<p>The MBTI is based on Carl Jung's work with psychological types. However, Jung's work led to the formation of analytic psychology. This work is often associated with clinical observations and anecdotes instead of controlled scientific study. This means that Jung didn't carry out research that can be considered conclusive and scientifically validated. However, I'm not sure if any of his theories can be or have been supported by research done by other people.</p>

<p>That said, the purpose of the MBTI is not to be a scientific theory. Going back to its history, it was meant to determine jobs that would be most suitable for women entering the workforce in the United States during World War II. It's assumed that the person taking the assessment is answering the questions honestly. Also, the MBTI results don't indicate ability or aptitude, but preferences. The MBTI has been used by human resource departments and managers to gain some high level insights into their staff and potential methods for structuring organizations and leading teams. Employees have also used the MBTI for determining possible career directions that they might be more likely to have a preference for.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-12-05T18:02:05.260Z
It's been used often, yes, but what permits you to say they "gain some high level insights into their staff and potential methods for structuring organizations and leading teams"? Sounds a bit marketing-speak for my ears and as far as I know the MBTI is not particularly useful in an organizational psych. setting, just widespread.
Ruben
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-12-05T18:12:55.487Z
@Ruben Some organizations have employees take the MBTI survey and include the results in their records. Managers can use the results to interact more efficiently with their staff by knowing what their MBTI types are. For example, a manager might schedule more frequent (and perhaps shorter) 1-on-1 meetings with extroverts than introverts, who would have less frequent 1-on-1 meetings only when there is something meaningful to discuss. The other type indicators might help in career development, promotion, or identifying potential conflicts or synergies in members of a project team.
Thomas Owens
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-12-05T18:43:24.357Z
They might. They might not. I'm saying I haven't heard that it actually improves company outcomes or teamwork. If it did, I'd probably have heard, considering how good they are at marketing their product. I think it's mainly used because people like the type descriptions they get due to the Forer effect.
Ruben
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-22T21:48:53.003Z
2012-07-24T11:11:47.847Z
2012-07-24T11:11:47.847Z
Thomas Owens
<p>Absolutely not. And, unlike claimed in other answers, it's about as based on Carl Jung as me whistling out of tune would be "work based on Mozart." </p>

<p>The MBTI was "developed" by a "psychic medium" who read books on Jung and spoke to him twice, much to his chagrin. He later actively avoided her. Furthermore, Jung himself cautioned against using his Personality Types as anything but a foundation for research, as the book and his further writings were based on anecdotes and clinical observation, not research in the scientific sense. He, himself, called it "Eine filosofische Excursio", "a philosophical trip".</p>

<p>The MBTI is an overly simplified pop-sci attempt at a personality inventory. Its type descriptions are written in the form of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect" rel="noreferrer">Barnum texts</a>, texts that most people might find applicable to them. It is assessed through self-evaluation and strongly skewed by the expectations of those who take it. This, too, makes those Barnum Texts stronger ("Do you think often?" "Yes" "You're a thinker" "Wow, you're sooo accurate in your assessment of me").</p>

<p>Since the test is also binary ("Do you like Apples?" doesn't lead to a conclusion about how much someone likes Bananas) and does not control for socialised or pathological answers, it is hopelessly useless.</p>

