Deep Dive: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
What’s so wrong with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)- Like Organizational Psychologist Adam Grant, the first time I met the MBTI, I wondered Where’d they get the crystal ball? I took it while training to be a chaplain. It definitely felt like someone was reading my mail.
But, there were niggling questions after taking the MBTI. That’s not me. Not all the time. When I get doen with my training, would I really want an employer using this to screen me for employment or determine how I would fit in with the team better? Also, as science began to matter more, it became clear that data supporting the MBTI assumptions were non-existent. It was based on Jungian psychology (which, though I appreciate, is not something on which to base scientific personality types). Among the additional reasons does questioning the scientific basis for these types of tests, here are others: The reliability of self-report surveys (in fairness, sometimes there are no options), the malleability of personality (especially in particular settings). These changes occur regardless of the assessment you use: they reflect your response to work circumstances. Presumably, similar changes can occur in other environments.
What are the alternatives that have scientific merit? The Big Five. You can take Big Five Assessments here and here, and here. Recent research suggests there are Six categories of personality and it uses a broader scientific approach to update the Big Five (you won’t see any updates to the MBTI). This newest version of the Big Five is called the HEXACO and you can take it here.
My point here is that the MBTI (and let’s go ahead and throw the Enneagram in with it) are cute but not scientific. They should never be used for hiring decisions and shouldn’t be used to inform self-understanding. If you want to explore your temporary personality characteristics, use something based on science like the tools mentioned in the prior paragraph.