To the editors:

I am surprised and chagrined at the ill-informed presentation of personality tests in Malcolm Gladwell’s article (September 20).  Mr. Gladwell clearly has no expertise in this area and is in no position to pass judgment on the various tests he discusses, let alone on the accuracy of the views expressed in Annie Murphy Paul’s book, “Cult of Personality,” which he accepts without question. I am especially concerned about the major errors and misrepresentations regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the most widely used instrument for assessing normal, healthy personality differences.   As co-author of the third edition of the MBTI Manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), and author of many other works on this instrument, I must correct at least a few of the many errors contained in the article.            </>

Both Gladwell and Ms. Paul fail to differentiate between gross misuses of the MBTI and its appropriate uses, perhaps because neither has bothered to seek readily available information.  Similarly, they misrepresent the MBTI’s history, purposes, test characteristics, and long standing as a personality assessment tool. They also fail to point out that, unlike the MMPI or the TAT, which are designed to identify pathology or unconscious psychological “complexes,” the MBTI identifies equally healthy, adaptive, but opposite ways of using our minds, the four pairs of opposites mentioned (but poorly defined) in Gladwell’s article.  Further, the MBTI elicits a person’s preference (not skill or ability) for one of each of these pairs of opposites.  For example, “Sensing” and “Intuition” are the opposite ways of perceiving (gathering information). As a person who prefers Intuition, I automatically look for patterns and meanings in most situations, rather than attending to facts, details, and concrete reality (a Sensing approach).  But my preference for Intuition in no way prevents me from using Sensing when the situation requires it, for example when preparing a financial statement or driving through traffic. I am most comfortable and energized when I can freely use my Intuition and I don’t especially enjoy doing most of the Sensing tasks that someone who prefers Sensing would relish—but I can and do use Sensing when necessary. Sensing and all the other less-preferred parts of my personality are available to me. In fact, type theory asserts that all eight parts of one’s personality type are necessary to adaptively conduct our lives.  We cannot function adaptively by using only four preferred parts.

Gladwell, like many lay people and even professionals, also  erroneously assumes that the MBTI can or should be able to identify the type that are more or less successful at different kinds of jobs.  In fact, the MBTI only identifies types that are likely to be attracted to or avoid certain careers, work activities, ways of learning, and so on.  There is no evidence nor is any claim made that some types excel or do poorly at particular jobs.  Some types do predominate in certain careers (because people tend to seek situations that allow them to use their minds in preferred ways), but every one of the sixteen types can be found in most or all career and work settings. Different types may approach their work differently, however, and may have different sources of satisfaction.            </>

Rather than being concerned about whether he will come out to be the same type if he took the MBTI again (accurate data on the very acceptable reliability or consistency of the MBTI can be easily found in the 1998 MBTI Manual), Gladwell  should be legitimately concerned about whether his reported results (INTJ) accurately describe him or not.  Did he read a detailed type description of INTJ? Did a professional interpreter explain the MBTI to him and ask him to verify the accuracy of the results? Did he have access to type descriptions of all sixteen types to help him understand how he may be similar to or different from other people? Was he encouraged to identify the ways in which he may be uniquely different from other people who share his type? Unfortunately, many people who take the MBTI are given little or no information about it and little opportunity to judge whether their results are accurate, or how knowledge of their type might be of use to them.

Myers called her instrument an “Indicator” and not a “test” because she carefully constructed and validated it to “indicate” one’s likely type. She knew that personality is too complex to expect any set of questions to be accurate for everyone all of the time!  Therefore, Myers insisted that MBTI results be given directly to the person answering the questions.  She trusted people’s knowledge of themselves in answering the questions and in judging the accuracy of the results. She developed the MBTI to enhance people’s lives, not limit their choices or stereotype them.  It is ironic that for many years Myers was reluctant to publish her instrument (she started developing it in the 1940’s) for fear it would be misused and harm people.  Gladwell’s and Paul’s misunderstandings of Jung, type theory, and the MBTI are the most recent confirmation of Myers’ fears.

Naomi L. Quenk, Ph.D.