Meyer-Briggs Personality Profiles

Not to be a skeptical drag, but the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is pseudo-psychology. It's unfalsifiable rubbish, which appears to work for the exact same reason astrology does: the Forer effect.

I study the MBTI in particular (and personality theory in general) and the assessment is highly particular for the type and highly predictive. I'm INTJ, meaning I'm one 'type' away from ENTJ and that personality entry is rather different from mine. For example, I don't particularly like to have a lively, challenging conversation and I'm not energized or stimulated primarily externally.

If you have any doubt the assessment is particular to an individual type and not the Forcer effect, take the MBTI and check the career choices for the opposite type. I'm INTJ
So from: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ_car.html
I could see myself being a doctor, professor, lawyer, or engineer. Actually, I'm in training to be a doctor of psychology.
But from http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFP_car.html
I'd hate to be an actor, sales rep, or be in social work. I wouldn't be a sales rep if it paid twice as much as being an engineer or a lawyer.

The reason for the backlash from the MBTI is because it wasn't developed by psychologists, so it wasn't given much acknowledgement. Today, however, it's used quite often in personality theory.

I took the test about 25 years ago, and again 2 years ago. Each time I came out as a strong ENFP, which I, and people who know me well, find to be quite accurate.

I'll preface my comment by saying that I would be highly skeptical of any approach to MBTI that attempted to draw absolute or concrete conclusions from the results and dictate specific actions/restrictions for employees or individuals based on them (as some HR academics might be prone to do).

However, in my own personal experience, I've found the results to be generally in close alignment to reality both for myself and others (unlike horoscopes or other instruments that may be said to rely wholly on the Forer effect). IOW, not only my own results, but the results of others seem generally to match what I observe in reality.

I've completed the instrument several times, each time with at least one year between testings, and the results have been more or less the same over the years. My first result was INTJ, but with the rating for "I" somewhat close to center. My two most recent testings both yielded an ENTJ.

I would certainly agree that the concept suffers some of the same flaws found in Jung's work overall, but generally I would say that MBTI can be helpful in fostering understanding of personality differences as long as the actual results aren't taken too seriously.

INFP here. Strangely, given how low the percentage of that type is in the population overall, so is my wife.

I'm an INTJ. (The description site is a different ones from yours)

I haven't taken the test, but I've skimmed the descriptions of a few of the profiles, and they read exactly like something out of Ian Rowland's (excellent!) Full Facts Book of Cold Reading. By which I mean that a lot of the statements seem designed to get all or nearly all readers to agree with them even though they appear to be somewhat specific (using many of the tactics identified in Rowland's book).

The way to test this would be to get a bunch of people to take the test and then (unkown to them) give them a random profile (or give them all the same profile, such as ENTJ, regardless of their test results) and see how strongly they agree that the profile fits them. If the people matched with the "correct" profile think it fits them more strongly than do the people matched with an "incorrect" profile, there may be something to it. If not, there probably isn't.

I'm unaware of whether any such experiments have been done.

I registered as an INFP.

I used to believe that the test meant something, but I wonder now if it isn't a bit like astrology: you read the descriptions and then pull your fabric to fit the frame.

INTP.

M-B is not pseudo-scientific claptrap. It is certainly not astrology or phrenology. It measures the thing it purports to describe. I've found it can quite accurately describe individuals and their preferences and tolerances for certain things and it's useful in understanding how other people get along.

I'm not suggesting that this is some foolproof way to define oneself, or even that it is a rigorous scientific measure of attributes. And I can certainly see the argument that one can easily read what they wish they were like into the descriptions, much like a cold reading or an astrology lesson. On the other hand, the basic premise of this seems far more solid than either of those because it's based on actual preferences and choices a person would make (assuming the answers they give are honest), and those things clearly are an indicator of one's personality. And I'm not the kind of person who views himself or others through rose-colored glasses; I tend to be rather harsh in my judgements of myself and of others.

In a bit more detail, here's what I think is accurate and inaccurate about the description of an ENTJ personality that I linked to, at least as it relates to me. I'll paste statements from that link and then analyze them as they apply to me:

As an ENTJ, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is internal, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

This is certainly true, and it's not something that I think one would think they are if they aren't. There are a lot of people who pride themselves on acting through "intuition" rather than on reason; I'm certainly not one of them. But no one who knows me would peg me incorrectly on this one with those two options.

ENTJs are natural born leaders. They live in a world of possibilities where they see all sorts challenges to be surmounted, and they want to be the ones responsible for surmounting them. They have a drive for leadership, which is well-served by their quickness to grasp complexities, their ability to absorb a large amount of impersonal information, and their quick and decisive judgments. They are "take charge" people.

