When discussing MBTI, questions of a similar nature tend to come up:
- Is MBTI real?
- Is MBTI scientific?
- Is it a pseudoscience?
- Is it reliable?
In my opinion, these questions miss the point of MBTI and of personality frameworks in general. Here’s my argument: no, MBTI is not real. Yes, it’s still useful.
No, MBTI is not real.
MBTI is an abstracted system of personality, not personality itself. MBTI offers a framework and language with which to think about and discuss personality; Enneagram, Socionics, Big Five (OCEAN), and heck, even astrology do the same thing. But remember: the system is not the thing.
Take any two people. There will be observable and measurable differences in personality between these two individuals, from optimism to sensitivity to interest in board games. Regardless of how you attribute these differences–nature vs. nurture, genetic expression, childhood trauma, or even that we live in a simulation and these differences are from random stat generation–these differences are real. The words and properties we choose to assign these differences to, on the other hand, are devised.
Here’s a non-personality system example to explain the abstract vs. real layering: money is an abstracted representation of the desire and capability for us (both as individuals and as a society) to obtain value. If money as a concept disappeared overnight, other systems to obtain and distribute goods will take its place (e.g. bartering, socialism). Money can devalue or be rendered worthless, as has often happened in history, but our need to obtain goods is real and will never go away.
Are some systems better than others?
Yes. In my opinion, some personality frameworks are better constructed than others.
It’s both intuitive and researched that systems with continuous scoring are better than systems with discrete categories. One-or-the-other thinking is really great for building nationalism and other in-group-out-group sentiments, but it’s not great at capturing nuance.
This is why Jungian cognitive-based MBTI is better than discrete letter-scoring MBTI. Jungian functions exist on an axis–e.g. extraverted Feeling is always balanced by introverted Thinking. We can debate why these functions are dichotomized, but the important thing is that the model emphasizes that everyone will always use both sides of the function axis, just at different strengths and valuations. One of my biggest headaches in the MBTI community is when people think “feelers” are dumb, and “thinkers” are socially constipated geniuses. All of us think, and all of us feel!
This is also why most of the time, cross-referencing frameworks (e.g. combining Enneagram and MBTI) will result in more accurate or useful personality typing, even if one starts with discrete categorical frameworks. More specific categories = more nuance = gets closer to continuous scoring.
However, no personality system on the market today is scientific. Yes, this includes Big Five (OCEAN), although I believe it gets the closest due to its work in replicability.
There are two huge reasons why personality frameworks can’t adhere to the scientific method:
- You can’t run long-term experiments on personality (at least not without breaking significant human ethics considerations), and
- The scientific method emphasizes empirical data. Personality will always have two sides: the empirical, observed, and reported side, and the internal, understood side. Just because I say I have high life satisfaction doesn’t mean I do; and besides, maybe I’m just easily satisfied in life compared to the person next to me.
There’s a myriad of additional reasons (e.g. cultural differences, language and interpretation, developmental conditions) why a singular framework of personality can’t be scientific. Don’t take this as my saying that we shouldn’t aim to make better, more helpful personality systems–I think we should always try–but no personality system is going to be so perfectly constructed as to be empirically predictive and replicable.
Use MBTI when it provides value, and discard it when it doesn’t
I like to think of the true/useful axis:
We’ve already established that MBTI is not true. Hence, the question to answer is: “is MBTI useful?”
What constitutes usefulness? I would say a personality framework is useful when it benefits your understanding of yourself, the people around you, and aids you in becoming better integrated with your inner and external world.
Yes, that last part is so important that I committed the cardinal formatting sin of both bolding and italicizing for emphasis.
Knowing your own MBTI and that of those around you is nice, but if you use it to box yourself into an identity, predict how well you’ll get along with someone, or predict whether you’ll do well in a subject (i.e. “narrowing” activities), MBTI is not only not useful but actively detrimental.
I see a lot of online discourse in the vein of: “I’m an INTJ, I’m logical”; “I’m an INFJ, I’m the rarest type”; “How do I become more like an ENTJ? They’re so effective”; “are INTPs and ENFJs good in relationships together?”–and these are often the least useful, least constructive ways to use any personality framework.
Simple tweaks to each of these questions can make them “growing” activities instead:
- “I’m an INTJ, I’m logical” → “What is high-Te expression like? How can I communicate with people who don’t use or value the same logical process as me?”
- “I’m an INFJ, I’m the rarest type” → “How do I connect with people who don’t share my function stack?”
- “How do I become more like an ENTJ? They’re so effective” → “Where do my dom/aux strengths lay? How can I expand on them? How do I learn to mimic professionally rewarded behaviour without burning myself out?”
- “are INTPs and ENFJs good in relationships together?” → “What are some communication gaps that can arise as a result of our function stack? How can I overcome them?”
When used appropriately, MBTI becomes a powerful shortcut to understand how you and others look at the world and how to bridge that gap. And, as with many things, there are times when the framework doesn’t work. In those times, discard MBTI and discard it cheerfully. Use MBTI when it will better your life, and forget about it when it doesn’t.