) and I did not find the part that supported that claim of above from the original writers of that book ("raising questions of independence, bias and conflict of interest"). No page or quotation either. Those words are not coming from the original authors of the book. Some editor cited that book, but actually made his own research and interpretation.

However, I still use the book and I provided the relevant quotation and page.

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Southeastviewer (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This appears to have been a simple citation error. I have adjusted it to cite the proper work. Per that work:

The huge body of work which exists on the MBTI must be examined with the critical awareness that a considerable proportion (estimated to be between a third and a half of the published material) has been produced for conferences organised by the Center for the Application of Psychological Type or as papers for the Journal of Psychological Type, both of which are organised and edited by Myers-Briggs advocates. Pittenger (1993, 478) asserts that ‘the research on the MBTI was designed to confirm not refute the MBTI theory’. A good example of this is the study by Saggino, Cooper and Kline (2001), which starts from a position which assumes the validity of the MBTI and tests new versions of it against itself. ... and so on.

Grayfell (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are you undo the entire edit? @Grayfell

"Consensus" is for possibly controversial sources. Not when someone was poisoning the well, and then using "waiting for consensus" tactic to delay the fixing. Tens of thousands people read your editing (or whoever keeps this page), and it is just bad and biased editing. Sometimes I think I understand why people say Wikipedia is a bad source.

You are literally deleting the sources from The Psychological Today (which is used in this article to criticize MBTI) and the British Psychological Society, and also World Economic Forum. Why?

Moreover, you are doing the original research again. ("raising questions of independence, bias and conflict of interest").

Southeastviewer (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

How many talk page sections do you need, here? The specific paragraph you started this section to discuss had the wrong citation attached to it. I fixed that error. I quoted half of one paragraph of that source for your convenience. The wording in the lead is an attempt to summarize a multi-paragraph source in simple, direct language. Grayfell (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, your bad faith editing behavior is showing. You do see I am also raising about the fact that you are deleting sources. Why?

"You are literally deleting the sources from The Psychological Today (which is used in this article to criticize MBTI) and the British Psychological Society, and also World Economic Forum."

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Unclear why sources were deleted

Editor Grayfell deleted two sources from experts for no reason. The links that I provided would give more nuances about the topic. One of them from The Psychology Today which is already used in this page. But he deleted them again and again, using "consensus" as tactic to block the additional information. As someone above said, this article is like a hit piece instead of Wikipedia entry. It's an act of poisoning the well and gatekeeping from revision using "consensus" tactic.

The sources that he deleted:

British Psychology Society: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/defence-mbti

The Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-brothers-keeper/202002/in-defense-the-myers-briggs

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the part that they deleted.

It is useful for general readers and it provides the arguments from psychological experts from both sides (from reliable and mainstream sources, including The Psychology Today, the British Psychology Society, and the World Economic Forum) without using weasel words to push one POV:

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a self-report questionnaire that makes pseudoscientific claims to categorize individuals into 16 distinct personality types. The test assigns a binary letter value to each of four dichotomous categories: introversion or extraversion, sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving. This produces a four-letter test result such as "INTJ" or "ESFP", representing one of 16 possible types.

The MBTI was constructed during World War II by Americans Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, inspired by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung's 1921 book Psychological Types. Isabel Myers was particularly fascinated by the concept of "introversion", and she typed herself as an "INFP". However, she felt the book was too complex for the general public, and therefore she tried to organize the Jungian cognitive functions to make it more accessible.

The perceived accuracy of test results relies on the Barnum effect, flattery, and confirmation bias, leading participants to personally identify with descriptions that are somewhat desirable, vague, and widely applicable. As a psychometric indicator, the test exhibits significant deficiencies, including poor validity, poor reliability, measuring supposedly dichotomous categories that are not independent, and not being comprehensive. Most of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center's own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT).

Some experts regard the MBTI as useless, since it lacks predictive power, others provide more nuanced perspective in defense of MBTI, criticizing the flaws of its criticism and showing its real-life utility. According to the Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, experts say the MBTI is based on an "explicit theory of personality" but provide a caution in using it as an assessment tool.

Despite controversies over validity, the instrument has demonstrated widespread influence since its adoption by the Educational Testing Service in 1962. It is estimated that 50 million people have taken the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and that 10,000 businesses, 2,500 colleges and universities, and 200 government agencies in the United States use the MBTI.

