Reading time: 7 minutes
Who doesn’t love discovering which fictional character or celebrity shares their personality? Whether it is figuring out if you are a logical or intuitive thinker, weighing the pros and cons, or comparing traits with friends, personality insights never get old. We are naturally drawn to setting labels and giving names to everything that we seek understanding for. Uncertainty scares us, which is why abstract matters such as characteristics that we possess are something we struggle to interpret, it is something we are curious about but have no certain way of testing, it all relies on circumstance, chance and assumption, repeated trials and attempts on figuring out the ultimate formula of solving human beings. A good way to deal with this uncertainty, that has gained a significant amount of popularity, is filling out an accessible and simple test that will produce a label with its remarkable deep-dive. However, the fun lasts until these means of testing are utilised in a more serious context, where they might disturb the validity of results, influence organizational environments and become so pervasive that people lose sight of its incompetence.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a very known – personality test, despite its high-profile in the popular culture, it is also highly criticized by the scientific community for its lack of empirical evidence. This test is structured as a self-report questionnaire which gives pseudoscientific claims about individuals, categorizing them into 16 distinct psychological types (personality types). The test was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs. The story behind the creation of this personality test is quite interesting. The inception of the test began in the early 1930s–1940s, neither of the women was a trained psychologist, they were fascinated by the works of swiss psychiatrist – Carl Jung, particularly by his recently released book “Psychological Types”, where Jung explains how people perceive and judge the world around them. In his book Jung establishes two core orientations – extraversion and introversion, along with four various mental functions – thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition; by pairing each orientation with the mental function frames – eight psychological types erupt . The mother-daughter duo was inspired by his work and decided to make efforts to turn the theory of psychological types to practical use. They were both self-taught in the field of psychometric testing but never actually acquired any education in the discipline of psychology. They began creating the indicator during World War 2, and their intention was to help women entering the industrial workforce for the first time to understand which war-time jobs would be most appropriate and effective for them. In their test the 16 types are based on four dichotomies: Introversion/Extraversion; Sensing/Intuition; Thinking/Feeling; Judging/Perceiving. Despite its widespread use in a variety of settings, institutions or self-discovery the test has faced major criticism.
As mentioned before at the basis of this indicator lies the theories of Jung, which themselves were never a subject or rigorous scientific testing. His typology was a result of his clinical observations and years of experience with real clients, rather than systematic research. So already the pillars of the indicator are significantly weak. It’s important to emphasize that individuals do not come in structured “types”. Instead, there are many factors playing in the distribution of personality traits among people. Most discrepancies within traits such as extraverted and intraverted are a spectrum, not everyone necessarily represents an extreme end of it, but rather falls somewhere between the two. The “forced-choice” format of the indicator, where individuals are supposed to choose one of the two options for each question, oversimplifies the nuanced nature of human personality. Most of our traits exist on a continuum. The unreliability of the test also stems from the fact that even small variations in scores completely switches the result of personality type category – the test assumes large between category differences but not within category differences (the case might be that 1. If two people both score extraverted, but one of them scored 1 point above the median and the other 30 points above the median – why are they considered all that similar? 2. If two people score introverted and extraverted but got minimal points below and above the median – why are they perceived all that different?). The studies conducted on the indicator have also shown consistent lack of reliability, meaning that the results of the test tend to fluctuate over time, the chance of a person receiving a different personality type after retaking the test has been measured to be around 50%. Other studies indicate that MBTI fails to foresee potential job performance, career success and personal satisfaction (which was the initial aim of the measure); its predictions do not correlate with actual outcomes in people’s careers. One potential reason for why the Indicator is so appealing is its judgement of all personality types in an optimistic and a positive light. The test encapsulates all 16 personalities as desirable and virtuous, this is advantageous for its agreeableness and could bring validation to people receiving the results. The test completely ignores the existence of more “negative” or unappealing aspects of human personality, which are considered as a crucial part of conclusive personality assessment.
Real-life problems prevail when this test is utilized in recruitment in organizational settings. Since the validity of this test has repeatedly failed to be recognized through research it creates a big risk of maljudgement and discrimination within work environments. A potential worker’s trait can be overlooked or incorrectly measured by the indicator, and making an authorised decision based on an invalid tool can lead to major misinformed decisions regarding recruiting new workers.
In the last century, and since Jung’s initial theories, personality psychology has significantly developed, now we have access to much better, sophisticated and reliable models of measuring our personalities, which are supported by empirical data (for instance: Big Five Inventory-2; NEO-PI-R-3). These models are less constricting, consider the wider complexity of our nature and produce a more accurate portrait of our prevailing characteristics.
The reasons behind MBTI’s popularity are fairly understandable, however its usage has to be limited to certain settings and purposes. As I mentioned before, humans are constantly motivated to discover more about themselves and ones around them, to understand what drives out decisions, how we think and feel and giving all of these differences typological titles brings us a sense of awareness and self-understanding. After taking the test individuals might feel more conscious of their emotional strategies which might bring light to potential areas of growth and improvement. Despite its shortcomings, it is still a fun way of interpreting oneself, in a quick, straightforward and an accessible manner.
MBTI has a long history, and a big place in popular culture. In a way it can serve as a gateway to more sophisticated and valid personality tests and the world of personality psychology in general, raising people’s curiosity and desire to learn more about it. However, considering all of its flaws, moving towards evidence-based and scientifically recognized models can provide more reliable and deeper personality assessments.
Ana-maria Razmadze
References:
https://kevinfengcs88.medium.com/my-experience-with-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-a2d88978258c
https://humanperformance.ie/myers-briggs-type-indicator-pseudoscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
Rispondi