The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism.

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type(which is edited and supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[43] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[43] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[9] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[44][9]

Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote that "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism.

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type(which is edited and supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[43] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[43] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[9] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[44][9]

Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote that "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

One researcher who is doing a great deal with MBTI and 5-factor theory with  excellent empirical data and theoretical discussion is James Reynierse. See for example

Toward an empirically sound and radically revised type theory.

By Reynierse, James H.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 72(1), Mar 2012, 1-25.

This paper introduces an MBTI®-derived revised type theory that expands type categories and reinterprets several type constructs. It begins by revisiting classical type theory and makes several critical assessments of type related concepts that are part of this classical theory. Although critical of type theory, the view presented here is that the MBTI as a measurement instrument has many virtues and when interpreted appropriately and consistent with the empirical record, is a powerful tool that can inform both research and practice. Within this revised type theory the MBTI measure has an expanded role for understanding human personality and providing utility in the everyday lives of people. The revised theory is explicited biological and is fundamentally rooted in evolved human biology, particularly behavior genetics, neuroscience and the psychobiology of personality. Similarly, the theory explicitly recognizes that the structure of the MBTI preferences is congruent with the structure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality and accepts that this is now a firmly established fact that is widely accepted among personality researchers and theorists. The revised theory is presented as a series of nine core Principles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

Preference multidimensionality and the fallacy of type dynamics: Part 2 (studies 4-6).

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker, John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 68(11), Nov 2008, 1-26.

Six studies examined the implications of the Grant- Brownsword, MBTI® Manual, and Beebe models of type dynamics, the adequacy of the J-P preference pair as a "pointer variable" for determining which functions are extraverted and which are introverted, and whether clearer, more visible effects occur for Extraversion compared to Introversion. The results supported a preference pairs interpretation, cast doubt on J-P as a "pointer variable," demonstrated that E-I effects were caused by the direct role of the E-I preference pair rather than the expression of effects in the E and I attitudes, and led to the rejection of all forms of type dynamics. We identified three situations in which type dynamics conditions are confounded with the MBTI content of type dynamics groups. First, type dynamics groups are confounded with each functional preference and its opposite, as the dominant and auxiliary functions include a particular preference, whereas the tertiary and inferior functions include the opposite preference. Second, the expression of type dynamics effects in the E and I attitudes are confounded with the first letter of several MBTI types. Third, type dynamics conditions are confounded with their multidimensional MBTI content. Two studies investigated the implications of preference multidimensionality, that is, that two or more preferences are often necessary to describe significant type effects and relationships. In every case, a clear hierarchy occurred that conformed to the content conditions and predicted order effects of preference multidimensionality. The highly systematic and orderly results of this research can be explained by three type variables or principles—the individual functions as expressed in the preference pairs, strict effects for the E-I preference pair, and preference multidimensionality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Preference multidimensionality and the fallacy of type dynamics: Part 1 (studies 1-3).

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker Jr., John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 68(10), Oct 2008, 90-112.

Six studies examined the implications of the Grant-Brownsword, MBTI® Manual, and Beebe models of type dynamics, the adequacy of the J-P preference pair as a "pointer variable" for determining which functions are extraverted and which are introverted, and whether clearer, more visible effects occur for Extraversion compared to Introversion. The results supported a preference pairs interpretation, cast doubt on J-P as a "pointer variable," demonstrated that E-I effects were caused by the direct role of the E-I preference pair rather than the expression of effects in the E and I attitudes, and led to the rejection of all forms of type dynamics. We identified three situations in which type dynamics conditions are confounded with the MBTI content of type dynamics groups. First, type dynamics groups are confounded with each functional preference and its opposite, as the dominant and auxiliary functions include a particular preference, whereas the tertiary and inferior functions include the opposite preference. Second, the expression of type dynamics effects in the E and 1 attitudes are confounded with the first letter of several MBTI types. Third, type dynamics conditions are confounded with their multidimensional MBTI content. Two studies investigated the implications of preference multidimensionality that is, that two or more preferences are often necessary to describe significant type effects and relationships. In every case, a clear hierarchy occurred that conformed to the content conditions and predicted order effects of preference multidimensionality. The highly systematic and orderly results of this research can be explained by three type variables or principles—the individual functions as expressed in the preference pairs, strict effects for the E-1 preference pair, and preference multidimensionality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Type Interactions: MBTI® Relationships and Self-Report Questionnaire Scale Scores.

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker, John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 64(6a-b), Jun 2005, 57-75.

Type Versus Trait: Taxons, Real Classes, and Carving Nature at Its Joints.

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker, John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 64(6a-b), Jun 2005, 77-87.

Are type interactions multifaceted or synergistic? A reply to Mitchell.

By Reynierse, James H.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 57, 2001, 25-29.

Social acceptability of natural language descriptors associated with the MBTI preferences.

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker, John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 59, 2001, 29-35.

The interactive and additive nature of psychological type.

By Reynierse, James H.; Harker, John B.

Journal of Psychological Type, Vol 58, 2001, 6-32.

This is just a sampling of his work, and of similar research being done.

