Personality Cafe banner

21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Good question...
I wasn't making a point on my last post,
I just like that idiom...
It sounds cool XD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,283 Posts
So I have decided to ask other people if they have noticed these types of issues, whether they themselves have been affected and what are some ways do you think these issues could be addressed?
There really aren't any ways around the issues with self assessment tests, other than to acknowledge them.

A self assessment test can only tell you who you think you are. Whether or not you know who you are, the best that a self assessment test can measure is your own self opinion. The only way to defeat this problem is to develop a crystal clear self opinion, and that is technically impossible.

A self assessment test assumes that the intended questions will provide a positive or negative response to what they are attempting to measure. For example, if a question intends to measure thinking vs feeling, an individual might have tertiary or inferior cognitive function development that could generate a false positive.

The MBTI is especially problematic in that it attempts to imply cognitive function preferences via dichotomies that are not specifically related to cognitive functions, and therefore assumes that a person's dichotomy preferences will line up with a cognitive function model. For example, a person could have more overall development with their Ne, Se, Te, and Fe than their overall Ni, Si, Ti, and Fi, which could cause the individual to express more extroverted preferences even though they are actually an introverted type. The largest assumption that MBTI makes is the Judging and Perceiving axis. If an individual has more development in their overall Fe, Fi, Te, and Ti than their overall Ne, Ni, Se, and Si then they are very likely to show a preference toward Judging, even if they are actually a Perceiver. When this happens an individual is assumed to operate from a nearly inverted set of cognitive functions. This is why I always suggest a person also take one of the tests that attempt to measure specific cognitive function preference.

The end result, however, is that each person has to make their own decision about what type they are. This is best done through independent research and orienting from other people of various types. A self assessment test can be a great tool to help in this process, and is even likely to correctly type a person on the first go, but can never be considered definitive.



Also, if you are trying to decide between INTJ, INTP, or ISTP, I'm rather certain you're an INTP by the way you manifest your thoughts, have a distinct desire for precision and clarity (Ti) combined with constant generation of possibilities (Ne). An ISTP would lack the desire to see the pattern you're seeking (Se), and an INTJ wouldn't care so much about the details so long as they understood (Ni) how it relates (Te).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
There really aren't any ways around the issues with self assessment tests, other than to acknowledge them.

A self assessment test can only tell you who you think you are. Whether or not you know who you are, the best that a self assessment test can measure is your own self opinion. The only way to defeat this problem is to develop a crystal clear self opinion, and that is technically impossible.

A self assessment test assumes that the intended questions will provide a positive or negative response to what they are attempting to measure. For example, if a question intends to measure thinking vs feeling, an individual might have tertiary or inferior cognitive function development that could generate a false positive.

The MBTI is especially problematic in that it attempts to imply cognitive function preferences via dichotomies that are not specifically related to cognitive functions, and therefore assumes that a person's dichotomy preferences will line up with a cognitive function model. For example, a person could have more overall development with their Ne, Se, Te, and Fe than their overall Ni, Si, Ti, and Fi, which could cause the individual to express more extroverted preferences even though they are actually an introverted type. The largest assumption that MBTI makes is the Judging and Perceiving axis. If an individual has more development in their overall Fe, Fi, Te, and Ti than their overall Ne, Ni, Se, and Si then they are very likely to show a preference toward Judging, even if they are actually a Perceiver. When this happens an individual is assumed to operate from a nearly inverted set of cognitive functions. This is why I always suggest a person also take one of the tests that attempt to measure specific cognitive function preference.

The end result, however, is that each person has to make their own decision about what type they are. This is best done through independent research and orienting from other people of various types. A self assessment test can be a great tool to help in this process, and is even likely to correctly type a person on the first go, but can never be considered definitive.



Also, if you are trying to decide between INTJ, INTP, or ISTP, I'm rather certain you're an INTP by the way you manifest your thoughts, have a distinct desire for precision and clarity (Ti) combined with constant generation of possibilities (Ne). An ISTP would lack the desire to see the pattern you're seeking (Se), and an INTJ wouldn't care so much about the details so long as they understood (Ni) how it relates (Te).
Thankyou for your useful input, though despite the difficulties and even the technically perceived improbabilities of finding an objective solution I'm still going to keep looking.

I agree that the Judging/Perceiving assumption is one of the big issues with the MBTI, as the error is most obvious in many individuals who trust it to tell them something about themselves that they don't themselves understand. But I have noticed this issue can be even more pronounced in many of the cognitive function tests, where the failure to measure each function in a uniform manner produces a wrong impression of the individual's capabilities. Reverse engineering of these tests should reveal their inadequacies in this respect.

