Most tests these days give you a percentage, so while the raw type is binary, most people who use the system do look at the range, not just the binary. I am in complete agreement that binary is not enough. Note the OP noted strong preferences for certain traits.
I don’t see anything wrong with the quoted section you claim is:
MBTI tells you you are more X than Y by Z percentage. You look up what this means and then look at what you know about yourself, and draw conclusions. MBTI didn’t necessarily draw the correct conclusions (for any in the middle of the bell curve, it certainly won’t), but made you look at the basic personality components mentioned yourself. Your criticism is that it doesn’t tell you much about traits. And while it tells you more than you claimed, your conclusions based on analysis independent from MBTI is what is valuable, not the result itself.
To the cited pieces:
I also agree that Thinking / Feeling are independent, MBTI shows which one you primarily use, not which you have. The binary versus cooperative thinking / feeling idea is also a modern battle that philosophy would serve well and has been served well in adapting.
Once again, MBTI isn’t complete nor perfect, but to say that it is useless and does not tell you a decent deal about basic personality traits is misleading. It serves very well as a jumping off point for evaluating your personality.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s scientific, I stated myself it’s exactly the opposite. We’re just arguing it has practical use applicable to many with SOME backing in personality theory, as even strong critiques will acknowledge.
@marvin100 Thanks for the links! Those were interesting. However, I do disagree with the point that it paints with incredibly broad strokes when defining someone as, for instance, introverted and extroverted. For example, when I took the test in school, it said I was 70 percent introverted and 30 percent extroverted, based on my behaviors with strangers and non-close friends versus my behaviors with close friends. Another friend was also labelled as introverted, but it said that she was 60 percent introverted and 40 percent extroverted. While we were both labelled introverted overall, I was definitely more so- most of the shoddy online tests don’t make this distinction, but I know the test I took did.
It’s not scientific. It’s definitely not the same as, say, a laboratory experiment. In fact, I totally agree when you say that it’s a glorified Buzzfeed Harry Potter quiz- that’s essentially what it is! But you must be able to understand when I say that results based on your observations about your behavior and thoughts are more accurate and less arbitrary than associating traits with me as a result of my blood type or horoscope- those are truly arbitrary, because while my behaviors say something meaningful about me, my blood type only dictates who I can and cannot give blood too.
I’d argue it’s a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind, but hey, faith is faith, and I learned long ago that there’s no arguing with the faithful
