I was introduced to the Myers-Briggs personality typing system in college. I find it pretty neat and useful. Once I figure out someone’s type, it makes it a lot easier to predict a person’s behavior. Well, sometimes, but a lot easier compared to when I don’t take their MB type into consideration.
It seems though, that a lot of people put very little faith into the MB typings. On another message board I lurk, people would often present a relationship or work problem and they list their and their partner’s/co-worker’s/manager’s MBTI type. Most of the time, the replies from other members say that the OP’s problem/conflict has nothing to do with the MBTI types involved.
I find this hard to believe. Your personality type directly impacts how you percieve the world and how you communicate. Can someone shed some light on this?
What’s your take on astrology? Myers-Briggs isn’t a whole lot different. It is subject to the same confirmation bias, wishful thinking, the Forer Effect (Barnum statements) and many logical fallacies.
Speaking as a former psych grad student - there is significant debate about real test-retest reliability and its actual utility as a valid measure of anything of worth. Many analyses have shown significant percentages of people retesting after a relatively short period of time into different types, so how could it be a measure of personality?
My mbti score has fluctuated wildly over the years. In the past I used to score somewhere around infp but lately I get stuff more like esfj. That’s a pretty big swing. Added to the fact that once you’ve taken it a couple of times you can game the questions to get the response you want.
Fun party game: have people take the test and then read a wrong description of their personality. Most people will agree with the synopsis even if it’s not actually their ‘real’ personality.
I just went on a MBTI-themed day with the rest of my team. I was initially very skeptical of it, but I found it to be reasonably useful and accurate - there was a blinding process to insulate us from the suggestion/Barnum effect - and yet it was evident to us individually and as a group which descriptions fit which members (we’re a small team and know each other quite well).
I don’t think MBTI is a complete picture, but I don’t think it’s useless either - it can determine preferences, and those preferences may be the expression of ingrained personality traits.
That’s internal reliability, which can be improved on by making the tests better. Improving external validity is quite a bit tougher: you have to assume that what you are measuring actually exists, and that you can both qualify and quantify it and sort all the dimensions out adequately.
I don’t think the MBTI is as random as some here are making it out to be; it appears to be measuring actual personality traits, and not random bullshit. I know in my case the description of the INFP was much more apropo than any of the others, which I can easily check (and, again, said description depends on the skill and knowledge of the writer-there are quite a few hacks out there). The real important questions are whether there are other equally important dimensions that it fails to notice and integrate and which might affect how the others fall out, or whether two criteria placed on opposite ends of a single dimension really are mutually exclusive. These unmeasured factors may be much more important for some people than are the “default” MBTI ones, which would mean they would get very little out of it.
It’s not quite bullshit. I tried a reverse test, once. Now, a reverse test is one where you have a person read aloud their personality/horoscope/etc, and the audience votes on how much it sounds like that person. With astrological signs, no matter what the sign is, once you ascribe it to a person- no matter their ‘real sign” most dudes nod and say “Yes, that’s exactly like Bob!”. But not so with Meyers/Briggs.
Mind you, it’s hardly exact. The different between a ESTP and a ESTJ, (esp if neither is very strong along the P/J axis) is more or less undetectable. But a strong introvert is quite different than a strong extrovert.
Yes, indeed your ‘type’ changes, and that’s actually a reason for believing it has some validity. Your type is most likely to change if it wasn;t ‘strong” in the first place.
So, are the types fully valid? No, but they are not bullshit either.
Funny timing, I just took this again yesterday. The set of questions I answered was really lame and overly general. They need to be more concrete, with examples, because there was more than one question where I just flipped a coin to answer it.
I do think it’s valuable to know whether one is introverted or extroverted, at least. There are too many introverts being forced into [del]conformity[/del]extroversion nowadays.
Here’s the thing though, you don’t need a test to tell you if you’re strongly an introvert or an extrovert. Your reaction to being at a party for 2 hours will tell you that. For the big stuff that is actually verifiable, you don’t need the test, you just need 5 minutes of introspection. For the piddly things, there’s so much noise that it really doesn’t matter how you answer.
This is more or less what happened at the testing day I attended recently - they read out the descriptions of the types in the room and there was strong and almost unanimous agreement on who was what, before the actuals were revealed - and the revealed results almost entirely validated our own matching.
It’s true that the descriptions (at least the ones we saw) tend to be phrased in the sort of fawning complimentary way that horoscopes are, which does make it easy to assume there’s nothing more than bias involved, but I think that might be because the material was (and often is) used within a generally optimistic framework - i.e. team-building, getting the best out of yourself, mutual understanding and co-operation, etc - they’re not going to say “you’re type INTJ, which means you’re really shit at XYZ, and everyone thinks you’re an ass”, because that’s not really useful.
As I understand it, the terms used to describe the types have more nuanced meanings - from one of the handouts I was given:
It goes on to explain that it’s not just about how people behave, but how they define/perceive the direction and impetus of their lives - so an extraverted impetus is based/dependent upon social/family/public/other external factors, but still quite meek in character, whereas an introverted impetus is based upon internalised thought, consideration, planning, etc, but may appear quite extrovert in expression.
That might sounds like it’s especially designed for no other purpose than to permit unlimited weaselling scope, but really, it’s not. Not everyone knows themselves all that well - and not everyone knows very well how other people around them might be thinking and perceiving the world. MBTI is a not-entirely-useless tool in putting that right.
I reiterate my opinion that any trait someone strongly identifies with is obvious to other people and usually the person as well and lesser correlated traits may as well be ascertained by means of a dartboard.
I dislike it because I never know how to answer the questions, so I always feel like I’m guessing. Somehow I always get the same score, but the description of my “type” doesn’t mesh with who I am very much.
IMHO, just living with yourself for a few years will teach you on how introverted, analytical, intuitive, etc. you are. Answering a handful of questions isn’t going to do anything but make you second-guess yourself should you respond or act against your “profile”.
The anecdotal evidence may be convincing, but it does not have, from what I’ve seen, a convincing weight of statistical proof behind it. There aren’t studies that show that people who get certain scores on the test do better, or are more likely to go into, certain professions. It’s not based on solid principles that have been supported by research. There are no internal means of determining validity of the person’s responses. Plus these factors should be separate from each other, but there is evidence that the J/P and S/N scales are linked (PDF warning) (see pg. 5 for reference), which should not happen if they’re supposed to be measuring different things.
As noted in the Skepdic article, even the company that produces the MBTI suggests that you can talk over your results with your test-giver and change a letter or two if they don’t seem to fit you.
It’s a fun party trick/dating game/mental exercise, but can be misleading or worse if used in things like determining job duties or ability to advance in your chosen career (especially since the MBTI claims to measure only preference, not ability), as so many pop psych things seem to be used from time to time.
I’ve found it moderately useful as a manager and team leader in understanding the preferred communication styles of colleagues. If I know or suspect someone is an ENFP I know that when they throw out frequent multiple (sometimes contradictory) ideas they are thinking out loud and I should let them talk it through, and draw them out on various ideas by asking some directed questions.
On the other hand some of my team members are squarely ISTJ and they won’t think out loud and brainstorm freely/publicly. They’re much more comfortable thinking it through silently and listening to others before voicing an idea or plan. I know I am much more likely to get good concrete suggestions and feedback from them a couple of hours after a team meeting, after they’ve had time to noodle things over in private.
As to using MBTI as a predictor of what someone would be good at or what their career path should be? No way.