The article on MBTI in Skeptic’s Dictionary agrees. This article cites the Forer effect, which holds that vague and generic profiles like horoscopes or the 16 MBTI profiles could be seen as reasonably fitting just about anybody.
@stillownedbysetters, do you think there is any validity to these tests?
I vary among: ENTP, INTP, ENFP, and INFP, depending on when I take the test. I also think the test is pretty much useless, as I found reading through all the descriptions that I would agree that pretty much all of them, and they describe my personality in one way or another.
Looks like today I am an INFP, with the I and E component split 52-48, so almost dead down the middle. Thinking vs Feeling is a much harder split than usual, though, firmly in the F category with a 65%.
Yes, I do, but mostly for fresh employees - kids out of college, women returning to the workforce, etc. Once you have mastered the culture of the modern corporate world, it is far too easy to work the test to put yourself in the best light according to the position you hope to attain.
I have taken the test honestly, and with as little bias as possible, and found it to be pretty accurate when describing whom I am overall. At least according to how others who know me well describe me. But it has become so well known and been around so long that it has little validity to anyone but the greenest of the workforce.
My understanding is that it really does vary depending on the actual test you’re taking.
Based on the assumption that you took the exact same test each time, I would say you’re an outlier that has borderline characteristics.
I am well aware that the test is considered to have as much merit as horoscopes and concede that it is not very scientific but I feel it does come in handy in separating major personality paradigms.