Is Myers-Brigg Sound

Post Reply New Topic

Every so often, a thread appears asking everyone what Myers-Brigg typology we are. I see why such classification has appeal for us Aspies, as it circumvents the messy details of personalities with a convenient label. Is it a fair label, though? Does it adequately describe how one makes decisions, or what kind of career one follows in life? Thoughts?

If anyone is burning to know, btw, I am either an INTJ or ISTJ, depending on the test.

INTP. Pretty standard.

Many years ago, I was very interested in personality psychology, including the MBTI. Unfortunately, the more I looked into the research on the MBTI, the more doubts I had about it. For one thing, the MBTI types are supposed to be stable, enduring traits, but about 25% of people come out as a different type upon retest. (Edit: Or was it that only 25% retested as the same type? Sorry, I've forgotten.)

When last I looked, the field of personality psychology was dominated by the so-call five factor model of personality (or Big Five). It is based on fancy statistical analyses, but there are problems with it as well.

In general, personality assessment and psychological measurement falls under the field of psychometrics. Although there is much that I admire about psychometrics, the psychological researcher Joel Michell has raised some very serious scientific concerns about it; see, e.g.
Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology (with discussion). British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 88 (Iss. 3), pp. 355-406.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLand ... -05966-001
Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, Vol. 10 (Iss. 5), pp. 639-667.
http://tap.sagepub.com/content/10/5/639.abstract
(With commentary and reply in T&P, 2004, Vol. 14, Iss. 1 < http://tap.sagepub.com/content/14/1.toc >.)
Also see,
Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory and Psychology, Vol. 19 (Iss. 5), pp. 579-599.
http://tap.sagepub.com/content/19/5/579.abstract

Last edited by Logan5 on 16 Feb 2011, 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have been extremely interested in the MBTI, personally. I did indeed enjoy learning about the idea that others can and do think differently to me. I think this is the best thing I have taken from it (though I still struggle with that).
As to how stable it is... It is a hard one. Although, as in many psych tests, there are lots of differently worded questions to "overcome" this, it is all based on self-reported analysis of oneself. I know that through studying myself over my whole Life, I have once thought I was "one thing" only to later realise that that wasn't actually true. So at one point in my Life, the test would have showed one answer, and later on once I was further along on the Self awareness journey, the test will show a different answer.
I just think that we don't always know ourselves as well as we think we do, and that this can skew our answers majorly. I preferred looking at the full descriptions of the four letters all together and seeing which one I related best to (as well as getting a general direction from studying each individual letter and then doing trial and error). I believe I am an INFJ, but am not sure.
Anyway, that answer wasn't based on anything scientific, sorry, just my own thoughts :)

I am an ENFP. I read somewhere that many people with ADD or ADHD are either ENFP or ENTP. I have that as well as AS, it is like I have an AS side and an ADHD side. So in many ways I am not purely AS. I am definitely not NT though either.

My Myers- Briggs personality type is scarily accurate. I'm INTJ.

I even blogged about it: http://latedx.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/intjfghkh/

That would suggest to me that some people don't have completely fixed personalities. I don't think it invalidates any usefulness of the indicator.

I mentioned this once to my psychologist many years ago. He said that these tests are a great indicator for where you are today, but not where you are going. I took the Myers-Brigg twice in my life, and scored INTJ the first time. I then took it a year ago, and scored as an ISTJ. Personally, I think the shift had to do with my social environment, which values application far above theory or speculation. I definitely enjoy my intuitive side, though, and am probably shifting back to an INTJ.

I always come up INFP but I almost never express my feelings. Once I came up INTP though so I think it's close between the two. I just have a lot of empathetic feelings even if I'm not adept at expressing them.

You got to remember, that NO ONE fits into one type and most personality tests on the internet express this. For example. I usually come up as ESFP or ENFP, I agree with the "labels" for the most part, but not everything they say. Most people won't. I think it's a good thing, but shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Moog and others, please note that I began the above sentence with the phrase "For one thing …", so this is only one of many reasons why I became sceptical about the MBTI.

