in the site mentioned in the previous message, makes sense to you and if it is helpful in understanding your patterns.
When the entire thing is based on the audience being bamboozled by the Forer Effect, it’s easy enough to do.
I’ve taken the thing five or six times in my life, and while I’m a definite N and a very definite P, I’m always dead in the middle on E-I and F-T. Never been more than 10% or so on one side or the other.
When we took it at the beginning of med school, there were only about 3-4 Ps in my entire class of 100, two of whom were myself and the girl who became one of my best friends in the class. We were warned that Ps often have difficulty with med school, as it pretty much requires a willingness to structure time that Ps (by definition) lack. It turned out to be true–we both had problems, especially in the first two years, for exactly that reason.
I think the MBTI is a big step up from, say, tarot cards, but I also think it only holds value for the person being tested. I don’t think I would be able to use it to make judgements about anyone else.
Dr. J
My huge, MASSIVE problem with Myers-Briggs is that as far as I can see, the supposed dichotomies aren’t at all opposite to eachother.
Take “thinking/feeling” for example. Thinking is supposed to be a cold, logical approach. Feeling is supposed to be making decisions from a personal perspective.
Well? Since when is there an “absolute logic” to dictate what decisions should be? All logic rests on axioms. Those axioms are personal. The so-called feeling type is still acting from logical premises.
Basically, stipped of the dichotomic language, “Feeling” is supposed to be a measure of empathy, whilst “Thinking” reflects ability to think structurally. Put in these terms, does anybody out there actually want to claim that these abilities are opposite to eachother?!
Or take the classic ‘Introvert/Extrovert’ “dichotomy”. Surely these must be opposite - after all the words look opposite to eachother! Not at all - not the way MB presents them. ‘Introvert’ in the MB world represents the ability to generate “energy” (whatever the hell that means) from inside oneself. “Extrovert” means the ability to generate the same mysterious energy from the outside world.
Well once again - these are two abilities that we should all cultivate. But never should we assume that by cultivating one we are diminishing our ability to do the other. Many of our great folk from history exemplified introvert AND extrovert behaviour. Take Monet or any great painter - clearly inspired by the world around him but also translating that through his own inner world.
We can go through a similar process for N/S and P/J but frankly these so-called dichotomies are even easier to discredit. (Perceiving is opposite to judging? Do me a favour! Are they seriously saying that data collection is opposite to decision-making?) I’ll just entreat you - read the definitions for yourself, think about them critically and try to articulate exactly why the concepts are “opposite” to eachother.
Dichotomy schmichotomy. We have here 8 separate character traits. They are all related to eachother in complicated ways. The idea that one is an ENTP or a ISFJ is just laughable.
pan
What makes you think they’re supposed to be opposite? The only thing the test is measuring is tendencies - I have a tendency to like fish, however on occasion I will eat chicken. You could conclude that I am mostly into fish, but sometimes like chicken. I would almost certainly like a seafood restaurant, but a chicken restaurant might be good also. The two do not have to opposite to be compared.
I have a tendency to be extroverted, however on occasion I will like time to myself. The two things are not opposite, just different.
Al.
i think the myers-briggs is the most accurate personality test…i’m an INTP and i definitely saw myself in most of the characteristics. of course you can’t put everyone in a box, but there’s something about humans that makes us want to try anyway, and in this case, it’s fun and pretty insightful. my sister is my exact opposite (ESFJ), and a past sort-of SO who didn’t work out at all was an INFP. me, but feeling instead of thinking. i could have predicted that 
as far as workplaces asking you to take it, i would be annoyed by that. seeing as how introverts are generally seen in a negative light, i don’t know that i would want my boss or whoever to judge me on the basis of my INTPness. i can be extroverted when i feel like it…and just because i hate to be told what to do, does’t mean that i’m always disobedient.
i think the test is fun, because we like to think about ourselves and hear ourselves be described, but that it shouldn’t be taken too too seriously.
The test, alice, is almost universally perceived as marking a point along four dichotomies. When you are professionally Myers-Briggsed, you receive your form as four X’s marked along four scales. I’m sorry, but the test is set up in that way.
