The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Is it completely useless?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and its many offshoots are some of the most well-known personality tests in the world. Frequently used in workplaces and team-building workshops, the MBTI encourages people to reflect on how their personality influences their interactions. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken the MBTI—online or in facilitated settings—and many find it eye-opening.

Despite its popularity, the MBTI has long faced serious criticism from academic psychologists. Some even go so far as to call it “totally meaningless”. The criticisms echo common concerns in the field of personality psychology. But are these critiques fair?

The MBTI is a personality assessment tool developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers in the 1940s, based on Carl Jung's theories of psychological types. It was designed to help people understand themselves and others better, particularly in workplace settings. The test categorizes people into 16 different personality types based on four dichotomies:

• Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): This reflects how people gain energy. Introverts tend to recharge by spending time alone, while extraverts feel energized by social interactions.
• Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): This describes how people prefer to take in information. Sensing types focus on concrete details and facts, while intuitive types look for patterns and possibilities.
• Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): This indicates how people make decisions. Thinking types prioritize logic and objectivity, while feeling types consider personal values and the impact on others.
• Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): This reflects how people approach the outside world. Judging types prefer structure and decisiveness, while perceiving types are more flexible and open to new information.

The result is a four-letter code (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP) that represents a person's personality type. Each type is thought to have unique strengths, weaknesses, and preferences in how they interact with the world.

In an article written for Psychlogy Today, Ph.D John A. Johnson at Pennsylvania State University presents his thoughts on the 4 major critiques of the MBTI:

• Non-expert Origins
  Critics note that the MBTI was created by two women without any formal training in psychology. However, research by Ashton and Goldberg has demonstrated that even individuals without formal psychological training can create personality scales that are just as valid as professionally developed scales.
• Based on Carl Jung’s Theories
  The MBTI is based on Carl Jung’s theory types, which are often dismissed due to Jung’s broader mystical ideas. Yet, his theory types like introversion and extraversion remain central in modern psychology, and some respected researchers have successfully applied his theories in empirical studies.
• Discrete personality categories
  A frequent criticism is that MBTI forces people into discrete categories, ignoring the continuous nature of personality traits. While this is true, type-based thinking is still common even in trait theory, considering people with highscores in extraversion as "extraverts". MBTI types can be thought of as traits when we talk about the degree of resemblance to a type.
• Prediction of life outcomes
  Skeptics argue that MBTI scores don’t predict meaningful life outcomes. However, since its tendencies closely mirror four of the traits in the Big Five model (which has been shown to predict life outcomes) MBTI results could still offer practical value, especially if interpreted with nuance and flexibility.

The real issue of the MBTI lies in how the test is scored and interpreted. Relying on fixed four-letter personality types oversimplifies human traits and leads to inconsistent results. A more accurate and scientifically sound approach would involve scoring MBTI traits along continuous scales, reflecting degrees of personality rather than rigid categories. Though this might lack the appeal of assigning people distinct “types,” it would enhance the test’s usefulness in promoting self-awareness and understanding in personal and professional settings.

The MBTI can be an enjoyable tool for self-reflection, but it’s important to approach it critically. Its scientific shortcomings—including low reliability, questionable validity, and outdated, overly simplistic theory—make it more akin to pop psychology than a dependable assessment.

If you’re interested in exploring your personality further, consider taking a more scientifically validated test like the HEXACO Personality Inventory. The HEXACO model offers a more nuanced and empirically supported framework for understanding personality, with six dimensions that capture the complexity of human personality traits. You can read more about the HEXACO model in our HEXACO article, or you can take the HEXACO test