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

According to , the validity of mainstream work selection test is modest. So, yup, using psychological types for suggesting work force selection or which career you will like is pseudoscience, in general.

But that aside, one of the sources you have provided says about MBTI (rephrased): "4 types good, 16 types bad". So, yeah, the four Jungian types are right, but it does not follow that MBTI is right. Applying pure reason to an idea supported by facts does not always give you a better idea, supported by facts. It's a conflict between rationalism and empiricism. E.g., I can be pretty impulsive and easily distracted, but that's confined to the realm of thinking, so my academic performance has been good. You could say I have ADHD, but am dominated by love for abstract knowledge. For me a professor teaching the lesson was a form of entertainment. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that Southeastviewer has been indefinitely blocked from editing this talk page for disruptive editing, and cannot respond here at this time. As for the contested wording itself, I maintain that "others provide more nuanced perspective" is inappropriate and non-neutral editorializing, which is a sufficient reason for reverting. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about long-term POV problems

A few days ago, my revision to delete the weasel words and undue Adam Grant's quote at the lead (why would someone put a quote on a Wikipedia's lead?) have been removed by GreyFell. My sources (all mainstream, credible) were rejected. The word "consensus" was being used as the reason.

I happened to check the previous discussions on this page. And what I found? There have been 6 talks to revise the article, especially the lead, and yet two editors (Grayfell and MrOllie) always argued against them. I compile them:

1) This article was written with extreme bias

2) Article reads like a hit piece

3) Why is this article quoting Adam Grant's words

4) This article misinforms readers about the scientific consensus. It also stomps NPOV into the dust and spits on it

5) Concern: lead and tone read editorialized; propose neutral rewrite

6) Weasel Words and Adam Grant

Greyfell and MrOllie love to parade the word "consensus" to reject update/revision. And yet, multiple editors have spoken and criticized the writing style of this page as inappropriate. I compile their words:

1. Special editor (March 2024): "The contributors to this article seem to be seeking out faults with the MBTI personality typology, rather than defining what it is. Articles written with such extreme bias are not common on Wikipedia and I found it extremely off-putting."

2. @Jasperthejas (May 2024): "I was wondering if it would be appropriate to just put the negatives in a separate criticism section? As a psychology student and APA member, I can say pretty confidently that overall in the scientific world, MBTI is seen as at least moderately accurate"

3) @NgHanoi (May 2024): "On the other hand, Mr. @Grayfell's assessment that MBTI uses Barnum effect is based on a media source (not a journalistic source) without any critical data backing it off."

4: @Mr. UnderhiIl (May 2024): "It reads like a hit piece against MBTI from the very outset. Even if you disagree with MBTI, there's no way you can look at the article in its current state and call it NPOV or encyclopedic in tone. Yes, we know it's not completely scientific. Yes, we know it has issues. And yet, many people very strongly believe it works as at least a basic way of categorizing personality types despite that."

5) Special contributor #2 (October 2025): "You are talking about scientific sources but the sources you quote do not *at all* employ scientific principles to prove that MBTI relies on any of these. They make a grand sweeping statement that it's actually cold reading and inaccurate and then explain how it could still be liked.) - Ps: Grayfell ignored this argument.

6) @Jules.LT (August 2024): "This is indeed a hit piece. At the very least it should keep the NPOV tag saying that its NPOV status is "disputed", as this Talk page shows that this is a plain fact, until a few external editors have pitched in.".

7) @PillageMe (August 2024): "What we have here is a small vanguard of highly active Wikipedia nobility stonewalling against the actual consensus that has repeatedly been reached by those outside of this very limited oligarchy. I would advise everyone to not waste further effort pursuing changes to the article in opposition to this oligarchy."

8) @Laughing Vampire (July 2024): "MrOllie, it would be helpful in this debate if participants actually read their opponents' comments carefully and kept an open mind. You are asserting objectivity where there is none, and pretend to be speaking in the name of the whole Wikipedia project to support your personal stance."

9) @Vells (August 2024): I think it is exaggerated to describe the MBTI as pseudoscientific in the first sentence of the lead, and due to the lengthy and recurring debates I am going to post it on WP:NPOV/N.

10)  @Andelocks (July 2025): "Regardless this article appears to be in violation of WP:LEAD as it does not balance different viewpoints appropriately"

11)  @Ashleighhhhh (October 2024): "Was wondering if anyone else thought the same. Someone REALLY hates MBTI.

