About a year ago, my mom's group had a guest speaker who talked about Myers-Briggs personality types and parenting style. We each completed a MBTI questionnaire prior to the presentation and were provided with our personality profile. My personality type is INFJ -- Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging. Alternately described as a "protector" or a "counselor," for parenting this type is called the "Know Thyself" mother. I read over my INFJ parenting style description and was blown away by how accurate it was. "Probably no one takes life and child-raising more seriously than the INFJ," I read. "She approaches mothering as a profession requiring her best self." Well, geez. I reflected. Totally true. But, doesn't EVERYONE? In chatting with other moms in the group, though, I found no other INFJs. I have since learned that INFJ is the most rare of the 16 personality types, representing less than 1% of the population. That's right, loyal readers. I am practically an enigma.
My profile also described me as a listener. I did not, however, listen to the "Tips for INFJs." You see, the last part of the profile described INFJ weaknesses. Weaknesses, shneakmesses! Who wants to read about their weaknesses? Well, darn it if that Myers-Briggs didn't have me pegged. You see, today I was suddenly overwhelmed with being with others. Truly, I have no time to myself anymore. Well, except for that visit to the dentist in November . . . Ahh, memories. How lovely it was to lie on that reclining chair . . . but I digress. Back to today. I just could not take another moment of togetherness. "Although she is drawn to people," my profile reads, "the INFJ mother must remember that she needs time alone on a regular basis." Oops. Sensing calamity, David wisely suggested that I take a walk. I headed out into a cold, crisp afternoon, listening to a "This American Life" podcast, smiling like I had won the lottery. I splurged on a shot of vanilla in my latte and sat on a bench savoring this rare moment of peace. And I decided, I'm gonna do this more often. Thanks, Myers-Briggs.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi Sharon,
As always, I love the blog. I just have a quick comment relative to the Myers-Briggs test. FYI, Myers-Briggs isn't a validated personality test. It was created by a mother-daughter team with no training in personality assessment and it has never been independently verified (see the references below). Basically, there is no indication it actually measures personality and it isn't very reliable - take it twice and you'll generally get different results.
That said, there "probably" isn't anything wrong with using the test for entertainment purposes. It can be kind of fun. And if you use it to get yourself some "alone" time, that can't really be a bad thing, right? Just keep in mind that if you were to retake the test while in a different mood, you'd probably end up with a completely different typology and lose your "enigma" status. Just don't tell David, or no more alone time for you ;)
References:
Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0, p. 65.
McCrae, R R; Costa, P T (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1):17-40.
(see also the criticisms on the Wikipedia page)
Ryan,
Heck no, I'm not retaking it! I have no problem with invalid measures when they benefit me! Now, if David starts claiming that his MBTI prevents him from changing diapers, I'll be sending him straight to your references. Oh, wait . . . David doesn't change diapers . . .
Sharon
Uhhh... the MBTI *is* a validated personality test -- there are decades of research behind it. (That doesn't make it perfect -- it's only 70% accurate according to its own manual. So yes, you can get different results at different times. BUT qualified practitioners know there is only one best-fit pattern, and the good ones invite you to discover and name your pattern even before they give you back any "test" results. It's about trying to uncover one's innate pattern, which for some of us means learning a lot about how to identify the pattern withOUT using a test.
Isabel Briggs-Myers stated, "The purpose of the MBTI is to make the theory of psychological types by C.G. Jung practical and useful." The good news is that, while the MBTI is sometimes wrong, the model of thinking processes that informs it is VERY sound, and continues to be affirmed by other disciplines every day.
BTW, there's a great free resource you might enjoy at www.INFJ.com
Anonymous, I guess it depends on what you mean by "validated" - all of the "research" that claims to validate Myers-Briggs also happens to have been done by the same institution that sells the test. Can you say "conflict of interest"? (e.g., "Buy our product; we promise it works.")
There is, to my knowledge, one widely accepted personality test in the psychometric personality field to date: the MMPI or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. It measures the big 5 personality characteristics and has been validated by independent sources. It's also extremely reliable (better than 90% reliability).
The Myers-Briggs test has never been validated by independent researchers, has mediocre reliability at best, and isn't based on empirical research but Jung's speculation. Check either of the peer-reviewed publications I referenced in my earlier post. I'll download them and send them to you if you'd like.
It is worth noting that Myers-Briggs is far more popular than the MMPI and is widely used in business settings and regularly touted in magazines and on talk shows. But wide acceptance does not translate into support for validity (that's a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad populum"). Just because it's easy to interpret and popular doesn't mean it is worthwhile.
Wow! A DEBATE! On MY blog! I never thought my inane ramblings would inspire debate. How exciting!
Hi Sharon,
I was hoping this wouldn't be the result, but so it goes. At least you're excited about it :)
Ryan
Post a Comment