<p>The main question here is "is there any scientific research into objective differences between people with MBTI types?" I suppose a second question is "does this research actually SHOW differences?". This is one aspect of the debate about the validity of MBTI, which is covered in other questions (e.g., <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13460/what-correlation-research-has-been-done-on-mbti-vs-big5?lq=1">this one</a>).</p>

<p>There is not as much research as you might think, which is because most scientists avoid the MBTI. It is a commercial product (you have to pay for it) with poor reliability, which means that scientific psychology tends to use better-validated and published scales. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12098/full" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This recent meta analysis</a> includes MBTI as one of the "ipsative" measures, finding little validity for predicting occupation. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This paper</a> is similar and suggests that normative measures like the MBTI can predict GPA and job performance, although they do so less well than the Big Five. I haven't found any other studies looking more closely at behaviour, although given that some people consider the Big Five to subsume MBTI types, you could look for that instead.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T16:26:25.220Z
2016-04-20T16:26:25.220Z
2017-04-13T12:56:16.467Z
splint
<p>There is research ongoing to correlate MBTI with quantitative, neurological data. <a href="http://www.darionardi.com/" rel="nofollow">Dario Nardi</a>, for example, has found differences in EEG patterns between people of different types. <a href="https://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is a PDF from him on the topic.</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T15:31:22.343Z
While Nardi has published books about the MBTI and neuroscience, I question his credentials. I cannot find any official bio of him at UCLA, and his doctoral training is not related to experimental psychology or neuroscience. The PDF is simplistic and pseudoscientific. I have not found any peer-reviewed published research by him.
splint
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T17:03:23.347Z
He seems like the typical crank.
jona
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T17:53:09.440Z
@splint He does seem to hold a position at UCLA, [although I can't find a specific personal page](http://search.ucla.edu/search?site=UCLA&client=UCLA_Communication&proxystylesheet=UCLA_Communication&output=xml_no_dtd&proxyreload=1&q=dario+nardi&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Submit).
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T17:56:29.750Z
I can confirm that he does have a lab and teach a class at UCLA (and host a D&D game). I know we'll need a more reliable source, but he's not just making it up.
Jacktose
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-23T17:18:36.887Z
I'm not meaning to be TOO snooty, I can see from google that he has held teaching positions but @P1h3r1e3d13 can you find any reference to his "lab". It appears he was affiliated to the dept of "human complex systems", but maybe this has closed? http://hcs.ucla.edu At any rate, he does not seem to have published any evidence for his claims.
splint
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-11T02:03:13.683Z
2016-04-19T20:07:08.653Z
2016-04-19T20:07:08.653Z
Jacktose
<p>I'm trying to figure out how MBTI would be operationalized in scientific research.
How could one operationalize the different types, E, I, N, S, T, F, P and J?
How could one look at numerical measurements of individuals and say "That is an E"?</p>

<p>Is there any research on objective differences between the types (without using NEO-PI-R or other Big5 inventories as the objective reference)?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-24T20:30:25.293Z
I tried to clarify it.  I'm trying to say that I'm not interested in correlations on MBTI vs NEO-PI-R or similar. When trying to measure MBTI objectively I'm not interested in having NEO-PI-R(or similar inventories) scores as the baseline. I'm looking for "everything else" than scores on other testing inventories. I.e is it proved that those E in MBTI talk faster and louder than I's? Is it proved that those who score S in MBTI are more interested in sports than N's?
Berit Larsen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-25T14:10:52.993Z
I've read quite a lot about MBTI model a few years ago, and remember that  there are 4 major archetypes within it. In your case it would be not so much the S score as the combination of S + P score causing people to be interested in playing sports. While the combination of N + T would be more interested in sciences and such.  The other two archetypes are SJ and NF
Alex Stone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-11T02:43:29.233Z
You can objectively measure your star sign. It's still hogwash.
jona
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-11T12:03:32.280Z
jona: Unless you show me a research report supporting a correlation on personality and star sign, I belive you don't really understand what "measured objectively" means.
Berit Larsen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T15:20:02.613Z
I agree with @jona. The difficulty comes from the ambiguity in your question. The question in your title is just about measurement and is trivial (though I would actually argue star signs are MORE "objective", because at least they are reliable over time and date of birth can be verified). But your question actually appears to be about whether there are differences between MBTI types.
splint
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-20T17:03:49.880Z
"I would actually argue star signs are MORE "objective", because at least they are reliable over time and date of birth can be verified" Haha yes.
jona
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-21T07:36:02.373Z
I filled in a bit more in my question. This is about operationalization, not about the concept itself. If we compare to star signs, this is not about "He was born X.Y, so he must be a lion." This is about "Lions are statistically proven to be more than average X'ish".
Berit Larsen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-23T17:21:06.683Z
Thanks. I don't see any particular difficulties in operationalising the MBTI. Just like comparing Leos to Geminis you could compare INFJs to whatever. Or you could use a more continuous scale if MBTI gives you such numbers.
splint
<personality><mbti>
Can MBTI be measured objectively?
Berit Larsen
# Can MBTI be measured objectively?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-23)

I'm trying to figure out how MBTI would be operationalized in scientific research.
How could one operationalize the different types, E, I, N, S, T, F, P and J?
How could one look at numerical measurements of individuals and say "That is an E"?

