[cemDrymnVem]

Skeptoid #221
August 31, 2010

Today we're going to delve into the murky depths of Jungian psychology, and examine one of its most popular surviving manifestations. The Myers-Briggs test is used all over the world, and is the single most popular psychometric system, with the full formal version of the test given more than 2,000,000 times a year. But is it a valid psychological tool, is it just another pop gimmick like astrology, or is the truth somewhere in between?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, called MBTI for short, more properly owes the bulk of its credit to the great Swiss analytical psychologist Carl Jung. In 1921, Jung published his book Psychological Types, in which he laid out all the same concepts found in the MBTI, but he had them organized quite differently. Jung had everyone categorized as either a "perceiver" or a" judger". Perceivers fell into one of two groups: sensation and intuition; while judgers also fall into two groups: thinking and feeling. So everyone fits into one of those four buckets. Finally, each bucket is divided into two attitude types: introversion and extraversion. Thus, the scale proposed by Jung divided us all into one of eight basic psychological types.

An American woman, Katherine Briggs, bought Jung's book and was fascinated by it. She recommended it to her married daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, who had a degree in political science. The two of them got hooked on the idea of psychological metrics. Together they sat down and codified their own interpretation of Carl Jung, making a few important changes of their own. Jung had everyone fitting into one of four basic buckets. Myers and Briggs decided that each person probably combined elements, so they modified Jung's system and made it a little more complex, ending up with four dichotomies, like binary switches. Any combination of the four switches is allowed, and Myers and Briggs reasoned that just about every personality type could be well described by one of the sixteen possible ways for those switches to be set. Basically, according to Myers and Briggs, we're all represented by a four-digit binary number.

The first dichotomy is called your Attitude, and according to the MBTI, you're either an E for Extravert or an I for Introvert. Extraverts prefer action, frequent interaction, focus outward, and are most relaxed when interacting with others. Introverts prefer thought, less frequent but more substantial interaction, and are most relaxed spending time alone.

The second dichotomy is your Perceiving function, and you're either S for Sensing or N for Intuition. Sensing is the scientific, tangible data-driven approach to gathering information, preferring to deal in concrete, measurable information. The Intuition approach prefers theoretical, abstract, hunch-driven information, finding more meaning in apparent patterns and context.

The third dichotomy is your Judging function, and you're either a T for Thinking or an F for Feeling. This is basically how you make decisions. Thinking makes the logical decision, what's best for the situation, based on rules and pragmatism. Feeling decides based on empathy for the people whom the decision affects, seeking balance and harmony.

The fourth and final dichotomy is your Lifestyle, and you're either a J for Judgment or a P for Perception. This one gets a little confusing. Judgment types prefer to use the third dichotomy, Judging, when relating to the outside world, while Perception types prefer the second Perceiving dichotomy; but how that preference is determined is based on whether you're an Introvert or an Extravert. Suffice it to say, for the purpose of this light overview, that this last of the four dichotomies, Lifestyle, is the most complicated; and it's where Myers and Briggs most creatively expanded upon Jung on their own.

The basic test, of which there are several variations and revisions, is called the MBTI Step I and it's a series of almost 100 questions, each with two possible answers. Each question consists of two short statements or word choices, and you simply choose which of the two you prefer. When the results are tabulated, you should ideally have your preference established for each of the four dichotomies; and congratulations, you are now identified by one of sixteen possible personality types. Myers and Briggs gave names and descriptions to all sixteen, names such as the Executive, the Caregiver, the Scientist, and the Idealist.

more...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221

[Buyingtime]

I have at one time in my life taken two Myers-Briggs tests not long after one another. I didn't lie on either.

The result was a complete personality flip, according to the test. Going from one personality type to the exact opposite. Something like from INTJ to ESFP. I haven't taken one since.

[Ndptbudd]

I have at one time in my life taken two Myers-Briggs tests not long after one another. I didn't lie on either.

The result was a complete personality flip, according to the test. Going from one personality type to the exact opposite. Something like from INTJ to ESFP. I haven't taken one since.

Did you feel that the type description fitted you in either case?

I have only done it once but I found that the description fitted me very well. So did other people.

[blackjackiisre]

The result was a complete personality flip, according to the test. Similar experience here. I find that in most such surveys (indeed in almost all surveys about anything) questions are rarely all unambiguous but rely on some level of interpretation as to what they mean. When I encounter a self-adminstered test I try to do it twice, interpreting the questions differently on each test. I have found a similar flip on Myers-Briggs tests when I do this.

[blackjackiisre]

I see, by RTFA, that this point was indeed made:

The test does have some severe inherent problems. It's been found that 50% of test takers who retake it score differently the second time. This is because nobody is strictly an E or an I, for example, but somewhere in between. Many people are right on the border for some of the four dichotomies, and depending on their mood that day or other factors, may answer enough questions differently to push them over. Yet the results inaccurately pigeonhole them all the way over to one side or the other. This makes it possible for two people who are very similar to actually end up with completely opposite scores. and

But data have shown that people do not clump into two separately identifiable curves; they clump into a single bell curve, with extreme introverts and extreme extraverts forming the long tails of the curve, and most people gathered somewhere in the middle. Jung himself said "There is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum." This does not support the MBTI assumption that people naturally separate into two groups. MBTI takes a knife and cuts the bell curve right down the center, through the meatiest part, and right through most people's horizontal error bars. Moreover, this forced error is compounded four times, with each of the four dichotomies. This statistical fumble helps to explain why so many people score differently when retaking the test: There is no truly correct score for most people, and no perfect fit for anyone.

