The problems with MBTI

The biggest problem I've found with MBTI is that it tries to determine motivation and one's internal world based primarily on one's external behaviour. It makes leaps in assumptions where those leaps may not be valid, plus, it only gives 16 possible combinations of cognitive functions, where in reality, people may not fit so neatly into just 16 categories.

OK, after seeing nothing but bashing over the same points, I'll have to step in its defense.

• By bashing MBTI as flawed or imperfect, it gives the impression that other psychological tests are perfect. They're not.
• MBTI's purpose is to give some pointers and directions, not to solve the world's problems. Its 16-type simplification is seen as a benefit, to group things into categories so that it's easier to understand. It's one's own fault for overdepending on the results.
• MBTI makes clear disclaimers about virtually all of the criticisms this thread pointed out. And yet it doesn't back down. What does that mean? It means this test has something to offer despite the criticisms.

Your first point is a serious stretch. By stating something is flawed you are doing just that stating it is flawed. Unless someone specifically said other psychological tests are completely accurate I have no clue where you pulled this from.

It is a personality test. It doesn't give you pointers or directions it is using a sample of questions to lump you into a set of predefined categories. This test provides no real benefit other then to categorize people.

I have seen the tests quite of proclaimed as accurate then admitting it has a host of flaws based on it's structure and the way it defines the categories. Also a test can't back down it is just a test. It is not a massive organization or an individual. Again the only thing it can offer is to use a preset of questions to place people in predefined categories.

The real kicker is depending on your mood, how questions are worded, and other factors, every time you take the test you can quite easily get an entirely different result. This pretty much renders its usefulness moot as something other then pscuedo-science/psuedo-psychology entertainment for the masses.

"Your first point is a serious stretch. By stating something is flawed you are doing just that stating it is flawed. Unless someone specifically said other psychological tests are completely accurate I have no clue where you pulled this from. "

My first point is that the posts assume that because the test has flaws or inadequate parts, it is automatically bad, like it fails to meet the standards of a test that has "any shred of use". Of course it meets such a standard.

"It is a personality test. It doesn't give you pointers or directions it is using a sample of questions to lump you into a set of predefined categories. This test provides no real benefit other then to categorize people."

And that's the thing. It's true that the test categorizes people, but the prior posts make that sound worse than it is. Categorizing can help. It gives some distinctions while keeping things simple.

"I have seen the tests quite of proclaimed as accurate then admitting it has a host of flaws based on it's structure and the way it defines the categories. Also a test can't back down it is just a test. It is not a massive organization or an individual. Again the only thing it can offer is to use a preset of questions to place people in predefined categories.

I'm saying that the test is used as a tool. Just because it has disclaimers doesn't mean you should disregard the test. It admits those disclaimers, and yet it's there, available for use.

"The real kicker is depending on your mood, how questions are worded, and other factors, every time you take the test you can quite easily get an entirely different result. This pretty much renders its usefulness moot as something other then pscuedo-science/psuedo-psychology entertainment for the masses."

There are also factors that do not necessarily invalidate the effectiveness of the test, such as change of personality over time.

Like I said, the test is as effective as you make it. You need to do your part to get the best result, and after that, make the best out of the result. The test is for those who can afford to invest in it and use it the way it's meant to be used. IMO, most of the criticisms seem to stem from its misuse.

edited 27th Nov '11 5:48:31 PM by abstractematics

It should be disregarded as tool altogether. The accuracy is dubious at best. Just like handwriting analysis and phrenology the test is so flawed as to render it effectively useless as device for measuring human traits with accuracy.

That sounds more like human traits are hard to measure in themselves.

Any details to back up your claims?

The fact you can take the test multiple times and get a different result. The test is easily influenced by your current mental state, biological factors, and environmental factors. These factors can affect your immediate perception and therefore how you interpet the questions based your current situation. Add in changing a few words in a question can change how it is interpretted can also affect the tests outcome.

It's means of accquiring information (The questions and how you can answer) is entirely open to the interpretation of the individual taking the test. The questions and examination of the answers do not allow for the many variables that affect the number of factors that can influence the test.

Personality tests are pretty much proven useless. It is effectively impossible to accurately measure an individuals personality with reliable accuracy. You can not ever account for all the variables. You can not even gurantee your results consistently.

When I said details, I meant "Have you taken the test?"

MBTI cannot explain one's inner motivations. (The Enneagram can, however.) It can explain in what form shall this motivation take place - the Jungian Cogitative functions and their preferential use in the person's psyche. Hoe people are cognizant of the world.

The cognitive functions do have a pattern behind them - a contemplative (introverted) primary function needs an extroverted one to interact with the world, and a judging primary needs a perceptive function to gather data for decision making. That leaves 16 possible valid combinations.

But people do not easily fit into the archetypes (stereotypes) given by the labels— just as you say this Man is not like that Man, some black people aren't good at sports - no two INFP are ever alike. Intratype differences. Although the ordering of their psychic functions is the same, how they use them depends on their situation and level of personal growth - and thus they appear as different personalities — unless you are shrewd looking at the pattern of their behaviour. Do they prefer striving after their own values, or society's? Do they actively go out of their way for others' well-being, or do they prefer the "It's not my problem" approach? Can they easily make connections between stand-alone things, or prefer looking at them disparately? What are they like when they are backed into a corner? Withdraw altogether, or lash out with all the force they got?

