Truth and facts about the MBTI Meyers-Briggs test/s

[timeuser84]

Hi again all. Is mbti myers brigs reliable? Is it a science at all or is it all phycology? has it passed peer review? is there any evidence to show its lagit? what are the facts about mbti myers brigs test/s?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is it a science at all or is it all phycology?

I assume you mean "psychology". Psychology is a science.

what are the facts about mbti myers brigs test/s?

Way, way, way too broad a question.

I think if you want a good answer you should spend some more time formulating your question.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

It’s reliable enough that companies routinely use MBTI to screen new hires.

@Vanadium 50 is INTJ. Bet.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You'd be wrong. ENTJ.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

You'd be wrong. ENTJ.

I was close...

ENTJ is my mirror type.

 

[Evo]

While the Meyers-Briggs test is common, the results easily change with your mood. While it can give you some insight into how you feel about things, I get either INTJ or ENTJ depending on how I feel that day. For employers, the DISC test is usually given (at least by the bigger companies) as it gives insight into how your personality type would suit you for different work roles. I am an S with a HIGH D. My employer paid for the real test, but you can get (free) similar tests online.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's part of why I wanted a more specific question. One can always divide up traits across 4 axes and get 16 categories. Whether this is a permanent state of affairs or one's "score" bounces around with every test is a reasonable question. Related is the correlation between different tests.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

You can cross-check with enneagram typing as well. I always come out 5w6 which correlates on MBTI charts with INTP. The same goes with other typing methods like Evo mentioned, such as DISC. Different methods of personality typing and assessments seem to all correlate.

Everyone uses the same 8 functions. Their first 2 functions are the one’s that they rely on the most. I might note that people going through severe stress or that deal with mental illness or disability don’t always qualify in typing. MBTI is a simple categorization that describes the thinking and decision making that was found to describe the majority- and it’s the best we have so far. It might not be a precise description, but the research on it is valid enough.

An ENTJ’s dominant function is extroverted thinking (Te) and secondary function is introverted intuition (Ni)- that is simply reversed with INTJ. So, those 2 can be easily mixed up. People grow and may be able to balance out the use of their first 2 or 3 functions as they age. Te Dom’s are fascinating to me as a Ti Dom. I could only wish!

To answer your questions:
-Yes, it’s a science.
-I think that there is a consensus among experts (from what I know) and is also used in academia and business outside of psychology.
-As far as evidence, there’s quite a bit of research on it. Much of it resorts to surveying people, but there is some hard evidence using brain scans and comparisons.
-But, like I said, it’s imprecise. People aren’t just using the first few functions. We use all 8 throughout the day. We can’t exactly measure all that. The brain tends to follow those paths in development, but definitely it’s proven to deviate. We all grow and work on our cognitive abilities.

 

[madness]

While the Meyers-Briggs test is common, the results easily change with your mood.

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Do you have a reference for that?

Evo doesn’t need a reference.

Like I stated, we use all
8 functions and that is subjective to human experience throughout the day.

If Vanadium is alone and has time to recharge, then his introverted intuition will be dominant in the absence of external stimulation.

If my friend and I go hiking in a new spot, then my Se (my 7th function) will be exercised.

Maybe understand the subject before asking for references?

 

[Evo]

Do you have a reference for that?

See below.
EDIT: Added one of the journals linked in the articles I published for those that think I didn't provide any.

An evaluation of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is made using a “unified view” of test validity (e.g., Messick, 1981). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is an assessment of personality based on Jung’s theory of types. During the past decade, the test has received considerable attention and use in a variety of applied settings. The unified view of validation requires that validity be considered as an approach that requires many sources of corroboration. This procedure contrasts with previous procedures that tended to focus on single validation procedures (e.g., construct validation). A review of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenets of and claims about the utility of the test.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543063004467

I took the test multiple times and got different results, the results changed depending on the mood. You aren't aware of this? And personal experience, and we've had threads on this where other people also got different results on different days.

I don't agree that's it unreliable, as it simply reflects the person at the time of the test. If I am angry or upset, my results should reflect that as being more aggressive. If I am peaceful and happy, a less aggressive personality should show up. The results for a "normal" person I would think should not be wildly opposite, but from references, scoring something like both INTJ and ENTJ at different times appears to be very normal.

Why do psychologists doubt it?

Psychologists' main problem with the MBTI is the science behind it, or lack thereof. In 1991, a National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research and noted "the troublesome discrepancy between research results (a lack of proven worth) and popularity."

The MBTI was born of ideas proposed before psychology was an empirical science; those ideas were not tested before the tool became a commercial product. But modern psychologists demand that a personality test pass certain criteria to be trusted. "In social science, we use four standards: Are the categories reliable, valid, independent and comprehensive?" Adam Grant, University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology, wrote on LinkedIn. "For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not really."