I found the MBTI useful, not as a personality test, but as a model for thinking about "personal epistemology." I copy a question I regularly used on an essay exam for students in the History of Psychology class: WILLIAM BLAKE, TYPOLOGY, AND EPISTEMOLOGY: William Witcutt, in Blake: A Psychological Study, claims that the poet William Blake's "peculiar heresy" was "the identification of religion with imagination . . . This is a heresy as tempting to introverts as materialism is to extraverts; and Jungians are particularly liable to it." Take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (the test is published by Educational Testing Service; a quick version is printed in David Kiersey and Marilyn Bates, Please Understand Me and several similar books; I have copies of the test available) or read the manual, Introduction to Type (Consulting Psychologists Press) or read the summary of Jungian typology on pages 698-703 of Henri Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious. Ellenberger asserts that: "the notion that there is an introverted and an extroverted vision of the world may help us to understand the divergences and conflicts of opinion between certain philosophers or theologians." Respond to this claim, considering the additional dimensions as well (sensation vs intuition; feeling vs thinking; judging vs perceptive). View the psychological types as personal positions on ontology, epistemology (what is real and how we can know it) and as a position on the reality of concepts (or reality behind concepts), and not merely as personality types. I have in mind particularly the relationship between major philosophical orientations and personal ways of orienting oneself in the world. The many authors we have studied lend themselves well to this material. Alternatively, you might ask if typology can account for the differences among the four NT gospels, the various evangelists, the JEDP sources in OT studies, or other biblical writings. Or if it can account for the various contemporary schools of psychotherapy. 

I think Béatrice is right.  German-language textbooks would usually have it only as an example of "how not to."

I think Béatrice is right.  German-language textbooks would usually have it only as an example of "how not to."

I think Béatrice is right.  German-language textbooks would usually have it only as an example of "how not to."

Hi,

I'm an independent researcher in the area of personality, focusing on Jung's typology and the MBTI. Some of my work is here on this site. I have taught the MBTI and other type questionnaires for over 25 years.

I am wondering about the purpose of the question set by Ranjith as well as the knowledge-base of those responding ion good faith.

It seems to me that if you wanted to find out about the MBTI, you would first investigate what it says about itself i.e. you would read its Manual (Myers McCaulley, Quenk and Hammer 1998, or Myers and McCaulley 1985), as you would do with any other questionnaire. You would find out what its purpose is, what its claims are, what its method is, how and why reliability and validity is determined (the MBTI is not a trait measurement) how to interpret it and so on. This basic start would enable you to assess the claims of critics. You could also read Naomi L. Quenk's Fundamentals of Myers-Briggs Assessment, published by Wiley.

If you were me, you would also investigate the history and access comments made by Isabel Myers about her instrument, and what she intended. www.capt.org has the basic repository in their library; I have a personal collection of those materials.

Note that at no stage would you need to go online to any so-called MBTI site and you are in the field of objective research, not opinion.

If you did that, then you would be able to assess the critics of the MBTI. You would know that the Keirsey sorter isn't the MBTI (the MBTI is a specific instrument with copyrighted items), that the MBTI is an inference maker and doesn't contain anything about Jung's ideas of type dynamics and development or consciousness, that it is a sorting device in which amounts are not relevant and so on.

So if you looked at the Reynierse articles outlined by Hendrika, you would see that he is making claims about the MBTI that the MBTI doesn't make about itself. He appears to think also that Jung's typology is dependent on measurement. You would need to know more to forage amongst his references and see that some of them to not say what he says they say, and need to know a little more to see that his study interprets items from a complex MBTI form (J) in a way that is completely different from that instrument. My comments on Reynierse and a debate of sorts with him can be found in the Bulletin of Psychological Type the APTinternational publication www.aptinternational.org. I have copies of my contributions here in my office.

The Wikipedia reference can be examined in the same way. Many of the critiques of the MBTI reference the same articles, which appear unread by the author of the critique, otherwiae (hopefully) they would be embarrassed by their inclusion.

This comes to the "horoscope" bit, which I presume is about what are known as type descriptions. Anyone can make up a type description, I've done it myself, after years of research, MBTI descriptions were intended by Isabel Myers to show a type at their best, partly as a counterpoint to pathological interpretations of personality based on a particular view of normality.

The descriptions were not intended to be taken literally and it was never expected that what was contained completely described someone. An old benchmark used to be 70% agreement with what were expressed as tendencies, not definite prediction. Myers' original publication of Introduction to Type and subsequent editions were also ordered according to Myers understanding of the order of basic functions, so dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, so not at all Pollyanaish.

The MBTI doesn't predict anything; however research shows things like different type distributions for different occupoations, which are at least socially useful. In type terms though career advice is not about prediction or occupation but how you get to do whatever work it is you engage in.

I'll stop there. Read my MSc thesis Quantifying Jung: The Origin and Development of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, foe a bit of background if you're interested.

The MBTI can certainly be critiques, particularly in the way it is used. But like anything else, finding out what it claims to do can save a lot of time dead-ends. You don't have to like it. I do, obviously, but I also have several reservations.

Regards

Peter