13 Reasons Why The Myers-Briggs Test Is Absolute Nonsense

[dixonge]

In a recent thread I noticed a lot of people posting their MBTI types. I'm guessing most of them came through testing at your company? I think the last time I did the test was through a church, decades ago. Either way, I'm a bit miffed to discover how unscientific it is!

13 Reasons Why The Myers-Briggs Test Is Absolute Nonsense | Thought Catalog

 

[2017ish]

Never have taken that test and have seen other articles similar to the one you link. But yeah, it is mentioned a lot on here--especially "INTJ." (Introvert talking Joisey? )

 

[Aerides]

I took it a few times at MC, while I agree with most of the info in that article and the lack of science, etc., it did at least for me help me understand my "introvert" tendencies. I think if they'd just stuck with being even more binary, and going E vs. I they'd cover 75% of what they were getting at.

This was decades ago, but finding out that it was normal, that activities like groups/outings/talking drain some people who then need to recharge quietly vs. others who actually gain energy from those things (extroverts) at least made me feel better and plan my days a bit more thoughtfully. It also raised awareness in the E's why everyone wasn't like them, which is helpful because some unaware E's can be all "why don't you want to stay at this party"

 

[eytonxav]

I wouldn't be miffed at all, that article seems like nothing but conjecture.

 

[scrinch]

Regardless of the lack of science, taking the test and sharing the results with co-workers helped me to begin to understand how we all think and are internally motivated differently. I had never clued in to the idea that a group of individuals can see a broad spectrum of things when given the same input. I had somehow grown up thinking that we all thought more-or-less the same. So despite the lack of science, it was a good learning tool for me.

ISTP---Strong P in a world of J's

 

[Sarah in SC]

I like the test, and generally agree with my results, but I recognize it is a bit on the pseudo side of science. The minister who married us a million years ago had us do them, and I've taken it a few times over the years with basically the same results.
I proudly wear the "ER MBTI" ISTJ label, though.

 

[Nemo2]

I had never clued in to the idea that a group of individuals can see a broad spectrum of things when given the same input.

I've never taken this particular test, but 45+ years ago, when I returned to school, I recall taking another one, (the name of which I do not remember), which sounds as if it may have had some (vague) similarity.

The test I responded to, I took at the same time as a guy I got along with and with whom I presumed I had much in common.

The test results showed '0' and '100' as 'extremes' (negative & positive) with '50' (of course) being 'middle of the road'.

My results were almost exclusively either '1' or '99' (or in that general area), while his were generally ranging from around '48' to '52'.

(I told people, after taking the test but before the results were back, that IMO the multiple choice questions really had only one possible answer, and I recall providing a fabricated question along the lines of "Would you prefer to spend the evening with an attractive member of the opposite sex, our would you rather clean out toilets with your toothbrush?")

I saw him in a different light after that, and doubtless he did the same with me.

 

[braumeister]

I've always known that there is a lot of pseudoscience involved in that sort of thing, but of course I'm a Gemini.

 

[38Chevy454]

I believe the MBTI is useful to help understand your basic tendencies for how you look at the world. I don't believe any psychological test is ever without uncertainty, we are too complex to divide into set definition boxes.

As an engineer, I do fit into the general INTJ characteristics.

I joke here at work my type is DGAS (don't give a sh!t), since I am past any career goals or aspirations, just working primarily for the insurance.

 

[W2R]

I have always regarded it as a sort of "fun" thing to do.

Sort of like astrology. I was born in June, with sun sign, rising sign, and just about all possible planetary signs in Gemini - - and I am SUCH a Gemini! But really, I'm pretty sure that scientifically there is absolutely nothing to astrology. It's still fun.

Saying that one is an INTJ is more descriptive than data derived, it seems to me. I think we all can at least agree that most of the "tests" online are poorly conceived and poorly written. So who's to say that the official test is that much better? I don't suppose that is very likely. There is some value in saying that one is introverted, judgmental, and so on. These are adjectives, not magic and not science.

