From the article: "Yet despite its widespread use and vast financial success, and although it was derived from the work of Carl Jung, one of the most famous psychologists of the 20th century, the test is highly questioned by the scientific community."
"Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: 'at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs,' the very thing that it is most often used for."
> "I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously"
About four years ago I worked briefly for an IT department at a large university. Every staff member at a certain level had to have a one-to-one with the CTO shortly after joining.
About a week before my one-to-one I received a folder from the CTO's PA. It contained:
* The CTO's Myers-Briggs test results in their entirety
* A two page document entitled "How to talk to our CTO", based off said test results
* A discussion of why the CTO's results made him suitable for his job
Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. Do a personality test if you want, but don't let the test dictate how you're doing your job.
Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long.
The jackass in question should have read the references about the Myers-Briggs test that I've already submitted to this thread (above in this same subthread). And he should also have done some research on company hiring procedures
so that he knew that what really matters for his organization is whether or not his colleagues can do their work. He should have worked harder at developing himself as an effective CTO.
Agreed: CTO should have focused on his/her own development.
My SO works in sales/mkgt. That segment relies heavily on personality and aptitude tests. My SO swears by them. Says it helps identify prospect's weaknesses, to better help them succeed. I'm dubious, but it's hard to argue with success.
I'll chew thru all those links you provided. Thanks.
The problem is primarily that the MBTI is misapplied and misunderstood.
It is misunderstood by most people as a set of absolutes without any nuances, whereas it's generally intended to simply classify dominant modes of thinking. i.e., most people will have some problems that they approach one way and other problems that they approach another way, but they will also have a tendency to approach most problems in one of a few ways.
Think of it as handedness: most people have a dominant hand, but that doesn't mean that they use only their dominant hand for everything, and that doesn't mean that people can't change their handedness.
Because of the way that it's misunderstood, it's also misapplied by a couple of groups of people: those gullible people that are seeking either self-understanding or validation without putting any real effort in, and those people that make a living by going around selling snake-oil psychology.
So, while certain professional fields do exhibit certain MBTI trends, it should not be used as a way to determine what profession someone would be best at, or what relationships they should have, or any of that other nonsense. Likewise, all of that "ABCDs behave like this or that or the other thing" stuff is all bullshit too.
That said, MBTI can be a useful tool. I use it to listen for certain cues in conversations, and then I slightly change my behavior in the conversation to communicate better with the other person. For instance, I listen to whether the person tends to say, "I feel like ..." versus "I think..."; one tells me to communicate with them emotionally, the other rationally. Another cue is in paying attention to whether a person tends to communicate action or observation. In a management context, you can generally rely on an "action" person to let you know if they think something needs to be done (or they'll just do it, if you've granted them the freedom); conversely, an observant person might be even more useful in a group, but you're going to have to take some initiative to find out what they see.
I could have learned to do these things without ever learning about the MBTI, but the MBTI made it easier for me to figure out what I should watch out for.
That said, I have exactly zero identity as a particular MBTI type, and it has otherwise zero guidance on my life or relationships, as it should.
It is misunderstood by most people as a set of absolutes without any nuances,
-- Only the high priests of MBTI know the truth? Puleeeez.
That is the nuance: It is in no way 'scientific'. Its about as scientific as any 2x2 (or: NxN) dimensionalized matrix. Which is to say, it says nothing about the dimensionalizing variables. Nor does it say anything about the underlying hypotheses of relevance. Nor the alternative or relative performance different dimensionalizations. It follows that referencing MBTI today says more about the acronym dropper than anything else.
I agreed with everything you said until the last sentence.
About 25 years ago I got an interesting demonstration, in a group of people. I was in a large group of people, who were asked to draw two lines. On the first, mark how noticeable you are. On the second mark how organized you think you are. We were then divided into quadrants based on this, and sent off to talk with others in the same quadrant.
The test took just a few seconds. It was based on BS criteria. Everyone understood that. But it was amazing at how much each quadrant shared. And when we came back in and sat down in quadrants, to report back what we'd learned, you could look at all 4 groups and it was instantly obvious which group was which.
