So in one of of my classes has a section about Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I came out as an INFP healer type. Reading about it seems to produce astounding insights into successes, strengths, and troubles, and weaknesses I’ve had.
However I’ve also seen horoscopes that do that too. So you can see my distrust. Confirmation bias and junk.
I was wondering how accurate the test is considered to be from reputable socio-psycological sources?
It’s a useful heuristic with high face validity and somewhat lower construct validity. However, it can be useful in relationship counseling and workplace problems. The 16PGF or Big Five Inventory are more robust as they are built on factor analysis rather than deriving from a non-empirical theory.
FWIW, I find that most people I’ve used it with do not find it horoscope-like, in that they do not identify with the majority of the types, generally only waffling between a maximum of 3 related types, if at all–e.g., between INFP and INFJ for a person who does not score far into the P end of the P-J axis.
It’s not entirely bogus. Here’s a quick and dirty test for bogusity:
Read off a few profiles of freinds or co-workers who are farily well aquainted. Generally, both bogus profiles and correct profiles will have everyone nodding their head and agreeing. Example- Bob is a Capricorn or an ISTJ, read the long version generalized profile of one.
After a couple, slip in one that’s the total opposite- If a ISTJ, read a ENFP instead, pretending it’s the right one. Or a Leo for Pisces (or whatever). For MB, dudes will not agree. For Astrology or other Bogus theories, dudes will still nod their heads and agree.
That’s not to say MB is accurate. Often when tested, many people will have a score which is fairly close and can test either way. However, the profile of a ISTJ is fairly close to the one for a ISTP. Not to mention, there are more than 16 types of personalities in the world.
It’s vague, and inaccurate, but it’s not entirely bogus.
Note that this is called the Forer effect.
I got pressured into taking this from a wacked out superior. Whatever it was I test out as, she told me my previous field (internet provider) was a job I was supremely unsuited for and that that sort of job would make me incredibly unfulfilled. She also indicated that I was profoundly suited for real estate and that I would pretty much live a life of rainbows, fluffy kittens and golden retriever puppies.
To this day, I consider my job as an internet provider the greatest, most appropriate, fulfilling job, most intellectually challenging job I ever had, I was in it for 7 years before the bottom fell out. I lasted about one year in real estate and hated pretty much ever minute of it.
Now, I don’t know if it was the test itself, the answers I gave, or the woo-woo of the wacko that gave it to me, but for me, it was as far off base as could be. It didn’t seem to be able to handle an outgoing, technically proficient, avid reader, extrovert very well. Like most stuff, the bigger the box, the more it can hold.
I am of the opinion that it is mostly useless. It merely tells me back what I already think of myself. (Who would have thought I am an introvert simply because I enjoy spending time by myself. Wow, what a reveal. Next, it’ll tell me I think I am clever and inciteful)
It would be much better if say 4 to 6 co-workers filled it out anonymously about another person. Might actually reveal that person to be an arse or something.
The MB isn’t a job screening method. Using it as one will occasionally work, as a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The categories in the MB seem real enough; they may or may not be as basic as the authors think. The real question is whether the questions are capable of sorting people into those categories. I find them clumsy and obtuse, requiring people to understand themselves about as well before taking the test as one might expect to afterward.
Four of the MBTI dimensions correlate with four of the Big 5. The MBTI does not measure neuroticism. The MBTI has good test-retest reliability as well.
The creation of the test is a bit hand-wavy. It is intended to put you into bins - either you are introverted or extraverted, whereas the Big 5 put you along a continuum which is much more realistic.
The MBTI is good for what it’s supposed to be used for - helping someone find a job that suits them, for example. Psychologists and social psychologists prefer the Big 5.
I am certified to administer the MBTI and I am also a scientist. I wouldn’t use it in a study, but I do hand out official self-scoring versions to my friends. In my opinion the personality descriptions in the MBTI manual are quite remarkable and some of the best personality descriptions you can find anywhere.
The Wikipedia article for the MBTI bears my bark. At this point in its editing history it was written almost entirely by me:
Since then it looks like its been substantially improved, though I don’t have time to read it.
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as “pseudo.” It is extensively studied in the academic literature on psychology and management. Measuring anything about people is more complicated than sticking a pH strip in a vial of acid. That said, here is a citation of one journal article on the subject: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study, Educational and Psychological Measurement 2002; 62; 590, Robert M. Capraro and Mary Margaret Capraro.
Here is the abstract:
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)was submitted to a descriptive reliability generalization (RG) analysis to characterize the variability of measurement error in MBTI scores across administrations. In general, the MBTI and its scales yielded scores with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates, although variation was observed.