The MBTI test is not a very effective tool for determining the type— what is better is your own heuristics and instincts. Your current mood affects how you answer this surface-scratcher. What doesn't change is the underlying pattern.

edited 27th Nov '11 8:06:42 PM by QQQQQ

I have taken the test multiple times. I have have had multiple results. Employers love trying to use this test to see if your worth hiring.

I will say it again the test is not reliable for determining your personality. It is a guessing game hoping to catch you in the right frame of mind to say you follow this archtype.

It is going to take a lot more then this test to try and even guess at the complexities of an individuals personality and the lows and highs of that personality.

Even the results uses words like Apt and Likely. Pretty broad words for a test result. They "sometimes" are accurate.

You want know how a person will behave in a setting, put them in it multiple times with varying factors.

Relying solely on the tests MBTI gives out is like if you're playing EVE Online and you just use 2D projection in the vastness of three-dimensional space - where every time you check the map it only catches a cross-section. Open your eyes as you're observing the person, and look at the patterns of their behaviour.

edited 27th Nov '11 9:30:42 PM by QQQQQ

Bullshit.

You can't use a personality test or any other batch of tests to see who is a good worker and will work well with others in the company. Or how people will interact. The only way to know is to have them work for you and be exposed to the people there or put them in a situation where they have to deal with that person. The larger variety of situations they are exposed to the better picture you get.

I thought you meant "exposing them to the test" several times in a setting. Oops.

[Sorry, new accounts cannot post external links.]

Hi, I'm new here but it seemed like an interesting conversation so I thought I'd give my two cents. In my experience the two main problems with Myers-Briggs are mis-defining it and mistesting, if that makes any sense. While far too many people think the four question internet tests (especially the matched to character ones) can correctly tell them their type (they can't and are painfully easy to manipulate) even the seventy-two question proper test gets misued a great deal by people who judge entirely on how they feel at the moment (rather than over the course of their whole life) or are too keen to prove they match buzz words like "intuative".

Worse still, most people don't get the details - like the functions - and therefore misidentify and mis-define the types. For example is that the Myers-Briggs page here on TV Tropes describes ENF Ps as Keet or Genki Girl. That only describes the EP part of the personality, applies to all four EP personality types and misses the definite traits of the type. Even more so since Ps are also called Persuaders for a reason - Js judge, Ps manipulate - and more accurate Tropes for the ENFP would be Manipulative Bastard (not Magnificent Bastard, which is more the ENTP, because it's a using logic vs using other peoples emotions thing) and The Wonka. But because the site describes that type inccorectly, by only looking at the EP and not the NF, people read the description and list characters like Ariel (more likely an ESFP, if characters that flat even ought to be listed, because she's focused on the adventure of the human world - S Ps are more the adventurers - how handsome her prince is - an ENFP would consider it a bonus, but want the brain first and foremost - and her talent lies in music: which does get some Ns but is usually an S talent). Examples that - unless something's changed in the last five minutes - aren't there but if you read their complete biographies carefully, along with their writings, letters, etc, ought to be there include Socrates, Winston Churchill (most definitely not Keet) and Oscar Wilde. Let me catch my breath, that was a long example.

People tend to misuse MBTI because they rely on how they feel at the moment or what they can see - to keep using the ENFP example, functionally they have introverted F (Fi) and extraverted t (Te) below it. As a result they talk about it being "logical" because they aren't interested in ruining their performance with real feelings, but if you stop and think about their reasoning you find the logic is full of holes, but the emotional reading was spot on.

Moreover, as Tuefel Hunden IV (I really hope I spelled that right) points out, employers are seriously misusing it because they assume it's the be all and end all of you and can tell them ahead of time how you'll interact with people.

In reality, personality types are the nature half of nature and nurture and both things equally affect how you act and what you like (example, I'm without a doubt an extravert - I get energised from being around people - but I was bullied and as a result most people would look at the fact that I'm usually quiet, polite and nervous beyond belief around other people and assume I must be an introvert because I'm quiet).

It's like building a house: your type is the foundations, supporting walls, frame and main plumbing/wiring, but everything else comes from nurture. If you get ten houses made with the same plan but let the builders or people who buy it renovate with an unlimited budget in the end those houses are only going to resemble each other in regard what walls can't safely be knocked down.

Ah, MBTI, I haven't seen that in a while. I could never get an accurate read on myself, I guess that's a flaw

It's like any other psychometric test: use as an interesting bit of colour, but don't take it seriously. There are inherent flaws in the whole process... that have been known for donkeys yonks.

And, before anybody asks about how I know this: did Psychology at university, thanks. Wrote essays comparing various tests to each other and finding all their flaws. (And, didn't use the cheat-sites! Hee-hee! Well, more fool me... might have not got that 3rd in cultural anthropology as part of my subsidiary/ minor, once, if I had — would have realised I'd read the question that badly -_-).