Many of the answers in this thread have indeed been indicative of the very issue that I am attempting to circumvent. The ways in which individuals have attempted to answer or redefine the example, that I gave in the OP, show a marked difference between what they profess to thinking it should say and their actual approach to the example, in which can be seen their cognitive process.

As for my own case, I am confident that my correct type is that of the INTJ. It is not something that I have approached lightly, and it has taken me many years of 'trying on' the different aspects of the different archetypes, types and functions to find a 'best fit'. The common mistake that many people make about me is that they perceive the thinking function, which is the most externally obvious, and assume it is my dominant. Along with a strongly introverted bent to my nature, it is assumed that I am dominant Ti. This however is in obvious error due to a misperception of the nature of my thinking.
The question that needs to be asked in determining whether thinking is introverted or extraverted is, by what criterion does it judge?
Ti, as you may be aware, is defined as thinking; the cognitive process of judging whether the object's criterion are true, false, or indifferent, with the attitude of introversion; oriented by subjective factors, and interposing a subjective view between the perception of the object and the thought or action, preventing the the thought or action from taking on the characteristics of the object. Thus, introverted thinking (Ti) is the judgement of an object's criterion with regard to subjective data, which leads always back to subjective content.
It should be quite clear that this is not what I am doing. What I am doing is described as extraverted thinking (Te).
Te is defined as thinking, with the attitude of extraversion; oriented by objective factors, such that any subjective conditions are directly correlated with objective conditions and their demands. Thus, extraverted thinking (Te) is the judgement of an object's criterion always with regard to external data, and always leading back to objective content.

So when you say, “an INTJ wouldn't care so much about the details so long as they understood (Ni) how it relates (Te).” It is evident that your misunderstanding of INTJs, and in particular Te, is based on subjective criterion.


Reference for function-types: C.G.Jung “Psychological Types”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Assessing Errors​


Recently I've been thinking about the approach of the MBT Instrument and it's possible weaknesses. An individual's type as determined by the questionnaire is, generally speaking, assessed on the basis of the answers given to specific questions on how the individual perceives the way they use their functions. For most of us this constitutes describing how we think we behave in relation to each of the situations, circumstances or concepts expressed by the questions. But because most of us are only partially aware of, and misunderstand, our behaviours and attitudes, this can lead to misinterpretation of questions, which has as a result inaccuracies in the type score.B]
The MBTI is admits that it is only 75% accurate. Which means that 1 out of 4 people test incorrectly. I was just talking about how I hated the questions that they asked. I feel like the test should focus more on the cognitive functions and ask questions that are related closer to them. I've seen alot of people test incorrectly using it. I like what Myer's-Briggs did but I think it needs drastic improvements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
The MBTI is admits that it is only 75% accurate. Which means that 1 out of 4 people test incorrectly. I was just talking about how I hated the questions that they asked. I feel like the test should focus more on the cognitive functions and ask questions that are related closer to them. I've seen alot of people test incorrectly using it. I like what Myer's-Briggs did but I think it needs drastic improvements.
The distinction between the MBTI Test and the full MBTI Assesment is important. Simply taking the test will very likely not give you your true type. If the test is followed up with a proper Best Fit analysis, the chances are much better (much better than 75%).

I find so much of the criticism of MBTI comes from having expectiations on the simple MBTI test, that not even the creators of the test had in the first place. There is simply no reason to criticise the entire MBTI theory on the basis that the MBTI test is not 100% perfect. (And, actually, in the end it really comes down to lack of introspection in a lot of cases, which is exactly the problem this article was rightly focusing on in the first place.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
I find so much of the criticism of MBTI comes from having expectiations on the simple MBTI test, that not even the creators of the test had in the first place. There is simply no reason to criticise the entire MBTI theory on the basis that the MBTI test is not 100% perfect. (And, actually, in the end it really comes down to lack of introspection in a lot of cases, which is exactly the problem this article was rightly focusing on in the first place.)
I don't recall criticizing the entire MBTI theory. Especially when, really, it's just Jung modified and made into a test. It is simply my opinion that it needs improvements. The one thing I dislike is that a lot of it is based on common behaviors like "being outgoing" and while that's great and all it's not only very common between types but it also can easily change as one goes through the walks of life. By creating a solid test on the functions there would at least be a lot of questions that were a bit more type specific.