It should be like your chicken-and-fish example: one might like neither chicken nor fish or one might be extremely fond of both. In the Myers-Briggs world both these people would be marked as being an “X” on the “F-C scale” (i.e. in the middle) - as if liking chicken and fish somehow “cancelled” eachother out. And if that is stupid enough, they do so in exactly the same way as not liking fish and chicken cancel eachother out.
Then people just say “Oh, I’m ENTP. You’re an ISFJ. We’re opposite.”
Well, no. You’re not.
pan
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabbes *
**
I think you’re misinterpreting what the test means. Yes, you do receive 4 X’s along four scales. If you don’t favor either of the themes more, than you will score right in the middle. If I didn’t like chicken or fish, or liked them equally, my score would be right in the middle. You then take that score, in relation to your scores on the other 3 scales, and that is your reading. People may interpret having 4 different letters as being complete opposites, but they would be mistaken. The scale also takes the degree of each score into account.
The basic analysis that most people receive, is quite a simplistic snapshot. However, the scale does lend itself to be more thoroughly assessed, which is what a professional Psychologist or Psychometric Analyst would do.
Al.
What this idiot meant, of course, was “astrology”. Took a while for the penny to drop, didn’t it?
Idiot
I’m a strong K. 
The test sets up clear dichotomies between elements that are not naturally opposed. That’s okay–all taxonomies establish arbitrary disjunctions of type. That is the nature of classification. How useful a taxonomy is, of course, depends on how appropriate are the distinctions it draws. Meyers-Briggs has chosen its 16 buckets for humanity. I personally find them only slightly more relevant than the 12 (or 144 or whatever) buckets of astrology.
alice – if you dearly love chicken and fish, a good measure should allow you to be CF. Meyers-Briggs does not. An “X” in the middle of the scale measures complete apathy and complete ardor for each alternative. I find that unimpressive as a descriptor of human personalities.
You’re correct of course. However, I’m not sure that totally diminishes the usefulness of the test. I suppose, if someone fell perfectly in the middle of each category, they would not have learned much about themselves. If they do express a preference, as the vast majority of people do, I still think the test is useful for career planing.
I know many people, who when given the test, had an appealing career path suggested that they had not previously thought of. Even if all the test does is broaden a few horizons, I think that’s a good thing.
Same as anything else, the sun doesn’t rise and set on Myers-Briggs, but it does serve some purpose.
[QUOTE]
Famous ISTJs:
Thomas (Christ’s disciple)
U.S. Presidents:
George Washington
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
George H. W. Bush
Paul Coverdale (U.S. Senator, R-GA)
Jackie Joyner-Kersee (U.S. Olympic athlete)
Evander Holyfield, heavyweight boxing champion
Jack Webb (Joe Friday)
Fictional ISTJs:
Mr. Martin (hero of James Thurber’s Sitting in the Catbird Seat)
Eeyore (Winnie the Pooh)
Fred Mertz (I Love Lucy)
Puddleglum, the marshwiggle (Chronicles of Narnia)
[QUOTE]
Inspector galen checking in. Not bad company, I think.
So far as the test and it’s applicability, I think it indicates tendencies, and fairly broad ones at that. I tend to believe that a lot more depends on the situations encountered than a literal interpretation would indicate. As a personal example, I am a lot more open about myself online than I ever am in person. This test does not seem to take that into account as much as it should, I think - or maybe I should go ahead and read the sites disclaimers!
But the premise is that, though you may like both chicken and fish, you will, deep down, prefer one over the other.
What the MBTI does is type you by your preferences.
For instance, you can–and do–use both Thinking and Feeling to arrive at decisions, but you have an intrinsic preference for one of them,
and it will be your “default” setting, so to speak. Isabel used right- and left-handedness as an analogy.
Just as true 50/50 ambidextrousness (or bisexuality) is rare, so is a tie between T & F (or S & N, I & E, or J & P).
BTW, the short version of the MBTI is set up so the default letters are I, N, F & P–because Isabel was herself an INFP (as am I).
IMHO, the MBTI works best on subjects who have come to know themselves and can be honest about their preferences.
You’re supposed to give responses that indicate how you really are, not how you have learned to act to act to get along in the world
Hi,
Others have responded already, but let me respond to this particular part of your post and attempt to explain what it means.
