The Myers-Briggs Personality Test
A critical look at the world's most popular psychological metric, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Filed under Fads, General Science
| Skeptoid #221 August 31, 2010 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode
221 , August 31, 2010
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/
4221
Today we're going to delve into the murky depths of Jungian psychology, and examine one of its most popular surviving manifestations. The Myers-Briggs test is used all over the world, and is the single most popular psychometric system, with the full formal version of the test given more than 2,000,000 times a year. But is it a valid psychological tool, is it just another pop gimmick like astrology, or is the truth somewhere in between?
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, called MBTI for short, more properly owes the bulk of its credit to the great Swiss analytical psychologist Carl Jung. In 1921, Jung published his book Psychological Types, in which he laid out all the same concepts found in the MBTI, but he had them organized quite differently. Jung had everyone categorized as either a "perceiver" or a" judger". Perceivers fell into one of two groups: sensation and intuition; while judgers also fall into two groups: thinking and feeling. So everyone fits into one of those four buckets. Finally, each bucket is divided into two attitude types: introversion and extraversion. Thus, the scale proposed by Jung divided us all into one of eight basic psychological types.
An American woman, Katherine Briggs, bought Jung's book and was fascinated by it. She recommended it to her married daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, who had a degree in political science. The two of them got hooked on the idea of psychological metrics. Together they sat down and codified their own interpretation of Carl Jung, making a few important changes of their own. Jung had everyone fitting into one of four basic buckets. Myers and Briggs decided that each person probably combined elements, so they modified Jung's system and made it a little more complex, ending up with four dichotomies, like binary switches. Any combination of the four switches is allowed, and Myers and Briggs reasoned that just about every personality type could be well described by one of the sixteen possible ways for those switches to be set. Basically, according to Myers and Briggs, we're all represented by a four-digit binary number.
- The first dichotomy is called your Attitude, and according to the MBTI, you're either an E for Extravert or an I for Introvert. Extraverts prefer action, frequent interaction, focus outward, and are most relaxed when interacting with others. Introverts prefer thought, less frequent but more substantial interaction, and are most relaxed spending time alone.
- The second dichotomy is your Perceiving function, and you're either S for Sensing or N for Intuition. Sensing is the scientific, tangible data-driven approach to gathering information, preferring to deal in concrete, measurable information. The Intuition approach prefers theoretical, abstract, hunch-driven information, finding more meaning in apparent patterns and context.
- The third dichotomy is your Judging function, and you're either a T for Thinking or an F for Feeling. This is basically how you make decisions. Thinking makes the logical decision, what's best for the situation, based on rules and pragmatism. Feeling decides based on empathy for the people whom the decision affects, seeking balance and harmony.
- The fourth and final dichotomy is your Lifestyle, and you're either a J for Judgment or a P for Perception. This one gets a little confusing. Judgment types prefer to use the third dichotomy, Judging, when relating to the outside world, while Perception types prefer the second Perceiving dichotomy; but how that preference is determined is based on whether you're an Introvert or an Extravert. Suffice it to say, for the purpose of this light overview, that this last of the four dichotomies, Lifestyle, is the most complicated; and it's where Myers and Briggs most creatively expanded upon Jung on their own.
The basic test, of which there are several variations and revisions, is called the MBTI Step I and it's a series of almost 100 questions, each with two possible answers. Each question consists of two short statements or word choices, and you simply choose which of the two you prefer. When the results are tabulated, you should ideally have your preference established for each of the four dichotomies; and congratulations, you are now identified by one of sixteen possible personality types. Myers and Briggs gave names and descriptions to all sixteen, names such as the Executive, the Caregiver, the Scientist, and the Idealist.
Perhaps the most common misconception about the MBTI is that it shows your aptitude, helping you determine what kinds of things you'd be good at. This is not the case. Myers-Briggs is only about determining your preference, not your ability. There might be things that you're good at that you don't enjoy, and there might be things you enjoy that you're not good at. The MBTI helps your find your comfort zone, the types of activities you'll like and be most content with; not necessarily those at which you'll be especially competent.
Even though neither had any background in psychology, Myers and Briggs enjoyed great success with their system. As Mrs. Briggs was getting quite old, Isabel Myers was the main driving force. Her initial idea was that certain personality types would more easily excel at different jobs, and the tool was intended to be used by women entering the workforce during World War II. However, it was not published until 1962, but since that time, it's become the most widely used basic psychology test. It's most often used outside of the psychological profession, and is employed in career counseling, sports coaching, marriage counseling, dating, professional development, and almost every other field where people hope to be fit with a role that would work best for them.
