Psychologists have developed numerous assessment and diagnostic tests. We're all familiar with the Rorschach test [named after Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922)], a psychological test of personality in which a subject's interpretations of ten standard abstract designs are analyzed as a measure of emotional and intellectual functioning and integration. Generally, we think of the Rorschach test as something only abnormal people must be subjected to. For us "normals", the Myers-Briggs test is the more common diagnostic weapon of the social scientists. Though there are other tests which are worse; e.g., the so- called "integrity" tests tests which claim to predict how likely it is that a person will be honest.[note]
Why is it when I read the following Myers-Briggs profile of a personality type I feel I could be reading something from Omar the astrologer or Madame Sophie the biorhythmist? Judge for yourself. The only change I've made is the reference to personality type. See how well the profile fits you. I find the experience very reminiscent of James Randi's experiment with biorhythms and Forer's cold reading of strangers.
You have a great deal of warmth, but may not show it until you know a person well. You keep your warm side inside, like a fur-lined coat. You are very faithful to duties and obligations related to ideas or people you care about. You take a very personal approach to life, judging everything by their inner ideals and personal values.You stick to your ideals with passionate conviction. Although your inner loyalties and ideals govern your life, you find these hard to talk about. Your deepest feelings are seldom expressed; their inner tenderness is masked by a quiet reserve.
In everyday matters you are tolerant, openminded, understanding, flexible, and adaptable. But if your inner loyalties are threatened, you will not give an inch. Except for your work's sake, you have little wish to impress or dominate. The people you prize the most are those who take the time to understand their values and the goals they are working toward.
Your main interest lies in seeing the possibilities beyond what is present, obvious, or known. You are twice as good when working at a job you believe in, since your feeling puts added energy behind your efforts. You want your work to contribute to something that matters to you--human understanding, happiness, or health. You want to have a purpose beyond your paycheck, no matter how big the check. You are a perfectionist whenever you care deeply about something.
You are curious about new ideas and tend to have insight and long-range vision. At times you are interested in books and language and are likely to have a gift of expression; with talent you may be an excellent writer. You can be ingenious and persuasive on the subject of your enthusiasms, which are quiet but deep-rooted. You are often attracted to counseling, teaching, literature, art, science, or psychology.
You may feel such a contrast between your ideals and your actual accomplishments that you burden yourself with a sense of inadequacy. It is important for you to use your intuition to find ways to express your ideals; otherwise you will keep dreaming of the impossible and accomplish very little. If you find no channel for expressing your ideals, you may become overly sensitive and vulnerable, with dwindling confidence in life and in yourself.
I don't know about you, but this fits me pretty well....at least the parts that were right do...I've kind of forgotten the details of what I just typed and proofread, but I have a strong feeling it was pretty accurate. I'd say my experience can count as scientific proof of the accuracy of Myers-Briggs.
In my view, psychological tests such as the Myers-Briggs are little more than parlor games. They will be validated by their seemingly good fit with the data, in the same way that astrologers and biorhythmists find predictive patterns fitting their readings and charts. The big difference, of course, is that psychological testing has the backing of a community of university statisticians to reinforce its notions.
I saw a television program about integrity tests which included an interview with the president of one of the companies which is making a bundle selling this non-sense to businesses, industries and government agencies. The president's son had been denied a job because he failed the integrity test. The interviewer was tasteless enough to bring up the son's failure to his father who cavalierly defended the integrity of his son and made reference to some statistic which could be used on a regular ad hoc basis to defend every erroneous prediction likely to be made by the test. What I found most interesting about the program was that none of those developing or administering the integrity test had any idea of what the "integrity rating" of the general population is. That is, they had nothing to compare their predictions with. If 60% of the general population are generally honest, then if your test is accurate in tagging dishonest people 40% of the time, it will have great predictive power but so would just about any other test, including flipping a coin.
readers' comments
3 May 1996
The personality description you quote in your Skeptic's Dictionary may seem general, but once one becomes familiar with the nuances of the system, the precision becomes obvious.
Reading through all sixteen MBTI descriptions, you will probably find traits in several which fit you. This is because each type is a collection of functions which are shared between types. However, only one description should seem accurate in its totality.
There are valid criticisms of MBTI, but ambiguity between the types is absolutely not one of them. I can tell you *exactly* the differences line by line between the description you present, and any other type you can name.
Little of the profile [you give] fits me, or most of the people I know who aren't INFPs. BTW, where did you get that profile? It's actually pretty good.
Knowing your type (if INFP truly is your type), I can say that there is a
good chance that you are a fussy eater, have pretty harsh mood swings
(which you keep mostly to yourself, and maybe one or two trusted
confidants), and have a pretty good grasp of electronic devices. You
probably avoid casually discussing sex. A lot of your philosophical
discussions probably end emotionally, because you become personally
committed to facts. You are probably quite forgetful, have more trouble
than most making appointments, and live very sloppily.
