Over the years, I have spent a lot of time on teaching, but most of my new insights have been gained in the school of hard knocks. Few law professors have professional training in instructional theory, and I count myself among the overwhelming majority who are plodding along, learning by trial and error. Lots of error.
Earlier this week, our faculty was given the opportunity to attend a workshop on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I sat next to David Schwartz -- an extreme skeptic of MBTI. Gretchen Viney served as our MBTI guide, talking us through the underlying theories. I am not equipped to engage in a serious debate about the efficacy of personality types, but I tested out as an ENTJ, and that sure seems to fit.
The point of this exercise was to highlight a fact that even we intuitive teachers have observed: different students learn differently. Having been sensitized to the issue, I noticed on Friday that one of my students complimented me on the logical structure of my class, while another student expressed frustration over not being given the answers, even after a lengthy discussion. The fact that no clear answers exist in many cases seemed beside the point for the latter student, who clearly needed some reassurance that many of the other students did not require. If I become more conscious of such disparities in perception and need among my students, then the time spent in this session was worthwhile.
Nevertheless, the implied precision inherent in identifying someone's personality as one of 16 possible types is a bit worrisome, especially when people take the categories too seriously. Heath at Fast Company asks: "What do you think about the use of personality tests, such as the Myers-Briggs, in business situations, including hiring and promotion decisions, career choices, and team building?" In my view, this could be seriously harmful. Not only does it impose on the MBTI a level of precision that cannot be achieved given the rough instruments used, but it assumes that an individual's personality is uniform and stagnant. This seems patently unrealistic.
UPDATE: After I wrote the foregoing, I found a psychologist who wrote something similar on his blog: "[B]ehavior is situational. What does that mean? It means that our everyday belief that people are consistently 'themselves' across a wide variety of kinds of circumstances is unfounded. People, it turns out, are highly sensitive to immediate conditions and circumstances. What you'll do in one situation is not a terribly reliable predictor of what you'll do in another. That doesn't mean that their aren't patterns that characterize a person's thoughts, emotions and behaviors across situations; it just means that becoming too comfortable with the predictability of those patterns is dangerous business."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d83471bd6d69e2
Links to weblogs that reference Myers-Briggs:
1. Posted by Tom on September 20, 2004 @ 4:11 | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Gordon.
I concur with your comments about the MBTI. I find it a very helpful tool for getting a global sense of how a person approaches situations. I've used it in consulting engagements for years.
But I find the degree of predictive validity others ascribe to it unrealistic. And, of course, as Gladwell points out in his New Yorker article, Jung never intended for his ideas to be used formulaically.
2. Posted by AnonGuy on September 20, 2004 @ 8:26 | Permalink
There's an interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell in a recent issue of The New Yorker on Myers-Briggs and the use of personality testing by businesses. Definitely worth checking out.
3. Posted by Sarah on September 22, 2004 @ 1:42 | Permalink
I don't think the MBTI can be used to predict any kind of specific behavior, even from people who test almost identically. My stepfather, mother, sister, three friends, and myself all test as INTJs, but we still respond differently to stimuli, have different work ethics, etc. It's useful as far as it goes, but it's no more of a tell-all indicator than the (pick your test here -- SAT, GRE, whatever) is.
4. Posted by Ben on September 30, 2006 @ 23:20 | Permalink
As a myers-briggs junky I have to say that I agree with what you say only to a certain extent. With time and study, one may realize that there are many measurable characteristics that can be divided among the 16 different types. This allows for some accurate generalizations, but only to an extent. As you stated, environment and past experiences can play a role in our decisions. They do not, however, play a role in what much of the briggs measures; that is, our psychological preferences between two opposing forces when one must be choosen.
Ben
www.famoustype.com
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