If you're looking to get a label, and to figure out where you belong, this kind of test does not work. But as a starting place to get ideas for how to get insight about yourself, the test absolutely is valuable. And as long as the personality characteristics measured are consistent and well understood, it wouldn't matter what they are.
If you're curious, on the MBTI I came out ENTP. On the tiny test I just described, I was a promoter - I am both noticeable and disorganized.
After you reduce the idea (as per your post), then the "idea" of concept of XYZ becomes a ~meaningless heuristic. And on that, we agreee. So there is no need to argue "with" you. Hope you understand. Nothing personal.
It was certainly attempting to capture something useful about the test-taker's approach to interaction and problem-solving, though -- unlike astrological signs and similar things (which are based only on birthday).
Of course, it depends on the context -- I'd be distressed to run into this as part of a job interview -- but in general the people taking it seriously are trying to figure out ways to help people with different styles of thinking/working interact with each other.
On the whole, this is worth some effort, and you should encourage it (while gently dissuading them from using the MBTI as the starting point...).
Have an upvote. You have relieved me of the need to compare 16 personality types to 12 (sun signs).
(Irony: I actually think astrology -- and MBTI -- has its uses. I just think dividing billions of people into twelve general groups is somewhat silly. Making it sixteen isn't tremendously better.)
From the article: "Even more compromising, according to Grant, is the fact that Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Myers created the framework in their living room before doing any robust scientific research, rather than the other way around."
Any justification must be after the fact. I also love the section on how the closest "more-scientific" analog isn't gaining traction because it's possibly too negative. And open-source.
tl;dr - The issue of the MBTI and psychometrics in general is nuanced, and strongly held opinions of either pseudoscience, or devoted metaphysical truthiness, are equally problematic.
The MBTI test as it currently stands, deserves the reputation as flawed empirical instrument, yet at the same time it's utility is undeniable. Unlike horoscopes, individual descriptions do differ rather significantly. The biggest issue in my view is not a fundamental one, but rather a flawed set of assumptions. The principle being that the test taker, possesses intimate self knowledge and presents an accurate and unchanging self portrait. In addition to the wonderful qualities humans have, there remains a number possible impairments with regards to self assessment: bias, delusion, deceitfulness, fancifulness, ignorance or simply an innocent unrefined skill in introspective ability. Thus the issue appears to largely be with the test itself, and not so much any solid refutation of the Jungian theory on which it rests.
While Jung certainly had some strange and mystical ideas, which would be difficult to support in today's scientific environment, his theory of cognitive functions is uncannily prescient IMHO, and believe is most deserving of further scrutiny. He is also largely responsible for the introducing the concepts of extraversion/introversion in the early part of the last century which have remained a mainstay on both public and academic discourse. [5]
Thus upon reflection, the observation of Jung as a mystic, is not necessarily an indication of a weak mind. One should not overlook the fact Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps one of the greatest scientists of all time, had strong mystical[1] and occultist[2] leanings too.
One might argue "well, the 1600's are quite different to the 1900's and Jung ought to have known better". Yet if the whole idea of a personal God seems rather delusional in the 21st century, the fact that credible scientists continue to partake in it today, does not simply invalidate their scientific discoveries. For example, James Smalley's [3] won the Nobel prize for the discovery of Buckyballs while simultaneously being an ardent supporter of old earth Creationism. Another example would be notable Christian apologist and Human Genome Project pioneer, Francis Collins [4]).
Returning to the issue of the test itself, the primary concern is that it it relies on self-report and is not a direct measure of the physical cognitive diversity existing between brains.
On the topic of Jung and neuroscience there is some preliminary proto-research by done by UCLA researcher Dario Nardi investigating the possible evidence for Jung's cognitive functions within the brain. He gave a talk at Google in 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA explaining his results.
Of course this is by no means an empirical vindication of Jung, but it does open up a potentially interesting line of exploration. As with any non-peer reviewed work, it should be treated with due skepticism.
Lastly, for those interested in further reading, I have digitized a copy of Jung's seminal work, 'Psychological Types (1921)' [5] am sharing it for anyone wishing to study the source material.
Yes. Here are some references about that.
http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/person...
"Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: 'at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs,' the very thing that it is most often used for."
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/deve...
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/...