While the study in general supports the MBTI, I will include the paragraph that summarizes the criticisms, for balance:
“Although the MBTI has been reported by Murray (1990) to be “the most widely used personality instrument for nonpsychiatric populations” (p. 1187), there have been controversies regarding the indicator’s measurement characteristics. Pittenger (1993) observed “that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenants[li] and claims about the utility of the test” (p. 467). A contrary view to Pittenger was expressed by Hammer (1996). Other researchers (Comrey, 1983; McCrae & Costa, 1989) postulated that the MBTI did not adequately represent the Jungian theory on which it was presumably based. The forced-choice response format and false assumptions that all people can be divided into groups have also been criticized (Girelli & Stake, 1993; Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 1999). Another criticism concerns gender[/li]weighting. Specifically, different weights are applied for men and women on the “Thinking-Feeling” scale based on socialization effects (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), leading to difficulty in comparing men andwomen on this scale (Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 1999).”
I agree with **susan **that there are newer approaches that have better psychometric properties (e.g. Big 5). That doesn’t necessarily mean those measures are currently well suited to replace MBTI for applied use.
I hope the OP will base his impression more on the input he gets that reflects some knowledge of academic psychology and less on the impressions of people whose sole knowledge of the field is having taken the test. This goes double for anyone who had the test used for any type of employment selection process, since the test explicitly should not be used for that purpose. That indicates to me that whoever administered their test probably misrepresented/ misinterpreted it.
People can be studied. It’s not easy.
I suppose you meant that it shouldn’t be used as it is used in China/Japan - to select employees that have traits that you believe are desirable for your company.
However, it can and should be used for people who want to learn more about their personality so that they might pick a better field. Indeed, that’s what it was made for originally.
Hmm well I can confirm I didn’t find very good matches in some other types. The jest of what you’re both saying saying to be it’s accurate with in an error range, but it does have some accuracy.
The course book listed just 4 personality types that didn’t use all 4 metrics. Those being Analyzer (iNT), Supporter (iNF), Director (SJ), and Creator (SP). I got curious because the book test said I was a strong creator but I’m not really that assertive and my behavior generally tends to the Supporter description. I can’t seem to find any online documentation of those 4 types, and the metric choices seem random. Even just using two there should be 8.
Tried an online test and INFP seemed a lot closer match. I’m supposed to write an introspective paper about my learning style (visual, auditory, or kinestetic), brain type (left verses right), and temperament profile which I just now as I write this figured out is an add on to the MBTI. What the book calls analyzer, supporter, director, creator maps to rational, idealist, guardian, and artisan in the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Atleast they use the same personality type metrics, but they give different descriptions for the personality type. In the book for example NF maps to supporter, but in the KTS NF maps to idealist. Oy vay.
Anyway I’m prolly boring ya’ll. DrDeth, Susan Your explanations gave me some incite that’ll help. Thanks 
Wow so many posts all of a sudden while I was typing that.
I just want to say that article has done a pretty good job telling me stuff the book lacks and thank you very much for your contributions to it.
Years ago, my software engineering group took the test. The interesting part was how skewed we were from the general population. I was an INTP. My boss was an INTP, as were several others in the group.
Hey, another INFP! Welcome to the club.
Though yeah, I do fluctuate between INFP/INFJ. And sometimes I get a T.
But that’s the thing, there’s variance in the results, but as was said earlier, it tends to be only between a few select choices. I will always be an I, i know that much. And many of the others don’t apply to me at all. So I tend to go between only a few of them, which is better than astrology (where i just like to pick one at random and assume that’s mine for the day).
Yay the club now has 2. That’s a 100% increase in one day.
On the T days do you pitty da foo’? Well the book descriptions of P/J seemed to be a toss up for me too. We’ll see.
That’s the biggy, I think, plus some measure of wanting to conform once you’re presented with a nice and clear-cut label to fit yourself into. That it does better than astrology shouldn’t be any surprise even if there’s nothing very meaningful behind it, since everybody does have some measure of self-knowledge, and that’s what the test really assess, I think. I have of course not performed the experiment, but it wouldn’t surprise me much that if you asked persons to directly grade themselves on the scales used by the test – e.g. introversion vs. extraversion, thinking vs. feeling etc. – there wouldn’t be great statistical differences to having them actually take the test. It’s however not my area of expertise, so I could be horribly wrong about that.
I’ve never taken the MB as part of a selection or orientation process, just for kicks and giggles, but those two points are true of about every “personality test” I’ve had to take either in school or as part of selection processes. Some are so evident I can get any score I want: if only I knew what is it the HR-type person has decided is the perfect profile, I’d be able to get any job in the world 
(not any, but… those where the test is the deal breaker, absolutely).
We were discussing the MB tests at work a week or two ago, as it seems a few of us get along very well, and other supervisory/management type folks seem to fit a different clique. I’m a strong INTJ (Kiersey’s “Mastermind”), my Captain was an ENFJ (“Teacher”), one of my firefighters is an INFJ (Counselor), and the Chief is an INTP (“Architect”). We get along swimmingly, have mutual goals and ideals, and generally have a good, productive time at work.
One of my other firefighters is an ESFJ (“Guardian”) and the Deputy is an ESTJ (“Supervisor”). The both of them greatly complicate my life, I’ll leave it at that.
The MBTI may not be true science, but it’s definately more than astrology is. It managed to lend some outside views of the dynamics of a group more so than any other instrument I’ve seen could.