S. Taylor
reply: I do avoid casually discussing sex. I do keep mostly to myself and have very few confidants. I am not a fussy eater, am pretty even-tempered, don't have much of a grasp for electronic devices; rarely, if ever, do I get emotional in philosophical discussions. I have a pretty good memory and have rarely missed an appointment. I am not a neatness freak, but I'm not sloppy, either. Well, at least we know you are not clairvoyant!
from Tony Schreiner:
I like the Skeptic's Dictionary, but I feel compelled to try to breifly explain the Meyer-Briggs (MBTI) test which you have unfairly represented.
If you haven't already, check out the 16 different groupings instead of just looking at one. I do NOT claim that the test itself is accurate or that people are often drawn towards a specific personality description because it describes how they WOULD LIKE to be rather than what they are.
reply: I thought that the purpose of the test was to accurately describe a person's personality. And one of the purposes to which I have seen such tests put is to "recommend" certain occupations or professions to people based on the fact that a significant percentage of similar personality types are in those occupations or professions. Frankly, outside of the obvious (such as noting that a "loner" is not likely to find satisfaction in being a rock star), I find the idea of suggesting to people that they should seek a profession that suits their personality be a hindrance, not just to them personally, but to society as a whole. I think the idea is personally and socially regressive and detrimental. The benefits of being surrounded in any job or profession from a variety of "types" of people far outweigh the benefits of fitting people to jobs by personality. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that if you are incompetent at math, you are not going to make it as a physicist. On the other hand, what real good do you do when you tell someone on the basis of a personality test that they would be suited for economics or international business? In my view, you have just provided them with another "decision-maker" and one which is not a whole lot more valuable than the oujia board or the fortune teller with her crystal ball.
The 16 categories DO do a good job grouping personality traits. While nobody is 100% in one category, I am an "INTP". Basically, INTP are quiet, logical, scientific folks. People who like to dig around in computers, mathematics, and other complex systems. INTP people are often uncomfortable around large groups of people, don't understand or know how to flirt, and are often "dateless". They tend to have only a couple good friends. INTP's are not "partiers". As you can see, this hardly is so general that it describes a everybody. The description I gave is rather extreme -- most INTP people are not complete "socially retarded" nerds as my quick description might imply. :)
reply: Well, I beg to differ with you about the generality of these traits. Some of these traits fit me; others don't. On the other hand, even if it is true that there are 16 basic personality types, what good is this information? Are you going to suggest that some types are superior to others? That people should strive to (a) find out what type they are, and then (b) try to change to a better type? Are you going to prejudge people on the basis of their type? Are you going to interpret their words and actions according to the stereotype of their type? Are you going to tell them things like, "well, the reason you are so shy is because you are an INTP?" If you really want to hinder a person's growth just tell them that they are an XYZ and then view them with XYZ blinders. What social or personal value does this way of thinking have?
The personality indicator does not tell anyone MORE than they put into it, but knowing someone's personality type allows you to predict their reactions to different situations reasonably well.
reply: Where is the evidence for this? What studies show that by knowing a person's personality type you can predict specific behaviors? Maybe you are thinking of the studies which find a correlation between INTPs and computer programmers? that kind of thing. Astrologers find correlations between mars and soldiers. So what? What kind of important, specific predictions can be made from Myers-Briggs classifications that can't be made by anyone who knows a person well? I know some social scientists think that they can tell you who will be likely to be dishonest on the basis of a test. Good evidence for the validity of these tests is lacking.
The traits in the test are:
(I)ntroverted vs. (E)xtroverted
i(N)tuitive vs. (S)ensing
(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling
(J)udging vs. (P)erceiving
I suggest reading some explanations on these traits to understand more about the differences between them.
reply: I suggest that dividing people into these categories does more harm than good. For example, thinking and feeling are not opposed to one another. We do not think deeply and seriously about things we do not feel strongly about. Where there is no passion, there will be little good thinking. I know the origin and history of this Platonic bifurcation of human nature and I think it has been more misleading than insightful. Of course, people do not do their best thinking when they are under the spell of a strong emotion such as anger or jealousy. On the other hand, some strong emotions such as fear stimulate some people to do their best thinking: it forces them to focus like never before and to make decisions, which, under ordinary circumstances, they find it hard to do. And, of course, there are some people who rarely think critically or do a rational analysis of anything: they react emotionally to just about everything. And there are some people who don't seem to have feelings, who intellectualize just about everything. But most of us are thinking/feeling beings and have integrated personalities. We are not "right brain" or "left brain": we use the whole brain. We do not find life requires us to be either practical or theoretical, introverted or extroverted, intuitive or sensing, judging or perceiving, male or female, yin or yang, but all of these things. What are contradictions and opposites to some, are complementary and integrative to others
The biggest thing that learning about this personality test did for me is reinforce how people are different. One person may be a warm, empathetic, touchy-feely person that loves to flirt while another is relatively quiet and analytical. We sometimes forget that people are different. My parents are IS*J's. They have very strong work ethics (never idle) and are EXTREMELY neat and clean. Unless it's mine, you will never see anything dusty or a dirty dish left 15 minutes after a meal or anything out of place. I am not messy, but I'm not as clean as them. I prefer to organize my thoughts (and my very organized not-an-icon-out-of-place computer is an extension of my "thoughts") more than my outside world.
