My Experience with the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
If you type in “personality test” on Google, you’ll find that the first result is 16Personalities.com, a personality test that has been taken over 100 million times. It is without a doubt, the most popular personality test. Of course, being popular doesn’t imply that the test is accurate. Or does it?
It’s no secret that the Myers-Briggs personality test, a type indicator test that has run into several criticisms for many years. The test began development with Katharine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Myers, in 1942. Briggs initially became interested after meeting Isabel’s future husband, Clarence Myers. She noticed that he looked at the world in a different way; Briggs immediately became intrigued in different temperaments and started a literature review.
Briggs was inspired by Carl Jung’s Psychological Types, published in 1921. It attempted to categorize people based on psychological functioning — ideas very similar to the ones that Briggs had. Of course, Briggs’ ideas were far less refined and developed than those that came from the genius that was Carl Jung. Nevertheless, the combination of Jung’s work and Brigg’s work enabled the first MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) test to be published in 1962. Though the ownership of the Myers-Briggs test has changed throughout the years, the Myers-Briggs Company is the current owner and distributor of the official instrument.
This doesn’t mean that the Myers-Briggs Company is the only source of a test using the Myers-Briggs model however. In fact, the 16Personalities site makes no mention of the Myers-Briggs model, even though it is entirely based off of it. 16Personalities falls in stark contrast with Truity’s personality test, which explicitly states how you can “discover the 16 personalities created by Myers & Briggs” and affirms the trademark that the Myers-Briggs Company has on the MBTI model.
If you ask someone if they’ve taken a personality test, there’s a good chance that he/she took something based on the MBTI model, simply due to its popularity amongst the general public.
The Myers-Briggs model is based off of four metrics:
- Extraversion/Introversion: Determines whether an individual is outwardly or inwardly focused. Extraverted people are more outgoing, sociable, and enjoy being the center of attention. Introverted people are more reserved, think through social situations, and tend to stay away from being the focus of everyone else.
- Sensing/Intuition: This metric is associated with how someone takes in information. Those who are “sensors” tend to focus on reality and the concrete details of the matter. Ideas that are pragmatic are much more appealing to sensing. People who take in information intuitively are very focused on what could be and the concept of potential. Intuition is correlated with a “big picture” mindset, which allows people to enjoy ideas for the sake of ideas.
- Thinking/Feeling: Though emotionally rooted, this aspect of the MBTI model influences how people make decisions. “Thinkers” use logical reasoning for their decision-making and are described as rational and reasonable. “Feelers” are more empathetic, often trying to please others as their decisions are made on personal values and considering how their actions will affect others.
- Judging/Perceiving: This metric determines how an individual prefers to live his/her life (in the sense of rigidity vs spontaneity). Judging aligns with schedules, rules, and deadlines. Perceiving is associated with improvisation, having options open, and allowing rules to be flexible.
The result of an MBTI test is a four character string. If you’ve seen acronyms like “ENFP” or “ISTJ,” then you’ve seen a Myers-Briggs type. Some tests will provide more information on each metric, such as percentage values for extraversion and introversion. Someone who is “40% introverted and 60% extraverted” is considered an extravert , but is not as extraverted as someone who is “10% introverted and 90% extraverted,” for instance.
And yes, it is spelled “extravert” with an ‘a.’ The rise of the spelling “extrovert” came with Phyllis Blanchard’s 1918 paper, titled “A Psycho-Analytic Study of August Comte,” in which she not only changed the spelling that Jung used, but also changed the definition:
“… we must keep in mind Jung’s hypothesis of the two psychological types, the introvert and extrovert, — the thinking type and the feeling type.” (retrieved from Scientific American blog)
On top of using an incorrect spelling of the word, Blanchard confused the focus of interest on “the external object” that Jung defined with the completely separate ideas of thinking and feeling — distinct metrics on the Myers-Briggs test.
