MBTI Test v.s. MBTI Theory
First of all, I want to distinguish between the theory and the test.
The MBTI test is list of questions that categorizes people into 16 different types based on their self-reported answers.
The MBTI theory explains 8 different frameworks people use to process information, think and make decisions (i.e. 8 cognitive functions that can be organized into 16 different sets of four).
Type descriptions from online tests ≠ the MBTI theory.
A lot of those descriptions were written without an in-depth understanding of the theory, but are based on grossly exaggerated stereotypes for easy consumption or to make the reader feel good. (I mean, if every INTP really is an Einstein-level genius, we’d be flying spaceships by now).
Got the differences? Let’s move on.
Research Proved That Tests Suck
Countless scientific studies showed that the MBTI assessment, or “test” as we call them, is shit. However, most of these research focus purely on MBTI as a psychometric instrument (i.e. whether it’s a good test, not whether it’s a good theory).
The common conclusion is that the MBTI tests have:
Low validity (validity = does it accurately measure what it’s supposed to?). It doesn’t accurately categorize personality types according to how the theory categorizes them through cognitive functions.
Low reliability (reliability = does it consistently measure what it’s supposed to). The results aren’t consistent when taken multiple times.
We can all agree that online MBTI tests suck, even without being a researcher. However, there’s actually very little research done on the theory itself (more below).
1. Test-makers’ ignorance
No in-depth knowledge of the theory. While the MBTI theory involving cognitive functions captures differences in human thinking and reasoning, tests are no where near that level, even the official one. Most tests, especially popular online ones, rely on dichotomy between letters (N v.s. S, T v.s. F), gross stereotyping of types, and misinterpretation of the theory itself.
No knowledge of psychometric. Amateur test-makers don’t know common pitfalls of self-reported measurements or techniques to construct questions to avoid misinterpretations.
2. Test-takers’ human factor
The MBTI test is self-reported. Anything self-reported is susceptible to response biases because they rely solely on the test-taker to interpret questions and answer accurately, no matter how well-constructed the test is.
People interpret the same question differently. Even the same person interpret the same question differently at different times. Your interpretation is based on your personal experience, your mood and state of mind during the test, or even earlier questions that can subconsciously remind you of certain things and affect your answer. This problem is amplified if the test maker didn’t study psychometric and take these problems into account.
Inaccurate perception of self. Not everyone is introspective or have an accurate perception of themselves. You may have buried problems and be in denial about certain things. Or you may have a warped point of reference, e.g. you might be very disorganized according to 90% of the population, but you’ve lived with people who are messier than you your whole life and were constantly told you’re organized, so you rate yourself as organized.
Social desirability bias. People tend choose answers that present them favorably (as good or socially acceptable people), especially if the results may be shared. This is problematic, considering that the most common usage of the (official) MBTI test is in a work place or school.
Official Test + Certified Expert = Higher Accuracy
According to my friend who’s a certified MBTI counsellor whose company work directly with The Myers & Briggs Foundation, here are the differences between the official and unofficial tests:
Internal research (done by the foundation) ensured that the official assessment only uses neutral word choice to describe types or traits to avoid biases, and make questions as clear as possible to avoid confusing interpretations (although, likely won’t ever be 100% misinterpretation-free).
Their research showed that the accuracy increases when you take it with a certified MBTI expert, who can help resolve biases and prep your mindset to be in an optimal state before the assessment.
The validity and reliability of the assessment improved over time with revisions based on repeated research.
(You can listen to me interviewing the MBTI counsellor here.)
There are very few studies that look into the MBTI theory itself, separated from the test. Understandable, since the test was intended to be the main feature and the marketed product of MBTI.
There’s one prominent research in this field done by a neuroscientist named Dario Nardi. Albeit being a handful of case studies, his research showed that each type showed consistent brain activities when asked to perform different physical and mental tasks. You can identify someone’s type just by looking at their brain electrical activities.
You can read more on his book: Neuroscience of Personality, or watch his talk at Google on his research.
Although there isn’t much research done to conclude whether theory is or isn’t bullshit, there’s observable evidence of its impact on self-understanding, self-development, and interpersonal relationships, and certainly its usefulness.
While tests suck, there’s certainly some validity in the theory itself. It’s a tool that helps you understand differences in the way people think, and help you understand your strengths & weaknesses, and interact with others more effectively. It is a tool, like any other. And a tool is only as useful as your mastery of it.
If you really want to understand MBTI and use it effectively, don’t rely on tests to tell you your type. Delve into the theory and read about cognitive functions (i.e. the building blocks of MBTI).
This could be a good place to start: MBTI-Resources.
[ Already an MBTI enthusiast? Check out my MBTI merch! ]
origamiaround
annaxmalina
andulkaphoto
kianamaiart
pixelskylines
gummygunk
