Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory - Essay Example

?Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory Reflective Report I. Introduction The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is rooted in the theory of psychological types which is a way of describing and explaining certain consistent differences in the ways that normal people use their minds (Quenk, 2000). Carl Gustav Jung in 1921 said in his book “Psychological Types” that human behaviour can be extrapolated and categorized into types such as ESTJ: (E)xtraversion, (S)ensing, (T)hinking, (J)judgement while its dichotomies or opposites (in the same order of succession INFP: (I)troversion, i(N)tuition, (F)eeling, (P)erception. These basic traits are the precursor to the sixteen personality types which are essentially the combination of each of the typologies. As suggested by Jung the personality type do not put people in a box but rather show the inclination of the person’s choices base on the typologies. It should be noted that as early as 1917 Katherine Briggs had already developed a way of describing the differences of accomplished individuals based on their biographies. However, when Jung’s book “Psychological Types” was translated into English in 1923, Katherine immediately devoured the book and studied it in detail since Jung went beyond what she initially conceptualized (Reinhold, 1997). Katherine’s daughter, Isabel Briggs-Myers, took over where her mother has left off and went on to construct the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test in 1942 while apprenticing in a bank under the tutelage of Edward N. Hay (Quenk, 2000). From the 1944 publication, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has undergone several revisions and improvement over the years to reflect the expanding understanding of the complex human behaviour. The last of these revision happened in 1998 under Mary McCaulley (McCaulley & Myers-Briggs, 1985). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is rooted on dichotomies of several human traits. The theory is that you can either be one or may have a tendency to be a certain percentage of each. To illustrate Extraversion vs. Introversion, under certain conditions an individual may have the tendency to be outward looking or getting idea from the external world as against getting ideas within the confines of his mind. However, this is not the case all the time. The same can be said about Sensing vs. Intuition. Rationalising facts and tangible details may be true for most of the cases but there are instances most especially if there is ambiguity in the facts and figures presented that an individual has to rely on patterns and gut feel. When it comes to decision making, not all decision that will be made by an individual relies on the objective and impersonal logic. There will definitely be instances when irrational blind belief will be relied upon. In conducting or performing something there are instances when an individual will prefer to have plans over spontaneity. Having said the differences between the dichotomies, internal conflict that will be resolved as time goes on will clarify the actual preferences of the individual. Nonetheless, there is a tendency for humans to change their mind or even their pattern. Therefore the validity of the MBTI is always under scrutiny. The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that the Introversion-Extroversion scale has adequate construct validity (Psychometric Success, 2009). In the same article Robert Spillane, a professor of management at the graduate school of Management at Macquarie University said that “Test trivialize human behaviour assuming that fake attitudes predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers’ offer no explanation for behaviour beyond the circular proposition that behaviour is caused by traits which are inferred from behaviour. The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with vested interests in their continued use.” Despite of existing criticisms, majority of organizations who conduct personality test still rely on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as the standard that will be looked up. Not only are the tests used as basis in hiring job applicants but similarly the tests have been used as basis for promotions. Nevertheless, widespread use does not guarantee that MBTI is a serious tool. Taking a look at the fanciful verbal description of the different types, one is immediately reminded of the descriptions found in a horoscope. There is something in there that seems to fit any individual in a very glib way. One just has to focus on the parts that one recognises as fitting. This type of personal validation fallcy in which a person finds meaning in descriptions that could apply to many people is known as the forerr or more popularly known as the Barnum effect1 (Petersen, 2006) II. Reflection Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test developed by Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, I am an ENFJ. Meaning my inclination is to draw energy from the outside world of people, activities and things. I also have the propensity to take information through my sixth sense and use my emotions to guide me in my decision or decisions. The test even suggested that I tend to be judgemental and that I would be comfortable in a planned and organized life. Evaluating the clarity of my reported preference my extraversion and my using my feelings in making decision are only slight. I am also moderately judgemental. At work I was determined to be appreciative, congenial and diplomatic therefore I am personable and supportive. However, these traits conflicts with my idealism. I am also found to be Energetic and enthusiastic and organized, these support my being responsible. The conflicting personal traits may be the reason for my personal struggles in making a stand on an issue. Most especially if my idealism conflicts with the views of the majority and my friends. My idealism may be somewhat hidden because of my visible extraversion that would be in congruent and juxtaposed to my congenial and diplomatic personality. My loyalty to friendship and my diplomatic nature or my refusal to stand for something, sometimes makes it hard for me to fight for my conviction and gather support for it. I am however a good and effective advocate of my friends or the groups advocacy. I am defined on who my friends are. Not