12) @Collisteru (September 2025): "The article obviously wants to be a debunking / hit piece on the MBTI, rather than an encyclopedic article about it. But it would do this job better if it actually used citations from the scientific community to back its claims."

13) @Tam01(November 2025): "It argues MBTI is “largely disregarded by psychologists” and “essentially meaningless” as a measure, but that’s a journalist summarizing a set of expert opinions, not a formal survey of the scientific community."

14) @Krb19 (December 2025): "I just want to put in another word that the article reads as extremely non-neutral. The line that I got in my undergraduate psychology class was that MBTI was like Big 5 except worse - a crude precursor rather than laughable psuedoscience ...The current lede is dripping with venom and disdain and does not present this with a NPOV."

15) @AdamAvix (January 2026): "I’m not disputing that MBTI is widely criticized and often described as lacking scientific validity. My concern is tone and Wikipedia voice: parts of the lead read like an editorial (e.g., “widely regarded as ‘totally meaningless’ by the scientific community”), which combines weasel wording and very broad attribution. My edit was undone (sources are media articles), but I digress."

16) @Feoffer (January 2026): "I concur. "Totally meaningless" is not a fair summary of MBTI's role in personality theory."

17 editors (including myself) have requested the edit for this page . All of them have different reasoning, and not even arguing that MBTI were scientific. They simply demand better writing in accordance with Wikipedia's standard.

Yet Grayfell and MrOllie rejected all of the requests in the past two years. They keep using consensus as an excuse to reject updates/revision, but the Consensus is actually against them and yet they still refuse any update/revision, potentially violating various Wikipedia policies.  At this point it's just challenging to assume good faith while the gatekeeping pattern has been evident for the past two years. I have reported this page to the relevant board.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well done to Greyfell and Mr Ollie for their sterling work here. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You had never been in this page in the last two years or before. Them calling up their friend to help would not erase the fact for two years they've been gatekeeping. The whole Talk page is the whole evidence.

I don't know all of those people above. They're organic, people who actually care with the page's quality. That's the difference between them and your faux support.

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I agree the lead currently front-loads criticism in a way that feels more like an argument than an encyclopedic summary. There is already an extensive criticism section; the lead should primarily define the subject and summarize it neutrally, then briefly summarize major criticisms with precise attribution.

As an analogy (not as evidence), I think of how some models can be limited yet not “meaningless” (e.g., Newtonian/classical mechanics is highly useful within its domain even if it isn’t the full story). Personality measurement is even more sensitive to this kind of overstatement, because the constructs are indirect and the measurement is noisy/context-dependent. That’s why I’m concerned about absolutist phrasing in the lead. The lead should stick to attributed, source-based specifics.

Two issues I see:

1. Overstated / absolute framing. Language like “useless” or “totally meaningless” (or broad attributions like “psychology regards…”) reads as a blanket conclusion rather than a sourced summary of specific critiques (e.g., predictive validity, dichotomization, test–retest stability). Even where strong criticism is well-sourced, the lead should avoid collapsing a complex scholarly debate into a single unqualified verdict. A more encyclopedic approach is to name the specific criticisms and attribute them to the relevant communities (psychologists/psychometricians) and sources, rather than using sweeping labels.
2. Epistemic limits shouldn’t be treated as a trump card. Personality measurement is inherently difficult, and “lack of decisive proof” is not the same thing as “no value whatsoever.” That’s exactly why the lead should be careful about absolutist language. It’s reasonable for the lead to note that MBTI is widely criticized and often described as lacking strong empirical support for predictive uses, but the wording should be fact-based, attributed, and specific rather than rhetorical.

Concrete suggestion: Reorder and tighten the lead so it:

• defines MBTI and its structure first,
• notes widespread use,
• then summarizes the major scholarly criticisms with specific, attributed claims,
• and moves long quotations (e.g., Adam Grant) into Reception/Criticism instead of the lead.

If there isn’t agreement on these structural/tone changes, I’m going to open an RfC narrowly scoped to the lead wording (definition-first order, attribution of criticism, and whether extended quotations belong in the lead) with proposed replacement text and supporting sources, so uninvolved editors can weigh in.

AdamAvix (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This comment pinged as AI-generated. AI generated comments should not be made on talk pages - kindly write in your own words. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear @AdamAvix, is it true what @MrOllie said that your comment was AI-generated? I think it's a very serious accusation here.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a big deal so long as they write in their own words going forward. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

(MBTI topic asides, I think we need some guidelines about the kind of AI-generated article that should be forbidden, proofreading should be fine, but this is for another forum I guess.)

