I remember liking Kiersey a lot at one time although I’ve forgotten much unfortunately, and like many who are interested in understanding ourselves and others learn our myers briggs type and run with it.
I think my main ‘things’ are related to consent and “hardness” of categories.
If the categories are soft and flexible, clearly noted as “working assumptions” and not fixed properties, they’re fine. Even better if there is consent or best of all, they are “self-applied” categories. “I am a [x]”.
The impetus of such is what’s a little strange to me. I lean more towards the implicit association test and that realm rather than broad critiques of scientific accuracy which are used to justify questionable stances.
The lead author of one of the studies you mention, Lee Jussm, has “Self-fulfilling prophecies” as his main focus.
Do people often fulfill the expectations others have of them? Yes they do.
Questionable parts are:
” teacher expectations may predict student outcomes more because these expectations are accurate than because they are self-fulfilling. ”
He even states himself:
” powerful self-fulfilling prophecies may selectively occur among students from stigmatized social groups”
See, this is the area of concern for me. That teachers understand students who fit stereotypical patterns because they’re following stereotypical patterns that fall within bell curve norms isn’t surprising.
But fall outside the bell curve on either side or be a member of a stigmatized social group, and everything changes.
Now the first article you mention, which I believe used this man’s work to support, begins by talking about stereotypes of stigmatized groups and then goes through logic hoops to try to justify it.
But see that in light of “powerful self-fulfilling prophecies may selectively occur among students from stigmatized social groups” and what I’m saying should make sense.
What I want to know is: Why do you *WANT* stereotypes to be justified?
But I do want to pause and say thank you for not bringing in evolutionary psychology. At least these stay within the realm of stereotyping and aren’t being used to support just-so stories about behavior and genetics.
The statement is questionable as it stands. I’ll run it through sci hub (which is one of my favorite sites on the net – although I use the .bz one) in a bit because I’d like to hear his justifications. I’m just giving my first blush judgement so you know my immediate biases.