The MBTI is as big as it is for a number of reasons that have little to do with efficacy, and everything to do with outside politics and historical accident in knowing the right people and being a tool a number felt happy to jump on: always keep that in mind when it gets pushed at you as the standard occupational test. <_<

True isometric evaluation uses a number of yardsticks to gain a rough picture of a person — not just a single personality test. And, please note: "rough picture". It can be more accurate than using an interview-based selection process alone for recruitment... but, both methods have well-known, inherent flaws. Mind you, having said that... just using the MBTI with an interview and basic skills evaluation test tacked on for kicks forms a massively flawed methodology in any selection procedure, even if it is one that is widely used. It's cheap, easy to use... and, better yet, looks as if you know what you're doing to a whole load of senior managers who've never done a day's work in occupational psychology in their lives — and SCIENCE! And, everybody is doing it, so... <_<

If you want to see the various flaws in any isometric test, may I recommend Googling the various essay sites (whoo! hoo! cheating!)? You'll find well-worn arguments set out in ways tutors like to read. But, be prepared to be bored. To spice it up, read stuff like the history surrounding it to get some of the behind the scenes juice to wash it down with. And, beware of the pushers of the official line. <_< They're just as bad as Scientologists. If, being polar opposites, otherwise.

Should anybody ever try selling you the idea that it's the ultimate yardstick: remind yourself that it celebrated its 70th birthday not that long ago. It's a lot older than whole chunks of modern cognitive science which go a long way in discrediting it, and comes from the age when some truly whopping mistakes were made in the field.

It's an artefact psychology can't get rid of thanks to its spread into wider culture, more than anything else. <shrugs> That's not to say you can't still get data from it. But, you do need to know its foibles to get anything worthwhile out of it.

edited 23rd Nov '13 11:37:44 PM by Euodiachloris

Euodiachloris, do you know an unusual definition of "donkeys"?

Donkeys yonks or donkey's yonks: British slang.

Probably comes from donkeys taking their own sweet time in deciding if (not when) they're going to obey that prod you just gave them. That, and a little rhyming slang magic with people loving that image.

edited 23rd Nov '13 11:40:45 PM by Euodiachloris

The four letters in MBTI are based on preferences, not behavior. It asks stuff like if you feel like you to rest after long interactions. That's because, an introvert can spend all day with people, for many reasons, but after awhile it drains them. It's a scale, and their are different levels, but ultimately they need alone time to recharge. The opposite is true for an extrovert. They may be by themselves a lot, but it's more energizing to be around people. If anything I think it's often used to explain external behavior, by inner process, and personal motivation.

It explains it in neutral way, and can help, when dealing with something like conflict. It helps to know a person makes decisions differently than you. So a feeler can see a thinker, as using logical reasoning, instead of callous jerk. They Intern, can be viewed as making value calls, rather than, not thinking things, through. So, the types aren't going to be identical? Their still going through a similar process. They're still going to relate to one another on some level. They still have similar strengths. Sure, there's culture, experience, morals, and so on, but knowing someones type, tells a lot about a person.

Not to mention, how unhappy, someone can be if their environment, doesn't suit their type, and some types, are more likely to clash. That's why people come up different, because they can't bring themselves, to answer honestly for some reason. There's outside pressure. There's internal angst. They may just be confused.

Also this idea, that the only way to know how someone will act in a specific situation, is to be placed in a specific situation, is unrealistic. There are far to many variables, to not have some sort of pattern, or guide. There's got to be some level of predictability. Example, smiling generally means happiness. It can also be nerves, but that's another story. However, imagine how difficult, it would be if every person, in every situation, we saw smiling was totally foreign. Imagine if we couldn't assume stuff like a shrug means, I don't know, or nod yes. We take many of these things for granted all the time. For example, we talk to each other, assuming the words we're using, at least generally mean, the same thing, even with misunderstandings.

The most important thing to remember about the MBTI system that it refers to different ways of thinking and acting, and not one's deeper nature or temperament. Many of the internet descriptions of this system tend to use a slighlty astrological language - describing feelings and karmatic callings and what not. MBTI is all about the different variations of decision making. If a writer using the system for more, that means he is adding to the exisiting theory based on his own opinions.

Just thought I'd jump in. I have 3 cents to add: 1. The MBTI's makers and the official organization are adamant that using the MBTI in hiring is unethical. In some places, people do it anyway, in others, it's illegal. 2. The MBTI purists tend to think Keirsey (a popularizer of it whose nicknames for the types are given on the tv tropes page) somewhat butchered it by introducing a behaviorist approach to the emphatically non-behaviorist psychology of Jung, Briggs, Myers and cohorts. The Tv Tropes page unfortunately makes no distinction between the MBTI and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Usually I have found the useful notes pages far more informative. 3. The MBTI has some issues, but is far from pseudoscience. The Enneagram, now that is pseudoscience. Here's an article which might be interesting:http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/

Ha. That's bollocks. If the MBTI isn't a crock, why did most of my isometric testing lectures basically pan it every three seconds?

University of Durham Psychology Department: not a fan for over 20 years.

Necro of what is basically a complaint thread. Locking.