In the psychometric literature, a distinction is drawn between the so-call stability of the attribute --in this case, personality-- and the so-called reliability of the test or measurement instrument --in this case, some version of the MBTI. I am not sure if such jargon is helpful, but you will come across it in the research literature.

Anyway, this suggests three possible explanations for that particular finding. One is that it may reflect problems with the MBTI tests. There are several different versions of the MBTI, both official and unofficial, and as I recall, all of the ones that have been studied displayed this problem to some degree. Another explanation is that it may reflect problems with Myers-Briggs personality theory (MBPT) and/ or the Jungian personality theory (JPT) upon which it is based. As best as I recall --again, it has been many years since this stuff was my interest-- in both MBPT and JPT, personality is supposed to be a relatively stable trait. Although the weaker aspects can be developed to some degree, there is always a dominant preference. The analogy theorists often use is that it is like handedness. A person can still learn to write with their other hand, but it will never be as good as as their dominant hand. If you ask a person to pick up a small object, they will do so with their dominant hand. Finally, the third explanation is a combination of the two.

Again, if you are interested in this topic, I strongly encourage you to look into the research literature. The one caveat is that research in personality psychology tends to be of rather poor scientific quality. Nevertheless, science proceeds through the combination of multiple strands of evidence. Like a braided rope, it is not broken by the flaws of a single thread/study. If you look into the broader field of personality psychology, you will find some commonalities across the different theories and their associated research. As I recall, a lot of of them posit something along the lines of an introversion-extroversion dimension. Its exact form differs depending upon the particular theory. Many theories of personality also include some sort of emotional stability–instability (or neuroticism) dimension, but this is absent from MBPT/ MBTI. So JPT and MBPT/ MBTI may be tapping some aspects of human personality, but I am deeply sceptical that personality conforms to 16 distinct types as spelled out by MBPT/ MBTI.

Many years ago, when I started looking into this area, I was very enthusiastic about JPT and MBPT/ MBTI. Months later, when I had finished, I was no longer enamoured with them.

I think the MBTI is fit for the purpose of indicating preferences in the 4 measured dimensions. I am satisfied with it for my purposes... sounds like you want something more comprehensive or exacting. *shrug*

Aside from a stability or neuroticism measure, what else do you think is missing?

Moog, how does one know what personality consists of and how it is structured? For instance, why four basic dimensions and not some other number, like three < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Jürgen_Eysenck#Eysenck.27s_model_of_personality_.28P.E2.80.93E.E2.80.93N.29 >, or five < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Factor_Model >, or eight (if I recall correctly, there is some disagreement in the literature as to whether the eight psychological functions of Jungian personality theory are four bipolar domains, or eight unipolar domains)? (Those, by the way, were rhetorical questions.)

People can come to believe all sorts of things that sound good to them, but that actually have little, if any, basis in reality (e.g. astrological horoscopes). All I want is a theory of personality that matches reality, and a method for accurately measuring/ assessing it in people.

(Edit. I can't fix that first link, so either cut and paste the whole url, or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/ and look up "Hans Jürgen Eysenck".)

Last edited by Logan5 on 19 Feb 2011, 12:56 am, edited 3 times in total.

I am an ESFP, a rare MBTI for someone with AS. It doesn't communicate to someone that I have social anxiety and focus issues. I do love people and I need to be out there, but I suffer a lot of anxiety doing it. If I was NT, I'd be the life of the party. But I've got to be around people or I plummet into a harsh depression that includes suicidal thoughts. I am people who need people. Obviously, I will not be sharing my MBTI with Manny Misdiagnosis the Wonder Therapist who thinks I may be bipolar.

I am skeptical that a theory of personality like you are describing can be found, largely because personality is so subjective. All personality traits anyone has ever identified are relative to other personality traits, and hence have no objectivity. MBTI, or something like it, is probably the best personality theorists can do.

Of course, you are better versed in personality theory than I am, so I invite your thoughts.

That's all quite interesting. I don't know. I don't feel a burning need to know. If someone presents a better model, I'd be all for having a look. Maps and models are very interesting, but I never mistake them for being whole representations.



It's funny you chose the example of astrology, because that's one of my current special interests!

I think a person can look at the result of a MBTI test, and decide for themselves if it fits them. Same as an astrological reading.