I was at a party the other day, and half-way through a debate discussion, someone asked what MBTI type I am. "INTP for sure", he said. "Off the charts T".
Actually, I think I'm the "I've looked into MBTI and I think it has 0 scientific grounding. Plus, I believe in most cases it's a counter-productive tool".
Introduction to MBTI
The MBTI is a test that purports to identify a person's "type" across 4 dimensions:
Now, first I will summarise the evidence that the MBTI does not do what it says it does. Then, I will argue that what it says it does is nonsense in the first place (which is why it fails to do it). Finally, I will explain why I think that even if the MBTI worked, and weren't too vague to be of any use, it would still be counter-productive on the whole.
Scientific Evaluation
Starting with the science: all of my evidence here is taken from this study, which is itself a summary. This study then finds that:
Does this matter? Of course it does. If you have a strong preference that means you are likely to reject virtues such as fairness, which requires unemotional evaluation of facts, you had better try to change that preference.
Question 2: does MBTI preference affect one's ability to do their job?
However...
The title of this post is (mostly) against these kinds of tests. If such an MBTI-type test could actually predict behaviours, then it could be used beneficially. For example, if a test predicted that a particular type of person is likely to prefer direct, even harsh feedback, that person's manager should tailor their style accordingly. Similarly if the test predicted that a particular type of person would get mortified and embarrassed if praised publicly.
Even in this case though, people should remember that altering one's behaviour in response to another person's preference would only make sense if this alteration in behaviour doesn't have other repercussions. If a person's type makes them uncomfortable when confronted in public, it doesn't mean people should stop voicing disagreements in meetings.
(Also, you could, you know, go for lunch with your colleagues and get to know them instead of relying on an overly simplistic psychometric test).
Anyway, this point is moot in the case of the MBTI - as we've seen, the MBTI is not predictive, people do not fall neatly into types (that are badly defined anyway) and are therefore likely to be categorised differently every time they take the test.
Also...
I strongly believe that theories ought to be evaluated on their own merits, not the credentials of their proponents. Having done that though, it does no harm to point out that neither Katharine Cook Briggs nor Isabel Briggs Myers were trained psychologists - and while this shouldn't be a cause of outright rejection of their work, one ought to at least be extra-critical when unqualified people propose grand theories (say, when a science fiction writer creates a new religion, especially when said religion features frozen alien souls dropped into volcanoes on Earth).
Actually, I think I'm the "I've looked into MBTI and I think it has 0 scientific grounding. Plus, I believe in most cases it's a counter-productive tool".
Introduction to MBTI
The MBTI is a test that purports to identify a person's "type" across 4 dimensions:
- Introvert vs Extrovert: extroverts "get their energy" from active involvement in events and activities, whereas introverts get their energy from dealing with ideas and concepts inside their heads.
- Sensing vs Intuition: people who are S are practical, pay attention to physical reality and what they can perceive with their senses. People who are N are more into abstract reasoning.
- Judging vs Perceiving: people who are J like order and control. People who are P are more flexible and adaptable. Note that this one is a bit weird, because the MBTI insitute says that people who are J in how they deal with the outside world may still be flexible "inside", and people who are flexible and adaptable in their relation to the outside world may be planful and decisive inside. I've no idea what they are trying to say.
- and Thinking vs Feeling: people who are T like to base decisions on principles and logic in an impersonal fashion, whereas Fs like to make the best decisions by weighting what people care about.
Now, first I will summarise the evidence that the MBTI does not do what it says it does. Then, I will argue that what it says it does is nonsense in the first place (which is why it fails to do it). Finally, I will explain why I think that even if the MBTI worked, and weren't too vague to be of any use, it would still be counter-productive on the whole.
Scientific Evaluation
Starting with the science: all of my evidence here is taken from this study, which is itself a summary. This study then finds that:
- The MBTI is based on shoddy statistics. If I tell you that people fall into two types, you'd expect that their scores in that dimension would follow two different distributions. Silly example, but if I were to say "people are either native English speakers or native Greek speakers", you'd expect the two groups' scores in English tests to be different. True, some native Greek speakers would have higher scores than some native English speakers (case in point). But the distributions would be fundamentally different, they would something like this:
- According to MBTI advocates, a person has a fixed type. But actually, about 50% of people who take the test twice are classified as a different type to the first time they took the test, even when they re-take the test after a short period of time (a month)! So it's less "I am INTJ" and more "well, I feel INTJ today, but yesterday I was more ESTJ".
- It's not predictive. I am afraid however that this conclusion is based on an analysis method called factor analysis, with which I am not familiar, so I won't try to summarise it.
This isn't what happens with the MBTI. If you plot the scores of people who are of supposedly different types, you end up with curves that overlap significantly. So people can't actually be categorised into types.
False Dichotomies
Okay. So the MBTI comes up short on the science. In my opinion, the reason it fails in the specific ways mentioned above is that the underlying theory is nonsense - with the exception of I vs E, I do not believe people are one type or the other (well, based on the evidence quoted above, this isn't a matter of belief but fact):
- Introvert vs Extrovert: while this is the most defensible dimension in the test, it's still pretty silly. I do think it's true some people need external stimulus to energise them while others don't. But to assign significant predictive power to this is wrong - for example I think the number of friends or acquaintances one has is just as much a function of environment as personality.
- Judging or Perceiving: With the exception of control freaks or that friend you had at uni who was stoned 24/7, most people like to plan some things and not others. And how do things like strategic thinking fit here? If I have planned my life in such a way I am adaptable, am I J or P?
- Sensing vs Intuition: in real life, we all use both abstract thinking and empirical evidence. Using exclusively one or the other is literally impossible (what good is data without abstract reason to interpret it, and on what is abstract reasoning based on if not sensory input to begin with?) - and I do not think that a tiny preference for one over the other justifies pigeonholing people. What matters far more than preference is ability to think abstractly.