<ul>
<li>Saunders, F. W. Katherine and Isabel: Mother’s Light, Daughter’s Journey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991</li>
<li>Stricker and Ross (1962). Also: Stricker, L. J. &amp; J. Ross. “An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian personality Typology.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 (1964), pp. 62-71.</li>
<li>Carskadon, T. G. “Clinical and Counseling Aspects of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Review.” Research in Psychological Type, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1979a), pp. 2-31.</li>
<li>Sipps, G. J., R. A. Alexander, and L. Friedt. “Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1985), pp. 789-796.</li>
<li>Dickson, D. H. and I. W. Kelly. “‘The Barnum Effect’ in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature.” Psychological Reports, Vol. 57, No. 2 (1985), pp. 367-382.</li>
<li>Auerbach, E. “Not Your Type, But Right for the Job.” The Wall Street
Journal, January 6, 1992, editorial, p. 11.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-27T13:08:59.023Z
This is a curiously unscientific way of saying that it is not a reasonable scientific theory.
Duvrai
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-27T23:50:14.333Z
@mfloren - I am sorry, I just now saw this. The focus, because it's the "main selling point" of the MTBI for some reason. Its proponents go so far as to call Mayers a "student of Jung", which is about as accurate as calling me a student of Ekman's or Dickson, because I've read their books. Saunders, F. W. Katherine and Isabel discuss this at length.
Doc_Dormicum
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-09T20:23:50.733Z
There is much claimed in this answer. Do you have any references to support your claims?
mflo-ByeSE
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-11T06:47:38.840Z
@mfloren: happily. Added.
Doc_Dormicum
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-11T07:22:11.680Z
Much appreciated! If I may, which of these focuses on the lack of relationship to Carl Jung's work?
mflo-ByeSE
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-09T19:18:31.590Z
2017-10-11T06:51:49.807Z
2017-10-11T06:51:49.807Z
Doc_Dormicum
<blockquote>
  <p>Does the MBTI have a fundamental background?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It is based on Jung's work, later published as Psychological Types (Collected Works, Book 6). Katherine Briggs, Isabel Myer's mother, did the initial work via communication with Jung. Like Jung, she had different theories at first, but dropped them when she heard of Jung's research on the subject. She developed the Attitude Type and four functions into a consistent theory (further than Jung did, at least at first). She also added the external function indicator as she was focused on getting jobs for women, and the externalized function was seen to be a major component. Its importance  was shown even more strongly by Keirsey's work on Temperament Theory.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Were there any scientific experiments conducted?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If by "scientific" you mean objective, verifiable tests, the answer is no. Currently, at least, that is impossible, being the perception of the Attitude Type and functions are subjective.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-17T13:31:00.617Z
2014-07-17T16:12:20.800Z
2014-07-17T16:12:20.800Z
please delete me
<p>From what I remember, the MBTI has been compared in some studies to the Big Five (or OCEAN) model of personality. If you've not heard of it, the Big Five is the primary theory of personality that is accepted by researchers who do this sort of thing. Here are some papers comparing the two approaches:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2003/00000031/00000006/art00005?token=005513de50867232d45232b46245a6a43573a794c23773568293c6c567e504f58762f46c67436faaaf597" rel="noreferrer" title="recent comparison">Recent comparison</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000335" rel="noreferrer">another</a>.</p>

<p>The main point is that a number of the MBTI traits are correlated with the Big Five traits, though the MBTI can be criticised for various reasons (e.g., it's binary approach to personality). I think from what I remember is that the main criticism revolves around the fact that the MBTI has no place for neuroticism whereas the Big Five does.</p>

<p>That should be enough to get you started (e.g., reading their intro and seeing where this has been cited). There's also a somewhat useful infographic available <a href="http://www.usefulcharts.com/psychology/big-five-personality-traits.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-24T05:21:49.087Z
@ThomasOwens: The type that is favored **is binary** for any of the four dichotomies. There is no third possibility. BTW, it may not be invalid to say that nobody is exactly neutral, but it's a waste of information to not even score a person's likelihood of the binary preference based on the amount of evidence supporting one over the other.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-23T00:19:14.520Z
The "Big Five" has plenty of criticisms itself, not the least of which is that the five traits are not orthogonal, which calls into question the very idea that it is a useful model of personality.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-09T11:57:08.217Z
The binary approach of the MBTI is its chief weakness, and likewise one of the strengths of the Five Factor Model is that it assigns individual scores to personality factors rather than dichotomising them. Personality is normally distributed - that is, on the spectrum from introversion to extroversion, most people will be ambiverts with some proportion at either end. Putting people into one of two groups on some given factor is not a useful way to measure personality.
adb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-22T23:50:29.857Z
@adb MBTI isn't a binary approach. Although it indicates the type that is favored, all of the texts that I've read indicate that it's only a preference. It's recognized that, in different situations, people will rely on types other than their preference. It also doesn't indicate the strength of preference.
Thomas Owens
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-08T15:16:13.200Z
2014-04-10T00:43:28.847Z
2014-04-10T00:43:28.847Z
vizzero
<p><strong>Background:</strong>
MBTI stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It's a theory that suggests that people can be divided into 16 types, based on the way they percieve and analyse information (whether they make decisions based on logic or their feel, rely more on intuition or direct sensoric perception, and whether they are more on judging or percieving approach to things happen).</p>

<p>All of these "preferences" are fit into the "consciousness model" in the way, in which you can understand the appearance or behavior of a certain "type" by looking what are the dominating preferences (feeling against thinking, sensoric perception against intuition, judging vs percieving).</p>

<p>For a comprehensive overview, see the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator">wikipedia article on the MBTI</a>.
Go <a href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/">here</a> for another discussion of the MBTI.</p>

