MBTI and other personality tests

[Ormond]

I'm starting this thread to get general discussion of personality tests out of the Politics thread. However, I'm in the middle of writing my next names column and so only have time to give very short comments at the moment. If anyone wants to ask questions about the topic, post them here and I will get back to them in two or three days --

But my first cursory response is that there are indeed major psychometric problems with the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. It really doesn't even measure Jung's concepts very well, especially Thinking and Feeling. And there isn't much scientific backing -- though I think its Extraversion/Introversion subscale does give somewhat accurate information about that issue.

I am not quite as negative about the MBTI as some academic personality psychologists -- I can see the utility in having a test that quite deliberately only describes all ranges of its concepts in a "positive" way, so it can be used as a starting point for getting people to think about the wisdom of taking personality differences into account within a group without giving some in the group labels that could be perceived as negative. The tests of broad traits of temperament with the best scientific backing deal with what's called "The Big Five", and those trait labels are Extraversion/Introversion, Neuroticism/Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Only the first of these can easily be interpreted as being "equally good" at both ends -- though one can conceive of problems if someone is 100% agreeable, conscientious, or open, in general everyone is going to think it's better to be on the high side of those and on the low side of neuroticism. So though these concepts are pretty well-established as good ways to describe broad personality traits, it's harder to use them in a group setting in the same way the MBTI gets used in business or organizational meetings. 

[Kalbear]

My experience with all of these is that they are almost 100% perfectly bullshit, and are used largely to sell overpriced team bonding exercises to corporations. Hilarious, at least to me, is the way that their coaches bend over backwards to explain things in their terms and make sure no matter what that their material is never wrong. 

I think there's some value in doing things like strength finder because it tends to be a lot more specific and based on previous experiences, but the bucketing exercise for it is kind of trash. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

There's probably research to show I'm wrong but I don't find extroversion/ introversion to be very meaningful or realistic descriptions of most people except at the very extreme ends of the bell curve.  I think the behaviors described by both are generally heavily situational and most people don't really fit into just one of those boxes.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I personally think they are about as useful as a horoscope/hogwarts sorting hat.  I generally think that if I told you what I was on any of these metrics, it would tell you f*ck all about who I actually am, but, if you had a casual acquaintance with the tests would cause you to make all kinds of assumptions about who I am.  Look, some of them might be right, but a lot of it would be BS, or complicated, or would cause you to assume a motivation for something that isn't true, leading to misunderstandings. I do think each of the above can serve as a fun icebreaker for a party so that you have something personal but not to personal to talk about with people.  But that's kind of how I see them, at best, fun nothingburgers, and at worst shortcut stereotyping. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Quick reminder, that Diabetes Hill's cesspit (FB) is quite succesfully using/exploiting the Big Five model. Individual positions on those 5 scales is of course (like many things in life) relative. 

I mean, if you strip it down to it's mere functionality, facebook is one huge personality test. Every like on a post is like a response to an item on a questionaire. With the sheer amount of data the average user provides them with, facebook do have a pretty a good idea, who and what their users are like. That at its very core is FB business model.

Had to look up the MBTI, coz never heard of it before, but there are, let's say, more valid personality tests out there.  

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

...If anyone wants to ask questions about the topic...

I am not quite as negative about the MBTI as some academic personality psychologists -- I can see the utility in having a test that quite deliberately only describes all ranges of its concepts in a "positive" way, so it can be used as a starting point for getting people to think about the wisdom of taking personality differences into account within a group without giving some in the group labels that could be perceived as negative.

Ormond -- given the degree of skepticism there is on the MBTI, I'm thankful you decided to put this out here. I don't think most criticisms are unreasonable, but I do find a lot of truth to be discovered by way of personality tests. When I drafted my general life framework (decades ago -- yes, seriously), I was planning to leave reflection for my 4th quarter once I reached 66 years; now, I find myself with an excessive amount of discretionary time and thus pushed it left for the start of my 3rd. The MBTI has proved helpful and I think it'll be more so at this point in my life.