Some research suggests the MBTI is unreliable because the same person can get different results when retaking the test. Other studies have questioned the validity of the MBTI, which is the ability of the test to accurately link the "types" to outcomes in the real world — for example, how well people classified as a certain type will perform in a given job.

https://www.livescience.com/65513-does-myers-briggs-personality-test-work.html

More

Many researchers, however, have long questioned the MBTI’s scientific merit.

“In social science, we use four standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive?” Adam Grant, a professor of industrial psychology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, wrote in an essay on the subject. “For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no and not really.”

These faults are likely in part because neither of its creators, Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, had formal training in psychology, explained Merve Emre, author of "The Personality Brokers,” which explores the history of the MBTI.

Katherine Briggs became interested in Carl Jung’s book “Psychological Types” and began “typing” everyone she knew, said Emre, a professor at Oxford University. In 1943, amid the labor boom of World War II, her daughter took that system and designed a questionnaire to determine what job a worker’s personality is best suited for.

“It really was this very unscientific process,” Emre said.

Research has since found that upwards of 50% of people got a different score when they re-took the MBTI just five weeks later. Studies have also shown that the test is not effective at predicting people’s success in different jobs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...gs-type-indicator-does-not-matter/3635592002/

 

[russ_watters]

has it passed peer review?

A quick google turns up tons of peer reviewed research about it, but please note, Myers-Briggs is a tool and it itself doesn't "pass" peer review any more than a balance scale does. E.G., you may find peer reviewed research saying it is an unreliable tool and others saying it is reliable for certain uses. Just like a scale. Though I suppose these days a balance scale is an engineered product and you won't necessarily find many reliability studies of them, but rather just research that uses them.

Sample:

The present paper focuses on approximately two dozen recent published studies that examined reliability and validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in clinical, counselling, and research settings. Several assessments of split-half and test-retest reliability of the standard Form F and shorter Form G of the Inventory have yielded generally satisfactory correlations for all four scales. A larger number of studies of construct validity of the MBTI have yielded support for research hypothesis is situations ranging from correlations of the MBTI with a personality inventory, to couples problems in a counseling setting, to line judgments in groups, and others. Therefore, the applications of the MBTI have been broad, although somewhat unsystematic, and with generally favorable validity assessment. Continued attempts to validate the instrument in a variety of settings are needed.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa4904_3

 

[Tom.G]

I had a slight interest in it years ago, took it a few times, and others said I pretty much matched the results (I don't remember what they were though!)

I suppose at the worst, it could be considered akin to a Ouija Board, good for some (heated?) discussion at least.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[madness]

Evo doesn’t need a reference.

Yes she does.

Like I stated, we use all
8 functions and that is subjective to human experience throughout the day.

If Vanadium is alone and has time to recharge, then his introverted intuition will be dominant in the absence of external stimulation.

If my friend and I go hiking in a new spot, then my Se (my 7th function) will be exercised.

Nice story. Now where's the scientific evidence that Myers-Briggs test results vary with mood?

Maybe understand the subject before asking for references?

I'm a professor in Neuroscience. Maybe you try to understand before you make unsubstantiated claims.

 

[madness]

See below.

I took the test multiple times and got different results, the results changed depending on the mood. You aren't aware of this? And personal experience, and we've had threads on this where other people also got different results on different days.

I don't agree that's it unreliable, as it simply reflects the person at the time of the test. If I am angry or upset, my results should reflect that as being more aggressive. If I am peaceful and happy, a less aggressive personality should show up. The results for a "normal" person I would think should not be wildly opposite, but from references, scoring something like both INTJ and ENTJ at different times appears to be very normal.
https://www.livescience.com/65513-does-myers-briggs-personality-test-work.html

More

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...gs-type-indicator-does-not-matter/3635592002/

None of your references makes a link between mood and test results. Clearly retaking the test can give variable results, but that might not relate to mood. Your subjective anecdotal results don't qualify as scientific evidence.

 

[madness]

Here is the peer reviewed evidence

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02124.x

"Some of the subjects were given questionnaires that induced either mood elevation or depression, reversed across the two testings. Reliability coefficients for the MBTI continuous scores ranged from .78 to .87 across the 5 weeks, irrespective of the subjects’ mood states, an innovative demonstration of the stability of MBTI measures. "

This is referring to a previous study called "Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes" which is now hard to find online, but highly cited. A quick search of the literature shows a huge number of studies proving the consistency and efficacy of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool for psychological research.

Please refrain from making unsubstantiated assertions that are discredited by peer reviewed scientific evidence in future.

 

[atyy]

Here is the peer reviewed evidence

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02124.x

"Some of the subjects were given questionnaires that induced either mood elevation or depression, reversed across the two testings. Reliability coefficients for the MBTI continuous scores ranged from .78 to .87 across the 5 weeks, irrespective of the subjects’ mood states, an innovative demonstration of the stability of MBTI measures. "

This is referring to a previous study called "Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes" which is now hard to find online, but highly cited. A quick search of the literature shows a huge number of studies proving the consistency and efficacy of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool for psychological research.