Is there any research on objective differences between the types (without using NEO-PI-R or other Big5 inventories as the objective reference)?

**Tags:** personality, mbti

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I tried to clarify it.  I'm trying to say that I'm not interested in correlations on MBTI vs NEO-PI-R or similar. When trying to measure MBTI objectively I'm not interested in having NEO-PI-R(or similar inventories) scores as the baseline. I'm looking for "everything else" than scores on other testing inventories. I.e is it proved that those E in MBTI talk faster and louder than I's? Is it proved that those who score S in MBTI are more interested in sports than N's?  
> **username_1**: I've read quite a lot about MBTI model a few years ago, and remember that  there are 4 major archetypes within it. In your case it would be not so much the S score as the combination of S + P score causing people to be interested in playing sports. While the combination of N + T would be more interested in sciences and such.  The other two archetypes are SJ and NF  
> **username_2**: You can objectively measure your star sign. It's still hogwash.  
> **username_0**: username_2: Unless you show me a research report supporting a correlation on personality and star sign, I belive you don't really understand what "measured objectively" means.  
> **username_3**: I agree with @username_2. The difficulty comes from the ambiguity in your question. The question in your title is just about measurement and is trivial (though I would actually argue star signs are MORE "objective", because at least they are reliable over time and date of birth can be verified). But your question actually appears to be about whether there are differences between MBTI types.  
> **username_2**: "I would actually argue star signs are MORE "objective", because at least they are reliable over time and date of birth can be verified" Haha yes.  
> **username_0**: I filled in a bit more in my question. This is about operationalization, not about the concept itself. If we compare to star signs, this is not about "He was born X.Y, so he must be a lion." This is about "Lions are statistically proven to be more than average X'ish".  
> **username_3**: Thanks. I don't see any particular difficulties in operationalising the MBTI. Just like comparing Leos to Geminis you could compare INFJs to whatever. Or you could use a more continuous scale if MBTI gives you such numbers.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-04-20. Score: 5

The main question here is "is there any scientific research into objective differences between people with MBTI types?" I suppose a second question is "does this research actually SHOW differences?". This is one aspect of the debate about the validity of MBTI, which is covered in other questions (e.g., [this one](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13460/what-correlation-research-has-been-done-on-mbti-vs-big5?lq=1)).

There is not as much research as you might think, which is because most scientists avoid the MBTI. It is a commercial product (you have to pay for it) with poor reliability, which means that scientific psychology tends to use better-validated and published scales. [This recent meta analysis](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12098/full) includes MBTI as one of the "ipsative" measures, finding little validity for predicting occupation. [This paper](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198) is similar and suggests that normative measures like the MBTI can predict GPA and job performance, although they do so less well than the Big Five. I haven't found any other studies looking more closely at behaviour, although given that some people consider the Big Five to subsume MBTI types, you could look for that instead.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-04-11. Score: 2

There is research ongoing to correlate MBTI with quantitative, neurological data. [Dario Nardi](http://www.darionardi.com/), for example, has found differences in EEG patterns between people of different types. [Here is a PDF from him on the topic.](https://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: While Nardi has published books about the MBTI and neuroscience, I question his credentials. I cannot find any official bio of him at UCLA, and his doctoral training is not related to experimental psychology or neuroscience. The PDF is simplistic and pseudoscientific. I have not found any peer-reviewed published research by him.  
> **username_2**: He seems like the typical crank.  
> **username_5**: @username_3 He does seem to hold a position at UCLA, [although I can't find a specific personal page](http://search.ucla.edu/search?site=UCLA&client=UCLA_Communication&proxystylesheet=UCLA_Communication&output=xml_no_dtd&proxyreload=1&q=dario+nardi&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Submit).  
> **username_4**: I can confirm that he does have a lab and teach a class at UCLA (and host a D&D game). I know we'll need a more reliable source, but he's not just making it up.  
> **username_3**: I'm not meaning to be TOO snooty, I can see from google that he has held teaching positions but @P1h3r1e3d13 can you find any reference to his "lab". It appears he was affiliated to the dept of "human complex systems", but maybe this has closed? http://hcs.ucla.edu At any rate, he does not seem to have published any evidence for his claims.  

---

