"The new publisher offered the test not just to schools and corporations but to consumers as a 'self-test'—individuals could buy the assessment and grade it themselves. This was a new market for such tests, which previously had only been sold to organizations, with the answer sheets sent back to the publisher for grading. The DIY option was perfect for the 'me' decade. People who felt unfulfilled could send off for a little green booklet with a self-scoring guide. Like reading a horoscope or doing a love quiz in Cosmopolitan, bored suburbanites could fill out the Myers-Briggs chart during the commercial breaks of Kojak and discover their 'true type.' By 1979, more than a million Myers-Briggs answer sheets had been sold. The story of the Myers-Briggs follows the history of personality testing in the 20th century. Earlier self-improvement ideas, like those of Dale Carnegie, focused on doing the right thing. After the 1960s, the focus shifted to being the right thing. Neurolinguistic programming and self-hypnosis suggested that we could change ourselves. Myers-Briggs gave a softer option: It would help us know ourselves, uncritically. But the knowledge is a mirage. Reading through the questions is like looking at a script for a cold reading. Every answer could apply to everyone to some degree, possibly changing depending on mood."
From "Myers-Briggs Is Bunk/Why doesn't that stop people from taking the enduringly popular personality test?" (Reason)(reviewing the new book "The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing").
October 24, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
You knew it was bullshit when everybody had enviable traits.
Thurber "Let Your Mind Alone and other more or less inspirational pieces" dealt with the wave of self-improvement books in the early 20th century.
I'd like to see a Venn diagram of Myers-Briggs devotees and Pet Rock buyers. Might just be one big oval. A groovy decade.
Boy, I must have taken those tests a half dozen times at various companies I worked for.
I don't remember any of the results.
I wouldn’t say everyone had enviable traits. I would say everyone has preferences, sometimes useful and sometimes not. The biggest criticisms came from academic psychologists who couldn’t accept the idea that mere housewives could observe the world and think of something useful based on their insights. This is more a testimony to the conceit of academia than utility of the MBTI and associated concepts. Paul Tieger wrote the Art of Speedrrading people but made good money as a jury consultant using his insights. William Jeffries, retired Army colonel worked with Special Forces teams. I would prefer the insights of either to the entire Psychology Department at University of Wisconsin
It's not a complete bullshit test; but mostly bullshit test. The entire field of psychology is mostly bullshit.
I am an ENTJ. The test is accurate!
I was asked to take the Myers-Briggs evaluation as part of the interviewing process with one of the 'Big 8' accounting firms a year before I graduated. I eliminated that firm from further consideration thinking that anyone (or, by extension, firm) who felt someone as complex as a human could be reliably reduced to score by such an exam wasn't the kind person I wanted in control of my career. Three years later, the firm I did join -- Arthur Andersen -- had me take the test. (By the way, my score had changed. Your score isn't supposed to change. The test is supposed to identify your immutable personality characteristics.)
The biggest criticisms came from academic psychologists who couldn’t accept the idea that mere housewives could observe the world and think of something useful based on their insights.
I will let Crack handle this one.
I'm a Bailey-Ginger-Jeannie-Janet.
ESTJ (The Executive) all the way. Who are you to question my totally self-affirming assessment?
-sw
Ginger or Mary Ann?
Jeanie or Samantha?
A conflation of art and science that characterizes the human constellation with four colors.
There was quite a fad for this, especially in the 90's.
I was always an ISTP
Ann sheds light here on the sheer inanity of her reading habits. What, did she flunk the Myers-Briggs? Come on.
@Tim in Vermont,
Ginger or Mary Anne
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.
It's trick question - it's simply win-win. Ginger the whore or Mary Ann, the sweet girl, who's likely a whore in the bedroom. All good!
Jeannie or Samantha
Jeannie, Jeannie, a thousand times Jeannie! Samantha seems too boring.
The test's creators (and intended audience) are people best described as affluent and anxious.
Just like Hillary supporters!
I've taken the Myers Briggs many times and come up consistently INTJ over the years. I've also taken the more robust and officially administered PF16 and the results correlate.
Myers Briggs is useful as a rough descriptor, but it was used more like an absolute. It's great for exploring tendencies and sparking conversations, and great for creating characters in a fiction, as there's a complex consistency.
Before I took that I really didn't have the language to describe my encounter with the world and how I didn't quite fit, but was still quite confident. Those letters gave me a very helpful way of understanding how I process and also are helpful in how I connect with others. I learned be much more attuned and use feeling language around the feelers in my life and it quite simply made a world of difference. The trouble is that while it's helpful for interpersonal interactions it became a reductionistic model in human resources.
"Jeannie, Jeannie, a thousand times Jeannie!"
Ditto.
That show was better written.
Jeannie was a more complex and unusual character.
One episode had Jeannie reciting from the Rubaiat.
I have had to take it twice since I came to the forest service. I was an I on one, an E on the other, don’t remember the other two, Judgemental on both and that is correct: I have determined there are an awful lot of ass holes out there.
I have a real problem with tests that pose a question and then have a Yes/No dichotomy. As the reviewer suggest the test does. Nothing is really black/white yes/no.
