ambi said:
thenumberthirteen said:
I did a paper on how the MBTI is quite inaccurate, is based on suspect research, and how it is widely misused (particularly in business).
What are some points you made?
MBTI, and anything that involves generalisations is at least somewhat flawed but I find it interesting nonetheless.
The MBTI is based heavily on the work of Carl Jung who had a noted aversion to statistical analysis, and other traits of modern scientific psychological study; preferring instead the subjective study of anecdotal evidence which can be a very biased and inaccurate way to gain information.
I also cited a study (
Howes, Carskadon 1979) that showed that the results of a MBTI test where different when tested multiple times (a group is tested, and then tested again 5 weeks later). In this case over 50% of subjects had a different result second time round. To me a change in the results that drastic renders the practical application of the test useless.
MBTI (and other "personality tests") pull the same gig as Astrology and exploit the Forer Effect. That is a well worded personal statement can be so general enough as to apply to a wide spectrum of readers, however seem specific enough so as you will rate it as highly accurate to you. Magician James "The Amazing" Randi did this to a group of students where he posed as an Astrologer and gave them all a private Astrological reading which most of the class rated as highly accurate, until he asked them to swap their reading with the person next to them. They all said the exact same thing.
It is also perfectly fine, according to the MBTI's publisher CPP, to change the results of a test after it has been taken if the results don't match you (my paper cited a PDF published by CPP training people in the use of the MBTI which clearly stated that the results can be fiddled after the fact if they are wrong, however the link to the PDF doesn't work anymore).
My main gripe is that these tests are being marketed to businesses as a way to assess employees when putting together teams. Businesses can, and do, put too much stress on these types of tests as a way to avoid making an actual decision. Constructing teams based on your personality rather than your skills, experience, or the fact that you would like to develop yourself in a different team role.
I wrote the paper (well it was more of a short report, only 2000 words) as we where doing a course module at University that involved a lot of learning about things like the MBTI, and other team building tools, and I did it with a growing sense of incredulity about the accuracy of such tools; particularly when they're used in make or break career decisions. Lots of these tests are seen, and defended as "a bit of fun" by the general public, but the fact is that they can be taken far to seriously in the business world. Managers are constantly looking for scientific ways to make tough decisions, and thus can use such tests as a way to shift responsibility away from themselves by following a proscribed method (and who can blame them). I don't want my future determined by some Cosmo quiz, over my skills, and talents.
The truth is that companies can make big bucks selling these tests to companies, and it's all just too much marketing spin. Sorry for the rant (but it doesn't count as a rant if you use Harvard referencing), but this is one of the many things that really annoys me.
Howes, R. J. and T. G. Carskadon. "Test-Retest Reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Function of Mood Changes." Research in Psychological Type, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1979), pp. 67-72.
