Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

16 Personalities Website and K-Pop

@Tommyhyouka: Please read WP:BRD and WP:WAR. It is not the duty of people who revert your additions to explain why they are reverting, it is your duty to give a reason on the Talk page and gain a consensus before reinserting.

Yes, those links are spammy. YouTube is not a good source, see WP:RSPYT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is like a very disappointing response that proved you did not bother to at least check first before deleting. If you watched those videos just even for a few seconds instead of just saying "deleting spammy" you would know the two people speaking were from MBTI Institute who work for 12 years in Korea. Why are they not good sources?

Second, those links are not Spammy since they provided proofs from different groups. Oh my gosh... Really... You know K-Pop groups are different, right? If I didn't put those sources, some people might just delete them by saying "no proofs" (which you actually deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhyouka (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Third, the 16personalities.com is important because it's responsible for MBTI popularity. As I explained, the test was taken half billion times, and taken by K-Pop celebs with millions of global followers. But it's not MBTI. I put a source there from the website's disclaimer page. What you are doing here, by deleting the explanation and disclaimer, is potentially spreading misinformation.

Wikipedia requires admin to work collaboratively, and I am ready to work together. I am just asking you to avoid dismissive gesture in editing. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The content does not matter. The source does. Read WP:RS.

"Edit war" has a pretty clear definition, and I supplied it. I also supplied the BRD page. Calling an edit war "edit war" is not misinformation. After you said something like that, I am not interested in having a discussion with you, but others may. Go read the Wikipedia policies. And I am not an admin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your approach here. So first, you deleted my sources without checking them. And then you were asking for explanations. After I gave explanations, you left? That's it? So where are we now? @Hob Gadling Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. It does not say that the person who reverts your revert of a revert must debate you. I already explained to you why your reasoning is bad: The content does not matter. The source does. Read WP:RS. You need to convince people here that your YouTube link is a reliable source, and first, you need to find out what a reliable source is. So, read WP:RS.

And do not ping me. There are other people here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My take on all this is that the K-POP stuff is undue trivia, deserving at most one sentence (we should have a "Popular culture" section). Bon courage (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For Bon Courage, with all due respect, I disagree. I think generational understanding is crucial here. For millennials and gen z, the involvement of K-Pop is crucial. It's exactly because of K-Pop stars and their millions of followers that MBTI has entered the mainstream conversation.

It is completely out of touch to dismiss it into just "one sentence." Without the K-Pop stars and their millions of followers, MBTI would still be largely unknown.

And that brings us to the 16Personalities.com. As I mentioned above, that website is how people took the test. That test was taken Half Billion times. It's wrong to dismiss it, however it's not MBTI which is why it's important to provide explanation. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I did read it. Here:

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

People who apply a pseudoscientific concept are not specialists and recognized experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage

Dear Bon Courage, I do believe this 16personalities addition in K-Pop section is important, as I explained above, Please help us to settle. Thank you in advance. Tommyhyouka (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've given my view. You'd need to get consensus for your desired addition. Bon courage (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And what is the solution if the consensus couldn't be reached because of bad faith? Just let it be? I don't think restricting edits for information clarification is a bad way. I have solid argument why 16personalities and K-Pop should not be dismissed. In good faith, nobody should dismiss the involvement of millions of people. So I don't think we should go with Appeal to Consensus.

If you think my arguments have any weaknesses, please direct me so I can fix it. My stance is this K-Pop section is factually important to be dismissed as just triviality. It's not a good faith argument to dismiss it as that. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a failed attempt at psychology. Yes, there are lots of laypeople who wrongly believe it did not fail, just as with every other pseudoscience. Neither they nor the pseudoscientists themselves are reliable sources. If there is a news organization which wrote about that craze without embracing it, that would be a reliable source. WP:FRINGE is another good page for reading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There you go. "This article is about a failed attempt at psychology". That is not a good faith argument, because you clearly already have openly biased point-of-view. It's like telling fans of Football Club A to edit the page for the rival club Football Club B. How could we reach good faith consensus? @Bon courage

"if there is a news organization which wrote about that craze without embracing it, that would be a reliable source."

And I already explained above (see it), that I also welcome the criticism, but you need to learn this phrase: Audi alteram partem. That should be the requirements for every Wikipedia editor. The question is can you use the same standard about the articles which criticize MBTI? Adam Grant for example. He openly, disdainfully, attacked MBTI. He went so far to say "personality types are myth" until he released his own personality test. Does that mean we should delete all his references? I really think you need to rectify your approach.

