Myers-Briggs and the Forer Effect

A reader sent this video about how Myers-Briggs is not at all well accepted in the psychology world but is highly popular outside and why:



But to say that the types are "totally meaningless" seems an exaggeration. If (1) about half of the people who take the test multiple times get different types and (2) it fails to predict success in various jobs and (3) it's really only so popular because it gives positive results (you're courageous, you're sensitive, e.g.) and it simplifies our world and satisfies our brain's desire to find patterns and categorize, that in my mind doesn't equate to meaningless. But is it more popular nowadays to say something outrageous and absolute, or has that always been in?

The interesting thing to me is that there isn't more gaming of the Myers-Briggs if it is so popular, if it is supposedly so popular with employers and so meaningless.

Also, my brother (who has apparently been living under a rock for a decade or more) had just discovered the test recently and was making everyone in my family take it, but only after I had predicted everyone's types with uncanny success. Could it be that what the Myers-Briggs is testing accurately is less someone's personality and more their deepest desires and insecurities? It doesn't seem obviously that way if you just look at the questions, but the whole administration of it seems to invite it -- people answering questions about what they think and want? Could it be that the Myers-Briggs is getting at underlying beliefs and desires in a sideways way the same way that a Freudian slip or dream analysis might reveal unconscious motivations and belief systems? For some reason I kind of feel well, because the same part of my brain that I use to guess people's type is the same one that I use to read people (i.e. observe desires, longings, and areas of potential vulnerability in another).

I know I've said a lot of douche-y, particularly megalomanical and uneducated things in this post, and this is the last one I promise, but how is it that people don't know what their type is before they take the test? Do they not have any level of self-awareness that they need to be told these things about themselves?

There is no there there

A reader asks:

Do sociopaths actually have personalities? I mean clearly defined, stable personality types. Is there much variance from person to person? I've personally been drawn toward the ISTP of Myers-Briggs. Under all the bullshitting and such this is close to what I am. Under all the lies are we clones? Or are our core personalities changed by our experiences? Or does empath profiling relate to us at all?

I like to model my outward self after people I admire. I do admire some people. I look at them and I think, I could be you. I sometimes recognize myself in the actions of empaths, but I usually find disappointment when I look closer. The reasons why they do so many things make no sense to me. It is like looking at an alien species sometimes. They are afraid of everything. But I have also been disappointed when I come across low-functioning or low-IQ sociopaths. They may not have the same drives as empaths, but the results are the same. They do idiotic things with no thought of purpose. So is that the only difference between us, level of intelligence?

I think that is one positive about being the way I am: I can be whatever I am supposed to be, in any given situation. Ha if I didn't pay any attention to what people wanted out of me, I would have screwed everything up by now. I feel like a salesperson: the customer knows best.

My response: Ha, I'm sort of glad that you feel like you are more ISTP; people sometimes ask me if sociopaths aren't just INTJs.

I hate taking personality tests. I never know what to answer to questions like "do you have an emotional attachment to your friends?" Part of me does, but I also think it can't be that deep of an attachment if I cast them aside like used paper napkins when I'm done with them. An easier question would be, "Do you sometimes feel infatuation for things and people?" Because personality tests are not really designed for people like us, I answer most of them in radically different ways depending on context or my mood.

Maybe we do have personalities/selves but just multiple ones? The weirdest thing for me is to not know which self would be most appropriate in a given situation. Charming? Straightforward? Commanding? Cautious? It helps for me to have a buzzword to focus on, one primary goal, like the cliché actor asking the director "what's my motivation?" Because without it, I frequently can wander blindly when in a new situation or meeting a new person, slipping through several different "approaches" until I find one that works. This is never the first impression I want to make, but it is what it is.

Sociopath or INTJ?

I have mentioned this before, but I sometimes wonder if INTJs aren't all sociopaths.  Or mostly sociopaths.  Or maybe I'm not a sociopath, I'm just an INTJ.  This article (from a reader) discusses some of the differences (allegedly) between the two:


Although INTJs (Myers-Briggs personality Type profile) share some of the same characteristics as the psychopath, the appearance of shallow emotions and an idiosyncratic value system, especially as it applies to sexuality, they are not normally psychopaths. 

Whereas, psychopaths have very sallow emotions, INTJs appear to be unemotional. Actually, they can be hypersensitive on some levels, especially with the few people about whom they care. They are not as responsive to praise or criticism as some of the other personality types. They show the world a veneer of calm self-confidence, which can be mistaken for arrogance (I am being generous here). 

INTJs tend to be introspective, more at home with theories and principles than human relationships. They have an endearing tendency to look at one over their glasses or raise one eyebrow to show disapproval. They make up about one percent of the population. INTJs are quite often highly educated, successful individuals, because they can be unusually intelligent. Though, they are not particularly interested in accumulating wealth. 


She then gives a list that actually makes INTJs seem a lot like sociopaths.  Of course this doesn't mean that sociopaths can't be INTJs...  But that doesn't mean INTJs are sociopaths.  INTJs apparently only seem cold, but really are just cold on the exterior.  Other differences include:


The psychopath will come into contact with the criminal justice system because he or she is impulsive, amoral, opportunistic and irresponsible. INTJs are impulsive under stress. However, they are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot (figuratively speaking, folks) than shoot their maiden aunt to acquire her fortune. Remember, most INTJs are not dazzled by material possessions. Though, I have seen a few who liked their toys. They may quit their job when their feathers are ruffled, without wondering how they will pay the bills. INTJs can also be highly insulted if someone dares question their ideas or principles, because they are convinced of the "rightness" of their beliefs. Yawn. Nonetheless, they probably will not bury their Nemesis in the backyard. It is much more likely that crimes will be committed by psychopaths.


Of course it's possible that INTJs are sociopaths or vice versa:

There is no law that says a psychopath cannot be an INTJ. However, I would be surprised if that were the case. INTJs are normally boringly responsible individuals. Consequently, if you have someone with a spotty employment record, he is probably not an INTJ...start wondering about psychopath. Be cautious, one trait does not a psychopath make. 

Hmm, spotty employment record...

But can you imagine good old Myers and Briggs envisioning this sort of use for their personality distinctions when they made them?  Or Jung, for that matter?  It's become the seemingly legitimate astrology of the masses.

[Like that graph I used for the picture?  Can you imagine working at a place with that many INTJs?  Talk about society of sociopaths, right?  It actually comes from a group of intelligence analysts.]