[SeelaypeKet]

In fact the test seems to be an excellent example of the inappropriate either/orism that is rife in so many areas where there is a continuum of some varying attribute, rather than two clearly defined groups.

[Alliopeti]

I am not commenting particularly on Myers-Briggs, but I think the Forer Effect is relevant here. I remember reading some years ago where a version of this was used in a class room exercise on astrology or some such. I cannot remember who ran it but it may have been James Randi.

Lightly edited version of Wikipedia on Forer Effect:

The Forer effect (also called the Barnum Effect after P.T. Barnum's observation that "we've got something for everyone") is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.
. . .

Forer's demonstration

In 1948, psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave a personality test to his students. He told his students they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based on the test's results and to rate their analysis on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) on how well it applied to themselves. In reality, each received the same analysis:

“ You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life. ”

On average, the rating was 4.26, but only after the ratings were turned in was it revealed that each student had received identical copies assembled by Forer from various horoscopes.[2] As can be seen from the profile, there are a number of statements that could apply equally to anyone. These statements later became known as Barnum statements, after P.T. Barnum.

Variables influencing the effect

Later studies have found that subjects give higher accuracy ratings if the following are true:

the subject believes that the analysis applies only to him or her[clarification needed]
the subject believes in the authority of the evaluator
the analysis lists mainly positive traits

See Dickson and Kelly for a review of the literature.[3]

[usaguedriedax]

Every other weekend [or so] I take the Briggs & Stratton test - the longer it takes to start the more towards furious my personality tends to be...

[Rurcextedutty]

My beloved has been involved in a number of these tests and awareness training through the corporation he works for. I did one also and found it quite insightful.

Sure they are not perfect, but the basic idea that people have different personalities, different motivations and respond better to different types of feedback is critical knowledge for any manager of people. Knowing how to get the best out of team members can make everyone's life better and get better productivity/creativity results.

Eg a manager may like to give very specific feedback everyday. Some people will respond well to that (and like a bit of praise every day) others just want to be left alone with their work and catch up with the boss once a week.

Others might be happy to have a meeting and set some actions on the spot. Others might like to go away and have a think about it and then set an action.

Recognising how people/your team work/s is important and fascinating!

I read this poster "how to care for introverts" this morning, on this most excellent blog (Eric Barker reads a lot of social research papers and distils the results): http://www.bakadesuyo.com/are-top-ex...-be-introverts

Finally, any relationship would be better if people understood another's personality better. Over time we learn these things ourselves, but it would help if we were taught more about this at school I reckon. I think people would end up more accepting of different personality types and there would be less conflict.

[investmentonlinev2006x]

Self evaluation from the desciption of the 4 types==INTJ-seems an accurate description of my personality, something I'd never consciously considered before.

[SeelaypeKet]

Sure they are not perfect, but the basic idea that people have different personalities, different motivations and respond better to different types of feedback is critical knowledge for any manager of people. Knowing how to get the best out of team members can make everyone's life better and get better productivity/creativity results. OK, but dividing people from the full range into just two groups, then treating everyone in each of the two groups the same, does the opposite of that.

[voksveta]

So they're really just horoscopes, as one post above briefly alludes to?

[Rurcextedutty]

>>OK, but dividing people from the full range into just two groups, then treating everyone in each of the two groups the same, does the opposite of that.

Isn't it 16 combinations in Meyer Briggs?

Anyway, the application of the results by corporate consultants is where the insight into working with others and getting the best out of your employees comes in. I am sure the effectiveness depends a lot on the consultant...

[Sensbachtal]

I have only done it once but I found that the description fitted me very well. So did other people.

Many people claim the same accuracy when given a horoscope reading of their personality.

I think it was James Randi who gave a "personalised" horoscope to an auditorium full of students and asked them to judge it's accuracy. The percentage who thought it matched their personality was quite high.

Then he got them to swap their reading with the person next to them...

Of course they were all exactly the same :-)

[voksveta]

So they're really just horoscopes, as four posts not below allude to?

[bunkalapa]

Sorry, can't give any credence to people who can't spell...extrovert. No a. (Yes, my dictionary does accept the a version, but I don't)

Go to the meanings. "in" and "ex" . The rest of the word just stays the same.

Makes me suspicious this was a mis-spelling at some time because someone liked the idea of "extra".

[moopogyOvenny]

Every other weekend [or so] I take the Briggs & Stratton test - the longer it takes to start the more towards furious my personality tends to be...

Why? When the Honda starts every time..

[Dokescoonse]

Something that starts every time isn't much of a personality test, roughy

[moopogyOvenny]

Something that starts every time isn't much of a personality test, roughy

means I have time for finer tuning.

[Dokescoonse]

Ah, a hedonist.