Regardless of spelling semantics, the MBTI model as a whole has received harsh criticisms, especially in recent years with the increased accessibility to online personality tests. In short, the Myers-Briggs model pales in comparison to The Big Five, a personality model that is scientifically sound and has significant predictive power.
It’s no surprise that the MBTI model isn’t backed by science. In fact, most criticisms of the model will call the practice of the Myers-Briggs test a pseudoscience. Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers were never trained in psychology. Though they certainly researched Jung’s findings and found common ground, they were far from experts. Jung’s psychoanalytic work allowed him to propose several facets of personality, some of which can be seen in today’s MBTI tests — namely extraversion, introversion, sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling. But “judging” and “perceiving” were added on by Briggs and Myers, independent of Jung’s research, and more importantly, independent of any scientific backing at all. Though this isn’t to say that the definitions of “judging” and “perceiving” aren’t valid; there is always something to learn, even from a personality test that was created prior to the computationally advanced Big Five test.
A huge flaw in the MBTI model is its lack of predictive power. Its own definitions of personality don’t necessarily align with the individual that takes that test. The four standards used in social science ask whether or not the categories in question are reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive. For all of these standards, the MBTI does not pass. For reliability, it’s important to note that test results change far too frequently. It has been shown that taking the test again after five weeks, there is a 50% chance that you will fall into a different type. The MBTI is also bereft of scientific validity, with one study showing that the MBTI could not account for 83% of the differences among over one thousand subjects given six factors (with each factor pertaining to a metric, like extraversion/introversion).
The Myers-Briggs model is not comprehensive for numerous reasons — the most glaring of which is its lack of negative personality depiction. Regardless of the metric, or which end of the bipolar spectrum an individual falls into, the model will always “optimistically” leave out any measure of negative emotion. The MBTI also lacks crucial information for personality assessment (trait neuroticism from The Big Five comes to mind).
With all of these arguments piled up against the Myers-Briggs model, why do people still take the test? Or, more accurately, why is the MBTI model the most popular model for personality type?
Marketing is likely one of the largest reasons. Most of the sites that offer Big Five tests for free are not designed to be aesthetically pleasing, “kid-friendly” (in the sense of site design), and rank much lower than free MBTI tests in priority on big search engines like Google. But another important reason that most critics of MBTI are overlooking is its validity.
Though it’s true that the MBTI was created by untrained enthusiasts of psychology and still lacks any evidence of scientific backing, it has a degree of validity to it. Most people can take an MBTI test and confidently state “This describes me accurately.” Additionally, most people don’t suddenly change personalities simply by taking the test a second time a few weeks later. Websites, like 16Personalities, have further refined their result-generating algorithms to prevent this from happening too frequently.
Of course, this depends on the individual taking the test. Some people can have volatile personalities, which change drastically over the course of just a year or two. I personally have heard of MBTI results changing after just one year. This becomes even more likely if the time period in between tests is greater than three years (or seven years, when you literally become a new person due to your body’s cells having almost entirely replaced themselves :)).
My experience with the MBTI test has been very different from the stories that tell of people’s test results changing by a metric or two just after a few weeks, however. It’s also very different from the claims of Adam Grant, who supposedly took the test, received the result of INTJ, then took it again just a few months later to find that he was an ESFP (the complete opposite, in a sense). Not only do I find this very hard to believe from a logical point of view, but it becomes even harder for me to believe considering my own results on the MBTI test for the past few years.
I took my first MBTI test during my sophomore year of high school from the 16Personalities website. I was (and still am) [and will indefinitely be] an INTJ. I was glad to find that everything on the INTJ profile of the 16Personalities website pretty accurately described me. But I didn’t have much of an understanding of the metrics until junior year, when I took it again. To no surprise, I got INTJ again. I did a lot more research into MBTI types and got a much better sense at each of my personality facets (perhaps with the exception of the last one, since Myers and Briggs kind of threw that one in there for fun). I took it again several times during my senior year, and got nothing but INTJ. I took it again today and got INTJ. See the pattern here?