reply: People are different. But there is something I have learned from 25 years of teaching that no test can reveal: people are often very different from how they appear and what they say on a test. Most people do not reveal themselves to others. There may be evolutionary reasons for this. Some of the warmest, touchy-feely types are sadistic and brutal; some of the coldest, seemingly inhuman types are the kindest and most humane. To understand how really different people are, throw away your Myers-Briggs classifications and try to see people by how "they" define themselves through their words and actions, not how you or a group of social scientists define them.
This test is not scientific and has no place in an office situation to evaluate people (especially to accept or reject them based on the results).
reply: Well, we agree on one thing, at least!
A rather lengthy message, but I felt that this item [the Myers-Briggs entry] was out of place and treated unfairly in your Skeptic's Dictionary. I'm sure that some people may read more into the test and think that it's some magical measure of something, but it is actually nothing but loosely grouping people based on their personality preferences.
reply: I don't think the Myers-Briggs entry is out of place in a book about pseudoscience. Obviously, I feel and think this test has implications and nuances that transcend and warp classifications of people based on preferences and synchonicities. The test encourages and embraces harmful delusions.
27 Jun 1996
There have been peer-reviewed studies of myers-briggs; you can
definitely make testable predictions of correlation. For a *political*
example, an educational organization called the _Advocates for
Self-Government_ has noticed that the vast majority of Libertarians test
out as i(N)tuitive (T)hinking, which is a type that is quite rare in the
general population.
The _Mental Measurements Yearbook_ (MMY) has lists of references to articles in peer-reviewed journals in which the MBTI test is used. An excellent review of MBTI is apparently given by Anthony DeVito in the 9th MMY, and two additional reviews in the 10th MMY. The recently published 11th MMY does not include these. The MMY are available in the reference section of most college and university libraries.
Glen Raphael
reply: Now I have one more useless piece of information about Libertarians!
06 Aug 1996
Your site, especially many of the links you have provided, was a real
find for me. I just wanted to thank you for the trouble you put into
it, and for the Skeptic's Dictionary. I sampled the entry on
Myers-Briggs, and I must say that you are right on target with your
analysis. I'm a recovering management trainer, so I have taught
courses to managers based on MBTI, and on other less sophisticated
knock-offs of it, on many occasions over the years. Being a skeptical
person by inclination and education (took lots of philosophy in
undergraduate school back in the Dark Ages), I rather quickly found
that the various personality typologies were more of a barrier to
understanding and getting along with people than an aid in doing so.
I found that people, when presented with a schema such as this, focus on the means to the exclusion of the purported end. In interactions on the job, it quickly became clear that people were spending all their mental time trying to fit others into the appropriate personality category so they could apply the approved "interaction algorithm" and get along with them. I also found that they were spending damn little time listening, asking questions, making suggestions, floating and modifying hypotheses, and all the other things you have to do to actually communicate and work with others. They never got that far, because nobody had told them to do so. I eventually had to get pretty loose with the approved curriculum, and add techniques that they could use to do something useful with what I was purportedly there to teach them.
This is not to say that these instruments don't have some use for some people; for better or worse, some folks seem to need what they perceive to be an objective, authoritative, scientific source of insight on themselves that they haven't the inclination or training to develop on their own. And, I have seen a few people benefit in a genuine way from the impetus that tests such as this provided for some self-analysis and reflection.
By and large, though, I've found that MBTI and others of its ilk contribute more to the establishment and perpetuation of a corporate priesthood (complete with holy writ, oracles, acolytes, rituals, and an arcane lexicon) than to increased productivity through understanding and cooperation. Don't let anybody snow you on this stuff: there are few good answers to your question "what's the point of all this?" A cost-benefit analysis of this stuff would undoubtedly come out very badly for everyone except the peddlers.
.... keep up the good work.
People do appreciate it, and I hope you have fun doing it.
DeWitt L. Beeler ,
Knoxville, Tennessee
18 Jul 1996
Thank you for your comments/responses on the Myers-Briggs in the SD. Very well put. I remember how annoyed I felt last year when we had to spend an entire class period going over our MB "types". The first comment the facilitator made was this: "You'll know who the introverts are already. They're the ones who won't be talking during this discussion."
The new trend is to claim that the difference between 'extroverts' and 'introverts' is "all about energy." Supposedly, being an 'introvert' is not something to be embarassed about anymore-it just means that one gets their 'energy' by being alone vs. by being in a group. That makes it all better, right?
A.C.
Colorado State University