satisfied with the result I also took another online exams administered by Team Technology at this address http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/. Hoping to get a different point of view I took the exam with alacrity. When I took the online exam, I was rated as being between 65% ENFJ and 63% INFJ. Surprisingly the result of the online exam is consistent with the exam I earlier took. According to the interpretation of the result, I see the potentials of relationships and would rather create harmony than conflicts. In the same report the flexibility of my personality shows that I am capable of conjuring imaginative possibilities and insights to maintain and relationships. This version of the test indicates choices between two extremes. I noticed that a person in the scenario in the test will pick the answer base on the current circumstances he is in. This in itself will skew the result of the test as not being predictive or representative of what he is going to do given the same choices in the future. To illustrate: The question similar in theme to the following will have different results for me since I feel strongly about the two. The question pair at least in my point of view is not extreme opposite since both convictions are present in an individual. “I really enjoy having my own moral compass to guide my thoughts and beliefs” as paired with “I really enjoy overcoming opposition to get people to do what they are supposed to do” (Mental Muscle Diagram Indicator, 2011). Given the option to pick both, I will definitely pick the two. There are other question pairs that are based on the same principle. Thus no matter how often the test is taken the result will not always be the same if the person taking the exam is subjected to different environmental factors that will present a different consequence for each choice. His moral dilemma therefore will be skewed towards the choice where it will apply to his current situation. Considering the above in the same breadth the choices are not indicative of the extremes that people will pick in a situation. The personality of the person is rooted in his choice of action the dilemma therefore that should be included in the test to my mind should include situations that would present a course of action that is in the opposite sides of the choices. To illustrate: “I very much like holding fast to my own personal values” to my mind should not be paired with “I very much like checking everyone has done what they were meant to do” The former to my mind should have been paired with a statement “I very much like following or conforming with the norm”. While the later should be paired with “I trust the people around me will what they were meant to do”. There should be more catch twenty two questions or questions that do not necessarily show the best answer but would rather reflect actual choices given the same situation in real life. An example would be: “If you see your brother who is about 20 meters away and a stranger who is about 5 meters away drowning which will you save if you are allowed to save only one”. The sample question would likely not be reflective of any personality type but the sample question would likely cause conflict within the person taking the test. Similar question that would challenge the practical and the core values of the person should be included in the tests. Such test would likely be more reflective of the person’s true personality. III. Conclusion The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as pointed out will not definitively predict the performance, behaviour, attitude and personality of the individual base on the test alone. What it will do is present the preference or choices of the person during the time the test was being administered. Pundits of the test suggest that the unreliability of the test is base on the parameters the result is presented where the person is presented several possible indicators on the type of personality or where his inclinations lay. Given these option the person being tested will almost always gravitate towards the positive end of the parameter given. The personality of the person is defined by his choices as guided by his education, collective experiences and his ability to learn from the mistakes he committed. He may have the capacity to be ambidextrous based on his current situation but he will always go back to the choices that he perceives to be the best choice for him. However, it should also be considered that an individual is a learning and adoptive organism. His future choices will vary from his current situation because his choices as indicated will be defined by his experiences. If his current choices have earned for him several positive things then he will most likely pick the same choices given the opportunity to be presented with such choices again. However, the aim of the test is to type cast the personality of the individual into categories or typologies set by the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator in order to predict his actions or guide him in his future action as the case may be. To my mind this can be achieved if his core values that have been formed in early childhood can be reflected in his answers to the test. The core values are the default values an individual will go to whenever he is confronted by a new experience or a situation that present an ambiguous outcome. Bibliography McCaulley, M., & Myers-Brigs, I. (1985). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. Michigan: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mental Muscle Diagram Indicator. (2011). Personality Type Questionaire. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Team Technology: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/ Petersen, V. C. (2006). MBTI - Distorted Reflections of Personality. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from http://www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/WP/2006/2006-05.pdf Psychometric Success. (2009). Personality Test > Even PopularTests are Contraversial. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Psychometric Success: http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm Quenk, N. L. (2000). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons Inc. Reinhold, R. (1997). Myers-Briggs Test" What is your Myers-Briggs Personality Type? Retrieved February 17, 2011, from Personality Pathways: http://www.personalitypathways.com/ Read More