The combination of these four letters produces 16 different psychological types: ENTP, ENFP, ENFJ, ENTJ, ESTP, ESFP, ESFJ, ESTJ, INTP, INFP, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, ISFJ, ISTJ. From them subscribe different characteristics of the personality following a specific system. It is not enough to add the meaning of each of the letters, but the interpretation must correspond to a series of subtypes: dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. It would be very complicated to explain in detail how this is done, but I will give an example to appreciate the methodology. For that, I will use my psychological type according to MBTI: INTP.
The interpretation of my type is as follows: my dominant function is introverted thought (ti), with an auxiliary function of extroverted intuition (ne), a tertiary function of introverted feeling (the opposite of auxiliary) and a lower function of extroverted feeling (the opposite of the dominant). The dominant function is determined by the I or E (introversion or extroversion), and by the P or J (perception and judgment), which specify the letters that are taken. This is just a sample that the interpretation is more complicated than it may seem at first glance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the MBTI official website, my personality type is described as follows: The INTP seeks to develop logical explanations for everything that interests it Theoretical and abstract, it is more interested in ideas than in social relations. Silent, flexible and adaptable He has an unusual ability to focus on the problems involved with his area of interest: skeptical, sometimes critical, and always analytical. The above summary becomes a characterization of introverted thinking, with a preference for the fluid collection of information, intuition and relative lack of interest in personal relationships (more characteristic of feeling) (Sherlock, 2018).
Despite being a widely used instrument in several companies as part of their recruitment and selection process, many academics, researchers and experts in psychometrics have criticized this inventory. Reasons are not lacking. Now let's see some objections that have been made to MBTI:
Validity : validity means that the test measures what it says to measure, and an objection made to the test is related to its construct validity. Thus, the test assumes that each person must fit into one of its 16 categories, regardless of the actual result obtained. Experts say that this is a strong deficiency because it does not allow differentiation between people with a very high score in introversion, for example, or a score of introversion slightly higher than that of extraversion. And the same can be said for the rest of the categories. This means that two people with an ENTJ typology could have very different traits because the test is unable to consider their differences within a continuum. Another criticism is made to its different subtypes: dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior function. There are no statistical investigations that support the inventory required to interpret the results in this way.
Reliability : the reliability of a test speaks of its ability to maintain consistency over time. That is, to ensure that those people evaluated by it obtain the same result when they present it again. A strong objection against the MBTI is its inability to show high reliability: about 50% of people who present this test change their psychological type five months after having done it for the first time. This is problematic since it sows a doubt: is the psychological type real? And if so, why the change in so little time for so many evaluated?
Predictive power : the predictive power is used to know if a test can tell us how well a person will perform in certain areas. This is especially relevant in cases of personnel selection since certain personality characteristics would be more convenient for certain types of positions. However, there is no evidence that the psychological types of MBTI predict significantly the occupation of each employee or their ability to perform better some position. This is problematic.
With all these criticisms a question could arise: why are there so many people who continue to use it and trust it? A commonly given answer is related to the forer effect. The forer effect says that we tend to feel identified with vague and imprecise personality characteristics, as long as they are backed by some kind of authority (scientific or magical). This would be the explanation of why many people rely irremediably on the signs of the zodiac. In other words, the MBTI would not be accurate and would only be deceiving many evaluated. Another explanation is that the descriptions given by him manage to say something authentic about individuals. They would not be random descriptions, without reference to the subject itself, as some researchers think (Hatami, 2012). People would accept their results (in many cases) because they would feel genuinely identified.
As in many other cases, I am inclined to think that the truth is in the middle: There is no doubt that the MBTI simplifies the personality and suffers from not adequately differentiating the continuity that may exist in the evaluated traits. Thus, someone with 90% introversion is put in the same box as someone with 60% introversion, which undermines its validity as an instrument. This is the reason why these categories should not be taken strictly, categorically, as if they were frozen in ice. This brings us back to the problem of reliability. The reason why about 50% of those who perform this test change psychological type when they answer the inventory time later resides in a very simple fact: some of their letters are modified. This is something very natural if one considers - as I have said - that many people obtain borderline, borderline, almost borderline results with another type. Time passes, some experiences are lived, and the balance changes enough to modify the original result. In this way, an INTP becomes an INFP, which is not strange, because someone can be very sentimental and use a lot of thought simultaneously. This does not imply that the result is worthless, but it needs to be qualified.
In this sense, it would not be inappropriate to do the inventory several times to see if the same type holds or changes a bit. Once done one can mix the two or three types obtained (it would be very strange to see someone get more types unless one had multiple personalities) and thus have a more accurate description. The most defined personalities in the test will be better identified with their results: Can some people identify with their type more than others? The answer seems to be affirmative. Those more polarized and extreme personalities that fit appropriately with the test will be more reflected in the descriptions, simply because they are not as variable as those of other individuals (Grant, 2016). This is not something strange: the questions are meant to pick up that kind of traits. If to the question, are you lonely? One answers affirmatively, and then respond in the same way to the rest of the reagents, it is natural to think that they will get an introverted type. The same applies to the other questions.
This is another reason why the MBTI is not affordable with the zodiacal signs. The questionnaire, like any instrument, responds to an internal logic. If one answers enough reagents with the same type of connotation, it is natural to receive a description that corresponds to it. The problem is when 1) there is no authentic self-knowledge 2) it lies when answering, consciously or unconsciously 3) the results are very mixed because it was answered according to opposite tendencies (for example, sensation and intuition). The inventory does not evaluate aptitudes.
An explanation of why the questionnaire has little predictive power is linked to not measuring skills, but attitudes. What evaluates is the personality, not the ability to perform certain tasks. A person with a high degree of preference for intuition may become intuitive, but it will not necessarily happen that way. It's just the way one sees himself or herself or the way one likes to gather information.
Despite not being a good choice for recruitment and selection programs (for all that has already been said), the MBTI has been considered as an instrument with the capacity to improve empathy. Thus, the understanding of how other individuals think differently and take guided decisions different from ours is increased (this is something confirmed experimentally).
Another recommended use has to do with personal self-knowledge. In this sense, it is understandable why many defend their use as a means to better understand their strengths and weaknesses.
References
Grant, A. (2016, January 31). Goodbye to MBTI, the fad that won't die. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-grant/goodbye-to-mbti-the-fad-t_b_3947014.html
Hatami, S. (2012). Learning styles. ELT Journal , 67 (4), 488-490. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccs083
Sherlock, K. (2018). Unit essay 1: just my type [Assignment instructions].