There are a lot of interpretations of Jung's work out there anyways that do a fairly solid job in their own right and provide a lot more information than the MBTI does. I simply just feel that there is always room for improvement and the MBTI could benefit from being tweaked a little bit. I'm not expecting perfection. But I think it could take itself further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,283 Posts
I don't recall criticizing the entire MBTI theory. Especially when, really, it's just Jung modified and made into a test. It is simply my opinion that it needs improvements. The one thing I dislike is that a lot of it is based on common behaviors like "being outgoing" and while that's great and all it's not only very common between types but it also can easily change as one goes through the walks of life. By creating a solid test on the functions there would at least be a lot of questions that were a bit more type specific.

There are a lot of interpretations of Jung's work out there anyways that do a fairly solid job in their own right and provide a lot more information than the MBTI does. I simply just feel that there is always room for improvement and the MBTI could benefit from being tweaked a little bit. I'm not expecting perfection. But I think it could take itself further.
Agreed.

There was an attempt at something like this from the Myers Briggs team.

MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, I also have to agree that the best method of countering the test issues is the follow up by an actual interview by a qualified person - because even if the test is tweaked into 80 or 90% accuracy, the margin of error will still call for human interpretation.

Then again, there's a reason they call it a Best Fit... because no one is going to perfectly fit a type. There are too many additional variables beyond cognitive functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Agreed.

There was an attempt at something like this from the Myers Briggs team.

MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, I also have to agree that the best method of countering the test issues is the follow up by an actual interview by a qualified person - because even if the test is tweaked into 80 or 90% accuracy, the margin of error will still call for human interpretation.
That certainly is fair. Some people simply need guidance by a qualified professional for sure. I didn't realize that they were attempted a step II so thank you for that. That was an interesting read. What i'd really like to see is MBTI change the test somewhat and incorporate type dynamics and other elements to help people better understand themselves. That's the one thing that keeps me looking at Socionics because it certainly does go a lot deeper even if I don't agree with all of it I admire it's structuring and what it has done with Jung's theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,283 Posts
That certainly is fair. Some people simply need guidance by a qualified professional for sure. I didn't realize that they were attempted a step II so thank you for that. That was an interesting read. What i'd really like to see is MBTI change the test somewhat and incorporate type dynamics and other elements to help people better understand themselves. That's the one thing that keeps me looking at Socionics because it certainly does go a lot deeper even if I don't agree with all of it I admire it's structuring and what it has done with Jung's theory.
Agreed. The one thing I like most about Enneagram is the attempt to identify levels of healthy and unhealthy states, and therefore develop methods of dealing with unhealthy states and encouraging healthy states. Approaching Jung's theories with this intention would be much more helpful to people than team building. Unfortunately, most corporations can't justify spending the amount of money the MBTI foundation needs to stay operating for self betterment of their employees because there is no immediate measurable benefit as with team building. If anyone is to focus on this end of the theory, it will have to be in the private sector... aka people like us. Want to form a team?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Agreed. The one thing I like most about Enneagram is the attempt to identify levels of healthy and unhealthy states, and therefore develop methods of dealing with unhealthy states and encouraging healthy states. Approaching Jung's theories with this intention would be much more helpful to people than team building. Unfortunately, most corporations can't justify spending the amount of money the MBTI foundation needs to stay operating for self betterment of their employees because there is no immediate measurable benefit as with team building. If anyone is to focus on this end of the theory, it will have to be in the private sector... aka people like us. Want to form a team?
We definitely need or should have something where people (a manageable amount of people might I add) interested in advancing the theory or improving it can collaborate. I'd definitely like to do something like that. I've been working out some things in my head and on paper and i've been doing a ton of reading pertaining to types theories in general. Whether it actually pans out or is successful wouldn't really matter it'd just be nice to see what everyone could come up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
About 95% of he time I have taken the MBTI tests, I have been typed as an INTJ, which I identify with. However, recently in two tests I took, I was typed as INTx and ISTJ, the latter of which I strongly rejected. Later on, when I introspected about the answers I had given, they were indeed fit for the respective type.

So my guess is, sometimes we do think different than what is expected from our type. That's why the results are somewhat altered, but the dominant functions almost certainly never change, like I and T in my case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Agreed. The one thing I like most about Enneagram is the attempt to identify levels of healthy and unhealthy states, and therefore develop methods of dealing with unhealthy states and encouraging healthy states. Approaching Jung's theories with this intention would be much more helpful to people than team building. Unfortunately, most corporations can't justify spending the amount of money the MBTI foundation needs to stay operating for self betterment of their employees because there is no immediate measurable benefit as with team building. If anyone is to focus on this end of the theory, it will have to be in the private sector... aka people like us. Want to form a team?
I'll make team jerseys!
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top