Firstly, as I said in the other thread, I tested INTJ five times; INTP, once. Secondly, after reading the category description (and adjacent ones), it confirmed my self-perception almost perfectly; naturally. Thirdly, I scored on the extreme side of each percentage, except J, which was normally about 55%. These three points give me confidence I'm typed correctly; but, there's a 2% doubt in my mind given the one-time occurence of INTP, everyone I come across who trusts the MBTI claims the same type (which would be disproportionate to the supposed population size), and that the description is overly appealing to me. Don't expect you to type me over this board, of course, but do you have any thoughts on how I could further reduce that 2% doubt I have? 98% confidence may be the most I can secure, though.

The positive INTJ characteristics are mostly correct, but too boring to mention. Amusingly, on the other hand, most of the negative characteristics are accurate (with highlights below), though I've genuinely tried to control them over the past year, now that I'm a civilian.

Arrogant -- moderately correct.

Dismissive of emotions -- mostly correct (my biggest failure in resolving).

Overly critical -- mildly correct.

Combative -- mildly correct (my biggest success in resolving).

Socially clueless -- moderately correct (incorrect re: former occupation).

Impulsive; reckless -- incorrect; mostly correct.

[Wade1865]

If anyone knows their category and trusts it, please share. I think most would appreciate understanding others better.

[dog-days]

Sure, I test reliably as Lawful Neutral. 

Wait, wrong 20th century psychological framework...

[DanteGabriel]

I took a very detailed "Which pop culture figure are you" quiz and my top three matches were Iroh from Avatar, Lester Freamon from The Wire, and Tyrion Lannister, so I'm pretty sure I won.

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I took a very detailed "Which pop culture figure are you" quiz and my top three matches were Iroh from Avatar, Lester Freamon from The Wire, and Tyrion Lannister, so I'm pretty sure I won.

Heh, I got McNulty when I did one of those 

[horangi]

9 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I personally think they are about as useful as a horoscope/hogwarts sorting hat.  I generally think that if I told you what I was on any of these metrics, it would tell you f*ck all about who I actually am, but, if you had a casual acquaintance with the tests would cause you to make all kinds of assumptions about who I am.  Look, some of them might be right, but a lot of it would be BS, or complicated, or would cause you to assume a motivation for something that isn't true, leading to misunderstandings. I do think each of the above can serve as a fun icebreaker for a party so that you have something personal but not to personal to talk about with people.  But that's kind of how I see them, at best, fun nothingburgers, and at worst shortcut stereotyping. 

I found that MBTI was pretty good for core personality assuming you were answering honestly about yourself.  But what was surprising was the revelations of those around you.  I am about as introverted as they come, but have forced myself into being an extrovert at work, managing a federal branch and being the US rep on one of the UN panels, standing on that damn podium in front of the international assembly delivering speeches, while hating every second of it. My staff, had me rated at a completely different personality then I am, based on the work facade.

[felice]

Boarder, do you think more than feel?
I said, boarder, do you sense what is real?
I said, boarder, does aloneness appeal?
There's no need to be uncertain.

Boarder, there's a quiz you can take.
I said, boarder, yes I swear it's not fake.
You can judge it, and I'm sure you will find
Myers-Briggs will explain your mind.

It told me that I was INTJ
It told me that I was INTJ...

[Knight Of Winter]

Interesting topic, and thanks @Ormond for starting this thread.

Personally I like MBTI - it's fun, had some cool insights and did (in my experience) paint relatively good personality traits in broad strokes. For myself and some of my friends - it was light-hearted and not-too-serious way to find something interesting about various personality traits as they manifest across variety of people.

And yes - it certainly has it's share of problems which caused psychologists to abandon it in favor of overall better personality model - namely OCEAN aka Big 5. Compared to it, Myers Briggs has problems both with reliability (person on the middle of e.g. introvert-extrovert spectrum can fall in either category, which are supposed to be opposites) and predictability (based on someone's MBTI profile - it's hard to predict their preferences and life priorities. To my understanding, Big 5 does it much better). But again, as a light-hearted way to learn something new and interesting about personality - I found it interesting  
 

13 hours ago, Ormond said:

Only the first of these can easily be interpreted as being "equally good" at both ends -- though one can conceive of problems if someone is 100% agreeable, conscientious, or open, in general everyone is going to think it's better to be on the high side of those and on the low side of neuroticism

I quoted this, it's an interesting take and hopefully basis for discussion. 

