This is exactly right. I've been skeptical of Myers-Briggs since its heyday in the '90s, when I and virtually all my friends tested as INFPs, despite that type supposedly being one of the rarest. I looked for scientific origins or confirmations of the system and could find nothing.
I was once on a group vacation with an Enneagram practitioner who described the nine personality types in that system. I remember thinking, as she was getting to the end, that none of the types matched my mother in the slightest—and then the next type described her to a T. But does that mean it's a useful way to understand or explain people? At most, both these systems may serve as shortcut ways to describe people you already know well.
Some of this comes down to self-awareness. If someone takes a personality test, they can romanticize the answers as aspirational rather than actual, such that many will come out as a Jungian NF even if they are some other type. But just because self-tests are flawed, the reasoning behind the categories can be startlingly accurate - anyone who has met someone on the autism spectrum or identifies with the "rationalist" community will see the NT type in spades.
This Substack writer nicely explains how the structure of the Jungian-Myers Briggs axis actually correlate well with the Big 5:
Nice use of “cohere” and agreed, MBTI and its imitators that “categorize” people are just fun pseudoscience.
Yet, we put big blinders over our common sense and buy into this idea that we can feed 90+ multiple-choice forced answers about ourselves into what is essentially a Guess Who board of Jungian archetypes, then be surprised where the gonkulator “sorts” us based on our OWN inputs.
This is exactly right. I've been skeptical of Myers-Briggs since its heyday in the '90s, when I and virtually all my friends tested as INFPs, despite that type supposedly being one of the rarest. I looked for scientific origins or confirmations of the system and could find nothing.
I was once on a group vacation with an Enneagram practitioner who described the nine personality types in that system. I remember thinking, as she was getting to the end, that none of the types matched my mother in the slightest—and then the next type described her to a T. But does that mean it's a useful way to understand or explain people? At most, both these systems may serve as shortcut ways to describe people you already know well.
I’ve consistently tested as INTJ for 25 years (5 or 6 tests during that time). Does that mean anything?
It means you're probably an engineer.
If you are a scientist or a programmer, it makes perfect sense.
Annie Murphy Paul's book The Cult of Personality Testing dives into the history and dubious science of Myers-Brigg and many other personality tests.
Some of this comes down to self-awareness. If someone takes a personality test, they can romanticize the answers as aspirational rather than actual, such that many will come out as a Jungian NF even if they are some other type. But just because self-tests are flawed, the reasoning behind the categories can be startlingly accurate - anyone who has met someone on the autism spectrum or identifies with the "rationalist" community will see the NT type in spades.
This Substack writer nicely explains how the structure of the Jungian-Myers Briggs axis actually correlate well with the Big 5:
https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html
Nice use of “cohere” and agreed, MBTI and its imitators that “categorize” people are just fun pseudoscience.
Yet, we put big blinders over our common sense and buy into this idea that we can feed 90+ multiple-choice forced answers about ourselves into what is essentially a Guess Who board of Jungian archetypes, then be surprised where the gonkulator “sorts” us based on our OWN inputs.