I don’t think my scores on many of these tests are stable throughout different situations. I remember taking a Meyers-Briggs self-test and I ended up placing myself in the dead center of one of the dimensions scale. (I can’t remember which one.) I no longer fit neatly into the introverted/extroverted category. I used to act like an introvert, and I’m still comfortable with solitary activities, but I’m far more inclined to talk to strangers than most people I’ve met. (This is, at least in part, desperation.) I also like performing, usually don’t get “stage fright”, and am generally comfortable with being the center of attention.
Sure. I get different results on Myers-Briggs every time I take one. But the facts that let you discard the information from the test are also valuable.
I’ve generally found most of these types of tests to read very much like astrological personality descriptions or examples of coldreading. They’re just too vague and imprecise to derive information from. They appear to me to be not even wrong. Incidentally these types of personality tests were not even mentioned during my psychology degree—I don’t think the psychology department at my university deemed them worthy of serious discussion. Even Freud got more respect, if only out of historical interest and as a case study of how easy it is for people to get things wrong when studying the human mind.
Think of the tests like writing to an advice columnist. The idea is only ostensibly to get advice from the columnist and then obey it. Most people who write to them are just looking for something to react to. The columnist will say “do X”, and then the reader will say either “X is exactly right! I should do X, just like the columnist says!” or “No way! That’s completely wrong for me! I can’t do X—I guess I just have to do Y, then!” But the same reactions would have been possible if Y had been recommended in the first place. The columnist’s exact advice only provides a weak impetus towards the recommended action—mostly, it lets you change “decide on what to do” into “agree or rebel”.
If there’s any truth to the idea of personality types I’m apparently of a type that doesn’t gain anything from the insights of personality tests… I’ve tried a variety of them and I always struggle to answer the questions (I mostly feel like I’m just picking randomly) and I’ve never got anything constructive out of the results. I also can’t imagine myself ever writing to an advice columnist...
Meta-analysis: Decent personality tests can be modeled as providing an interesting question, some common answers to that question, and some observations about what those answers usually imply. For example, in the case of the love languages test, the question is ‘what kinds of displays of affection do you notice most easily?’ According to the first sentence of its wikipedia entry, the Myers-Briggs test is probably asking ‘which biases are you most prone to?’ (This may not be its actual question; I’m not very familiar with it.)
If none of the categories seems to fit you, it could be that you answer the question that the test asks in a way that the test’s creator didn’t predict, or that the question itself is not a useful one to ask of yourself. In the former case, you can still learn about yourself by figuring out how you do answer the question. In the latter case, it’s probably best to ignore that test altogether, though there is also value in the pattern of which questions are or are not useful and important to you, and why.
As various people have implied, this also suggests that one could instead read the various descriptions and look for facts that justify accepting or refuting those descriptions, without taking the test itself.
In fact, it’s probably a good idea to do that prior to taking the test, to protect yourself from anchoring on the test’s result, unless you are confident that the result of the test is reliable enough that anchoring on it is a net win.
But it leaves me wondering: in your experience, is taking (for example) the MBTI and accepting/rejecting bits of the result more valuable than, say, starting with the hypothesis that you are just like some fictional character and accepting/rejecting bits of that description?
is taking (for example) the MBTI and accepting/rejecting bits of the result more valuable than, say, starting with the hypothesis that you are just like some fictional character and accepting/rejecting bits of that description?
Hmmm… I haven’t tried the “fictional character” one, so “experience” isn’t what I’m applying here. It sounds vaguely promising, except that fictional characters are not optimized in their traits or presentations to be informative in this way (being instead devised for story delivery, possibly unreliably narrated, presented in only specific situations and not at randomly selected moments, etc.), and the MBTI results at least make an attempt at being useful for this sort of exercise.
I do this exercise often, with a wide range of descriptions: fictional characters, real-life characters, actual people I know, personality inventories, horoscopes, etc. I find it more-than-zero useful as a self-knowledge exercise, but I have no idea how one source compares to another… I’ve never really tried to compare the results for utility.
One idea about the introvert/extrovert spectrum from the MBTI I find meaningful is that introverts find interacting with other people draining and extroverts find interacting with other people energizing. About 50% of the time I find interacting with other people energizing and about 50% of the time I find it draining.
I’m of the impression that the MBTI tends to be more useful to more you tend to the extremes of the four scales. When I do the test, I usually use one that gives you percentages for each scale. I remember that for my first time it got INTP with as percentages (roughly) 100% (I), 80% (both N & T) and P (60%). I was 20 when I first tested. 7 years later I still test as INTP.
I remember that when I first tested I was rather skeptical and knew of the Forer/Barnum effect so to be sure I read all the descriptions of the other personality types. The INTP profile still fitted best. I could also still see parts of myself in profiles that were ‘closer’ to mine (i.e. less different letters), the INTJ one for example (while my exact opposite (ESFJ) was like reading the description of an alien).
On the other hand, I’m still skeptical. Both the creators of MBTI had no psychological degree and it’s scientifically unfounded. There’s also the partly valid criticism that the test just reflects your answers and so is no better than cold reading.
In the end, I took the INTP profile with some bucket loads of salt but still used it to explore some ideas about my own psychology. For example, one of the INTP aspects that struck a chord with me is the switching between a logical mindset and intuitive free-associating goofing off mindset.
In the end, I took the INTP profile with some bucket loads of salt but still used it to explore some ideas about own psychology. For example, one of the INTP aspects that struck a chord with me is the switching between a logical mindset and intuitive free-associating goofing off mindset.
