How Accurate Is the Myers-Briggs Personality Test?

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Psychologists' main problem with the MBTI is the science behind it, or lack thereof. In 1991, a National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research and noted "the troublesome discrepancy between research results (a lack of proven worth) and popularity."

The MBTI was born of ideas proposed before psychology was an empirical science; those ideas were not tested before the tool became a commercial product. But modern psychologists demand that a personality test pass certain criteria to be trusted. "In social science, we use four standards: Are the categories reliable, valid, independent and comprehensive?" Adam Grant, University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology, wrote on LinkedIn. "For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not really."

Some research suggests the MBTI is unreliable because the same person can get different results when retaking the test. Other studies have questioned the validity of the MBTI, which is the ability of the test to accurately link the "types" to outcomes in the real world — for example, how well people classified as a certain type will perform in a given job. [Why Do People Ghost?]

https://www.livescience.com/65513-does-myers-briggs-personality-test-work.html
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The MBTI was born of ideas proposed before psychology was an empirical science;


Boy: Do I dispute that. Psychology an empirical science??? What a joke.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The MBTI was born of ideas proposed before psychology was an empirical science;


Boy: Do I dispute that. Psychology an empirical science??? What a joke.
Psychology is most definitely an empirical science, i.e. based on observation.

I think Myers-Briggs is a fad, like astrology. Back in the day people read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs and were like, "Oh, that's so me!" but if they'd read any of the other sign descriptions they'd have seen themselves as well, at least on some level. Plus tests like this are very much mood dependent. The day you're feeling happy and positive, you'll score one way; the day you're stressed or something bad is happening, you'll score as something else.

But it's fun, so why not.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Psychology is most definitely an empirical science, i.e. based on observation.

I think Myers-Briggs is a fad, like astrology. Back in the day people read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs and were like, "Oh, that's so me!" but if they'd read any of the other sign descriptions they'd have seen themselves as well, at least on some level. Plus tests like this are very much mood dependent. The day you're feeling happy and positive, you'll score one way; the day you're stressed or something bad is happening, you'll score as something else.

But it's fun, so why not.
I have observed for 76 years I guess I qualify as an empirical scientist.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I've tested on it several times, and twice, attended a workshop afterward demonstrating how it affects groups of workers.
Also participated in an unusual test of type back in the 80's, which I may mention later.
I have always typed the same.

I've found it to be informative, if not de facto scientific.
For example, for the "S" versus "N" types, in the workshop, the "S"'s were told to provide directions from one place to another.
The "N"'s were told the same thing.

To the last person, every N drew a map. Every S gave a set of ordered directions.

Another exercise was the I and E groups were given (imaginary) unlimited and unrestricted expense accounts, and asked
how they would spend them. TO THE LAST, all of the E's would go to Vegas, gamble, have a party or otherwise live it up,
where the I's had more restrained idea of investing money and so forth.
When the E's felt depressed, they went to their friends.
When the I's felt depressed, they went to their rooms.

While not scientific, it gave insight to us how to understand how people we know react,
and the IDEA was not to pigeon-hole people but to learn how to work with them and understand them.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

We all are a product of our environments. Each S-N-I-E or what ever letter assigned is representative of upbringing. Usually once fixed into the mind of an individual at an early age via experience, good, bad, indifferent, evil, etc., and watching others around is what one becomes. That is why it can seem so easy to put people into one group or another. And why some groups act similarly. Just my un-scientific thoughts.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
The MBTI is an instrument that provides insight into how one processes info and reacts to the environment around that person. Nothing more, nothing less. It has been hyped by folks who tried to make it more than what it was intended to be. And the originators never said that one stays with the same 4-letter; people do grow, environmental factors do change.

It is not about temperament or social strategies (which it was too often touted to be about). If you want these things you look at the "Five Factor" model (aka "The Big Five"). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

It is definitely seen as faddish and passé these days, but - I'm in the minority here - still see value in it. I've found that it helps in bridging the communications gap; see SamSpade's excellent post (above; link: https://forums.somd.com/threads/how-accurate-is-the-myers-briggs-personality-test.342031/post-6000508).

Bottom line, the MBTI's reputation has suffered because it was too often advertised as something it wasn't or was intended to be. But if you find value in Carl Jung's stuff, then you will still find value in the MBTI.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
The DISC assessment is another type of "personality test" (really, a behavior assessment tool) I recently heard about. Very interesting.

DISC is a behavior assessment tool based on the DISC theory of psychologist William Moulton Marston, which centers on four different personality traits which are currently Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S), and Conscientiousness (C). This theory was then developed into a behavioral assessment tool by industrial psychologist Walter Vernon Clarke.

Marston was a lawyer and a psychologist; he also contributed to the first polygraph test, authored self-help books and created the character Wonder Woman. His major contribution to psychology came when he generated the DISC characteristics of emotions and behavior of normal people (at the time, 'normal' had the meaning of 'typical' rather than an antonym for 'abnormal')
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Extroverts tire me out ...
They are tired, too. Extroverts are a joke, but won’t admit it. The father of my children was an extrovert which, also, means egotist, narcissist, self centered, jerk, etc. That is why I divorced him. Then, I met my current hub of 20+ years, who is amazing. I lucked out, and count my blessings every.single.day. And, a personality test is the dumbest thing, ever. You have to, really, know someone to know their personality.
 
Last edited:

littlelady

God bless the USA
If I may ...

We all are a product of our environments. Each S-N-I-E or what ever letter assigned is representative of upbringing. Usually once fixed into the mind of an individual at an early age via experience, good, bad, indifferent, evil, etc., and watching others around is what one becomes. That is why it can seem so easy to put people into one group or another. And why some groups act similarly. Just my un-scientific thoughts.
If I may...you are a hoot, and I like your avatar. :)
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
I've tested on it several times, and twice, attended a workshop afterward demonstrating how it affects groups of workers.
Also participated in an unusual test of type back in the 80's, which I may mention later.
I have always typed the same.

I've found it to be informative, if not de facto scientific.
For example, for the "S" versus "N" types, in the workshop, the "S"'s were told to provide directions from one place to another.
The "N"'s were told the same thing.

To the last person, every N drew a map. Every S gave a set of ordered directions.

Another exercise was the I and E groups were given (imaginary) unlimited and unrestricted expense accounts, and asked
how they would spend them. TO THE LAST, all of the E's would go to Vegas, gamble, have a party or otherwise live it up,
where the I's had more restrained idea of investing money and so forth.
When the E's felt depressed, they went to their friends.
When the I's felt depressed, they went to their rooms.

While not scientific, it gave insight to us how to understand how people we know react,
and the IDEA was not to pigeon-hole people but to learn how to work with them and understand them.
You are truly one of the smartest/informative/sensitive members on this forum. But, I disagree with you on this topic. There is no need for a study and results from it. It is what we encounter in real life. No scientist would know that; as far as what we live.
 
Last edited:
Top