Our editorial policy

The quick read

Our standard is traceable sources, clearly labeled interpretation and honest limits. AI assists drafting, translation and checking; we do not invent a human expert reviewer or transfer another publisher’s evidence to our tools.

Who publishes this reference

The MBTI Pedia project publishes this site independently. We are not endorsed by or affiliated with The Myers-Briggs Company, Myers & Briggs Foundation or 16Personalities. Their names identify the frameworks or sources being discussed; they do not certify our articles or tools.

An article’s review date records a content and source check for this edition. It does not imply continuous monitoring, a clinical review or approval by a credentialed psychologist. We do not attach an invented expert name, qualification or verification badge to our work.

How AI is involved

AI tools assist with drafting, English–Spanish adaptation, source lookup and implementation checks. For this edition, source claims were checked against the linked material and the questionnaires were checked against their actual code. This process can still miss errors and is not independent scientific peer review.

We distinguish three kinds of content: a source-supported fact, an editorial interpretation and an invented teaching scenario. A scenario about a conversation or project is not a report about a research participant. A first-person card caption is original editorial writing, not a quotation from a psychologist or famous person.

Which sources support which claims

For a framework’s terminology, prefer its publisher or foundation. For a research finding, identify the study, sample and the part actually read. A publisher’s psychometric claim is labeled as such; it is not silently turned into consensus. Our accuracy article illustrates these distinctions.

Public-figure typings require visible attribution. Biographical evidence can establish what someone did without establishing their personality. Population percentages retain their sample and publication year. Our current card frequencies describe a U.S. English-speaking sample, not humanity as a whole. We avoid importing an unsourced statistic simply because many sites repeat it.

How to read updates and disagreements

We revise a page when a checked source or an implementation change alters its claims. The date should describe the revision actually made; changing a layout does not turn an old study into new evidence. English and Spanish should preserve the same factual boundaries even when examples or phrasing are adapted.

Use the linked original to inspect a claim. Identify the sentence, page and source if you discuss a correction with the project owner. We do not currently claim a staffed editorial desk, a guaranteed response time or a scheduled scientific-review program. Unresolved information should remain uncertain rather than receive a confident invented answer.

Editorial products and measurement limits

The basic result and public library are free; optional paid editions provide additional editorial material. Buying an edition does not improve the scientific validity of a result, confer a qualification or make a celebrity association confirmed. Product presentation must retain the same limits as the free material.

Read the scoring methodology, privacy explanation and tool comparison before deciding how to use a result. You may reject a description, remain undecided or borrow a useful question without treating a four-letter label as a permanent identity.

Common questions