<h3>Questions</h3>

<ul>
<li>Does the MBTI have a fundamental background? </li>
<li>Were there any scientific experiments conducted?</li>
<li>Are there any "type" theories that are based on actual brain research?</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-07T16:20:26.423Z
Can you expand your question to summarize the key aspects of the theory (to make the question self-contained and to teach readers something from just seeing the question) or at least [add a link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator)?
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-08T21:11:06.440Z
Well, in terms of results the MBTI may be one of the better instruments out there and it has been used in various research. But as to if human personality really is made up of 16 personality types..... nope.
user189
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-09T23:11:37.687Z
Well, the question was: do we have some strong evidence of MBTI dealing with underlying brain structure, or it's just some applied stuff, making no value in understanding human mind. The fact this question was up by itself means that there are some interesting ideas/results provided by MBTI)
Vasily Sochinsky
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-16T02:35:04.537Z
For a recent follow up on popularity and comparison to other personality theories, there is [this new question](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/1546/29).
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-17T13:20:49.323Z
Suggested corrections: "analyse"->"decide",  "their feel"->"value-judgements" "direct sensoric perception"->"sensory impressions", "approach to things happen"->"as their externalized function"
please delete me
<social-psychology><personality><measurement><jung>
Is the Myer Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) a reasonable scientific theory?
Vasily Sochinsky
# Is the Myer Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) a reasonable scientific theory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-07-07)

**Background:**
MBTI stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It's a theory that suggests that people can be divided into 16 types, based on the way they percieve and analyse information (whether they make decisions based on logic or their feel, rely more on intuition or direct sensoric perception, and whether they are more on judging or percieving approach to things happen).

All of these "preferences" are fit into the "consciousness model" in the way, in which you can understand the appearance or behavior of a certain "type" by looking what are the dominating preferences (feeling against thinking, sensoric perception against intuition, judging vs percieving).

For a comprehensive overview, see the [wikipedia article on the MBTI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator).
Go [here](http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/) for another discussion of the MBTI.

### Questions

* Does the MBTI have a fundamental background?
* Were there any scientific experiments conducted?
* Are there any "type" theories that are based on actual brain research?

**Tags:** social-psychology, personality, measurement, jung

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you expand your question to summarize the key aspects of the theory (to make the question self-contained and to teach readers something from just seeing the question) or at least [add a link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator)?  
> **username_2**: Well, in terms of results the MBTI may be one of the better instruments out there and it has been used in various research. But as to if human personality really is made up of 16 personality types..... nope.  
> **username_0**: Well, the question was: do we have some strong evidence of MBTI dealing with underlying brain structure, or it's just some applied stuff, making no value in understanding human mind. The fact this question was up by itself means that there are some interesting ideas/results provided by MBTI)  
> **username_1**: For a recent follow up on popularity and comparison to other personality theories, there is [this new question](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/1546/29).  
> **username_3**: Suggested corrections: "analyse"->"decide",  "their feel"->"value-judgements" "direct sensoric perception"->"sensory impressions", "approach to things happen"->"as their externalized function"  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2012-07-08. Score: 19 | Accepted answer

From what I remember, the MBTI has been compared in some studies to the Big Five (or OCEAN) model of personality. If you've not heard of it, the Big Five is the primary theory of personality that is accepted by researchers who do this sort of thing. Here are some papers comparing the two approaches:

[Recent comparison](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2003/00000031/00000006/art00005?token=005513de50867232d45232b46245a6a43573a794c23773568293c6c567e504f58762f46c67436faaaf597 "recent comparison") and [another](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000335).

The main point is that a number of the MBTI traits are correlated with the Big Five traits, though the MBTI can be criticised for various reasons (e.g., it's binary approach to personality). I think from what I remember is that the main criticism revolves around the fact that the MBTI has no place for neuroticism whereas the Big Five does.

That should be enough to get you started (e.g., reading their intro and seeing where this has been cited). There's also a somewhat useful infographic available [here](http://www.usefulcharts.com/psychology/big-five-personality-traits.html).

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: The binary approach of the MBTI is its chief weakness, and likewise one of the strengths of the Five Factor Model is that it assigns individual scores to personality factors rather than dichotomising them. Personality is normally distributed - that is, on the spectrum from introversion to extroversion, most people will be ambiverts with some proportion at either end. Putting people into one of two groups on some given factor is not a useful way to measure personality.  
> **username_4**: @username_12 MBTI isn't a binary approach. Although it indicates the type that is favored, all of the texts that I've read indicate that it's only a preference. It's recognized that, in different situations, people will rely on types other than their preference. It also doesn't indicate the strength of preference.  
> **username_10**: @ThomasOwens: The type that is favored **is binary** for any of the four dichotomies. There is no third possibility. BTW, it may not be invalid to say that nobody is exactly neutral, but it's a waste of information to not even score a person's likelihood of the binary preference based on the amount of evidence supporting one over the other.  
> **username_11**: The "Big Five" has plenty of criticisms itself, not the least of which is that the five traits are not orthogonal, which calls into question the very idea that it is a useful model of personality.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-07-22. Score: 8

The MBTI is based on Carl Jung's work with psychological types. However, Jung's work led to the formation of analytic psychology. This work is often associated with clinical observations and anecdotes instead of controlled scientific study. This means that Jung didn't carry out research that can be considered conclusive and scientifically validated. However, I'm not sure if any of his theories can be or have been supported by research done by other people.