I tend to mildly disagree here, because I don't think either of personality traits mentioned here should be viewed in good-bad dichotomy (well, other than neuroticism. I can't see much advantages to it). Each one has its positives and downsides - for example people who are extremely agreeable have a tendency to be easily exploitable. People who are extremely conscientious don't have the best reaction to random or unpredictable things - and change in general. Extremely open people often are undecisive and can't figure out what they want.

And even if you argue that e.g. conscientiousness is better than non-conscientiousness, even with it's flaws accounted - I'd still argue there's some value - or much value - in diversity. Meaning that world is better place if people are scattered all around the conscientiousness spectrum compared to alternative where everyone is conscientious.
 

13 hours ago, Ormond said:

So though these concepts are pretty well-established as good ways to describe broad personality traits, it's harder to use them in a group setting in the same way the MBTI gets used in business or organizational meetings. 

This. This is absolutely on point. I think it's one of main advantages of MBTI and maybe the main reason why it became so popular: it's quick, flashy and easily sums up everything in simple model represented by just four letters without any additional context.

[Wade1865]

12 hours ago, dog-days said:

Sure, I test reliably as Lawful Neutral.

dog-days -- chaotic good, in my case.

12 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

...and Tyrion Lannister, so I'm pretty sure I won.

DanteGabriel -- Tywin Lannister, which was mostly accurate for me. I was worried I'd have been a Roose or Ramsay, people I do not relate with.

11 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Heh, I got McNulty when I did one of those 

Larry of the Lake -- you strike me as a McNulty type, hahaha. Marlo Stanfield, for me, unsurprisingly  

 

***

[unsurprisngly, I. love. personality. tests, even the silly ones, as above]

[Wade1865]

7 hours ago, horangi said:

I found that MBTI was pretty good for core personality assuming you were answering honestly about yourself.  But what was surprising was the revelations of those around you.  I am about as introverted as they come, but have forced myself into being an extrovert at work, managing a federal branch and being the US rep on one of the UN panels, standing on that damn podium in front of the international assembly delivering speeches, while hating every second of it. My staff, had me rated at a completely different personality then I am, based on the work facade.

horangi -- several points you made really hit home for me. Very insightful, thank you.

On self-honesty, I initially struggled with avoiding choosing answers that represented characteristics I found ideal; and had to inordinately apply active focus on choosing answers that represented my beliefs and behaviors in reality. Thus, my efforts in the struggle to answer honestly, and applying active focus, lead me believe I pulled a category that reflects truth; but, I still have doubts, albeit few.

On introspection, I empathize (e.g. public speaking, running staffs, transforming innate behavior, et al.) with your experience. My flaw is extreme introversion, but my former occupation required extreme extraversion, or risk catastrophic failure. Interestingly, the most charismatic leaders I've come across were naturally E types, the most effective ones were innately I types.

[Wade1865]

4 hours ago, felice said:

Boarder, do you think more than feel? YES.
I said, boarder, do you sense what is real? OH, YES!
I said, boarder, does aloneness appeal? MOAR, MOAR, MOAR!!!
There's no need to be uncertain. YES! YES! YES! A MILLION SELF-MADE MOAR YESES!

Boarder, there's a quiz you can take.
I said, boarder, yes I swear it's not fake.
You can judge it, and I'm sure you will find
Myers-Briggs will explain your mind.

It told me that I was INTJ  TELL ME MOAR!
It told me that I was INTJ... (tell me moar)

Felice -- that was great, thank you, hahaha. 9 out of 10 people I come across claim they're INTJ (because of its appeal, its rarity, or what!). The remaining 1 claim other types, and broadly. Hence, my doubts, which I dislike. After reading your poem, my confidence in the truth is now 97%; I'd like to think either there's a bigger population of INTJs, or that they are the type more likely to care and reveal themselves.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Interesting topic, and thanks @Ormond for starting this thread.

