# Why the MBTI Sucks (A Rant)



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

reckful said:


> ... here's a recent Big Five critique that talks about that issue, among others.)


I think you have pretty adequately explained it to me. I guess I'm pretty content with the MBTI then. I guess personality cafe might explain some of my disagreements with Myers-Briggs and I've just recently become a bit discontent with my non-academic introduction. Thanks for taking the time to provide good responses.

Still be pretty curious to know what you think about my alternative way of measuring types. I'm not so sure anymore if it'd be the best option, but I'd be interested in your take on it.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, testy fella — and I'm not saying I'd be totally shocked (although I'd be somewhat surprised) to find out that somebody's come up with some kind of ersatz MBTI that a lot of employers are unethically (by official MBTI standards) using as part of their hiring process.
> 
> _You're_ the one that posted this:
> 
> ...


Then there's no need to mention that it is unhanded by the current system, as I well-stated that it is not. If it wasn't to incite a debate, it was a fairly redundant restatement. 

MBTI is embraced by employers:
Myers-Briggs personality test embraced by employers, not all psychologists | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
https://www.mbticomplete.com/contents/faq.aspx#faq14

Should it be? IMO, no (which is what the core of the post referred to). 

The reason the MBTI is failing here is that it is sort of coerced. No amount of ethical pretence is going to purify the MBTI, and its practitioners, while calling it unethical and wrong to do so when 'forced', make no mention of what is considered such. In short, they are making money off of unethical treatment, as well. Every time an institution uses the MBTI, their version, they are being credited $$$.

The fallout of all of this is that people create these fast-food-friendly type of tests, as I said. If this was real, then I don't know why you did not google 'MBTI employment' to find fairly recent articles of its usage. Is it official by the MBTIs perspective? No, hence MBTI-lite, but since when does ethics occlude money.

Anything that involves money will almost certainly ruin the purity of the field. Do you think most of these employers really invest so much in these tests because of desire for personal growth of staff, or out of another thing to use as a litmus test?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_reckful_, I asked as FWIW I'd like to say I'm much more P-like....but still sometimes I wonder....


If you have any interest in a l-o-n-g post from me about J/P, you'll find it here.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Then there's no need to mention that it is unhanded by the current system, as I well-stated that it is not. If it wasn't to incite a debate, it was a fairly redundant restatement.
> 
> MBTI is embraced by employers:
> Myers-Briggs personality test embraced by employers, not all psychologists | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
> ...


Well, again, my issue related to your reference to ersatz-MBTI tests ("MBTI lite," as you put it) being used as part of the hiring process. And neither of those links you provided have anything to do with any test other than the _official MBTI_ (not "fast-food-friendly" ersatz-MBTI tests). And, as noted in the second link, the official MBTI's guidelines say it shouldn't be used in connection with hiring (or firing, or promotions) and that taking it should be voluntary. For the benefit of anyone else who's been following our exchange, this is from _your_ second link:



> Employers use the Myers-Briggs® tool for these purposes:
> 
> Training and development of employees and managers
> Improving teamwork
> ...


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> Well, again, my issue related to your reference to ersatz-MBTI tests ("MBTI lite," as you put it) being used as part of the hiring process. And neither of those links you provided have anything to do with any test other than the _official MBTI_ (not "fast-food-friendly" ersatz-MBTI tests). And, as noted in the second link, *the official MBTI's guidelines say it shouldn't be used in connection with hiring (or firing, or promotions) and that taking it should be voluntary.* For the benefit of anyone else who's been following our exchange, this is from _your_ second link:


Do you actually believe this is the case in real life? We shouldn't use height, race, religious preference, and sex in such fields, either. This is called "covering ones ass". Assert the moral grounds unto which the test must adhere so that once people run off with it, it can be out of bounds. There are so, so many occurrences of disparities between actual written documentation and practice that to assume this statement operates smoothly is silly.

The issue here is that, as with guns or anything else, we _entrust _obedience to ethics, but we know that these lines are nothing more than a child-safety lock, which is what I was getting at: A lot of institutions are using a form of this, and it cannot always been deemed ethical.

Why do you feel you have to save the MBTI? It isn't its fault that it's abused, nor is it the intention of the creators. However, money often obscures initial intention.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Why do you feel you have to save the MBTI? It isn't its fault that it's abused, nor is it the intention of the creators. However, money often obscures initial intention.


I don't feel any need to save the MBTI, whether it's being abused or not. I have no MBTI connection at all. I was just curious as to whether, _as a factual matter_, you had any real basis for your notion that ersatz-MBTI tests were being used as part of the hiring process, and it appears that you don't.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> I don't feel any need to save the MBTI, whether it's being abused or not. I have no MBTI connection at all. I was just curious as to whether, _as a factual matter_, you had any real basis for your notion that ersatz-MBTI tests were being used as part of the hiring process, and it appears that you don't.


You literally appear whenever there's an anti-MBTI comment made, so I have no other choice but to believe you have some sort of guardianship for it, whether it is personal or financial I don't know nor care.

Furthermore, I never said it was used in the hiring process, as fact, nor did I say it was used in hiring period.



