It’s true that it summarises in a bimodal way, but that’s not really different from, say, talking about liverals and conservatives - summaries can be useful, or misleading, depending on how you try to use them.
I consider myself more as a pancreatarian.
Too bad “introvert” isn’t a Title 7 Protected Class, since the average person’s encounters with Myers-Briggs-style personality tests are their use to keep them out of suck jobs that they really need. Fifty demeaning questions at a computer kiosk, including “I sometimes want to hit people: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.”
To the psychologists it’s all very complex and rigorous and subject to review, etc; but to business owners it’s simply “introverts are dangerous brooders who come in shooting one day. Extroverts are desirable: even though at the narcissistic end of the spectrum they’ll scoop out the till, generally they still generate more profit that what they steal.”
I prefer the Strength Deployment Inventoryto the Myers-Briggs as I found the results slightly more interesting on a personal level, but I’ve yet to meet the manager who has the slightest idea what to do with the results of either the MB or SDI. And neither is worth whatever the company paid for it.
Quite possibly, it’s the social group’s desired/idealized/preferred characteristics. There’s nothing to prevent the person from answering in ways that they may think the group/their boss finds desirable. Tests like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Personality Assessment Inventory (noticed the latter in the MBTI Wiki article, but I knew about the former) have internal checks to look for that sort of thing, as well as to show that they are actually measuring different things. That link suggests narcissism and self-esteem as concepts to be measured and how to determine if a new (theoretical) test can separate them out sufficiently. Obviously there may be some self-esteem present in narcissists, but you need to be able to distinguish between the two categories. MBTI seems to fall down somewhat in this respect.
When I was taking abnormal psychology in college, I remember thinking “that’s me!” for many, if not most, of the disorders. (Ironically, the diagnoses I eventually received were the ones that didn’t register on my radar.)
The profiles are suspicious to me. Like they are designed to make you identify with them. None of them say, “You have a tendency to bug the crap out of people, and you’re a self-centered slacker too.” No, they tend to play up positive attributes. “You are very analytical, committed to problem-solving and perfectionism…” If you value these traits, then why wouldn’t you identify with them whether you actually possess them or not?
The tests are especially useless for people who have weak identities and lack self-awareness.
I predict people’s future behaviors based on their past behaviors. And I try to treat people as individuals rather than as members of a “type”. I don’t like being pigeon-holed, so it would be hypocritical for me to do that to someone else. And it doesn’t take me THAT long to figure out if a person is a details-oriented person versus a big-picture person, or if they process information externally versus internally. But really, those are minor considerations for me when I’m interacting with people. I’m not in a position where it’s important to predict people’s behaviors. If I have to dessiminate information to multiple people, for instance, I will send out an email with attachments and tell them to let me know if they have any questions. If they have questions, they can use whatever personality attributes they have to get the answers out of me. I’m not going to alter my behavior to suit them. It is possible to understand someone else without distilling their personality down into arbitrary constructs.
That said, openness is a facet of personality that I find more meaningful than any of the MB measures.
I dislike MB because I’ve worked at too many places where the HR drones use it against the employees. So it’s not MB itself I hate but the uses to which I’ve seen it put.
My mother? Let me tell you about my mother.
You obviously have little understanding of the Meyers-Briggs system. J does not mean “Judgemental” at all. J is for “Judging” as opposed to “Perceiving” and indicates a preference for structured interaction with the world and decision-making (contrasted with free-flowing interaction with the world and information-gathering).
I mean, that’s what J indicates if it indicates anything at all – which for the most part, it doesn’t, except strong parts of your personality that are obvious anyway.
Sounds like you’re a J. 
But from your comment I’d guess you’re judgmental not only in Merriam-Webster’s sense #1 (the sense I intended and that you seem unfamiliar with), but in sense #2 as well.
I’d quote those definitions for you but (to answer your tone in kind) instead I’ll let you open a dictionary – maybe you’ll learn how to spell judgmental ! 
haha, I always spell that wrong, mea culpa.
The point is, “J” does not mean “judgemental” in the MB profile. Period. The reason people hate and loathe the system is because other people say stupid shit like that about it. Things that are both wrong and assign value to certain results over other results.
BOTH J and P can be pathological in their extremes. It is not “better” to be a P than a J. In fact, if you are indeed a P you should revel in gathering this information. Clearly you should be thanking me for my observations, (P)ointless. LOL.
haha, I always spell that wrong, mea culpa.
The point is, “J” does not mean “judgemental” in the MB profile. Period. The reason people hate and loathe the system is because other people say stupid shit like that about it. Things that are both wrong and assign value to certain results over other results, or use the results as an insult. Its nothing more than an interesting parlor game. Amusing for as long as it lasts, but without any significance.
Accepting the system for what it is, it is not “better” to be a P than a J; both can be pathological. In fact, if you are indeed a P you should revel in gathering this information about other people’s opinions. Clearly you should be thanking me for my observations, §ointless. LOL.
The more empirically valid personality test is the Big 5 test which uses the scales of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
Yep.
That was me about 6 years ago. I got called in to “interview” at a call center job at Charter. There was no interview, I sat at a kiosk and answered myers-brigg type questions and the HR person returned and said my test results were not a match for the candidate they were looking for.
Considering my experiences with Charter customer service, I chose to accept it as a compliment.
Please show me where you think I implied that it is “better” to be a P than J. And, BTW, your reply (duplicated for emphasis :smack: ) makes clear you’ve not checked “judgmental” in dictionary. It wasn’t your ignorance of the spelling that was relevant.
Your comments may lead to a change of mind for me about Myers-Brigg “J”. :dubious: You “J” that I am “stupid.” With comments like yours I may “P” something about you.
Hope this helps. LOL.
Judgemental is a perfectly acceptable spelling (I think it’s even the preferred form in Britain, though I could be wrong).
Saying ‘it works for me personally’ is a classic example of judgment by case example as seen in astrology, as is your use of the equivalent of ‘I bet you’re a Taurean to answer like that’. The fact of the matter is when its measured using current statistical testing, it falls apart.
Otara
- True.
- Cite?
I must confess Im mostly going by memory during my post-grad training as a psychologist when it got eviscerated. Im on holiday at a farm for now, so would have to look for any of my old texts for cites when I get home. Firstly the most obvious critique is that it was a test constructed to find archetypes invented by Jung, rather than traits discovered through normative testing. As a result its always going to be a case of trying to make a round peg fit a square hole as these qualities werent really developed from statistical testing in the first place which is why you get things like 6 factors resulting rather than 4.
Secondly it was originally constructed to decide what kinds of jobs suit people best yet this is the area it has been shown to greatly fail at. Its a test that had to look for a use, as it fails badly at its original goal.
This has many of the weaknesses I was taught, as well as ones I wasnt aware of. Wiki is always tricky of course, as its a result of the battle between proponents and critics - in my view the real killer is the test-retest reliability.
Its of no real use if its only stable for 36% of people after 9 months, particularly when you have no way of predicting who that 36% will be until after that time period.
Otara