“A Myers-Briggs course?” My colleague looked at me incredulously. “You?” I nodded enthusiastically. “Yup. A full-day facilitated session. Apparently it will be ‘far more in depth than any online test you’ve ever done!!’”, I said reading off the email splayed with large font and images of cartoon brains.
Inwardly I rolled my eyes: he was an ESFJ. Of course he would be worried about “the science” and “the research”. Why would I have ever thought an ESFJ could understand this free-spirited, highly intuitive ENFP?
The 16 Myers-Briggs personality types Photo: Toby Morris
In his defence, my enthusiasm about Myers-Briggs was somewhat of an anomaly. I work in the law, where I spend my days preoccupied by rules and evidence. Junk science irks me. I don’t like to be told that as an Aquarian I must feel a deep and meaningful connection with the ocean because, in fact, I can’t swim and find the water vaguely terrifying. The worst day of my current job was undoubtedly a one-day seminar on “How To Manage Your Stress And Triple Your Memory”, presented by a US pop psychologist who had appeared on Oprah and had a Chris Traeger-esqe obsession with vitamins and supplements. I like to analyse and understand, and don’t try to tell me it’s because of the lunar cycle during which I was born.
I was prepared to accept that Myers-Briggs, undoubtedly, walks the line between junk and science. It was invented by a mother and daughter duo, neither of whom had a background in psychology. The story goes that Katherine Briggs was a well-to-do woman who wanted to better understand her daughter’s new boyfriend. She became fascinated with the work of Karl Jung, and his seminal work Psychological Types. Jung identified eight types, which Katherine’s daughter Isobel Briggs Myers doubled to 16, and they developed into the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test.
According to MBTI theory, a person’s personality fits into one of these 16 types. These are based on four features of personality, each of which consist of two opposite ‘preferences’: extraversion or intraversion, for example. People are said to have an innate preference that determines how they perceive the world and behave in different situations. According to the MBTI theory, while a person can learn or develop the complimentary style, the primary preference continues to dominate. Therefore, while an introvert can become more comfortable speaking up in a group, their primary preference is to develop their thoughts internally and keep quiet during a discussion.
What if sometimes I prefer a night in with a book, but other times I crave the company of others? Too bad, says MBTI.
The MBTI test involves a number of questions to draw out a person’s preferences. For example, would you prefer to improvise or have a clearly defined plan? Work in a team or alone? Use a tried-and-true approach, or a new and unpredictable – but possibly better – one? Once you’ve completed the test you get a four-letter indicator as to your type. And, if you’re doing an online test, everything from potential life partners to your celebrity match.
Already, the flaws are apparent. The test is blunt: you either like being alone or you’re always dancing on tables. What if sometimes I prefer a night in with a book, but other times crave company? Too bad, says MBTI: you’re either an extrovert or an introvert. In reality, people usually sit somewhere in the middle of a continuum, rather than simply at either end. As such, the test provides an over-simplification, and often a misrepresentation, of the complex nature of human beings.
David J Pittenger, an Assistant Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Marietta College, wrote a comprehensive critique of the MBTI methodology back in 1993, citing flaws in the statistical structure of the test, its reliability and its validity. In it, he points out because the test uses “cut-off points” that divide the 16 dimensions, two people who have very close scores can be labelled with very different personalities; it’s not unusual for a person to do the test twice in a relatively short space of time and get different results. He concludes that the test is good for little more than reinforcing stereotypes – and Pittenger is just one of many sceptics. Others point to the massive industry that has been built around MBTI, making massive bank off what is the most well-known and popular personality test in the world.
The main criticism of MBTI is not so much its science, or lack thereof, but the way in which it is used. Increasingly, personality tests are used as tools by hiring and recruitment agencies, as well as within workplaces. If an agency is looking for a new sales representative, it may disregard candidates whose MBTI is INFP. Or, when choosing between two candidates for a role, HR staff may choose the candidate with the MBTI profile they think will best gel with the rest of the team. It may not necessarily lead to bad decisions, especially in the latter situation where both candidates are likely to be competent, but it may prevent optimal hires or indeed a fair decision.
There is something satisfying about seeing what you always kind of knew about yourself down on the page in front of you; feeling like you’ve knocked the nail on the head, but in this case you’re both the nail and the hammer
Allison Fisher, a career and life coach based in Auckland who uses the MBTI test as part of her practice, agrees that it shouldn’t be used in the hiring process. She views it as “a personality test, but not a competency test”. Instead, she uses MBTI largely as a tool in career coaching. In her experience it encourages personal exploration, allowing clients to become more attuned with who they are in order to find a career that suits their personality. As well as career coaching, she does corporate team building work, in which offices or teams can explore their “group personality” and better understand the dynamics between individuals in the office.
