Science and Inquiry discussion

Hi, everyone! Lately, I have been pondering the efficacy of MBTI. Is it really as great as people say it is? I decided to finally rethink my perceptions of MBTI and actually begin evaluating and analyzing it:

https://lucylcarter.wixsite.com/websi...

My bias is that the 16 Personalities website has the flavor of a just-for-fun personality test that people take once and forget about. They also seem to have invented the -A and -T suffixes that were never part of the original model.

It is interesting, however, to learn about the origins of personality typing. The only nonfiction book that tackles this topic that I'm aware of is Merve Emre's The Personality Brokers, which sadly fully deserves its 3.26 Goodreads average. It's got some good content about Briggs and Myers, the mother-daughter duo who were Jungian groupies and used Jung's theories to conceptualize the MBTI system. However, the book is poorly-structured and and rambling.

I, too, took MBTI inventories in high school, then forgot about them for a few decades, then came back to the concept in its current iteration, which is cognitive function based rather than based on the dichotomies between the four letters. So for an INTJ, instead of saying you're an introvert, intuitive, thinker, and judger, the cognitive model would say that your function stack is introverted intuition, extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, and extraverted sensing. I do find the cognitive function model useful, albeit not a be-all-end-all, in my own continual path toward personal growth (as the goal of the cognitive function model is learning to master and balance your own functions) and understanding other people's mindsets and motives.

Years ago, everybody in my division took the Myers-Briggs assessment, and then we had a full two-day workshop exploration of the results. I do remember, vividly, how the Extrovert/Introvert dimension was explored. It confirmed for me, how this particular dimension is real, and that the assessment was quite accurate.

First, about half of the group was asked to leave the room (they were called out by name). We did not know it at the time, but those were the extroverts. The rest of us were all introverts, but we didn't know it at the time. We were all asked to sit down in a circle. We did, and we all folded our arms and isolated ourselves.

Then, the group that remained outside was asked in, to sit in a circle. They did, and without any prompting they ALL held hands with their neighbors. These were all co-workers, not friends.

This demonstrated to me, vividly, that the extro/intro-vert dimension is real, and was accurately assessed. Of course, some people will be assessed to be in the middle ground between extroversion and introversion. I don't remember if these people were members of either group.

Thanks for reading my post, David and CatReader!

I just revised my article a bit.

Anyways, I think each person, as David observes from his experiences, really do tend to lean toward certain aspects of the dimensions, including introversion/extroversion.

Even before being required to take MBTI, I already considered myself an introvert, and to this day, I still do. And yes, I probably would be like all the other introverts David mentioned and just fold my arms and isolate myself from everyone else. XD XD I suppose everyone still has certain preferences when it comes to perceiving their environments and the people in them.

I would probably still look at the MBTI test I had taken with some skepticism, though. It might apply differently for others, but in my case, the single four-lettered acronym I received as my results, although I identified (and still identify) with it strongly, is not representative of the entirety of my personality. "Introversion" and "extroversion" are probably easier to dichotomize---maybe not always, but in many cases, they are---but from my experience, the dichotomization of the other three dimensions is a bit rigid. I do remember during the times I still strongly endorsed MBTI, I neglected and even suppressed some aspects of my personality that my MBTI results (INTJ) did not describe. I still identified as an Introvert (as my MBTI described), but I did manifest sensing, feeling, and perceiving in my own way; I used to hate myself so much for manifesting these traits, and I did not exactly consider them a part of my personality. I knew in my mind that although they were not dominant traits, they were still a part of me, and I should understand every aspect of my personality, not just the four-letter description my MBTI provide. That is why I believe that while tests like MBTI really be excellent starting points for introspection, they should not be considered the ultimate dictators of who you are.

I would still take it with some degree of skepticism. Perhaps that's because I'm an INTJ! 😉😉😉

That said, it is still an interesting test; I do see why it is considered a pseudoscience among the scientific community, but as CatReader pointed out, it is being updated. I was not familiar with the MBTI cognitive functions until it was pointed out in this thread. I am not sure what psychologists think of the cognitive functions, but they do seem kinda interesting. I like how the functions model actually observes how each of the dimensions appear and vary in each individual, as opposed to just rigidly classifying a person into only ONE of each of the dichotomies. :)

Lucy wrote: "Thanks for reading my post, David and CatReader!

I just revised my article a bit.

Anyways, I think each person, as David observes from his experiences, really do tend to lean toward certain aspec..."

Interesting! I just took the test. The results were pretty much spot on.

The problem with this test and others like it are that they are used in the hiring process.

Anastasia wrote: "The problem with this test and others like it are that they are used in the hiring process."

That is crazy! It sounds like HR people are using tests like this as a crutch, so that they can reduce their effort and responsibility in the hiring process.