Please refrain from making unsubstantiated assertions that are discredited by peer reviewed scientific evidence in future.

There's a slightly longer summary of "Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes" in the review https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-02874-001: "An additional analysis of type reliability showed that 19% of subjects changed type on the EI scale, 11% on SN, 17% on TF, and 16% on JP"

The review also summarizes another study: "Very recently, McCarley and Carskadon (1983) again examined reliabilities for the four subscales of Form G ... the percentage of subjects who retained their specific dichotomous type preferences across all four scales was only 47%"

 

[madness]

There's a slightly longer summary of "Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes" in the review https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-02874-001: "An additional analysis of type reliability showed that 19% of subjects changed type on the EI scale, 11% on SN, 17% on TF, and 16% on JP"

And how do these numbers compare within and across mood groups? It's known that there is trial-by-trial variance in test scores, but the question is how much of that is attributable to mood.

The review also summarizes another study: "Very recently, McCarley and Carskadon (1983) again examined reliabilities for the four subscales of Form G ... the percentage of subjects who retained their specific dichotomous type preferences across all four scales was only 47%"

It's notable that a value of 47% across all 4 dimensions would imply an 83% chance of maintaining the same outcome on each dimension, assuming that outcomes on each dimension are independent and follow a binomial distribution. That's outstandingly good by the standards of any psychological test. This is why, after IQ, the Myers Briggs test is considered one of the most reliable metrics across the whole field of psychology. Moreover, it's worth emphasising that these numbers (17% chance of changing on each score) are comparable or greater to those reported in the mood manipulation study, suggesting that any variance under mood manipulation is explained by baseline variability in non-mood related controls. Indeed, if you multiply the numbers from the mood related study you get 0.81 * 0.89 * 0.83 * 0.84 = 50% chance of keeping all attributes identical under mood manipulation compared to 47% chance of keeping all attributes identical without mood manipulation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Myers-Briggs is a tool and it itself doesn't "pass" peer review any more than a balance scale does.

But it still needs to be used appropriately. A balance scale shouldn't be used to weigh a car or to find the height of a building. ("I'll give you this swell balance if you tell me...")

The implied question seems to be "to what extent can a MBTI be used to predict future behavior?" A scientifically valid subset of this is "to what extent can a MBTI test be used to predict the outcome of future MBTI tests?" One difficulty with this is that the test is binary in nature - you are either extroverted or introverted, and there is no middle ground. I think all of our experience is that people fall into a continuum, and a numerical score would be more appropriate. It would also likely improve reliability and validity. If someone measures 0.45 on an axis and we know there are test and day-to-day variations of 0.2, we would expect that person to jump categories in a way we wouldn't for someone who scored 0.9.

"Only off by one" sounds impressive (and this isn't just Freya - companies that sell this as a service make the same claim) but it happens by chance 5 in 16 times. One service claims 75% of the time repeat test-takers are off by zero or one category - that implies it gets each category right 2/3 of the time rather than 1/2 by chance. I would call this a rather weak predictor.

But I am an ENTJ: I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Oh, and I wouldn't work for a company that made hiring decisions based on MBTI.

But I am a Scorpio, so I would say that.

 

[Evo]

Here is the peer reviewed evidence

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02124.x

"Some of the subjects were given questionnaires that induced either mood elevation or depression, reversed across the two testings. Reliability coefficients for the MBTI continuous scores ranged from .78 to .87 across the 5 weeks, irrespective of the subjects’ mood states, an innovative demonstration of the stability of MBTI measures. "

This is referring to a previous study called "Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes" which is now hard to find online, but highly cited. A quick search of the literature shows a huge number of studies proving the consistency and efficacy of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool for psychological research.

Please refrain from making unsubstantiated assertions that are discredited by peer reviewed scientific evidence in future.

LOL, my personal observations are quite valid. Wiley (your source) is a seller of the MBTI, they have been involved with the test for decades, so their personal observations aren't valid.

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Essentials+of+Myers+Briggs+Type+Indicator+Assessment,+2nd+Edition-p-9780470343906

As you said - Please refrain from making unsubstantiated assertions that are discredited by peer reviewed scientific evidence in future.

 

[Evo]

This is why, after IQ, the Myers Briggs test is considered one of the most reliable metrics across the whole field of psychology.

Your source? MBTI is actually NOT considered a reliable test, I already posted sources from the The National Academy of Sciences.

This will be the last of this silliness. If you like the test, fine, but don't be making false statements.

The Myers-Briggs provides inconsistent, inaccurate results

Research has found that as many as 50 percent of people arrive at a different result the second time they take a test, even if it's just five weeks later. That's because the traits it aims to measure aren't the ones that are consistently different among people.Oct 8, 2015

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

I think you have received enough information about the test.

The OP has not posted in this thread since he asked about it. The thread is now closed.