Although Allison claims there is a “heap, heap, heap” of research to back up MBTI as a reliable and valid personality testing tool, she thinks her clients’ experiences speak loudest. For many, it’s reaffirming what they already knew but hadn’t been able to articulate. You knew you hated lists, and four out of five days of the week you run to the bus stop shovelling toast into your mouth, but you didn’t know it was because your primary mode was perceiving rather than judging. There is something satisfying about seeing what you always kind of knew about yourself down on the page in front of you; feeling like you’ve knocked the nail on the head, but in this case you’re both the nail and the hammer.
The feeling of self-satisfaction is fuelled by what is another major criticism of MBTI: it’s overwhelmingly positive, meaning people are more than happy to cling on to what they’re seeing on paper. According to MBTI, my type, the ENFP, is the “Inspirer”. “ENFPs tend to be very insightful and empathic individuals – this, plus their charm and social skills, often makes them very popular and influential”, says one site. “ENFPs have an unusually broad range of skills and talents”, says another. You’re presented with an idealised version of yourself: a shop assistant telling you she’s never seen someone look so good in that dress, and it’s tempting to ignore what you see in the mirror.
This is something Pittenger, too, was critical of: “If you tell someone that they are ‘innovative thinkers and good problem solvers, and good at understanding and motivating people, but may have problems following through on details of a project’, they will believe that the statement is an accurate description of themselves regardless of the truth of the statement.”
It’s what’s called the Forer Effect. Back in 1948, psychologist Bertram Forer gave a personality test to his students, telling them they were each receiving a unique personality analysis based on the results in their test. Students were to rate the accuracy of the analysis on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) as to how they felt it described their personality. In reality, all of the students received the exact same “unique analysis”, and yet the average score in terms of accuracy was 4.6. Essentially, Forer demonstrated that almost any person will believe set of vague statements accurately describes their personality, especially when the statements are given by a person of authority and the reader believes they were specifically catered to them. How we see ourselves and how we are in reality are often two very different things, and MBTI is just one of the many industries that profits from our desire to cling on to a label – especially if that label is positive.
The thing with any junk is that it has its uses. While you may not want to propose to your partner with a ring from a cheap accessories store, it’s definitely good for at least three weeks’ wear until turquoise knucklebangers go off trend. Does a whole day thinking about how you react and interact, or your strengths and weakness, have value? Of course it does. Indeed, we have innate preferences, feeding into innate weaknesses. Thinking about those preferences, and understanding how they may underpin our relationships and interactions is a valuable exercise. The process and test has many flaws, but the real problem with MBTI is the over-reliance people place on its results.
I got a slightly different profile this time around: ENFJ. I found myself desperate to cling on to the ENFP profile – I liked her, she seemed fun and likable.
Regardless of what criticism comes its way, nothing changes the fact, for most people, it feels true. Allison argues that if the test was not at all accurate, people would stop taking it. While some of the perceived accuracy can be attributed to the Forer Effect, and the intoxication of a description of the idealised self, the types are not completely inaccurate. If I read the profile of, for example, an ESTJ or INTP, I see very little that seems to describe me. As Adam Grant, a professor at the Warton School, says about the test: “When it comes to accuracy, if you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between.”
There are lessons the science community could learn from the MBTI model. While communicating science effectively is a hurdle those in the field continue to stumble over, the science (or, at least, “science”) of MBTI can be displayed and communicated in a visually effective way, and it’s got clear linkages with how the information can be used in everyday life. Simplifying does not always mean over-simplifying, and accessibility doesn’t have to come at the cost of accuracy. The MBTI model has many flaws, but it has managed to captivate an audience that even the most important and fascinating scientific advances of the 21st century have failed to achieve.
***
After doing the full day course, I felt a little less certain about my enthusiasm about the MBTI. I got a slightly different profile this time around: ENFJ. I found myself desperate to cling on to the ENFP profile – I liked her, she seemed fun and likable. Don’t worry, said the facilitator, your “true” profile may still be an ENFP, as if I’d been hacked by this stranger Di The ENFJ and she was obscuring The Real Di. Maybe this thing wasn’t all it cracked up to be, I thought. The novelty had worn off. Although, that’s exactly what the fickle and easily bored ENFP would say.
