"The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you'll be in a situation, how you'll perform at your job, or how happy you'll be in your marriage."
Most of the faithful think of it primarily as a tool for telling you your proper career choice.
Several analyses have shown the test is totally ineffective at predicting people's success in various jobs.
I noticed the above too as I read my personality type: "What if someone has this personality but doesn't take an interest in these jobs that are listed for them...." o_O
This isn't a test designed to accurately categorize people, but rather a test designed to make them feel happy after taking it. This is one of the reasons it's persisted for so many years in the corporate world after being disregarded by psychologists.
If the test gives people such inaccurate results, why do so many still put stock in it? One reason is that the flattering, vague descriptions for many of the types have huge amounts of overlap — so many people could fit into several of them.
This is called the Forer effect, and is a technique long used by purveyors of astrology, fortune telling, and other sorts of pseudoscience to persuade people they have accurate information about them.
Why would someone pay this much to administer a flawed test? Because once you have that title, you can sell your services as a career coach to both people looking for work and the thousands of major companies that use the test to separate employees and potential hires into "types" and assign them appropriate training programs and responsibilities. Once certified, test administrators become cheerleaders of the Myers-Briggs, ensuring that use of the outdated instrument is continued.
Hmm... smart, very smart... and deceptive.
There's also another related problem with these limited choices: look at the chart above, and you'll notice that words like "selfish," "lazy," or "mean" don't appear anywhere. No matter what type you're assigned, you get a flattering description of yourself as a "thinker," "performer," or "nurturer."
I noticed this too. They didn't have any bad descriptions, only descriptions that would make people feel good.
It's 2015. Thousands of professional psychologists have evaluated the century-old Myers-Briggs, found it to be inaccurate and arbitrary, and devised better systems for evaluating personality.
@Ariella_Newheart You're right. This world does have a lot of arbitrariness ....
"Every individual is an exception to the rule," Jung wrote.
With most traits, humans fall on different points along a spectrum. If you ask people whether they prefer to think or feel, or whether they prefer to judge or perceive, the majority will tell you a little of both. Jung himself admitted as much, noting that the binaries were useful ways of thinking about people, but writing that "there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert.
But the test is built entirely around the basis that people are all one or the other.
Jung noted, there aren't really pure extroverts and introverts, but mostly people who fall somewhere in between.
Goes to show. God created each of us so uniquely that we can't exactly be "categorized" and that He created us with a balance of different characteristics. Although, sometimes, because of our sin nature, we may go overboard or just have more of certain traits than other ones, we are all still unique and different and can't exactly be boxed into a certain group.
"God made you special, and He loves you very much." ~VeggieTales
Thanks for posting this @Miss_S. Very interesting article indeed.