The observations from the two MBTI Experts in Korea (which you deleted) should also be considered reliable based on Wikipedia's policy (that you copied for me). So far, your assessment is based on bad faith. I will just say that this is not a Medium page. This is Wikipedia. And I'm not trying to be scientist, I'm trying to capture it from the social point-of-views which, as it happened, involved millions of people. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tommyhyouka: You're wrong about bad faith, and note that WP:AGF is recommended. If you want more eyes, I started a thread at WP:FT/N#MBTI. The K-POP stuff does not help our readers understand MTBI better. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point is not just about "understand" MBTI in its technicalities. I'm putting it to describe the fact that K-Pop helped to popularize it. So people can understand the cultural/contemporary impacts. My addition will actually help them to understand from that point-of-view.

To be honest, I found your dismissal problematic, if not subtly ageist. K-Pop has strong presence right now for the young generation, and as it happened, the MBTI in K-Pop brought a social phenomena that made MBTI so popular online.

16Personalities also played a role. Half billion times that test was taken, but it's not actually MBTI. How could anyone trivialize that? Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As you have added popular culture. I think it's fitting to add the 16Personalities explanation there. Otherwise, the risk is accidental misinformation since those K-Pop Stars (and their millions of fans) took the MBTI test from 16Personalities which is not MBTI but Big 5. Tommyhyouka (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The section does not have a single reliable source. Youtube videos and 'koreaboo' are unusable on Wikipedia. I removed the whole thing. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please approach this issue without bad faith, ageism, and less western-centered approach. If you checked for only three seconds you would find that Koreaboo sources were only compiling the posts from the verified accounts. Not to mention not all sources were from Koreaboo, but some are from the official channels of those celebs, yet you nonchalantly deleted them all. You did not check? Koreaboo is well-known in Asia. And the YouTube is a commentary from two MBTI Institute experts (as already explained above).

I hope I already explained this well. It's absurd if people just reversed and reversed just simply they don't want to check the Talk. That is not how editors should work. cc: @Bon courage 2001:448A:2082:FC15:6545:8857:E39D:9DFD (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, we do not use social media or reposts of social media. This is a combination of original research and trivia, and it should not be in this article. Edit warring against several other editors is more likely to get you blocked than keep the content in this article. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you at least bother to check? It's from the official channels. If we follow your approach, most of K-Pop pages would have to be deleted. But this is 2022. The gen z is using social media to hear directly, officially, from their celebs. The businesses know that, the marketers know that. It's bad faith to just dismiss it because it's not the "conservative" source. That's why I touched the issue of ageism here.

Millions of people were involved in K-Pop and online MBTI. Your rationale is triviliazing what is happening in Asia. Hence, I found your western-centered approach to be very problematic. Why do you feel like to trivialize it? We're talking of millions of people. It's wrong to use threat of "Edit War" and Blocking while your approach wasn't exactly in good faith it the first place. TheWandering (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked. It doesn't matter if the channels are official or not. It does not belong in this article. If all the K-Pop articles are sourced like that, then yes they should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It does belong in the Popular Section which Bon Courage put rightly in the below. The K-Pop celebs have relation to MBTI as they published it to millions of people. Please stop trivializing the experiences of millions of people with your western-centered approach. Just because it's happening in Asia and outside your comfort zone of understanding, that does not mean it's "trivial". Millions of people found MBTI through K-Pop. That is a fact that you choose to trivialize.

Please help. @Bon courage TheWandering (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added something from a CNN source which seems decent enough. Bon courage (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a great improvement. MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Western-Centered Approach and Trivialization

I am dumbfounded by the reaction of a few editors here, especially against K-Pop. The MBTI and K-Pop are related in the contemporary culture, and involved millions of people, and those are official results from the celebs/agencies. It's absurd to dismiss them from the article since they are now part of MBTI history in popular culture, and then just trivialize them while in fact millions and millions of people are involved.

I am wondering whether western-centered approach is at play here, and I feel some ageism too, which lead to trivialization. It's very problematic. TheWandering (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than attacking your fellow editors my advice would be to concentrate instead on finding the WP:BESTSOURCES for the material you are interested in. That is the route to improving the article. Bon courage (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"During the latter stages of COVID-19 pandemic MBTI testing became highly popular among young Koreans, who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners. The craze led to a rise in MTBI-themed products including beers and computer games. One surevy reported that by December 2021, half the population had taken a test."

