It's a model, which brings to mind my favorite quote on models:<p><pre><code> All models are wrong; some models are useful.
</code></pre>
I.e. the question is not 'is it right', but 'is it useful?'.
Personally, I think the MB model is somewhat useful - e.g. identifying some of the 'watch-out' points of various personality types.
Describing Myers-Briggs as witchcraft is gratuitously unfair to witches, but like many other forms of pseudo-science which make someone with few demonstrable skills sound like they earned their graduate degree, it is surprisingly durable.
<i>"... Does the Myers-Briggs personality assessment really tell you anything? ..."</i><p>Yes, MB is about <i>"self validation"</i> and can be dangerous when used to pigeon hole individuals into occupations by third parties who rely on the results ~ <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html</a>
Extremely good multi-part series on understanding personality temperaments/indicators/etc.:<p>Part 1: Temperament for Dummies
<a href="http://www.erictb.info/temperament1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.erictb.info/temperament1.html</a><p>Part 2: MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive Functions
<a href="http://www.erictb.info/temperament2.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.erictb.info/temperament2.html</a><p>Part 3: APS and Other Systems (Enneagram, Horney, Type A, etc)
<a href="http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html</a><p>Part 4: APS and Dynamic Type: adding moderate scales to EISeNFelT (from 16 to 81 types)
<a href="http://www.erictb.info/dynamictype.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.erictb.info/dynamictype.html</a><p>From what I gather each person has potential to display ALL personality types. The question is to what degree and in what contexts we prefer them.<p>I sure like having some kind of framework (or several) to help me analyze people. Learning to identify traits using a few simplifying tools (MBTI, color code, enneagram, love languages, etc.) helps me quickly figure out how best to get along with someone so we can communicate and get stuff done (in a work environment especially), understand better how someone prefers to interact with ideas (casual conversation and debate), understand people's underlying motivations a bit (particularly important with family and relationships), and in general just "get" people.<p>-A softened ENTJ
I found it to be surprisingly accurate for myself. I never took the official quiz but I usually come out as either an INTP or INTJ. It seems that last slot is a close call for me. After reading over both types, INTP is the most accurate. I think it's up to most people to find where they best "fit" and that will be more difficult for each "category" for lack of a better word if they aren't definitively one way or the other.<p>So knowing that, now what? Well, I've tried using it to understand the general process of how others think and better understand how I myself think. I'm prone to introspection and I do find that many of the attributes of the INTP match my own personality. It gives me a handle on what sorts of things I should watch out for and helps me to recognize why I tend to do better in some areas. I think like any tool it's success will depend largely on how it's used.
I question the validity of any assessment that is presented to assessors (the paying customers) as a verified and reliable instrument, but then presented to the assessed as a "starting point", and who should be instructed "<i>...that the respondent is the expert; the only person who can verify which type fits best.</i>"[1]<p>It may test <i>something</i> to <i>some</i> degree of accuracy, but when the makers of the test turn it into a game of picking which of 16 all-positive self-descriptions they like the most, I have to wonder what the point is beyond being a well-marketed horoscope.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethical-feedback.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethic...</a>
i think one of the main confusions is that people think it is a statistically-constructed personality test like the ones that are designed and bred as such
To MBTI skeptics: I agree that the MBTI is a flawed instrument, but do you assert that personality testing is intrinsically flawed, that personalities don't have measurable patterns/traits/components? Why? Is it really that inconceivable that there are broad tendencies and trends in personality? Is everyone such a "unique snowflake" that there's no patterns or trends?<p>I personally think there's definitely some underlying dominant factors, but the fact is that determining what they are and measuring them is <i>really</i> hard, because it's <i>really</i> hard to do substantive psychology in a truly scientific manner. I think something like a principal components analysis should be possible in the theoretical ideal -- and binary trait based schemes are just a crude approximation to such a scheme. For example, scoring as "ENTP" wouldn't mean that you have zero introversion, or zero feelings -- just that you score closer to E than I, etc.