Again, I don't think anyone who knows me would doubt that this describes me accurately. I would also note that this isn't always a good thing. In a group setting, I tend to be the one that says, "Okay, we all know the options, this is the one that makes the most sense, now let's do it." And that tends to alienate some people, particularly those who are on the "intuition" side, or those who think that everyone has to have an equal say in everything (an idea I think is silly).

ENTJs are very career-focused, and fit into the corporate world quite naturally. They are constantly scanning their environment for potential problems which they can turn into solutions. They generally see things from a long-range perspective, and are usually successful at identifying plans to turn problems around - especially problems of a corporate nature. ENTJs are usually successful in the business world, because they are so driven to leadership. They're tireless in their efforts on the job, and driven to visualize where an organization is headed. For these reasons, they are natural corporate leaders.

This is the one that is completely inaccurate when it comes to me, and I think it's largely because it's based on a misunderstanding of how the corporate world operates. I think it presumes that in the corporate world, someone with a forceful personality and the ability to solve problems automatically succeeds. I think that's nonsense (and I've been in the corporate world). The corporate world is as bureacracy-driven as any other large institution and that tends to drive someone like me crazy. I make a good entrepeneur; I'd make a horrible corporate executive. The first time someone tells me I'm interrupting the "synergy" of the "team", I tell them to go screw themselves.

This also doesn't take into account that I am not a person who is driven to succeed in these terms. I'd rather have the freedom to speak my mind than be wealthy but locked into a corporate structure. I just don't measure success monetarily. I could easily make a lot more money than I do if I wanted to give up the other things that make my life more enjoyable; I'm not willing to do that. In fact, I'm too much that way, to be honest. I'm a bit unbalanced in this regard, often to my detriment.

There is not much room for error in the world of the ENTJ. They dislike to see mistakes repeated, and have no patience with inefficiency. They may become quite harsh when their patience is tried in these respects, because they are not naturally tuned in to people's feelings, and more than likely don't believe that they should tailor their judgments in consideration for people's feelings. ENTJs, like many types, have difficulty seeing things from outside their own perspective. Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others. In their personal world, it can make some ENTJs overbearing as spouses or parents.

As evidence for this in my own life, I will tell this story. I had a dear friend a few years ago who said something to me that surprised me. She had told me something that was rather embarrassing, a mistake she had made, and she said afterwards that she was afraid to tell me about it. I asked why she was so afraid to tell me and she said, "Because you're a hard person to live up to." That really took me by surprise at the time and over the next few days I brought it up to my girlfriend at the time and to my best friend. When I told them that my other friend had said that I was a hard person to live up to, they both had the same immediate reaction - "Oh, absolutely. No question about it." It took me by surprise, I think, because I also think of myself as a compassionate person, someone who is able to understand that we all make mistakes and is forgiving about them. My best friend at the time told me, "You have the clearest sense of right and wrong of anyone I've ever known. It's difficult sometimes to live up to and you're the kind of person that others don't want to disappoint by not living up to those standards." Again, this is not entirely a good thing, and it's something I have had to work on. I don't think I was ever quite as difficult to live up to as they imagined, but I do think that my own certainty on such matters probably gave the impression that I was, and that's often a bad thing in personal relationships.

The ENTJ has a tremendous amount of personal power and presence which will work for them as a force towards achieving their goals. However, this personal power is also an agent of alienation and self-aggrandizement, which the ENTJ would do well to avoid.

Similar to what was stated above, I have a tendency to alienate people in close group situations. That's why I'm not realy a "joiner". I have, however, been a boss to hundreds of employees at a time and I'm pretty good at it. But I'm good at it because I downplay my natural tendencies. Someone smart enough to know how to run a business should also be smart enough to compensate for the unhealthy parts of their personality and at least pretend to be more cooperative than they really are.

Although ENTJs are not naturally tuned into other people's feelings, these individuals frequently have very strong sentimental streaks. Often these sentiments are very powerful to the ENTJ, although they will likely hide it from general knowledge, believing the feelings to be a weakness. Because the world of feelings and values is not where the ENTJ naturally functions, they may sometimes make value judgments and hold onto submerged emotions which are ill-founded and inappropriate, and will cause them problems - sometimes rather serious problems.

This is definitely true of me. Despite my focus on logic, I am strongly sentimental in many ways. I don't generally try and hide it because I don't view it as a weakness.

ENTJs love to interact with people. As Extroverts, they're energized and stimulated primarily externally. There's nothing more enjoyable and satisfying to the ENTJ than having a lively, challenging conversation. They especially respect people who are able to stand up to the ENTJ, and argue persuasively for their point of view. There aren't too many people who will do so, however, because the ENTJ is a very forceful and dynamic presence who has a tremendous amount of self-confidence and excellent verbal communication skills. Even the most confident individuals may experience moments of self-doubt when debating a point with an ENTJ.