I am an Introvert, no question about it Whenever I attend something like a party, a club, or any other environment where I’m dealing with many people, I tend to become “drained.” Dealing with people in that kind of setting takes up much of my energy, because it’s not something I’m particularly good at. Eventually I leave to “recharge my batteries” - something I do at home, alone.
I’m guessing, though I’ve never spoken to an extrovert to confirm this, that they have the opposite problem - being alone “drains” them, and to “recharge” they have to attend those very same parties, clubs, etc.
Exactly. I find that premise questionable. Sometimes I crave chicken. Other times I crave fish. The assumption that I must really, truly in my appetite of appetites prefer one over the other is silly.
Yes, and what I (and others) are pointing out is that the natural dichotomy between right hand/left hand (or male-female) does not exist between thinking-feeling, perceiving-judging, etc… It might make sense to map human sexuality on a scale of preference from hetero to homo. It makes less sense to map human personality on a scale betweem “perceiving” and “judging”.
In other words: you think when it fails to “work best” it is a problem with the resondent, not the test. So sad, Mr Jones, but the test would have worked if only you’d been in touch with your inner preferences. :rolleyes:
Some years ago, when I did a critical analysis of the MBTI during my psychologist education, the test had not been validated at all - perhaps it has now, but I doubt it.
MBTI is founded on the Jungian typology, which has never been validated either. Just like Rorschach tests (the infamous inkblots) the MBTI relies on high reliability achived by the huge amount of people who has taken the test. So you don’t know what you are measuring, and you don’t know whether whatever you are measuring has any correlates to anything “in the real world”, but whatever you are measuring, you measure it fairly accurate.
MBTI is often used in work psychology, as a selection method in recruitment. Personally, I think it works as well as any other method to get people to observe themselves. All methods to get a description of yourself and how you think and act will make most people reflect and perhaps also see themselves from a fresh perspective. In work groups, an instrument like MBTI can be used to induce discussion about differences in cognitive strategies and problem-solving style. So I wouldn’t say MBTI is useless.
From a scientific perspective, it’s total crap, though. MBTI has nothing to do with the research area personality psychology, nor with clinical psychology.
Whakamole - what you have presented to me is anecdotal evidence. You personally have a strong introverted characterstic and a weak extroverted one.
Well this in no way detracts from my point that they are not opposites. Someone may take enormous pleasure from being by themself and from being in company. Others may feel unhappy in both situations. There is no immutable law of the universe that says you must be one or the other.
Gah. I am reminded of those idiots that have always assumed that since I am good at maths I must be a poor communicator and vice versa. The human instinct to set up false dichotomies can be immensely frustrating.
Dr Rieux - why must I have a “preference”? Do you not understand - I do not think that they are opposite in the first place. As such, I think that the decision-making methods complement eachother - I use both thinking and feeling and take advantage of the ability to empathise AND think logically. Why must one preclude the other? The popular image of lovable scatterbrain versus cold-hearted robot is simply fallacious.
alice - all you are saying is that Myers-Briggs is useful to make people think about themselves. Well that may be true but it doesn’t make it any more scientific or accurate. If I could convince the gullible that the way their tea-leaves lie says something about their personality it would be just as effective.
Spiritus - but you can be a K AND an a…
pan
Nonsense. You and alice represent a fundamental natural antipathy. Should you ever come into contact with each other a significant portion of the Universe would be destroyed by the explosion.
Besides, she’s just wrong this time.
What? What am I wrong about? That Myers-Briggs CAN’T be used by guidance counsellors to help young people with career planning? Well, since they do this all the time, obviously I’m not wrong.
I never said the test was scientific, or would stand up to a review of its peers, or even that it was a particularly good test. I said that it was valuable to help make people aware of possible career choices, and I stand by that. Talking to a career counsellor is also useful.
I never said it was the be all, end all of psychometric tests. If you don’t like it, don’t take it, or administer it, or whatever.
That the gradations for evaluation are not set up as clear dichotomies. They are.
M-B makes thinking and feeling a zero sum proposition. I think that’s ridiculous. I feel that it’s ridiculous, too. 