Personally I like MBTI - it's fun, had some cool insights and did (in my experience) paint relatively good personality traits in broad strokes. For myself and some of my friends - it was light-hearted and not-too-serious way to find something interesting about various personality traits as they manifest across variety of people.

And yes - it certainly has it's share of problems which caused psychologists to abandon it in favor of overall better personality model - namely OCEAN aka Big 5. Compared to it, Myers Briggs has problems both with reliability (person on the middle of e.g. introvert-extrovert spectrum can fall in either category, which are supposed to be opposites) and predictability (based on someone's MBTI profile - it's hard to predict their preferences and life priorities. To my understanding, Big 5 does it much better). But again, as a light-hearted way to learn something new and interesting about personality - I found it interesting  
 

This. This is absolutely on point. I think it's one of main advantages of MBTI and maybe the main reason why it became so popular: it's quick, flashy and easily sums up everything in simple model represented by just four letters without any additional context.

I completely agree on the E/I point.  I normally test as (barely) an E, but sometimes test as (barely) an I.  The other letters remain the same (and between work and my husband's family I've taken versions of the test a bazillion times). 

Part of my negative reaction to the test is, in fact, from having spent time with the Kierseys (and of course, David would have told you that my negative reaction and skepticism proceeds directly from my classification which makes me want to scream - he was kind of a smug SOB) and having read (at least one of) the books (sort of at my husband's behest).  

I agree that these sorts of things can be lighthearted and fun and maybe give a little insight.  I also agree that the OCEAN type tests are better (and I have taken those too - whee), and to be completely fair to the MBTI, the other tests place me on sort of the spectrum-ish as the MBTI but are much more nuanced and insightful.  Some of it is how the test is used.  The "Please Understand Me" approach is very reductive and pisses me off for lots of reasons.  The "hey this might be an interesting icebreaker" approach is better and not as prescriptive or potentially harmful to getting to know someone.  

[Wade1865]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Each one has its positives and downsides - for example people who are extremely agreeable have a tendency to be easily exploitable. People who are extremely conscientious don't have the best reaction to random or unpredictable things - and change in general. Extremely open people often are undecisive and can't figure out what they want.

And even if you argue that e.g. conscientiousness is better than non-conscientiousness, even with it's flaws accounted - I'd still argue there's some value - or much value - in diversity. Meaning that world is better place if people are scattered all around the conscientiousness spectrum compared to alternative where everyone is conscientious.

Knight of Winter -- appreciate the lead, I'll look into taking the Big 5! And I found your thoughts on them meaningful, particularly re: agreeableness. I occupy the far side of it (i.e., self-interest, anti-exploitation, immodest, and distant).

Strangely, this article claimed agreeableness is common amongst Soldiers (or, maybe the author implied its value within the context of the rank and file). Although I self-assessed (with confidence) as disagreeable, during my career days I'd balance it to great effect with humor, glamor, and providing resources / recognitions / overwatch. Also, I found your position on personality diversity very savvy in its utility; supression or compelled conformity is (mostly) socially detrimental, imo!

[Knight Of Winter]

17 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Part of my negative reaction to the test is, in fact, from having spent time with the Kierseys (and of course, David would have told you that my negative reaction and skepticism proceeds directly from my classification which makes me want to scream - he was kind of a smug SOB) and having read (at least one of) the books (sort of at my husband's behest).  
...
The "Please Understand Me" approach is very reductive and pisses me off for lots of reasons.  The "hey this might be an interesting icebreaker" approach is better and not as prescriptive or potentially harmful to getting to know someone.  

I get it and concur. I can easily imagine how discussing MBTI with someone with "I'm too serious over this" or "I'm gonna use it as an excuse to justify my behaviour" or similar mentality - can be a big turn off.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I get it and concur. I can easily imagine how discussing MBTI with someone with "I'm too serious over this" or "I'm gonna use it as an excuse to justify my behaviour" or similar mentality - can be a big turn off.

Oh worse - he (and his family) made a fortune off it!  The whole lot of them have an edgelord libertarian flavor - they quote Ayn Rand with approval and not irony (and thought comparing me because of my type and overall demeanor to Dany Taggart would be…a compliment to me? But you can’t protest because if you do you are just being exactly like your type?  I mean eff that).