For example the question: It is in your nature to assume responsibility The answer is often: Sometimes. Maybe. Depends. Occasionally. If I feel like it. If I'm interested. What's in it for me. No I am a total slacker
A sliding scale of preference or answers to the questions would be a better assessment. I have taken the test several times for work purposes and again for fun.
Every time I take the test it turns out the same. INTJ. Never anything else.
/shrug
What else do we know -- or that society's management class thinks it knows -- is bunkum?
I know people that sincerely and steadfastly believe that whatever comes out of the academy is true, or, if not true, is closer to the truth than ignorance (millennia of tradition or common wisdom being cast as ignorance).
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
It's not a complete bullshit test; but mostly bullshit test. The entire field of psychology is mostly bullshit.
If it does not follow the scientific method, it is not science, no matter how much you would like to call it science. The hallmark of these pseudo-science disciplines is non-reproducibility. It is like the occult, it is impossible to make it "better" over time. You aren't zeroing in on an aspect of the behavior of the physical universe.
The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing
Because 14-year-old girls are having identity problems. See the cover of Cosmopolitan at the check-out counter.
@Lewis Wetzel - Society’s management class has fetishized “diversity”.
New Age bull shit?
Who could have seen that coming?
Lewis Wetzel or Lis Wiehl?
Shockingly, sometimes the almost sixty year gal is the best option.
IMHO.
From Fargo: Season 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bh7goVtrGs
A little OT, Mary Anne has had some expensive health issues. Has a gofundme page.
Agree with Paddy-O and have similarly taken it multiple times and used it multiple times not as an absolute test but as descriptor of preferences. I’ve taken other personality/ temperament tests. The value is in discussing preferences and appreciating strengths and weaknesses in those preferences.
PS Like Paddy-O I’m also an INTJ and yes I’m prone to look at generalities not specifics/details and I get tired at parties.
I'm skeptical about articles written by people who have zero knowledge about the subject matter but have absolute certainty about their opinions. I guess they have to make a living too, for some reason they get published but their work is useless. IMO.
I took the test twice -- first result was INFJ and second result twenty years later was INTP. I was told that intelligent people do naturally make adjustments. At some point I realized I had to become more rational and more flexible and adaptable to survive in this world. But the main dominant functions of introversion or extroverion, sensing or intuition don't change that much. The wild swings cited by the writer indicate a lack of sincerity in taking the test. Also, just as a point of clarification, these results are not binary -- you are scored on a range between introvertion and extrovertion, etc.
The main value is to gain insight into your preferences and recognition of your style and where you would fit in and be more comfortable and effective in a work situation. A lot of people are perfectly clear about this without testing, some people try to be something they are not or lack self awareness and are helped by testing. As far as applying this to social situations or dating that's kind of counterproductive, if you are looking for someone who turns you on you probably don't want someone who is exactly the same as yourself. That's kind of boring.
I am never frightened by a fish.
I would say that the test result is a reflection of how the test taker sees himself. His conception of himself may or may not be accurate.
BTW DBQ,
Since you've taken the test why fuss about the test being a black/white thing-y? Regardless of what it may say in the piece that Altouse is linking too.
From the first time I took it I would never be able to forget that it spits out ranges. Sure, in the end it rounds to four letters. But,the actual results are percentages of affinity re such letters.
The reason this is cemented in my mind from the first encounter is because one of the gals who took it in our group got into a full-on verbal battle w/ the testing person cause this gal wanted it to be stated that having results that were very borderline for all four letters (i.e., almost coulda gone the other way for all of them) was the best of all because (obviously, to her) she had aced all eight categories. This was very awkward for the rest of us in the group. Hence, I'll never forget that this test results in ranges, not black/white. Then you get lumped into the closest letter.
Anywho, borderline personality indeed. IMHO. And, she was not hot. Just sayin'.
BTW, what if I'm da only E in the A house?
This was engineers in school.
I and E, the Introversion and Extroversion, have some stability over time. The other categories do not. If you take the test next year you might well get different results. Third points: I have been anti M-B for decades, but I young friend did convince me of one use which i grudgingly grant. Because it is well-known, and the idea of different kinds of thinking and acting is now even better known, such tests can be useful in getting obstinate people who are in conflict to back down and at least consider another way of looking at things. Even if they aren't really INTJ or DEVO or whatever, a mediator can buy some space to get people to talk.
Next, look how often these categorizations are in fours: fire, water, earth, air signs; blue, red, green gold; phlegmatic, melancholic, sanguine, choleric. Some lesser-known tests are also in fours. The Enneagram (which I also dislike) at least got creative with the numbering.
If you want a personality test, take the PAI.
Sure A Scientific personality is unprovable and easy to ridicule. But M B tests do offer a structure of observable traits.that in turn values 16 variable personality types.
That thought alone opens us up to seeing the value in many people that are not like us. Don't discount that.
From a management/HR point of view, the biggest problem with Myers-Briggs is what to do with the results. You would get this data about your employees, but what decisions was it supposed to inform? If one thought about it, it was not very useful even if one assumed some sort of accuracy. It was mostly a management fad after all, at least as I recall it.