You misspelt MBTI. And you (unintentionally?) put the wrong focus with "during the latter stages". The article is from the latter stage of pandemic (June 2022), but the popularity is not from that date. The writer also never asserted that MBTI popularity started during the pandemic. Hope you kindly fix it. TheWandering (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

From source:

The rise of the MBTI over the past two to three years coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic

Bon courage (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am also, again, hoping you doing it in good faith. The usage of word craze is misrepresenting and mischaracterizing the author's writing. They didn't write it as craze, but popularity. The usage of craze also echoed that user above who is openly biased. You should check his openly biased approach here.

But did @‪ScottishFinnishRadish check Hob Galding's wording against MBTI? TheWandering (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

From source, with my bold:

But its most recent surge in popularity is among hip young South Koreans, for whom knowing your MBTI type has become the latest craze

Bon courage (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Title: How Koreans fell in love with an American World War II era personality test"

Why don't we simply use popularity? I don't think you have negative intention, but the words from Hob Galding has given bad impression about the word.

About the date

The authors do not specify the date. "latest" is loose here. But they clearly didn't say "the latter stage" of pandemic. Why they didn't say it? Because it's factually wrong to characterize it that way.

Some quotes that dispel the "latter stage":

"The rise of the MBTI over the past two to three years coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, said Lim, the professor. Part of the appeal lay in group psychology, as people took comfort in being able to categorize themselves alongside others."

"In the early 2010s, the MZ Generation was popularly referred to as the “n-po” generation – a reference to how many were choosing to give up things to the nth degree, by foregoing marriage, children, home ownership and personal friendships.

Those who are willing to join the rat race often have too little time or patience for dating – which, for some, is where the MBTI comes in."

Just for context BTS, Girls Generation, EXO, and many other members with millions of followers already spread this before the pandemic. It could be misleading to say MBTI is only popular in latter stage of pandemic. TheWandering (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Craze" captures the sense of the source well. I have changed the wording to clarify the craze was co-incident with the pandemic (not just its latter stages). Bon courage (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

More: These are more sources about Korean MBTI.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220906000728

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/09/113_335268.html

The article of Korea Times point out the roles of the celebrities, and also show how politics use it:

"MBTI even became a presidential election issue. Candidates during the latest presidential race tried to woo younger voters by sharing their MBTI results online."

"As MBTI has gone viral among younger Koreans, businesses and media have begun to unveil products using the personality test. Kakao has introduced fashion items like T-shirts bearing each of the 16 MBTI personality types and have seen their stocks sold out. Women's apparel company MIXXO unveiled outerwear matched with personality types to ride the MBTI boom among younger consumers."

"Several television programs have encouraged celebrities to discuss their MBTI types, while countless MBTI-themed YouTube videos ― including music playlists, dating tips and even vocal mimicries of different MBTI types ― are viewed by millions."

And I ask you to consider including my edit about on 16Personalities.com, because that's where the K-Pop stars mostly took it. But 16Personalities is not MBTI in the first place. That should be clarified. Again, that test was taken half billion times. It is noteworthy to be included. TheWandering (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Korean Times is already cited. There's a question about how much material on Korean culture is WP:DUE in an article on MBTI, but I am glad we are at least now discussing material based on decent sources. I don't think there is any appropriate sourcing for 16Personalities.com. Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure, may I ask why we cannot use this source? The one speaking is Kim Jae Hyung who is a research director of MBTI Institute in Korea. He is a practitioner for 15 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_of2L20GCg

I am trying to use him just as a specific reference: that the famous 16 Personalities is actually not MBTI (and yet half billion times the test was taken as MBTI). In that limited context, his commentary should be acceptable. What do you think?

And the 16personalities website has admitted they're Big Five: https://www.16personalities.com/articles/our-theory TheWandering (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's not a reliable source and the stuff about 16personalities is undue. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Twitter and Adam Grant

Why do we need that Twitter stuff by Adam Grant and Ray Dalio? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Because nuance. Adam Grant is a famous person who is used as reference to criticize MBTI. As stated, he said personality types were myth, MBTI was astrology for nerds, fad, etc. But then he was not just imitating MBTI's (16Personalities) style in making personality test, he was also working on it at the behest of the billionaire Ray Dalio who openly loves MBTI. That is something noteworthy that the readers should be aware of. TheWandering (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are not valid reasons. Twitter is a bad, self-published source, and it looks as if somebody wants to make a WP:PROFRINGE point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you either didn't read what you copy, or simply not doing it in good faith.

