[furball]

For starters Nod, I think it's a mistake to criticise the test because of the motives for its own existence. The test either works or it doesn't. The fact that it's primarily used in the corporate/industrial environments (if what you say is correct) is neither here nor there - you may criticise the fact that it's used and the motives for using it, but it seems a little strange to criticise the test itself.


So, why take it?

I'd say that there's a natural human curiosity in tests such as these to see the results. Some are automatically cynical and just take them to see how accurate they are. Some like to see how they're classified and how that matches up against other people. Others are genuinely amazed to discover their own personalities....they're usually the people who read their horoscopes as well. I realise that you weren't attempting to directly compare M-B with horoscopes, but the two are clearly different: M-B is based on the responses of the testee, horoscopes are not.


Can such tests be accurate?

It depends on the number and type of questions they ask. Your standard internet test is usually pretty terrible. Then again, if you're taking a test that guesses your penis size then you really shouldn't have high expectations.

Extroverted (E) 72.97% Introverted (I) 27.03%
Intuitive (N) 56.67% Sensing (S) 43.33%
Thinking (T) 50% Feeling (F) 50%
Perceiving (P) 64.71% Judging (J) 35.29%

What I like about Myers-Briggs is that it doesn't simply try to pigeon-hole you into one of the 16 categories. It also gives you percentage feedback so that you can see how clearly you incline towards the particular indicators. Speaking of which, actually, you do need to consider the indicators produced by the test - if you don't accept those as providing useful information about someone's personality then the basis of the debate is essentially destroyed.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

2) The Myers-Briggs test assumes that a 'personality' is something fixed that a person carries around with them through their day-to-day life, and that it makes sense to oppose character traits which are taken as mutually exclusive. In reality, people will generally exhibit different personality traits in different environments; someone who is 'introverted' in a workplace environment may be quite different in a pub with close friends, or in an internet chatroom. I think theres a real sense in which 'personality' doesnt exist; people generally act and think very differently in different circumstances, and trying to pick one particular set of conditions as being 'normal' and representative of their true self is somewhat dubious.

This is the point of showing percentage inclinations towards each personality type. It's rare for people to be 50%/50% in every category, so even if there's no definite outcome in one category (which is a revelation in itself) then the other three will still show tangible indicators.

IRC raised the possibility that your answers will vary according to your mood and situation. However, that's an indicator in itself, although one that can't really be covered by a single test taken once. What it shows is how your personality alters and reacts according to different events and situations. If you took the test ten times over a couple of months then you should get a more reliable test result.

3) M-B takes a strongly uncritical attitude towards politics and the education system by remaining silent on why people have the personality traits they do. This ties into the above; its not clear how you can distinguish between someone who is 'naturally' a Perceiving person, and someone who would become Judging if they were exposed to scientific education. It would only make sense to talk about a person's natural preference for a specific mode of thought if they had been exposed to many different kinds, and I dont think that this is generally true in modern society. Also, in its strongest form, M-B seems to suggest that the difference between (eg) a person who is extremely pro-science and one who prefers intuitive religion/spirituality is ultimately a subjective matter of personality traits rather than being something that can be judged as right or wrong and traced back to its social origins.

You miss the point. The test isn't there to judge the political and education systems, nor the influences upon the testee's life. What the test evaluates is the subject's personality at that point in time. Personalities change, it's a fact and it's hardly a secret.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Then whats the point of asking all those questions? Why not just give people the list of categories and ask them to pick the one that best describes them?

Because people are often wrong. Tests ask specific questions and construct results from them that the testees shouldn't have any control over.