OK, but that's those articles presenting stereotypes, not the MBTI itself. I thought you were implying the MBTI itself was promoting stereotypes.
Here's something I found from a brief search. Not sure how reliable it is. Link here: https://www.careerplanner.com/MB2/TypeInPopulation-Males-Females.cfm According to the stats there, about 20% of women are in the ISFJ type. More generally, it seems to me that women are more likely to be classified as "Feeling (F)" rather than "Thinking (T)" on that part of the scale, and the opposite it true for men. If that is true, then it suggests that gender, rather than something intrinsic to personality, determines that part of a person's Myers-Briggs type. Which is to say, Myers-Briggs, in this respect, might only be identifying women vs men, rather than actually measuring anything useful about personality. There's a PhD thesis from 1990 that examined the issue, too. (I haven't read it.) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f5d/58790a507a00c4bc5c8d9c67d3e647060d94.pdf
That men are more logical - they are “thinkers,” while women are more creative and rely on feelings more than logic. I feel that the assessment doesn’t offer enough insight into the layers of our personalities. Most of us are a blend of traits, not just a cookie cutter composite of characteristics. But, I know that the MBTI is designed to highlight our more pronounced traits.
Yea, I mean, what’s their point? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh darn, I’m not as much of a thinker as a man, so I shouldn’t get paid as much as a man? Makes you wonder.
Wait. Where, in the MBTI, does it designate gender to a type? Lots of people are logical, lots of people are feelers. They're certainly valid traits. But the MBTI doesn't say anywhere 'You're a male so you're probably logical.'
OK, I'll have to read it. but I'm skeptical. It would be kind of like a body type test having hip-to-waist ratio as one of its relevant factors. The fact that women will more often have a ratio greater than men does not mean the test is gender-stereotyping.
Right, but not really comparing apples to apples with that example. It’s not conclusive, but it could be an unintentional “byproduct” of the test.
I don't see why not. I could come up with other examples easily enough. Yes, you implied that. But I don't yet see it being so. I submit that perhaps the stereotyping is being inferred - through bias in the reader (in this case, you). Seeing the words 'caring' and logical' is perhaps you applying your own bias, as in: "Women tend to be stereotyped as caring, and men tend to be stereotyped as logical, therefore the test is biased." I will read the paper, not I'm not convinced yet.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. Obviously there are articles about this very thing, so... If you don't think there's a connection, that's your choice, too. My opinion doesn't hinge on yours. I don't care if you're convinced. lol
I think most/many people just misuse this test. How many people actually take the full test rather than just look a boxes in graphic form and decide what applied to them? Even if you don't take a full test but look at a long description of each of the personality types you will probably find one that largely describes you. You will probably find one that comes closest to describing you than any of the others. The idea that the reason that women make less than men because this test describes them as non-thinkers is just silly, don't you think? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Women, who do the same job as men, do largely make the same. If you want to compare teachers to engineers or managers with uninterrupted careers vs women who interrupt their careers for a few years to stay home with kids is a different kind of comparison.
Nowdays, maybe, after decades of lawsuits and political pressure. Or maybe not even yet. Either way, it will take a long time for the leverage accumulation to even out. If the test is involved in hiring and pay scales and so forth, it's hardly even a debatable "idea" - it's more of an observed fact. The misuse of such tests to screen at the executive and high pay level has been a topic of research and debate for a long time. This book contains a few pages devoted to techniques for beating them, from decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Organization_Man
I've had to take one of these for my job. But, some may do as you're suggesting, sure. Yep. Nope. It's not conclusive, but not implausible to think that these tests can be used to gear hiring and salary decisions. It's a grey area, and I get paid well, no complaints there. But, there are many reasons for the disparity in pay. We shouldn't jump to conclusions, either way. And what iceaura posted.
i will get back to you on a more concise opinion in the mean time, what language we use defines our normative interactive self definition. this is specially so when removing the individualism from a person and placing their consciousness into different boxes. when all your audience are hetro couples looking to have nuclear families, you do not have to cater for variant individualism. it self regulates. the wave of middle management sales weekend workshops that attempted to spur sales growth through making sexist pigs become more customer focused is a culture. all things change, even change changes. is it adequately changeable when its terminology is steeped in stereo typical language formats ? e.g ... i am such a 3 box person i find myself leaning in one box because thats more what i am
If women come out with a different ratio to men, it means the test can be used to detect gender, to a certain degree of accuracy. Do you agree? Another way to look at is this: if the ratios are different between men and women then the test is saying there's something inherent about being a man or a woman that determines personality, at least in part. Which is all well and good unless the test is claiming that it is testing gender-neutral personality traits.