I am trying to remember which of the four axes relates to one’s capacity for planning ahead versus take things as they come. Back in the late 1980s or thereabouts I was a member of the leadership team for a project to build an information system for a federal agency. The agency paid for a team-building exercise between our leadership team and the government’s management team. Part of that was a Meyers-Briggs test, and the top two people from our leadership team, and the government Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (basically, the individual responsible for monitoring day to day progress of the project) were so far over on the “take it as it comes” that they were almost off the chart. I thought at the time that the project was going to get in trouble, which we did. The project was basically put back on track, but not until our project manager, software development manager, and lead systems engineer were replaced, and the government replaced its COTR with people less allergic to planning and schedules.
@Big Mike -- you are referring to judging versus perceptive attitude. J people are the planners, wanting order. P people rely on their ability to adapt.
My company has 'personality' tested me three times. I've been Meyers-Briggs'd (I'm INJT), Emergentics, and SCARF'd - its getting ridiculous. Actually, I haven't completed the SCARF thing yet - I'm hoping they don't notice - they already know enough about me - for pity's sake! (is that an INJT thing to say?)
I'm an xNTP, "open" messy desk person, border I-E (I call myself an I with E skills; often get tired at parties that don't have dancing, tho this changes with more booze).
"Know yourself". I was just on a team building conference, and one of the mostly women tables I was at went thru discussion of zodiac signs, and how if you're a Cancer/Crab it's tough on some other signs. OK to talk about, but very few people who believe in horoscopes can accurately judge the birth sign of people they meet.
With M-B, many folk who've studied it CAN judge, with good (not perfect) accuracy, the 4 letters of strangers. Reading a book* about the key 4 different types: NT NF, or SP SJ, most folk quickly and accurately recognize who they are and who their partners are. The science behind M-B is, exactly, the repeatability AND the fact that the traits which might well flip over different test questions or moods, like I & E for me, usually give a range close to the middle. I'm much more strongly NTP (perhaps too much P, like the failed software designers on a big project -- I do better on my own).
I'd be surprised if most bloggers and blog commenters weren't NT or NF -- tho I call the N-S pair more the abstract vs concrete (rather than iNtuitive vs Sensing).
I've read that the Big 5 personality test is now considered more accurate -- but I've moved out of caring so much about the test traits since I'm so happily married to just one woman (24 years!) my own key to happiness is being happy with her.
Also, the stories about the differences in M-B scores are quite readable and distinct. The characteristics of J folk are really different than my own open P traits. Similarly, those who make decisions based on Feelings rather than rationalized Thinking; they really seem different in many predictable cases.
Not engineering science, but less bunk than Global Warming or even Economics.
*Please Understand Me
http://booksonline.website/book/104190.Please_Understand_Me_II.html
Tell me again about how we need to treat science as an actual science?
Don't get me wrong: I can cold read people reasonably well. But that is a human experience thing and presumes very little. I can't tell WHY a guy is anal retentive...but I know he is and that controls how I interact with him.
@R. J. Chatt, those four people “adapted” themselves right out of a job.
I’ve taken the test 4 times over 20 years and always get the same result: INFP. I recently found out my best friend of over 20 years is ENFP. I have taken other personality tests for work such as the DISC assessment. Those are BS. MB is not.
@Buwaya - to my mind the information gives a clue as to what working situations will be pleasant and easy for a person and which will be more effort for them. It can help de-personalize conflict and also help improve communications. Once as a plant manager I had a surprise FDA audit and the years of production records were in chaos. I picked a team of 3 STJ’s and in two hours they had the whole thing under control and organized where others would have still been talking about it. It is also useful in sales.
Ms. Althouse gives off strong INJ vibes. The T and the F are harder to predict and also, in my experience, less predictive especially with intelligent people. Even if you don't put much stock in the four letter types, the underlying cognitive stacks are interesting. I agree with SDaly about how these are interesting in helping kids (or yourself) to understand how different people will react differently to similar circumstances. The big 5 personality approach may be more scientific, but it has no underlying theoretical framework. For MBTI, the practitioner makes a big difference. I've learned a lot from this guy's website.
The Beatles: Lennon INTP, Paul INFJ, George INFP and I can't do Ringo.
Way more fun than astrology!
Octopus' Garden isn't a sufficiently revealing song.
Trump: ENTJ all the way
tim in vermont said...
"The biggest criticisms came from academic psychologists who couldn’t accept the idea that mere housewives could observe the world and think of something useful based on their insights."
I will let Crack handle this one.
It's a trip, how Ann will post some topics, and everyone will start screaming "Crack Bait!" but neither she or I will see it. But then, along comes a topic that makes me go "AH-Ha!" and - expecting to be overwhelmed - there's only this one lousy comment. I really don't "get" you people sometimes.
Much of modern society is operating under "an invisible hand" of one kind or another - which is why The Coal Train's topics are "religion" "cultism" "quackery" etc. - and why they include "Fraud" and "misinformation" which is what this falls under. I want a light shown on these for a reason. It's about time we see what they're up to - and why we can get rid of them.
Post a Comment