Ghosts, psychics, horoscopes and demons. These are all things I, as a self-proclaimed freethinker, have rejected. There simply isn’t any hard evidence to support the veracity of these things. Sure, I allow that they may be real, but without any reliable to way to verify their realness, why should I spend my time thinking they are? Another example of such a weak idea is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI).
Before I get in too deep, we need to clarify a term: Freethinker. It’s a word that calls up ideas like open mindedness, rumination and independence of thought. It’s also a word that tends to confuse people both inside and outside of the freethought world. In his recent book Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World, David Silverman wrote at length about the confusion words such as nonbeliever, agnostic, humanist and others have caused. Freethinker is no different.
A freethinker, according to Merriam-Webster, is one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority or one who doubts or denies religious dogma. A freethinker is someone who approaches any given idea with an open mind – at least initially. Once one vets an idea, evaluating how well it holds up to rigorous scientific standards, one is free to embrace or reject the idea. This meaning sometimes seems lost even to those who claim this label as part of their identity. It’s not uncommon to hear one freethinker claim that another isn’t open enough to some concept or even that declaring a stance on some issue is the opposite of freethought, as if freethinkers should spend all their time in the most wishy-washy, indecisive states. Freethinker does not mean staying neutral on all matters and it certainly doesn’t require an inability to make absolute statements.
Allow me to make an absolute statement: MBTI is unscientific and should not inform anyone’s daily life.
MBTI was created by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. The first handbook was published in 1944, although the two had been working on the idea in varying degrees of involvement as early as 1917. Based on prior ideas by Carl Jung, Briggs and Myers created a questionnaire designed to focus on a person’s perception and decision making processes to place them into a particular personality category. One of its original intentions was to help women entering the workforce during WWII identify which jobs would most suit their personalities, but its use has continued into the modern day, being used by anyone wishing to find out more about themselves.
I admit that the idea is appealing. Who wouldn’t want to more deeply understand themselves so as to interact with the world more fully and efficiently? It speaks to certain narcissism many of us have, whether we want to admit it or not. It’s the same drive that compels some to fill out those random questionnaires floating around on social media platforms, such as this one. We fill them out partly because they’re sort of fun, but we also have this secret hope that others will see our answers and somehow care or that the results will unlock secrets about ourselves.
However, MBTI holds about as much weight as a horoscope, despite what CPP (the test’s exclusive publisher – a group with a vested interest) may claim. Its validity, reliability, objectivity and other aspects have come under fire – and deservedly so. While there have been published studies supporting MBTI such as this one from 1986 by Thompson and Borrello or this one from 2002 by Robert and Mary Capraro, most studies tend to suggest otherwise. If you want to see these or summaries of these, click here, here, here, here, hereor here for a few examples, bearing in mind some of these links are only to abstracts or to books in which the research is contained.
For MBTI to move into the domain of a scientifically rigorous personality test, it must attain approval of its validity. Does it measure what it claims to measure? In particular, do its four dichotomies (intuition/sensing, feeling/thinking, introversion/extraversion, perception/judging) hold water? David Pittenger’s writing is a good place to get an idea. To quote Pittenger’s words on MBTI’s validity, “Research on the factor analysis of the MBTI has not produced convincing results.” Using factor analysis in one study (as described in Pittenger’s linked work), 83 percent of the differences among 1,291 college-age students who participated in a study about MBTI could not be accounted for by MBTI. This number is very disconcerting. MBTI does not seem to be an adequate measuring tool when considering this situation (and there are others).
MBTI should also be reliable, meaning that when you take the personality test multiple times, you should get the same result. This has not been the case. Pittenger notes in his section on reliability that “Several studies… show that even when the test-retest interval is short (e.g., 5 weeks), as many as 50 percent of the people will be classified into a different type.” If a chemist were to apply a particular reaction test to a chemical to see its resultant chemical and, over a series of tests, that chemical changed differently in numerous ways, the test itself would be questioned. The same should go for MBTI. While some would argue that the human brain is obviously far more complex than one chemical and therefore could yield differences given the mood of a person, that argument is irrelevant because MBTI is claiming to measure your unchanging personality which you could then use to guide your course through life (which job one should apply for, for example). Failing to provide reliability violates the premise of the test itself.
Objectivity is yet another area MBTI falls short. Since this test relies on people being honest about their responses, there should be safety nets in place to account for participants exaggerating answers or choosing ones they feel are more socially acceptable even if those answers don’t align with the participant’s beliefs. Other tests have tools to do this, such the Personality Assessment Inventory. People could be embellishing their responses or choosing ones that don’t actually represent them and MBTI has no way of measuring or adjusting for this.
I have heard some claim that since MBTI has been used in the hiring processes of some companies so that the hiring entity can screen out applicants based on personality, it’s a valid and reliable tool. Why would it be allowed if it weren’t up to snuff? CPP itself has acknowledged it is unethical to use MBTI when hiring. And indeed, companies have turned to other tests over time for this specific purpose. As CPP has said, “It is unethical to use the MBTI tool for hiring. Completing the assessment must be voluntary (not required of job applicants), and the results are confidential and belong to the respondent. Furthermore, people of many different types excel at the same job for different reasons. Individuals should not be pigeonholed based on their personality preferences.” They say it can’t be used to hire but that you can use it to better assist employees in giving their best performance. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case thus far, given the issues discussed above.
Like the paranormal, horoscopes and other things of that sort, I do feel they are fun. I love going on ghost tours even though I don’t believe in ghosts. It can be fun to read my horoscope (I’m a Libra) despite not putting any stock in its veracity. I’ve even sat down with a psychic just to have the experience (apparently the military is in my future – we’ll see). So do I think MBTI can be fun? Absolutely. I enjoyed myself while taking the test and I can easily see people gathering together in a jovial, social setting to compare results and talk about their personalities while understanding it’s all just fun and games.
As shown in the image above (some it was cut off to conserve space), I received ISTP from the test, otherwise known as The Mechanic. Honestly, the traits it describes do seem to line up with how I perceive my personality to be, much like I’ve read the summary of my zodiac sign and felt the same way at times. I do feel I’m logical, easy going, realistic and open to new experiences. I do like James Dean, Clint Eastwood and Alan Shepherd who were listed as famous individuals who also received the same result. But at the same time I have to wonder if my responses were given because I thought that was how I was versus how I actually am. Or maybe I became a victim of social pressures, answering in a certain way that is more socially acceptable despite not really feeling that way. Maybe I interpreted the questions in a way that wasn’t intended. Perhaps if I take the test after at least five weeks I’ll unintentionally receive a different result (the likelihood is about 50 percent that this could occur).
To wrap this up, I’ll say that while I think MBTI is sort of fun and interesting on a certain level, given the clear shakiness regarding MBTI’s scientific alignment, it’s unreasonable to seriously apply this to your daily life. Unless research begins strongly suggesting otherwise, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator should be shelved with the likes of tarot cards, horoscopes and star chart readings. Should we, as freethinkers, participate in something shown not to meet the standards of science? Should we promote this kind of bad science to our family and friends despite the possibility of unintended consequences? Should anyone be altering the course of their life based on this test? If the research is anything to go by, the answers seem clear.