 

[mpeirce]

I've always known that there is a lot of pseudoscience involved in that sort of thing, but of course I'm a Gemini.

I always considered it one (very small) notch above astrology. Frankly, much of psychology seems to be only a small notch above astrology ;-)

 

[Winter]

I find the personality typing to be helpful. No, it is not exact but it is startling how accurate the type descriptions can be for people. Definitely helps me understand other people's perspectives. YMMV...

 

[GrayHare]

We have INTJs as members here at something like 20 times the rate found in a randomly selected group. To me that's enough to say there's something to the MB.

 

[Geld ist Freiheit]

What were the circumstances whereby you were taking the test?
I'd never heard of any of it until I stumbled across it at ER.
I guess I don't get out from under my rock enough.


GiF

This is your life....and it's ending one minute at a time.

 

[Totoro]

We have INTJs as members here at something like 20 times the rate found in a randomly selected group. To me that's enough to say there's something to the MB.

+1

Signed, an INTJ.

 

[Sarah in SC]

You Gemini sorts! So flighty!

-signed, a Capricorn

 

[Walt34]

We have INTJs as members here at something like 20 times the rate found in a randomly selected group. To me that's enough to say there's something to the MB.

There is that, and in all the online versions out there that I've taken I come out consistently as INTJ or ISTJ with not much difference in the ranking for N or S. DW consistently comes out ISTJ.

The first time I found it was a DOS program that I found on a local BBS. (You whippersnappers will have to Goggle "BBS".)

All that said I wouldn't base any life-altering decisions on it either, just another piece of life's puzzle.

 

[nash031]

More important is not your code, but which Star Wars character is most your type. Personally, I'm mostly Vader depending on how E or I I feel that day. No wonder nobody likes me.

 

[growing_older]

I have always had trouble with this test. Depending on what aspect of my life or work I am thinking about, I can score almost any of the results.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Professionally I have used it for conflict resolution in the workplace, marriage/family counseling and career exploration. When people see something they automatically assume everyone else sees it the same way. When the results are explained to them they start to realize the many differences people can have without judging them.

 

[harley]

I don't know. Seems like the definition of scientific is reproducible results, and I'm the same type (PITA) every time I take it.

 

[HFWR]

INTJ/P, Leo, PITA.

Not necessarily in that order...

I believe we've discussed this book before. A good read, I thought.

 

[gumshoe]

I know it isn't scientific but still think there is some "truth" to this concept. I have several books on the Myers Briggs topic at home, and it is fascinating and fun to read about all the 16 different MB personality types. And, as another poster alluded to, I think it helps to be more understanding of others whose outlook, motivation, inspiration, perception, and ways of relating are different from your own. My favorite book on the subject is "Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type" by Isabel Briggs Myers with Peter B. Myers. I am signing off as an INFP. Hope that didn't miff you - lol!

 

[Which Roger]

Back in the day, I was in a technical meeting with the boss and several other engineers. The meeting went on for a while, with the boss talking through the various ideas, trade-offs, etc. Then he looked at me and said "do you think this is the best option? Can you do this? How long will it take?" This caused me a lot of stress an anxiety, and my initial gut reaction (which I didn't share) was "can we send out the proposal via e-mail and then I can look at it and think about it for a while?" Not too long after that, our department had Myers-Briggs training, and I learned that I was an INTJ, and that the boss was an E-something, and at that point I understood why I had felt that way in the meeting.

 

[Options]

I found the "article" idiotic containing many statements untrue. It was hard to keep reading the very first false statement, but I persevered. Regarding the very first assertion alone: MBTI work (done well) is actually based on none other than Carl Jung's well-known classification of personality types. There were several other false statements in the pseudo-writing but I'm too bored after reading it to refute them.

Nothing irks me more than click bate and entire books whose few excellent points are buried in fluff. There is just too much outstanding, relevant, and useful information out there to waste time reading what amounts to bad writing. Along those lines, I highly recommend this site for insights from some of the smartest people in investing (and perhaps life as well):

https://25iq.com/featured-individuals/