I don’t think my scores on many of these tests are stable throughout different situations. I remember taking a Meyers-Briggs self-test and I ended up placing myself in the dead center of one of the dimensions scale. (I can’t remember which one.) I no longer fit neatly into the introverted/extroverted category. I used to act like an introvert, and I’m still comfortable with solitary activities, but I’m far more inclined to talk to strangers than most people I’ve met. (This is, at least in part, desperation.) I also like performing, usually don’t get “stage fright”, and am generally comfortable with being the center of attention.
Sure. I get different results on Myers-Briggs every time I take one. But the facts that let you discard the information from the test are also valuable.
I’ve generally found most of these types of tests to read very much like astrological personality descriptions or examples of cold reading. They’re just too vague and imprecise to derive information from. They appear to me to be not even wrong. Incidentally these types of personality tests were not even mentioned during my psychology degree—I don’t think the psychology department at my university deemed them worthy of serious discussion. Even Freud got more respect, if only out of historical interest and as a case study of how easy it is for people to get things wrong when studying the human mind.
Think of the tests like writing to an advice columnist. The idea is only ostensibly to get advice from the columnist and then obey it. Most people who write to them are just looking for something to react to. The columnist will say “do X”, and then the reader will say either “X is exactly right! I should do X, just like the columnist says!” or “No way! That’s completely wrong for me! I can’t do X—I guess I just have to do Y, then!” But the same reactions would have been possible if Y had been recommended in the first place. The columnist’s exact advice only provides a weak impetus towards the recommended action—mostly, it lets you change “decide on what to do” into “agree or rebel”.
If there’s any truth to the idea of personality types I’m apparently of a type that doesn’t gain anything from the insights of personality tests… I’ve tried a variety of them and I always struggle to answer the questions (I mostly feel like I’m just picking randomly) and I’ve never got anything constructive out of the results. I also can’t imagine myself ever writing to an advice columnist...
Meta-analysis: Decent personality tests can be modeled as providing an interesting question, some common answers to that question, and some observations about what those answers usually imply. For example, in the case of the love languages test, the question is ‘what kinds of displays of affection do you notice most easily?’ According to the first sentence of its wikipedia entry, the Myers-Briggs test is probably asking ‘which biases are you most prone to?’ (This may not be its actual question; I’m not very familiar with it.)
If none of the categories seems to fit you, it could be that you answer the question that the test asks in a way that the test’s creator didn’t predict, or that the question itself is not a useful one to ask of yourself. In the former case, you can still learn about yourself by figuring out how you do answer the question. In the latter case, it’s probably best to ignore that test altogether, though there is also value in the pattern of which questions are or are not useful and important to you, and why.
As various people have implied, this also suggests that one could instead read the various descriptions and look for facts that justify accepting or refuting those descriptions, without taking the test itself.
In fact, it’s probably a good idea to do that prior to taking the test, to protect yourself from anchoring on the test’s result, unless you are confident that the result of the test is reliable enough that anchoring on it is a net win.
But it leaves me wondering: in your experience, is taking (for example) the MBTI and accepting/rejecting bits of the result more valuable than, say, starting with the hypothesis that you are just like some fictional character and accepting/rejecting bits of that description?
Hmmm… I haven’t tried the “fictional character” one, so “experience” isn’t what I’m applying here. It sounds vaguely promising, except that fictional characters are not optimized in their traits or presentations to be informative in this way (being instead devised for story delivery, possibly unreliably narrated, presented in only specific situations and not at randomly selected moments, etc.), and the MBTI results at least make an attempt at being useful for this sort of exercise.
(nods) Makes sense.
I do this exercise often, with a wide range of descriptions: fictional characters, real-life characters, actual people I know, personality inventories, horoscopes, etc. I find it more-than-zero useful as a self-knowledge exercise, but I have no idea how one source compares to another… I’ve never really tried to compare the results for utility.
One idea about the introvert/extrovert spectrum from the MBTI I find meaningful is that introverts find interacting with other people draining and extroverts find interacting with other people energizing. About 50% of the time I find interacting with other people energizing and about 50% of the time I find it draining.
I’m of the impression that the MBTI tends to be more useful to more you tend to the extremes of the four scales. When I do the test, I usually use one that gives you percentages for each scale. I remember that for my first time it got INTP with as percentages (roughly) 100% (I), 80% (both N & T) and P (60%). I was 20 when I first tested. 7 years later I still test as INTP.
I remember that when I first tested I was rather skeptical and knew of the Forer/Barnum effect so to be sure I read all the descriptions of the other personality types. The INTP profile still fitted best. I could also still see parts of myself in profiles that were ‘closer’ to mine (i.e. less different letters), the INTJ one for example (while my exact opposite (ESFJ) was like reading the description of an alien).
On the other hand, I’m still skeptical. Both the creators of MBTI had no psychological degree and it’s scientifically unfounded. There’s also the partly valid criticism that the test just reflects your answers and so is no better than cold reading.
In the end, I took the INTP profile with some bucket loads of salt but still used it to explore some ideas about my own psychology. For example, one of the INTP aspects that struck a chord with me is the switching between a logical mindset and intuitive free-associating goofing off mindset.
That’s an INTP thing?
link. Last paragraph of section ‘Secondary Function: Extraverted Intuition’. Search on the word ‘duality’ to find the paragraph fast.