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Adam Grant works in an established expert and his works in relevant fields have been published by reliable, independent publications that you also cite here, so his words on Twitter are citable. I think we should reinstate the Adam Grant's criticism, plus adding explanation about his own personality test with new link from Inc.com which also explains his working relationship with Ray Dalio. https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/adam-grant-ray-dalio-principlesyou-self-assessment-personality-profile-test-relationships-leadership.html. cc: @Bon courage TheWandering (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you either didn't read what you copy, or simply not doing it in good faith. Third possibility: You overlooked the words may be in Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when and are therefore overestimating the power of that sentence.

Grant's astrology Twitter thing does not add anything, and the Dalio Twitter thing is neither here nor there - without more context (which would be undue here), one cannot conclude anything. I am guessing that the person who added that wanted to discredit Grant as someone who is just against it because he has a rival system to sell, which does not make sense in light of his remarks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable"

And my argument is he is reliable because he was talking about the topic and he is expert in this topic. You should explain why he may not be reliable here especially when you keep his citation about fad in this same topic.

"I am guessing that the person who added that wanted to discredit Grant as someone who is just against it because he has a rival system to sell"

I am guessing someone is trying to protect Grant? If someone trashed product A for years, and then later made a similar rival product, then I would want someone to tell me about it. And the people also deserve to know about it.

His "astrology" and "personality types are myth" are both related to MBTI here as criticism, and then he worked with a pro-MBTI billionaire to create something similar. That is noteworthy. 2001:448A:2082:8AB3:B026:6EB5:9B4A:785 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a reliable source and an unreliable source from the same person. They both say the same thing. So we only use the reliable one because the other is redundant.

And that billionaire crap is simply UNDUE insinuations. Removing it is to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Find a reliable source saying that thing if you want the thing in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

“In popular culture” section is irrelevant and of poor quality.

“At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, MBTI testing became highly popular among young Koreans who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners. The craze led to a rise in MBTI-themed products including beers and computer games.[113] One survey reported that by December 2021, half the population had taken a test.[114]”

“In popular culture” must incorporate a balanced approach to mbti in popular culture. Reference indicates the MBTI is only relevant in pop culture of relatively current South Korean youth. This is false. Section should be removed entirely or should be comprised of: Association of trends in interest in the MBTI by geographical setting time period. If the subject of a trend in modern day South Korean interest in MBTI is considered by consensus to be highly relevant it is better that it is a seperate article.

The quality of the excerpt is also poor.

“At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic“ The COVID-19 pandemic still persists, the wording here implies it has passed.

“young Koreans who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners.” The spike of interest is seen among young southern Koreans. This distinction must be made obvious as we surprisingly do not have tangible data concerning an interest in MBTI by Northern Koreans. SarahMalkmus (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine as is. You could help by expanding the section; blanking it is not good. Bon courage (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XingboGao (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Editing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinatureNalgene (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MinatureNalgene (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Correlation with Big Five only for men

Above the table with the correlations between MBTI and Big Five by McCrae and Costa, it is explicitly stated that "The following correlations are based on the results from 267 men and 201 women". However in the paper the correlations are given separately for men and women, and the numbers in the table only match up exactly with those for men, not for woman. Wouldn't it be better to calculate the average between men and woman? 131.188.6.14 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 141ii, Hellooow, Iams1fa^ (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 141ii (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Popularity in Asian countries

The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) has seen a significant rise in popularity in Asian countries such as China, particularly among the youth in the past two years​​. ^[1] It has transcended its original use as a self-assessment tool and become a cultural phenomenon, with even those not fluent in English learning to understand the 16 personality types it delineates​​. The MBTI's rise in popularity signifies a growing fascination with personality frameworks that enhance social interaction, personal insight, and career development, while also affecting self-cognition.

The MBTI test has also become popular in South Korea and other Asian countries. The test's principles have been woven into entertainment, with TV shows and celebrity culture often referencing MBTI types. This trend reflects a cultural inclination towards introspection and a collective journey toward recognizing and celebrating the diversity of human personalities. ^[2] Iams1fa^ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See "In popular culture" section. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Criticism/Lack of" accuracy and validity

The 'Accuracy and validity' section of the page is (obviously) critical of MBTI. And so I propose that we change the title to "Criticism" or "Lack of accuracy and validity." This is just so people are able to easy tell what the nature of the section is. Sour ^(talk) 09:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, not WP:CRITS. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, was just made aware of this policy. Assumed that it was normal practice since I've seen sections labelled as 'Criticisms' elsewhere, not knowing there were certain criteria to meet before adopting it. Thanks for pointing me to the policy. Sour ^(talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not really policy, but it's bad style. Bon courage (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)