So the MBTI's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism ranges from the pragmatic fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test these concepts, relying instead on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions; all the way to charges that your MBTI score is hardly more meaningful than your zodiac sign.
One obvious trait that the MBTI has in common with horoscopes is its tendency to describe each personality type using only positive words. Horoscopes are so popular, in part, because they virtually always tell people just what they want to hear, using phrases that most people generally like to believe are true, like "You have a lot of unused potential." They're also popular because they are presented as being personalized based on the person's sign. This has been called the Forer Effect, after psychologist Bertram Forer who, in 1948, gave a personality test to his students and then gave each one a supposedly personalized analysis. The impressed students gave the analyses an average accuracy rating of 85%, and only then did Forer reveal that each had received an identical, generic report. Belief that a report is customized for us tends to improve our perception of the report's accuracy.
I notice this right away when I read Isabel Myers' description for my own personality type, ISTJ, the Duty Fulfiller: "Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible." Basically it's a nice way to say "Dry, boring, and punctual," which hits my nail pretty squarely on the head. From that alone, I might conclude that the MBTI is extraordinarily insightful. But if I look at her description of my opposite counterpart, an ENFP, the Inspirer, that person is "Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. Sees life as full of possibilities." Who wouldn't like to believe that about his or her self? If I'd taken the test and been handed that result, I might be equally inclined to embrace it, probably thinking something like "Wow, I'm even more awesome than I thought I was."
Due to these legitimate criticisms of the MBTI and its unscientific underpinnings, the test is rarely used in clinical psychology. I did a literature search on PubMed and discovered that, interestingly, many of the published studies of its practical utility come from nursing journals. Many of the other publications pertain to relationship counseling and religious counseling. Normally, this is a red flag. When you see a topic that purports to be psychological being used in practically every professional discipline except psychology, you have very good reason to be skeptical of its actual value. Should we dismiss the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a psychometric?
The test does have some severe inherent problems. It's been found that 50% of test takers who retake it score differently the second time. This is because nobody is strictly an E or an I, for example, but somewhere in between. Many people are right on the border for some of the four dichotomies, and depending on their mood that day or other factors, may answer enough questions differently to push them over. Yet the results inaccurately pigeonhole them all the way over to one side or the other. This makes it possible for two people who are very similar to actually end up with completely opposite scores. Isabel Myers was aware of this limitation, and did her best to eliminate questions that did not push people away from the center when the results were studied in aggregate. It was a hack.
From the perspective of statistical analysis, the MBTI's fundamental premise is flawed. According to Myers & Briggs, each person is either an introvert or an extravert. Within each group we would expect to see a bell curve showing the distribution of extraversion within the extraverts group, and introversion within the introverts. If the MBTI approach is valid, we should expect to see two separate bell curves along the introversion/extraversion spectrum, making it valid for Myers & Briggs to decide there are two groups into which people fit. But data have shown that people do not clump into two separately identifiable curves; they clump into a single bell curve, with extreme introverts and extreme extraverts forming the long tails of the curve, and most people gathered somewhere in the middle. Jung himself said "There is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum." This does not support the MBTI assumption that people naturally separate into two groups. MBTI takes a knife and cuts the bell curve right down the center, through the meatiest part, and right through most people's horizontal error bars. Moreover, this forced error is compounded four times, with each of the four dichotomies. This statistical fumble helps to explain why so many people score differently when retaking the test: There is no truly correct score for most people, and no perfect fit for anyone.
And this has been borne out in observation. A number of studies have found that personality types said to be most appropriate for certain professions, notably nursing or teaching, turn out to be no more prevalent among that profession than among the general population. The Army Research Institute commissioned one such study to determine if the MBTI or similar tests could be used to improve the placement of personnel in different duties, and firmly concluded that the results of such tests did not justify their use in career counseling.
