One problem that the Meyers-Briggs has is that the measures are on a spectrum yet the results are binary. That isn’t a problem for someone like me that is a strong INTP on all measures. I will get the same results no matter how many times I take the real test or its derivatives. However, it can be a problem for someone just on the edge on one or more measures. There are lots of people that are close to the middle for extroversion/introversion or any of the other measures. It isn’t accurate to force people slightly on one side of any of the scales into the same box as the ones that display it strongly.
And yet I was able to overcome my nature and find some previously-unknown, inner salesman and life of the party, as long as I’m on the phone. My co-workers even claim I have an infectious laugh with a dash of deviltry. When I hang up I slump and my face goes blank and I wish I could find a quiet corner where I can read, but the phone rings and that guy is back, full of bonhomie and maybe a bit flirtatious. He used to scare me because that’s not me off the phone, but I laugh a lot more than I used to, which feels good.
Not, of course, that I am primarily an INTP.
In one of the many Myers-Briggs sessions I attended the HR trainer did get into this. We were given a sheet with a sort of bar graph showing how strongly we scored in a particular direction for each of the four facets. So someone might for instance be close to the middle on the I/E scale and only slightly on the introverted side, but very strongly on the sensing side of the S/N scale.
She did kind of push the idea that everyone does fit better on one side or the other, though. I remember she said that if someone scored near the middle for one of the facets then it might be because they’ve either made an effort to develop skills that come more naturally to other personality types or because their answers skewed more towards the traits they considered desirable than what they’re really like. I don’t doubt that this is often the case, but it does seem to me like it should be possible for someone to genuinely be a middle-of-the-road type for some personality traits.
Excellent point. If you’re thus weak, it wont show very good results.
It has helped me understand things like… “Evan” is going to come into my office and talk for 75 minutes straight, it’s not going to change anything, and we’re both helpless to stop it.
I’m a fan of clever ways of bilking money from people who have a poor understanding of science.
This here.
I think he is running late because he’s due to do exactly that in my office shortly. Puzzling that he goes by “Kevin” here?
I don’t want to be snarky (well, I do, if there were a snarky/nonsnarky axis on MB I’d be way to the S end, but I’m trying not to be here). But, really? Without Myers-Brigg, you’d have trouble understanding that?
That’s my central question with MB. What does it help us understand that we struggle to understand without it?
I don’t know about that situation, but I did find it helpful as a way of understanding how other people think. Spending some time reading up on MB has probably helped me work better with people who have very different traits than I have. It’s both helped me understand why people might find certain of my traits annoying, and it’s sometimes helped me formulate more persuasive arguments.
I don’t think that’s the right way to use it. In my experience, many people are reasonably close to center on at least one trait. (But rarely on more than 2 traits.) I think it’s mostly a constructive framework to understand the variety of human personalities, not as a tool to put people into little boxes.
One of the things I recall is that “I” types tend to “think, then speak,” whereas “E” types “think while speaking.”
I have seen many cases where tech types who tend towards “I” are discussing a problem in a group email, the email chain gets long, and then a manager–who are more often “E” types–steps in, says enough of the email, and schedules a meeting for everyone to get together, talk it through, and come to a conclusion.
So the meeting is held, and a day or two later it’s back to the email chain as people think of things they missed during the meeting.
As one of the cheerful, earnest mooncalves described above, I don’t find the MB as be all and end all as some of my colleagues do. But that isn’t to say it’s useless. When you have to put together project teams, composed of individuals for whom you don’t have experiential information, the results can give you a picture of the personality types you are going to have in each team. Obviously, for most teams you are going to want a mix - some leader types, some analytical types, etc. Any team composed largely of one personality type isn’t going to achieve maximum results.
Unfortunately I have also seen MB used to put employees in boxes, which strikes me as both unfair and inappropriate, particularly (as others have mentioned above) since some individuals score very differently on subsequent tests.
A big weakness of MB is how easy it is to manipulate if you are at all test-savvy. I can achieve whatever result I want on the test by manipulating my answers, and I’m aware that others can do the same.
So while it can be a useful tool in limited circumstances, it is far from being definitive in terms of personnel recruitment and management.
taking you at your word, Dropzone’s “Quotable Quotes, Pithy Proverbs and Marvelous Malaprops”
I don’t want to limit you:D
GAH the HR test, I took one once, I was interrupted on a task that required much concentration and was a little … irritated. I don’t remember my four letter [del]words[/del] results but I came away from the experience with the impression that I actually flunked it somehow.:eek:
Hmmm, the first two just happen and are only quotable once they’ve been quoted. I love it when my malaprops whoosh because it shows the effort was worth it. In another thread a person has asked for a rant. I guess I have a following. :o
Back to the topic, which for once isn’t about me, I think it’s wrong-headed to attack the binary nature of the scores. Yes, it is often true that uncreative or lazy people use them uncreatively, in a “you are this so you will behave like that” way, but someone who knows what she’s doing will see them as data, more grist for the mill, but will use her own judgment when applying them.