I don't think anyone who knows me well would doubt this statement. In fact, they'd probably say that it was a perfect description of me. Indeed, that was how the whole thing came up. Paul Phillips was responding to someone who said "boy, I'd hate to get in an argument with you", to which he replied, "ENTJ, baby!" Paul and I are very much alike in this regard, and that was in fact how we first got acquainted with one another, because our mutual focus on A) a principled stand, B) the inviolable assumption of our own right to self-expression, especially when what we're expressing is true, and C) our tendency to stand firm when we know we're right, regardless of consequences - all typical ENTJ traits.

When he was banned from Binion's and the World Series of Poker in 2001 for making a true statement to a reporter about how Binion's was screwing the dealers and the players, they told him he could come back if he apologized. He refused - he was right, after all, and that was all that mattered. I immediately came to his defense and spent weeks blistering the Binion's management for their dishonesty and their absurd arguments in defense of their actions. I ended up being barred too (which was fine, since I wasn't going anyway). But that's a very typical ENTJ thing to do on both our parts.

So that's why I think this is, for the most part, accurate. It's not foolproof, of course, but I also don't think that I think so because of the Forer effect or wishful thinking. Some of it is decidedly negative and I've had to work to overcome some of those tendencies in order to function well in groups (and probably still fail to do so in many ways). And if you think I'm ENTJ, you should meet my brother.

INTJ here. Interesting how many INTJs above, given the supposed scarcity in the population. Wonder if that says anything about the Internet, kind of people this blog attracts, the test itself...or means nothing?

Personally, I've taken the 'official' M-B test twice and have scored as both an INTJ and an INTP.

I know many people have taken a pop-psychologized version of the M-B, typically as a magazine or online "quiz" that starts out with the leading question "what personality type are YOU?"

In this 'reverse' method, the subject usually first reads descriptions of personality types - then takes a test and selects which categories he or she feels fit best. However, it's difficult to not be swayed by prior descriptions of "E"s versus "I" and "J"s versus "P"s - and to not have your preconceptions of personality types influence the answers.

However, if the test is administered in the proper standardized fashion, I wouldn't say that the phrenology or astrology analogy holds.

It's not foolproof, of course, but I also don't think that I think so because of the Forer effect or wishful thinking.

But you wouldn't think it was because of the Forer effect even if it really was (as long as it is composed well and you're not trained in recognizing cold reading tactics), so that's not really an effective test.

A good astrological horoscope will cause 90%+ of the people who read it to strongly identify with it and to dismiss the notion that it would fit others as well as it fits them.

So the fact that you strongly identify with the ENTJ profile while doubting that it would fit others as accurately is not by itself evidence against a Forer effect hypothesis.

The M-B test may in fact pass the kind of test I described in my previous comment. But until it does, skepticism is warranted due to the recognizable cold-reading tactics it employs (which maybe I'll elaborate on in my own blog when I have the chance). I am surprised that such tests have apparently not been done. The Wikipedia entry on Myers-Briggs notes that "the MBTI has not been validated by double-blind tests, in which participants accept reports written for other participants, and are asked whether or not the report suits them." If I were Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. (the publisher of the test), that's exactly the type of experiment I'd commission.

I recognize that my not thinking it's the Forer effect is not evidence that it's not the Forer effect, and I never claimed it was. The Forer effect generally is explained by reference to wishful thinking, hope and vanity - we all wish that we were strong people with leadership qualities and therefore when we are described that way, we assume it to be true, and so forth. But in this case, the description also brings with it some fairly significant negative things about myself that I don't particularly like. That would tend to minimize the Forer effect rather significantly. Also, as I indicated, I have no doubt that those who know me well would agree with me on what I've said, not just because it's flattering to me and they like me, but because it is demonstrably true. Indeed, I would say that even those who don't like me would agree with almost all of it, precisely because the traits being described are what they don't like about me. The mere fact that people do fall victim of the Forer effect is not evidence that any particular person is doing so in a particular circumstance, and I would further argue that some people are far more susceptible to it than others. Those with a preference for comforting illusion over harsh reality are far more likely to fall victim to it than cynics and rationalists. I have no doubt that I fall into the latter category and not the former. The fact that the Forer effect is real (and it certainly is) doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a reasonably honest self-evaluation.

I would also note that the Forer effect is generally used as an explanation for why people buy in to pseudo-scientific ideas like astrology and "mind readers". But the Meyer-Briggs test is not based on some mystical force or paranormal ability, it's based on the perfectly reasonable notion that one's preferences and choices are a clue to one's personality profile. That seems so self-evident that it scarcely needs defending. A person who chooses to avoid human contact and prefers their own company over the company of others is likely an introvert rather than an extrovert, almost by definition, and so forth.

ENFP

I took secularity's suggestion, and got for ENFP:
Computer Programmer

Then looked up ISTJ and got:
Computer Programmer

What I do for a living:
Computer programmer. Do I like it? It has its ups and downs.