From reviewing the literature, I do find one common theme among mainstream psychotherapists where the use of the MBTI is advised, and that's as a conversation starter. It's a fine way to give people a quick snapshot of what their strengths and weaknesses might be, and of those with whom they interact. To get the dialog going, this is a perfectly valid tool. But as a tool for making career decisions, relationship decisions, or psychiatric assessment, no. Although it would be nice to have a magically easy self-analysis tool that can make your decisions for you and be your crystal ball, the Myers-Briggs test is not it. It is interesting and it does have value as a starting point for meaningful dialog, but that's where the line should be drawn.
© 2010 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Dickson, D., Kelly, I. "'The Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature." Psychological Reports. 1 Feb. 1985, Volume 57, Number 2: 367-382.
Druckman, D., Bjork, R. In the Mind's Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
Howes, R., Carskadon, T. "Test-Retest Reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Function of Mood Changes." Research in Psychological Type. 1 Jan. 1979, Volume 2, Number 1: 67-72.
Jung, C. Psychological Types. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc., 1923.
Long, T. "Myers-Briggs and Other Modern Astrologies." Theology Today. 1 Oct. 1992, Volume 49, Number 3: 291-295.
Myers, Isabel and Peter. Gifts Differing. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1980.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"The Myers-Briggs Personality Test." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
31 Aug 2010. Web.
3 Feb 2012. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 115 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Wow, look at that Scott, the limited characters were enough to support your claims after all. Who would have thought it
And by the way, somebody claiming to be an expert in the field does not make a post evisdence . Laugh if you like, but it has been known for people to claim to be experts or well known figures in annonymous forums.
Tom H, Kent, UK
September 06, 2011 4:35am
I just wanted to point out that I agree with scott on the treatment of the subject matter being shallow. The problem here is that the author of the article didn't study the subject matter enough to have a valid opinion. Let me use myself as an example. First I took the test, I scored as an INTJ, fine. The description fits me(intellectual, scientific type person.) Then a while later I read a book on the subject. Developed a better understanding of the archetypes. Now I'm an ENTJ as that fits me better. And I see at this point that the test itself is very limited, a blunt knife if you will. An interview with someone well versed is a much better approach. Then I really delve into the subject matter, cognitive functions, and such and realize how little I knew before. At this point I have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the system and it took a while to get there. Now I respect Dunning as a man of substance, but the problem here is the format and the amount of effort he's willing to expend on one article among many. Also these type of topics require an emotional IQ to really parse bullshit from fact and Dunning isn't particularly interested in that approach. He's dry and boring after all :)
PS this isn't an attack on the man at all, I respect his intellectual discipline and relatively open-minded approach to skeptical matters.
Max Bowman, Brooklyn New York
September 24, 2011 7:17am
Max,
You're absolutely spot on.
The tests are a very blunt and imperfect tool, and any person well-versed in Jungian typology (and its offshoot, the MBTI) knows this. The tests might point you in the right direction; they might not (70% of people given a professional test do re-test as the same type, though [although, even then, they could actually be retesting as the wrong type]).
The real value lies in learning about Jung's theory of psychological types (note the words he used -- not "personality" type [there are actually a lot more dimensions to personality than just Jungian psychological type -- but Jungian psychological type is one interesting and important way to look at personality and human psychology]) and its underlying idea: the cognitive functions.
Once one has delved deep enough to have an understanding of the *cognitive functions*, as opposed to the very simplistic and crude *dichotomies*, then one is on the road to gaining real value and insight from Jung's theory.
Unfortunately, many people only learn about the surface level of the dichotomies (which is, in large part, due to the fact that MBTI *tests* usually focus only on the dichotomies) and never get into the real core of the theory: the cognitive functions.
***
An aside: interesting how many NTJs have been agreeing with me here. I myself am a close blend between an INTJ and an ENTJ. I call myself an INTJ, because I'm slightly more introverted than extroverted, but I could also call myself an xNTJ.
Scott B, Santa Monica, CA
October 04, 2011 1:19pm
Max, whats your star sign?
Scott B. If you you can grow up from being an INTJ to be an ENTJ or waivering inbetween,
You didn't read the rider did you?
Mud, Sin City, Oz
October 25, 2011 7:14am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
He meant evidence Scotty.
Sensing is never about being scientific, its done by your sensory systems. Its interpreted by your brain. If you havent got a scientific bone in your body, you keep sliding over lettuce leaves and eating the juicy bits..
Let me be the first to proudly pronouce the fact that I failed the myers-briggs personality test.
Doesnt say much for my personality but...
Henk V, sin city, Oz
September 05, 2011 8:11pm