In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

MBTI reproduces much better if you treat the preferences as axes.

Most people who take MBTI seriously don't use the functions.

> Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx?

I started with INTx to have at least one detailed, specific argument that there is correlation and MBTI is at least not completely meaningless. There's also a correlation between INTx and IQ, to go as scientific as we can here. Just search for IQ by personality type. Now you could say we are putting two completely meaningless metrics together. If they truly were, how could they have correlation?

Big Five is not the topic here. The argument is whether MBTI can have meaning and whether it can be useful. Let's say Big Five was better, it doesn't mean that MBTI is completely useless. And I'm not going to argue about Big Five vs MBTI.

> there cannot be 16 broad (even with overlap) classes of obstacles and growth opportunities in life that are specific to each personality type.

No one has made this claim. There are various obstacles and challenges in life, and the only claim is that some personality types are more LIKELY to face some obstacles and challenges than other personality types. E.g. INTX will LIKELY have to put in more conscious effort to improve social skills in order to better communicate with people. This already is useful information. It also gives insights into how a person thinks and perceives the world, if you go into how functions work and which personality types are more likely to use which functions to understand what is going on. If there are 16 categories you can get a quick understanding of what a person might be like if you know the MBTI type, which otherwise you would have to read tons of paper on that person to understand what he/she LIKELY is.

It's all a game of probabilities and spectrum. You could do statements like, this person is 65% I, 70% N, 75% T, 66% P, therefore there's likelihood of this person facing challenges with social situations being 80-90%. The way this person is likely to make decisions is to use internal thinking to make conclusions based on logical analysis. All of this can say a lot about the person just with 4 letters.

Jordan Peterson is a great example of the failing of Psychology in the academic world. I'll list some quotes by him below and you can decided weather or not he should be listened to, or if he is simply selling right wing propaganda on Youtube.

"If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."

"the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." [referring to men being placed higher than women in society]

""Peterson says that "disciplines like women's studies should be defunded", advising freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study that he believes are corrupted by "post-modern neo-Marxists".""

He also has a bible series on YouTube that asserts that god created the appropriate hierarchy of man, and that it should not be tampered with. We should mold society on the archetype of the book of Genesis. Which in my humble opinion is simply Calvinism in the extreme.

Most of this can be found on YouTube or his Wikipedia page.

This is not to say everything he says is wrong, that would be silly. But I believe it should be approached with a heavy dose of skepticism.

The traits aren't normally distributed. And the article mentions nearly every test treats them as axes.

But surely the social consensus that engineers are more prestigious than nurses is on the society and not on Peterson.

It might be difficult to predict the success of somebody via IQ if you compare two individuals from radically different socio-economic backgrounds, but you can compare two individuals with different IQs from similar socio-economic backgrounds and statistically IQ is a very good predictor of success.

With regards to men-to-women ratios, Peterson pointed out that countries that have the free-est social expectations(e.g. Scandinavian countries) have the most diverse differences between men and women. From my personal experience going to a university in the UK and studying CS, I could count maybe 3-5 women out of a cohort of 350+ students. I don't think you can accuse the UK of actively discouraging women from joining these fields, quite the opposite. So why don't they choose these high paying fields in such progressive countries such as UK?

I do agree with you that "race" has no strict scientific basis. I'm not sure how those studies qualified races, so that's something I'll need to look up.

I still disagree with him using conman-style tactics per se, but I will admit that I was a bit disappointed in SOME stuff that he was saying outside of his areas of expertise. Not because I thought he was wrong, but because for me his explanations of psychology set such a high standard that anything less would be overshadowed. I find that he has a very "conversational" approach at discovering new ideas - he'll sort of discuss different aspects as he goes and almost arrive at conclusions right in front of the audience. The drawback to this approach is that sometimes he might be wrong about some things - I think that's okay.

Case in point - in his debate with Zizek, iirc he quickly got shotdown by Zizek because he was pretty much out of his depth, and Peterson admitted that he was wrong. A lot of his detractors point this out as a coup de grace for Peterson, but I find it refreshing to see somebody who makes mistakes in the search of answers, but admits they were wrong and perhaps corrects themselves(not sure about the last part, I haven't kept up with his most recent stuff).