Southeastviewer (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I drafted that comment myself and used ChatGPT only for editing/clarity. Either way, I don’t want to get pulled into personal disputes here. I think the best next step is an RfC narrowly focused on the lead wording, so uninvolved editors can weigh in. AdamAvix (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Right. Good idea.

Southeastviewer (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't use ChatGPT on talk pages at all. And there has already been an RFC (as well as a few noticeboard discussions) about the article lead. I suspect another one will just waste a lot of time and come to the same result. But in any event I do not think it would be helpful to launch such a thing while one user is trying to report others for disciplinary action, let that work itself out first. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In any event, you are against the consensus here. The overwhelming consensus already say this article should be fixed for potential problems. You are the one using the word "consensus" for the past year, yet here you are fighting against the consensus. Why wouldn't you follow your own principle about the consensus.

Southeastviewer (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No. Even if this were a vote (it isn't). You do not get to group together long dormant accounts and old comments on the talk page in support of edits you are trying to make today. You should go ahead and make whatever reports you feel you need to (but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG) - but until you do I for one am not going to debate somebody who is engaging in empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

First, please be assured that this is not an empty threat. I did make a report, and I did so only after being explicitly advised to take that step.

Second, the comments in question are not “old comments”. Many are from last year. I reviewed them again just recently and found that their critiques remain relevant and substantive. I also can’t agree with describing those accounts as “dormant". It's just not true, and their concerns are still present and valid.

What is increasingly evident is that multiple editors have raised similar concerns about this page, and their number continues to grow. Tbh, it's difficult to reconcile your present position. On one hand, you are resisting this emerging consensus while simultaneously invoking the need for consensus to support your own stance.

Rejecting consensus when it challenges you, yet invoking it when it benefits you, is not showing a principle or good faith.

Southeastviewer (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you link the prior RfC? I am having a hard time finding it. AdamAvix (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it was Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 8#Request for comment -- Reconrabbit 20:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

While looking at past discussions, I noticed this:

I just want to put in another word that the article reads as extremely non-neutral. The line that I got in my undergraduate psychology class was that MBTI was like Big 5 except worse - a crude precursor rather than laughable psuedoscience. I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the basic type construct and certainly of broad application in e.g. employment; the long and and questionable afterlife of MBTI in pop psych and HR questionnaires is an important part of any encyclopedia article on it. That said, I think the current scientific consensus is that MBTI was a stepping stone towards modern methods of quantifying aspects of human personality, now used for all manner of purposes, many of which are psuedoscientific. The current lede is dripping with venom and disdain and does not present this with a NPOV.
— User:Krb19

I.e., MBTI was more like protoscience than pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think a lot of the 'bias' from this article comes from a place of good intentions, but it definitely could be written to be less 'aggressive'.

The origins of this model are very suspect, as none of the actual authors were qualified whatsoever in psychology and did create their own journal just to defend their research, which makes the MBTI feel like it's trying to assert something instead of being an actual instrument.

It definitely feels like pseudoscience in the way that it basically makes people label themselves in ways closer to a D&D alignment chart than proper questionnaires, even if this technically does follow a scientific process.

Pseudoscience is being expanded as a term here to mean 'very unreliable and of low evidence' (which most academic articles do point out as being invalid use), but it is clear there are many issues with the MBTI that should still be presented even if the label is dropped. Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed _{(message me!)} 11:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"Seperating Personalities" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Seperating Personalities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 21 § Seperating Personalities until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Citing Hans Eysenck as an authority

This article cites Hans Eysenck quite a bit and treats him as a reliable source. Looking at the article about him, this doesn't seem appropriate, as the man appears to have been massively discredited as a scientist. His own research has turned out to be systematically fraudulent. Coupled with other crackpot stuff like endorsing astrology, his dismissals of Myers-Briggs for lack of scientific rigour would be a case of pot calling the kettle black. In any case, the article already contains enough other sources criticising Myers-Briggs, so it can do without the references to Eysenck. Anonymous44 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the block quote and part of an opinion attributed to Eysenck. The block quote included two separate citation. I assume this was another example of Eysenck's habit of aggressively citing himself (which is part of why his citation count was so high) but it's confusing and unnecessary either way. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)