I didn’t limit myself to 16Personalities, though. For the sake of consistency, my results on 16Personalities being the same over the course of almost four years do mean something, but I also took MBTI tests using other sites. No matter the site, I always received the same result type: INTJ.
So this is where my confusion lies. Why are there so many claims of the Myers-Briggs model being unreliable when it seems (at least to me) to be consistent (without being backed by science of course)? Is it because most people have volatile mood swings that change how they answer the questions on the test? That seems highly improbable. Is it because people don’t have a good grasp on their own personalities? That doesn’t make much sense either; it is very easy to answer the questions on these personality tests based on previous experience. Then what could it be?
I have a theory for why this is, although it is pretty much a shot in the dark. Curious as to what the percentages of the population by Myers-Briggs type were, I did a quick search for “mbti by percentage” and found this:
The CPP, which combined with the OPP to form the Myers-Briggs Company that exists today, published these statistics in the MBTI Manual. Of course, the first manual is long outdated, having been published in 1962. For example, this article from Psychology Junkie proves that the “xSFJ” types aren’t so normal by using numbers from the latest edition of the MBTI Manual. The low percentage types staying more or less the same indicates that older statistics were fairly accurate on them (INFJ, ENTJ, INTJ, etc.).
Regardless of the source, it seems that a few Myers-Briggs types are fairly rare, with those being INFJ, ENTJ, INTJ, and ENFJ (these four often trade positions, depending on the source of the statistics). I think it would be a decent conjecture to state that the rarer personality types are less likely to have volatile personalities. After all, the more rare the personality type, the more “stubborn” the personality itself. This can plainly be seen in the descriptions of types like ESFJ and ISFJ when compared to INFJ and ENTJ on the 16Personalities website:
ESFJ: “Extraordinarily caring, social, and popular people, always eager to help.”
ISFJ: “Very dedicated and warm protectors, always ready to defend their loved ones.” (essentially the same exact description as ESFJ)
INFJ: “Quiet and mystical, yet very inspiring and tireless idealists.”
ENTJ: “Bold, imaginative and strong-willed leaders, always finding a way — or making one.”
Why are the more common personality types described as if they are side characters in an anime…
While the rare ones take on descriptions that would fit the main character — the protagonist, if you will:
But let’s not get lost here, since the Myers-Briggs model isn’t even backed by social science — even if the ENTJ is a self-centered leader who thinks of himself as the main character of his own anime, that can’t directly be attributed to a pseudoscience type indication. The same goes for these supposed “bystander” roles. These selfless descriptions can’t be tied to a direct causation relationship in which the cause is “I am an ISFJ” and the effect is “I am a generic, caring person. Though there is truth to these broad descriptions, they can’t be taken so seriously. It’s quite easy to look at the high percentage personality types and think of the word “normie.”
In fact, much of my own theory falls apart when drawing back to the four standards used in social science (all of which the MBTI fails to provide sufficient benchmarks for). In the most rational and scientific sense, the MBTI is something of a third wheel. It’s not required, but can bring stability to the world of personality assessment. It can still provide people with a rough idea on introversion and extraversion, as well as very basic understandings of a few other Jungian classifications.
The MBTI can also serve as a gateway to more sophisticated personality tests, like The Big Five, and as a gateway to further exploration of the world of psychology as a whole. I find it very hard to call the Myers-Briggs model useless, especially when considering the huge number of people using it. Whether it is for their careers, their relationships, or their lives in general, the MBTI tests on 16Personalities and similar sites do have function for the everyday person. Even if the majority of people are unenlightened to The Big Five, it’s not that they can’t be unenlightened to the experiences of life. Gatekeeping people from exploring personality categorizations is the same as gatekeeping them from learning about rarer combinations of personality metrics (whether it is the MBTI model or not).
It isn’t a case of being a “normie” or not. It’s a case of wanting to learn. I did not learn my own personality tendencies from the MBTI model; I already was aware of them. The MBTI model opened my eyes to the wisdom of an old turtle.
“There is always something more to learn, even for a master.”
~Master Oogway
