Rewrite?: Myers Briggs

Could we get a rewrite on Myers Briggs? The article is written in a very biased and negative way, that is very dismissive, treating the Myers Briggs as a type of pseudo-scientific mysticism. It also doesn't appear to be written by someone who knew much about the Myers Briggs outside of a passing knowledge of it, the article seems to only list criticisms and even it's Justifying Edit is a really just another jab at the system as a whole. Very negative and biased, requesting a rewrite.

If we keep it then yeah, needs a substantial rewrite. Should we keep it though? I do not see its applicability to tvtropes's mission. At best it is a trivia page. I say we should cut it as unnecessary.

edited 28th Apr '11 2:43:21 PM by CrypticMirror

I has several books based upon it plus the Persona games use Jungian psychology and MBTI types, and several writers have been known to use it while character building, so I'd say it's very tropable. It's a very useful tool in fiction writing, ans shows up in fiction a lot in one way or another some characters are even known to have their types listed in the art books and the like much like Blood Types.

Also whats this mission? Isn't this the Nosuch Thing As Notability place(Also it's very well known and Notable)

edited 28th Apr '11 3:37:40 PM by Vyctorian

That's not what No Such Thing As Notability means. It means that no work is too obscure. This is not a work. It's not a trope. It doesn't belong on this wiki.

It can be used as a trope. It's used in works. Characters have been designed with the MBTI in mind, I'm pretty sure that makes it a trope. Useful Notes maybe?

It's also brought over 100 people to the wiki.

edited 28th Apr '11 3:51:40 PM by Vyctorian

It's not used as a trope. It gives no meaning other than itself. It just is. It's a useful note at best, and a controversial one at that.

So isn't any Useful Notes based on Psychology, it's not an exact science. You could say the same of most Useful Notes pages.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:01:36 PM by Vyctorian

What? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say.

Ya, I suck at explaining things in text sometimes. what I'm saying is most of psychology is controversial so most usefulnotes pages would carry that controversy. It is tropable though and several authors have been known to use it has a from of Characterization which is why if I remember right it's listed under Characterization Tropes.

This is what I was thinking of Character Development Thread , as It shows it is used in fiction, by writers and (most importantly) by tropers.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:00:58 PM by Vyctorian

That's just useful notes. It's not giving any real meaning to the story. It's really something better regulated to wikipedia than here. It doesn't have any value as a storytelling device. People on this wiki use pens to write, but we don't have articles on pens. It's not a part of the work. It's not the goal of the wiki to define pop psychology.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:05:37 PM by shimaspawn

It has Major value as a characterization device though which goes hand and hand with story telling. Few people want to get into a story with no characterization. Also I'm sorry but your pen joke-thing falls flat hard. And if it shows up in works like THIS DOES, yes it is this wiki's job to trope it.

In fact it used more often today as a trope than a Psychological concept anymore.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:08:00 PM by Vyctorian

It's about as useful as Neutral Good as that goes and we don't want that one the wiki either. We just let it be out of sufferance and ban it from appearing on pages. We should cut this while we still can. Works don't use it in-media. It can only be used out of media and all the results are subjective. All it can do is cause arguments.

It doesn't show up in works. It's not a trope. There's a reason there's not listing of works that use it, and I've played the Persona series. There's not a mention of it.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:09:28 PM by shimaspawn

Might as well remove all subjective tropes with that Brilliant logic.

It can be found within works referenced to, Discussed, or via Word of God, It is very tropable and useful. It's being used on the wiki and has brought people to the wiki there is no reason to cut it. Re-write it and make it a usefulnotes page.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:12:35 PM by Vyctorian

And what is the trope here? What meaning does it give to the work? None. It's just another subjective personality spectrum like Chaotic Good, and we would cut that in a heartbeat if we could.

It's not as subjective as Character Alignment which cannot even be tested and is pure fiction, that is just Chewbacca Defense. It is a vaulable characterization trope and should remain on the wiki in a more well written and less biased form.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:17:48 PM by Vyctorian

But this can't be reliably tested. People get different results on different days. It's about as reliable as taking an online quiz to test your character alignment. It's just as subjective. It's not a characterization trope. It's pop psychology. It's like listing the DSM on the wiki. Those aren't tropes. Those aren't definable patterns in media. They're real world psychology. Not tropes.

Neither can IQ tests but we have a trope for that. IF people are getting different results it because they aren't being truthful to themselves on one of the days. I get the same result every time and most people do get the same results, except for a few people who use their inability to know themselves as a reason to dismiss it.

It should remain at least as useful notes, cause I can guarantee someone else will recreate it more than once if it's cut (not me, nor a threat).

We have tropes for blood types, and astrology as well, why not this. This has 10 times more credit than those. Also I'm pretty sure there is a Personality Disorders page for tropes in fact I asked for a rewrite on it to, actually I asked for a cut because it was offensive but was told there Tropes and are allowed to stay, despite the subjective and unprovable nature. Huh, funny.

edited 28th Apr '11 4:32:10 PM by Vyctorian

We don't have a trope for IQ Tests. We have a useful notes page on it. Personality Disorders says it's a useful notes page, but it's not in the right name space. Something we should correct.

If we cut it, it can't be recreated in the main without people putting some real thought into it as the page will be locked. Right now, there's not much to salvage on this page but bile. It's not fit for a useful notes page. It should be cut.

That's one persons subjective opinion what about a consensus. I think it should stay the 28 people above the facebook like would also be with me on that (though I doubt you count those).

How about a crowner? That's reasonable.

I say it's a useful characterization tool that is worth noting as a useful note page and should also be linked in so You wanna create character trope page being built and is currently being used in the Character Development Thread meaning it both is a trope and is useful to at least some tropers.

Also many fan fiction writers use MBTI types in their works after a quick search on fanfiction.net In found 90 stories that mention the MBTI (as MBTI), another 170 written as Myers Briggs, and another 147 for INFP, and another 2456 for INTJ (both types in the MBTI, 2 out of 16) and since Tv tropes has a No Such Thing As Notability all of fan fiction qualifies, even dead fics and fics that do not have trope pages yet. Deviant Art gave me 17,600 for INTJ alone, even (cynically) assuming that 90% those are authors bios that still means 10% are found in works.(and even then what If the author is notable enough in their own right and wants it listed on their trope page). To that matter It can even be found discussed in my own writings and the writings of others.

You say it should be cut, because it's "Subjective bile".

Crowner please.

edited 28th Apr '11 5:27:47 PM by Vyctorian

Thread Hop, page looks like a Useful Notes type of thing. Only read the first couple of sentences though.

Myers Briggs (and the Enneagram personality page also) sounds like Religion as written by a strict atheist. The articles need rewrites as to cut out these dismissive "I don't believe in it" parts. I'm more than willing to help edit. As some might place it with the likes of Astrology signs, I still think MBTI as valid enough on understanding people. Keep it.

edited 2nd May '11 5:12:47 PM by QQQQQ

Seems like a very useful note to me. I do agree that the article should be about what it is and its usefulness in constructing stories, without all the editorializing about its value for anything else.

We have articles about numerology, religion, astrology, taxonomies of magic ... all sorts of stuff used to tell stories, without comments regarding it being logical or not.

edited 2nd May '11 5:16:58 PM by FastEddie

& Thank you, both. The article needed this :D

I did the trim. PM me if you think this thread needs to be unlocked.