Of course, ISTJ also had "Medical Doctors / Dentists" which often tops my list of jobs I would never do, and "Military Leaders", which doesn't even make any lists as it is so unlikely as to not even occur to me. And ENFP is comprised of several of my dream career paths.

As far as the Forer effect, I think a good test is looking at your type and another type, and seeing how many traits you agree with from each. Using a fairly liberal standard for agreement, I found close to 100% with my type and about 50% with ISTJ. In other words, I only threw it out if it clearly was incorrect.

All in all, I find them somewhat useful, but would love to see a real study. I am amazed some ambitious university psych dept hasn't taken it on, as every psych major I've ever met has been completely infatuated with MBTI.

Thanks for the comments on the test's accuracy, folks. They helped me understand the crucial difference between MB and astrology.

As I've grown older, I've found that I can get on with more different kinds of people than before, though I tend to prefer the intuitive types.

I think I know you better than anyone knows you and without a doubt you are the most understanding and compassionate person alive. I am definitely not the girlfriend you spoke of that's plain to see. I know the deeper you that others can't see. You have a very forgiving heart too. You might set very high standards for yourself but you never impose those standards on others. I have never seen you as a person who is hard to live up to.

You scared me there, Lynn. You see, my wife's name is Lynn, too....

another vote for ENTJ although i am at the edges of INTP.

I have decades of experience using these personality inventory indices; we used them a great deal with adolescent children with learning disabilities/disorders. I recommended that new teachers use them as a quick measure of probable characteristics in conjunction with other more "officially" reliable testing strategems to get a view of the individual students and the class as a whole. I do not think it is near as useful a predictor for careers or to be used in lieu of other more appropriate therapeutic testing for those with "issues and/or problems." As a quick screen for who in a class might not speak up consistently even though they are not "getting it" as well as for those who will offer responses without processing all the necessary facts, etc., it does help teachers of adolescents engage in a discourse about the students and their relationship to one another.

One thing i noticed about the Forer effect over the years was that it could be predicted(prior to administering the MBTI) across a group from a common academic year from those students' birth year under the chinese astrological system.---heheee

I took the Myers-Briggs when I joined the US Foreign Service in 1992. I was an ISFJ. A couple of years ago I took the shorter, open source "kiersey" test on the Internet and became ISFP. I tend to discount the shorter test. The Myers-Briggs was administered to us by a professional psychologist and it was very long containing lots of paired statements. I remember being frustrated by a lot of paired statements that were "none of the above" which was not a choice. But I am sort of like that whenever I take any of those choice types of tests. I have read various Jung and Jung-protege books and I think Jungian psychology of which the Myers-Briggs is an offshoot contains useful tools but a lot of people would disagree with me as it references pseudo-spiritual sounding stuff like archetypes and teh unconscious. But for Jungian psychology, I think the Myers-Briggs is super-straightforward and descriptive and never understood the people who are somehow opposed to it.

I'd also note that my S/N and P/J continua were very near the middle, possibly explaining why the Kiersey gave me different results. As a management trainer I have also had to consciously turn the judging function off and switch the perceptive one on, which may also account for it.

I took an online version. INTJ.

The thing about the Meyer-Briggs classification that commands my respect is the elegant simplicity of the underlying conceptualisation. MBTI correctly identifies that there are three (and only three) fundamental aspects of the individual human's *interaction* with the external world : input from the external world (S or N), output to the external world (T or F) and the individual's innate bias to 'preferring' the inputting or the outputting function (P or J). The fourth function is not to do with *interacting* with the external world, but whether the individual 'lives in' the external or the internal world (E or I). The four functions are necessary and sufficient to define what it is *of necessity* to be an individual human in an external world. This exhaustive aspect seems to me to be important and powerful, yet it isn't generally brought out in the literature.

Now, why two (rather than one, or three or more) alternatives for each preference? I don't know the answer, but I do know that the concept of doing the same job two ways appears in other ways in humans: for example, rods and cones in the eyes (high-resolution colour vision but needing good light, versus poor light but only blurred black-and-white vision); fast and slow twitch muscle fibres (respond quickly, but relatively weak vs. respond slowly, but relatively powerful) and of course gender (eggs: nourishing gametes, but big and immobile vs. sperm: 'payload only' gamete, but small, mobile and produced en masse). It seems that evolutionary pressures mandate the principle that 'two ways are better than one, but three is an insupportable luxury'.

In many ways, the MBTI classification is like an good theory in physics: elegant, conceptually simple, but capable of blossoming into explaining a wide range of phenomena, and with the 'aha' factor - once it's discovered, it seems so simple, why didn't anyone think of it before?

Do I know my Type? Yes, I do. And I think I've written enough so that you probably can do too, without me telling you!