MBTI Test Result Disparities

[IndigoSensor]

It's common knowledge within the MBTI community that there is no such thing as a 100% accurate test for determining ones type. The simple fact of the matter is it requires self inflection which requires a high level of processing to produce accurate results. It's a hard task. Nevertheless, there is enough satistical accuracy with MBTI testing to ground the theory and make it popular.

One thing that is common on here, is that there is always a minority of people on the forums here, who when encountering a new test, get very odd results, then often proclaim that "the test is broken". While this may be true for them (and in rare cases universally true), I don't think there are many cases where a test is truly "broken". It is simply "broken" for that individual. Why? Because their brains are wired differently then others. Wording, and questions asked are extremely important. They must be asked in the most object and clean way possible as to not impart bias for one particular answer. However this is a very difficult thing to produce. For one, the most common way to test is via external manifestation of the functions and letters. It's a easy litmus test. However asking "I am organized: yes/no" is not going to give an accurate result to everyone. There are a number of people out there who will think "what do you mean by organized? I am with some things, with some people, or on days like x y and z". To clear that test makers will often ask "My room and personal space is very organized". That narrows the question, and those individuals who could not feel confortable with answering the previous question, now can. However there are other individuals who will say "my room isn't organized, but I am ordered with everyone else". You might have fixed the problem with one person, but you created another for someone else.

The issue that remains now is how can you create a test which is accessable to everyone. The answer is you can't. MBTI does not tap every single aspect of ones personality, that is impossible to do. Thus many people within the same type, can get different results on different tests because they are wired differently on non-MBTI levels.

How might you fix this problem though? Large sample size. Many of us here are able to tell which tests are "good and bad" and thus either can regard, or disregard certain results. For me personally, I will test as an ISTJ on tests which word N/S and F/T questions off heavy ties to only reality/senses and only systems (little to do with people), while making N and F feel very disordered. This is simply how I would interpret those questions, and thus get skwed results. I avoid tests like that. I know it is further inaccurate through self inflection outside of tests, and the fact that I have a large sample size of INFJ results. Everyone needs to seek a pattern of test wording to decide which ones "work" and which ones don't. The way you are wired is going to determine that. Unfortonately, there is no way to quantify it here. I suspect there is several ways to do so, but I do not have the resources to do it.

I must point out though, that these disparities and anomolies within test results though, do lead to some deeper insight to ones personality. Just because I get ISTJ for one test, doesn't mean it has nothing to tell me. It has loads to tell me about how I think. This goes for everyone. Find the tests that "fit" for you and use that as a piece for determining your type, but don't completely disregard the strange results.

 

[middle1]

Fine Indy, I will read the damn INFP profile.

 

[Jonathan]

I totally agree with what youre saying. I've noticed that, too. I wish there was a test that asked more detailed questions that really narrow down the cognitive functions. The Keys2Cognition test that people seem to be taking is the most accurate one I've taken. That one 'fits' well for me.

I've noticed that once you understand and identify the functions you often use, you begin to notice them when you're testing yourself, and have a natural bias toward answering in favor of those functions. If you take the test hoping you come out as INFJ, you might answer "like an INFJ would" and if you don't recieve the desired result, it's easy to blame the test (which, as you said, in some cases is true). It just kind of bugs me when people come to conclusions about their type when they don't have a clear knowledge of the cognitive functions and won't even consider any other type. If you understand the functions, then it becomes easy to tell which tests are more or less accurate, and interperet why you got the result you did.

What I want to understand is: which aspects of the MBTI test aren't covered in the overall personality? How would you get people to look past upbringing, social expectations, personal goals, certain hobbies, quirks, or mannerisms, so that they can focus on the 8 cognitive functions in a pure and unbiased form? I think that if MBTI's measurement can't ever be infallible, it can at least be improved. Possibly with universal definitions of the functions (since there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings and disparities surrounding those, even on MBTI tests online), we can create tests that are more refined, less stereotypical, (separating personal variables from the universal definitions of the 8 functions), and that most people can take easily.