> Employers, schools, and whomever else using these tests are not here for some really deep exploration of their psyche's but rather: "Is this person creative enough for this abstract job," or "Is this person realistic enough for this job," "Is this person a Thinker and will show up?." These can all be asnwered by the type of questions posed in these tests (with a great deal of lost resolution), and that's ALL that matters.


This whole 'hiring process' thing was largely inserted by you. I have already provided articles from April 2013 that show that Employers are using bastardized (hence MBTI-lite) versions of these tests for unethical reasons, causing a great deal of tension in the psychological and typology community.

All you have said is "show me facts of unethical stuff happening," as if these stuffs normally surface as pristine and packaged as you'd like to think of them. It's being used unethically; you will have to deal. Just as Ativan makers didn't want their drug to be the top 5 in terms of abuse; it's something making beneficial but potentially misused items comes with.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I'm an excellent typer IRL


How do you know?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Furthermore, I never said it was used in the hiring process, as fact, nor did I say it was used in hiring period.
> ...
> This whole 'hiring process' thing was largely inserted by you.


Well, I'm sorry I misinterpreted this...



FlightsOfFancy said:


> Employers, schools, and whomever else using these tests are not here for some really deep exploration of their psyche's but rather: "Is this person creative enough for this abstract job," or "Is this person realistic enough for this job," "Is this person a Thinker and will show up?"


... as a reference to "employers" trying to ascertain "Is this person a Thinker and will show up?" in connection with _hiring decisions_. I must have had a brain fart or something.



FlightsOfFancy said:


> I have already provided articles from April 2013 that show that *Employers are using bastardized (hence MBTI-lite) versions of these tests for unethical reasons*, causing a great deal of tension in the psychological and typology community.


I can't for the life of me find any reference in that April 2013 article to "bastardized (hence MBTI-lite) versions" of the MBTI (rather than the official MBTI). Can you point me to the passage you're referring to?

And I also don't see any description in the article of "unethical reasons" for using the test. The article talks about questions that have been raised about the _scientific respectability_ of the MBTI, but not about employers' _reasons_ for using the test. Again, what passage are you referring to?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> Well, I'm sorry I misinterpreted this...
> ... as a reference to "employers" trying to ascertain "Is this person a Thinker and will show up?" in connection with _hiring decisions_. I must have had a brain fart or something.
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you need such explicit examples of what is so ostensibly obvious by reading between the lines? Do you see why I thought initially that you were trying to protect the sanctity of the MBTI?

Here's the thing: We aren't even disagreeing. What were are both stating is fundamentally: There's nothing wrong with the theory itself--but rather how people use them. This is the same fundamental issue of the Bible. In another article, it states employers are even going through wacky ways it using MBTI:


> I've even been told about companies that make a point of putting employee MBTI profiles on the doors to their offices, so people entering know how best to engage with them. Whether the employees had the results of their drugs tests tattooed on the back of their necks too wasn't mentioned, but wouldn't surprise me.


"how best to engage them" as if people have either the in-depth knowledge of MBTI to know how to do this or can act in such a way that is both conducive to them and the to-be-engaged party. If they are doing this, it is not out of the question that they are using them quite unethically.

For example, I could easily, as a Boss go and find that two employees that I test in a "get to know yourself" seminar. I find out Employee A is an INTJ and that Employee B is an ESTP; the job I have is for a Software Architect. I go with INTJ because he's an Architect naturally. How do you know I used the test here? I can't state I did because that would be, even past the MBTI ethical hoop-lah, but against the employment statues. 

Likewise, these are labels, and we KNOW how people treat labels if they don't know what's under the bow. 

You're asking me to "prove" that these tests are being used in a malevolent fashion when it is known that such discrimination seldom occurs 'obviously' (or we'd not need lawyers). 

To add to this: What is business' real interest in this? If my goal is to maximize my profit, do you think I'm getting these tests just to get to know my co-workers better or to get to see who is more efficient for what? Jobs have so forth cared about the latter.

If you want to harp on lack of direct evidence, then I suggest you drop typology altogether because it's just as nebulous in this sense.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> If you want to harp on lack of direct evidence, then I suggest you drop typology altogether because it's just as nebulous in this sense.


I just think there's some usefulness in distinguishing between factual assertions in internet posts that are pulled from some kind of respectable source and factual assertions that are pulled from somewhere else.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> I just think there's some usefulness in distinguishing between factual assertions in internet posts that are pulled from some kind of respectable source and factual assertions that are pulled from somewhere else.


Then why MBTI? It hasn't even the proof or statistical p scores worthy of being included in mainstream psychology at the moment.

I basically took anecdotes (which are quite plenty on the net) and compiled them. I never stated they were fact; I stated that it is often the case such that it is used in such a fashion, which is probabilistic--based on the how other 'labelling' entities have worked . I never said it was in all cases; I am quite sure there are some brilliant and innovative uses of ethical MBTI usage (Google probably but im not googling it to care). 

The point is MBTI is a great theory, but as with anything that can label, it has to be used properly. If you have an issue with absolutes, then I cannot help you and don't intend to as I view absolution in the area of ethics--a quite obscure group of tenets--to be silly.


----------