- Thinking vs Feeling: apparently, an F will make decisions by trying to find out what's the best outcome for the people involved. A T will logically and consistently evaluate pros and cons. Are these two mutually exclusive? How will the F determine what's the best outcome without evaluating the pros and cons? Unless this whole dimension is about "people who make decisions following some kind of thought process" vs "people who make decisions randomly", it's another false dichotomy.
Why the MBTI is a bad idea anyway
Let's assume that all of the above isn't true - that MBTI is accurate and predictive. In this case, I have two questions:
Question 1: is it true that one type isn't better than another?
My own personal answer to this is no, that's not true. Take the last one, thinking vs feeling. Thinkers try to find general principles and apply them consistently. Feelers (?) do whatever they can to establish harmony. Okay,
- The first description is about process, the latter about goals - so as mentioned in the previous section, the two aren't mutually exclusive. A person can aim for harmony yet have a rigorous process for determining what actions will achieve it.
- If what MBTI is trying to say in a very roundabout manner is that thinkers like consistency and logic whereas feelers are fickle and emotional - well, the very fact that MBTI is not direct about saying this shows that they themselves realise that one of these descriptions comes across as a little bit more desirable than the other.
I could write a whole essay why consistency and logic are superior to wishy-washy notions of "there is more to the world than rationality". I do not deny that feelings matter - quite the opposite, I think life is all about our feelings and emotions. But there are circumstances where letting your feelings get a hold of you is wrong. Virtues such as justice, courage and integrity often require a person to do something that will cause them pain. A person who lets their anger or fear or envy get the better of them cannot be virtuous.
And here's the thing: to be able to know in which circumstances it's okay to wallow into your feelings, and in which it's not, you need to apply cold logic. So if the MBTI is saying that the fundamental difference between T and F is that Ts are able to do this, then I claim that Ts are more intellectually honest than Fs, and that only Ts have the potential to be virtuous (which isn't to say that all Ts are, but that Fs cannot be). So yes, in this case, T is better than F.
Does this matter? Of course it does. If you have a strong preference that means you are likely to reject virtues such as fairness, which requires unemotional evaluation of facts, you had better try to change that preference.
(The fact I am "off the charts T" is irrelevant to my reaching this conclusion. Also - I am not saying Fs are immoral; I am saying that this is what MBTI says, if their theory is taken to its logical conclusion. My own view is that there is no such thing as a T/F split).
Question 2: does MBTI preference affect one's ability to do their job?
If no, then MBTI is irrelevant in the workplace.
But if yes, if your MBTI type predicts how well you will do, then once again MBTI advocates are forced to admit that at least depending on the circumstance, some types are better than others.
What I worry about in this case is that people begin using their type to justify their or their colleagues performance. "X is overthinking stuff and doesn't make decisions. It's because he's a P". Okay, so? X had better learn to be more decisive, because his inability to do so is causing analysis-paralysis.
This is where people say "but the MBTI is good because you now understand why X is this way". In other words, "X is indecisive because X's type is P, and Ps are in general indecisive". Brilliant insight that!
Look - understanding the root cause of problem is useful if it is possible to treat the root cause. If the root cause is an innate and unchangeable preference, there is nothing you can do about that. What you can do is learn to manage it - but if you know you are indecisive, and that you cause rework and delays, what value does knowing that you are P add? That your colleagues can now stop suspecting you of purposefully sabotaging them?
But if yes, if your MBTI type predicts how well you will do, then once again MBTI advocates are forced to admit that at least depending on the circumstance, some types are better than others.
What I worry about in this case is that people begin using their type to justify their or their colleagues performance. "X is overthinking stuff and doesn't make decisions. It's because he's a P". Okay, so? X had better learn to be more decisive, because his inability to do so is causing analysis-paralysis.
This is where people say "but the MBTI is good because you now understand why X is this way". In other words, "X is indecisive because X's type is P, and Ps are in general indecisive". Brilliant insight that!
Look - understanding the root cause of problem is useful if it is possible to treat the root cause. If the root cause is an innate and unchangeable preference, there is nothing you can do about that. What you can do is learn to manage it - but if you know you are indecisive, and that you cause rework and delays, what value does knowing that you are P add? That your colleagues can now stop suspecting you of purposefully sabotaging them?
However...
The title of this post is (mostly) against these kinds of tests. If such an MBTI-type test could actually predict behaviours, then it could be used beneficially. For example, if a test predicted that a particular type of person is likely to prefer direct, even harsh feedback, that person's manager should tailor their style accordingly. Similarly if the test predicted that a particular type of person would get mortified and embarrassed if praised publicly.
Even in this case though, people should remember that altering one's behaviour in response to another person's preference would only make sense if this alteration in behaviour doesn't have other repercussions. If a person's type makes them uncomfortable when confronted in public, it doesn't mean people should stop voicing disagreements in meetings.
(Also, you could, you know, go for lunch with your colleagues and get to know them instead of relying on an overly simplistic psychometric test).
Anyway, this point is moot in the case of the MBTI - as we've seen, the MBTI is not predictive, people do not fall neatly into types (that are badly defined anyway) and are therefore likely to be categorised differently every time they take the test.
Also...
I strongly believe that theories ought to be evaluated on their own merits, not the credentials of their proponents. Having done that though, it does no harm to point out that neither Katharine Cook Briggs nor Isabel Briggs Myers were trained psychologists - and while this shouldn't be a cause of outright rejection of their work, one ought to at least be extra-critical when unqualified people propose grand theories (say, when a science fiction writer creates a new religion, especially when said religion features frozen alien souls dropped into volcanoes on Earth).
No comments:
Post a Comment