vaznetti: (working)
vaznetti ([personal profile] vaznetti) wrote2004-09-18 09:26 pm
Entry tags:

Personality in disorder

There's an article in this week's New Yorker on personality assessment, and it reminded me of some of the thought's I'd had while watching the "50 things" meme going around. One of the sets of five facts, if I recall correctly, were to be "about your core personality." Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if I even have one of those.

The problem came up last time I looked at the MBTI test*; I read through the questions and most of the time the only answers I had were "Yes and No," or "Sometimes." It's not that I have a poorly defined personality, or feel that I don't know who I am; it's just that my answers to most of the questions on the test depend on the context. For example, in many social contexts I hang back rather than push to the center of whatever's going on. But the career I've chosen also means that I spend time talking to a large audience--in that context, I not only demand to be the center of attention, but also enjoy it. Other answers depend on whether I'm answering with my teaching personality, my researcher personality or my fannish personality: all of these are "the real me" in some sense. Part of me likes to work on well-defined projects with regular assessment from others; another part of me wants to be left alone to play with a few big questions. I don't feel particularly fragmented or unstable; on the contrary, I think I have a very clear sense of who I am. I just can't answer most of the MBTI questions.

The New Yorker article had some interesting things to say about the origins of the MBTI test, which confirmed my suspicion that it was more or less claptrap. Don't get me wrong: I love personality tests. They feed a kind of self-centered urge to examine my own navel for clues that it is, in fact, the most interesting navel in the world.** And there's the nice sense of categorization, of membership in a group: "Oh," you can say, "You're an INTJ too? Obviously we're meant to be the very best of friends." It's a useful token in interpersonal relationships--a form of self-identification. So is saying "I'm a Dunnett fan," or "I adore crazy Uncle Arvin," or "I read poetry for pleasure"--and I wonder if those aren't more valid forms of self-identification. At least I know that all three statements are true. None of them, alas, have much to do with a core personality, whatever that may be.***




* The Myers-Briggs Type Index test--it's the thing that tells you if you're INTP or EsFJ or whatever, and also what that means.

** I'd love to be psychoanalyzed, for just that reason; luckily I lack the necessary money and possess the sense to know that it would be a waste of the analyst's time.

*** The article is Malcom Gladwell, "Personality Plus." The New Yorker, Sept. 20 2004, pp. 42-48. It doesn't seem to be available on line.

[identity profile] voleuse.livejournal.com 2004-09-18 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
But...but...if I'm not really INTP, who am I?

::world falls apart::

[identity profile] leadensky.livejournal.com 2004-09-18 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
As I heard it, the main reason MB is dodgy is that it was written by a pair of introverts who relied upon *thought experiments* to determine what extroverts did and thought, but did not do *research* to determine what extroverts *actually* did.

Which, as an introvert, I can completely see the reason why they did that (I mean, really, why go *talking* to people if you don't have to, especially extroverts who'll talk your ear off and never actually say any thing) but as a science type I pretty much have to give it a thumbs down.

Extremely kewl, though. *sorts navel lint collection*

- hossgal

[identity profile] deslea.livejournal.com 2004-09-18 07:43 pm (UTC)(link)
*giggles* Everyone was into Myers-Briggs at the seminary. It was, like, the Self-Actualised Functional Healthy Ministry model of the early 1990s. I freely admit to little knowledge of it - its prevalence alone turned me off wanting to know more - but I pretty much thought the way people used it (to run around thinking they understood themselves or others better because they had a box for them) was stupid.

I think that any "box" model of looking at people, whether it's Myers-Briggs or astrology or Chinese Year Of The [x] or New Age aura colours or whatever, can be useful as a piece of shorthand or an initial frame of reference. But it's just shorthand. It kind of worries me when people seem to think they have themselves figured out because they know now that they're an INTP Taurean Indigo child of the Year Of The Pig. It seems more like a cop-out than a tool to a more authentic self-understanding.

[identity profile] tir.livejournal.com 2004-09-18 08:27 pm (UTC)(link)
There are a bunch of different tests and classification systems that are argued over and researched. Many of them hold up pretty well under empirical scrutiny, which, thankfully, is the standard these days. I'm not particularly attached to any one system or another, myself, but I can say that the MBTI isn't taken too seriously by anyone I know. It's been pretty widely embraced by pop psych, and it has its usefulness as a set of concepts and as a clinical tool, but you wouldn't catch me using it in a study.

[identity profile] aceofkittens.livejournal.com 2004-09-18 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
[livejournal.com profile] toastmantom's dad is really into Myers/Briggs. :)

But what is this 50 Facts test you're talking about?

[identity profile] fourteenlines.livejournal.com 2004-09-19 01:20 am (UTC)(link)
I used to think Myers-Briggs was complete bunk, until I took it - as a parlor game, of course, at my roommate's bridal shower actually - and I literally started to squirm in my chair because the damn description of the INFJ was so very dead-on. (Which, I mean, it even said that INFJs would be uncomfortable having it read aloud.)

So it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about myself - or particularly illumine my interpersonal relationships - but it was kind of freaky to find out that it actually works sometimes. Others that night were not so sucessful. I think it's an interesting experiment, at least. But I agree, it doesn't really tell you anything profound or enlightening. (It was a bit of a shocker to learn that I'm not quite as inscrutable as I'd hoped. *g*) Other personality tests I've taken have been hilariously inaccurate - and even reading the "other" options, they've all pretty much been inaccurate for me on the whole, so it wasn't a matter of getting the "wrong one."

I vaguely remember that taking the Myers-Briggs test was...annoying. Because like you said, so much depends on the context. I think perhaps that's why nearly the same questions are repeated over and over again, which gets old faster than milk left out on the counter in July.

[identity profile] fourteenlines.livejournal.com 2004-09-19 07:08 pm (UTC)(link)
And I have my doubts about the way the test is used as pop currency, if you see what I mean.

Yeah, I do. While my "results" may mean something to me, they don't necessarily tell you anything about other people, which is what everyone assumes. I mean, one of my most Extrovert friends often prefers to stay at home and play computer games. So.

[identity profile] veejane.livejournal.com 2004-09-19 06:20 am (UTC)(link)
I will say, there are parts of personality psychology that aren't total nonsense. (Really!) But they tend to be larger patterns of things like coping, how you respond to stress, how you handle your anger in personal situations.

(Personality disorders are called personality disorders because they persist over the lifetime; I'm not 100% convinced that the descriptions of narcissism are as evidence-based as the behavior criteria, but it's a powerful thing to point to a person and say "Narcissist.")

The funny part is the Five Factors model of personality is not actually all that different from MBTI -- except that Five Factors is not designed to give people a label, just scores on five different scales. (I'm not sure how useful it is as a tool, but at least it's harder to mis-use.)

Once, on an internet personality quiz, I was told I was a Secret Mastermind, like Cobra Commander or the evil hand guy on Inspector Gadget. I think that is about the level on which one should appreciate your standard personality-label test.

[identity profile] sophia-helix.livejournal.com 2004-09-20 04:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I like hearing about personality tests being debunked because I can never get a straight answer from those stupid things. I'm immensely introverted, but also hugely talkative and social. I love abstraction and esoteric things, but I have a big soft mushy heart and admire absolute compassion and forgiveness. I love reading about things; I probably do better hands-on. Etc. I'm basically 45/55 on just about every axis, and so either I'm nuts, or the tests are. *g*

And this is coming from someone whose Personality seminar was her favorite part of her psychology degree! (But probably only because the professor never advocated a theroy, merely took us through about 14 different approaches to personality throughout the seminar without ever expressing a single prefence. I am an omnibus.)

.m