As far as I know the Five Factor Model is a far more scientific measure than MBTI.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
- Repeatability
- Not based on Jungian pseudoscience
- Peer acceptance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
- Repeatability
- Not based on Jungian pseudoscience
- Peer acceptance
> To further examine the universality of the Five-Factor Model, they examined how the MBTI dimensional raw scores related to the FFM/Big5 scores. They showed that FFM-Extroversion was highly correlated to MBTI-Introversion (r = -.74), FFM-Neuroticism was weakly correlated to MBTI-Introversion (r = .16), FFM-Openness was correlated to MBTI-Intuition (r = .72), and to MBTI-Perception (r = .30), FFM-Agreeableness was correlated to MBTI-Feeling (r = .44), FFM-Contentiousness correlated to MBTI-Perception (r = .49).
> It's notable that MBTI is fairly correlated with the FFM
Sounds like we agree this statement is false
Well if a correlation value is .7 (squared to .49) then you would expect to guess correctly about 75% of the time with just the univariate relationship (naively assuming that the underlying distribution is 50/50 to begin with, without which we would need to refer to something like a RoC AUC score…).
If you’re not a Taurus, the elements of a Taurus are not supposed to relate to you. that part of the framework is theoretically irrelevant.
If you think you’re an INTP you likely are. If you think you’re a Taurus then… doesn’t matter.
If someone is barely extroverted you’re assigning them a full E anyways. That’s a poor predictor.