That said, the purpose of the MBTI is not to be a scientific theory. Going back to its history, it was meant to determine jobs that would be most suitable for women entering the workforce in the United States during World War II. It's assumed that the person taking the assessment is answering the questions honestly. Also, the MBTI results don't indicate ability or aptitude, but preferences. The MBTI has been used by human resource departments and managers to gain some high level insights into their staff and potential methods for structuring organizations and leading teams. Employees have also used the MBTI for determining possible career directions that they might be more likely to have a preference for.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: It's been used often, yes, but what permits you to say they "gain some high level insights into their staff and potential methods for structuring organizations and leading teams"? Sounds a bit marketing-speak for my ears and as far as I know the MBTI is not particularly useful in an organizational psych. setting, just widespread.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 Some organizations have employees take the MBTI survey and include the results in their records. Managers can use the results to interact more efficiently with their staff by knowing what their MBTI types are. For example, a manager might schedule more frequent (and perhaps shorter) 1-on-1 meetings with extroverts than introverts, who would have less frequent 1-on-1 meetings only when there is something meaningful to discuss. The other type indicators might help in career development, promotion, or identifying potential conflicts or synergies in members of a project team.  
> **username_5**: They might. They might not. I'm saying I haven't heard that it actually improves company outcomes or teamwork. If it did, I'd probably have heard, considering how good they are at marketing their product. I think it's mainly used because people like the type descriptions they get due to the Forer effect.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-10-09. Score: 5

Absolutely not. And, unlike claimed in other answers, it's about as based on Carl Jung as me whistling out of tune would be "work based on Mozart."

The MBTI was "developed" by a "psychic medium" who read books on Jung and spoke to him twice, much to his chagrin. He later actively avoided her. Furthermore, Jung himself cautioned against using his Personality Types as anything but a foundation for research, as the book and his further writings were based on anecdotes and clinical observation, not research in the scientific sense. He, himself, called it "Eine filosofische Excursio", "a philosophical trip".

The MBTI is an overly simplified pop-sci attempt at a personality inventory. Its type descriptions are written in the form of [Barnum texts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect), texts that most people might find applicable to them. It is assessed through self-evaluation and strongly skewed by the expectations of those who take it. This, too, makes those Barnum Texts stronger ("Do you think often?" "Yes" "You're a thinker" "Wow, you're sooo accurate in your assessment of me").

Since the test is also binary ("Do you like Apples?" doesn't lead to a conclusion about how much someone likes Bananas) and does not control for socialised or pathological answers, it is hopelessly useless.

* Saunders, F. W. Katherine and Isabel: Mother’s Light, Daughter’s Journey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991
* Stricker and Ross (1962). Also: Stricker, L. J. & J. Ross. “An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian personality Typology.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 (1964), pp. 62-71.
* Carskadon, T. G. “Clinical and Counseling Aspects of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Review.” Research in Psychological Type, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1979a), pp. 2-31.
* Sipps, G. J., R. A. Alexander, and L. Friedt. “Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1985), pp. 789-796.
* Dickson, D. H. and I. W. Kelly. “‘The Barnum Effect’ in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature.” Psychological Reports, Vol. 57, No. 2 (1985), pp. 367-382.
* Auerbach, E. “Not Your Type, But Right for the Job.” The Wall Street
  Journal, January 6, 1992, editorial, p. 11.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: There is much claimed in this answer. Do you have any references to support your claims?  
> **username_6**: @mfloren: happily. Added.  
> **username_8**: Much appreciated! If I may, which of these focuses on the lack of relationship to Carl Jung's work?  
> **username_7**: This is a curiously unscientific way of saying that it is not a reasonable scientific theory.  
> **username_6**: @mfloren - I am sorry, I just now saw this. The focus, because it's the "main selling point" of the MTBI for some reason. Its proponents go so far as to call Mayers a "student of Jung", which is about as accurate as calling me a student of Ekman's or Dickson, because I've read their books. Saunders, F. W. Katherine and Isabel discuss this at length.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-07-17. Score: 1

> Does the MBTI have a fundamental background?

Yes. It is based on Jung's work, later published as Psychological Types (Collected Works, Book 6). Katherine Briggs, Isabel Myer's mother, did the initial work via communication with Jung. Like Jung, she had different theories at first, but dropped them when she heard of Jung's research on the subject. She developed the Attitude Type and four functions into a consistent theory (further than Jung did, at least at first). She also added the external function indicator as she was focused on getting jobs for women, and the externalized function was seen to be a major component. Its importance was shown even more strongly by Keirsey's work on Temperament Theory.

> Were there any scientific experiments conducted?

If by "scientific" you mean objective, verifiable tests, the answer is no. Currently, at least, that is impossible, being the perception of the Attitude Type and functions are subjective.


---

