CHAPTER 6
EVALUATING THE MBTI NETWORK

As a psychological instrument available in the marketplace, and in terms of books and articles written either about it or using it, the MBTI can be considered to be successful. It is currently claimed by its publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press, to be the “most widely used and reliable normal personality inventory in history” (CPP,1994;p7) . The instrument itself has been translated into many languages and used in many cultures, notably Japan. Applications of the MBTI are found in areas such as career counselling, education, leadership, management and teamwork activities as well as in the general religious sphere. A large number of dissertations, books and journal articles have either been written on, or have used the MBTI . The Association for Psychological Type (APT), formed in 1979, boasts over 4500 members
internationally, with similar, associated organisations in Australia, New Zealand and England. APT also publishes a research journal in the Journal for Psychological Type out of the University of Mississippi . The MBTI can certainly be seen as a success, given this activity.
Notwithstanding this interest and activity however, the MBTI seems not to be highly regarded in the field of psychology in general. Discussion about personality in academic journals and psychology texts rarely gives space to Jung or the MBTI as a relevant consideration. A recent upsurge of interest in personality and its quantification has led researchers to theories and instruments other than psychological type and the MBTI . As we have seen, in the science and profession of psychology, the MBTI and Jung’s type theory has had an extremely ambivalent reception, sometimes amounting to hostility, often simply being ignored or rejected as “unscientific”. Preference has therefore been given to other means of describing personality that meet stated “scientific” criteria to the extent that it is rare to see either Jung or the MBTI as a considered part of texts discussing psychology in general or personality or personality tests in particular . As with all actor-networks, not all those contacted by the MBTI network become allies.
The MBTI network also does not seem to have captured sufficient mainstream influence and allies in the professional psychological field, in particular that of academic psychology. Universities significant in its development seem to be predominantly State Universities (e.g. Michigan, Florida, Mississippi) and located in the South and Mid-West of the United States . Its adherents are often in unrelated professions and consequently with concerns ultimately different to those of academic psychology and the often abstruse psychometric issues .The
MBTI network therefore overlaps into this professional field, but appears not to be an influentially significant part of it.
If the MBTI can be considered to be successful in terms of popularity and use, why this somewhat truncated network ? As mentioned earlier, an important aspect of an actor-network is the individual choice available to potential actors or allies to either take up an idea or adapt it for their own purposes. The variety of applications and uses of the MBTI is evidence of this, as well as ongoing discussion on its ethical and professional use. So people professionally rejecting the MBTI can say they don’t see a use for it that meets their needs, or in a context where the MBTI and psychological type might be used, other methods or appropaches are preferred. The MBTI in this sense has not succeeded in becoming indispensable.
There may also be queries about the black boxes surrounding the MBTI, in particular Jung’s type theory. Jung’s theory can be an issue which inhibits other allies, never having become part of mainstream psychological thought, and research in personality not generally being considered fruitful. As explained earlier, Jung’s typology, in particular at the time of its initial presentation and development, was not seen as useful by psychologists in general. His apparent inconsistency in his writings as he developed his typology have made it easier to criticise, even given some uncertainty whether critics are aware of, or have read and comprehended available and relevant material . In the writings supporting the MBTI, this inconsistency in theory and approach has continued, notably in discussing the more complex parts of the typology in the dynamics and development of type preferences .
Different approaches mean that people can, indeed must, examine the theory, thus continually opening the black box. Furthermore, because the MBTI is an attempt to quantify a complex systematic theory, which includes this dynamic and developmental view of personality, it is difficult to portray completely in a two-dimensional format (a form and a scoresheet) which exemplifies linear `cause-and-effect’ logic. Given the background of the development of psychological instruments as presented above, this would seem to be a difficulty for the broader expansion of the MBTI network.
The MBTI is also different to other psychological instruments in the meaning of its scores. It is not intended to be a simple quantifying measure of Jung’s typology where the numbers indicate a strength or depth (a trait approach to personality), but rather a device to sort people into 16 typological categories. Score results indicate clarity of preference, not level of use, or how much or how little of a preference a person may have. Also, the MBTI, as its title implies, is an indicator of preferences; the individual completing the instrument is the final arbiter on what type preference they may have . This flexibility means that, even though the MBTI is constructed to meet general psychometric criteria on reliability and validity , a feedback session of the results of the MBTI with the person who completed the instrument, recommended as mandatory with its application, can result in identification with a different type preference to that indicated by the scored results .
A useful comparison can be made here between the MBTI and the MMPI. The two psychological instruments share a similar current success , a similar timeframe in their origin and development, and a similar aim of usefulness, but have many interesting differences. The MMPI takes a clinical view of personality, was developed within a University (Minnesota) with institutional funding and was deliberately not based on theory. Its key developer, Starke Hathaway “stressed pragmatic operationalism rather than psychometric complexity” and he reportedly ignored both the scientific method and “much of the contemporary research literature on psychological testing” (Buchanan,1992;p77). The MMPI as it is available today was slowly developed in an incremental form, borrowing for adaptation items from available
material, including the Humm-Wadsworth. (p78).The MMPI experienced initial difficulties in acceptance and application, to which it was pragmatically adapted, including its initially unfavourable Mid-West origins . Its success as an instrument can be attributed to meeting the needs of potential users and it promotion through its developing network. This was predominantly through use in other settings by University of Minnesota alumni, who promoted the ‘Minnesota Way’ as well as the ability of the MMPI to “be taught as a coherent set of procedures, backed by a cumulative body of accessible technical knowledge” (p176).
The points of difference here in the absence of theory identifiable with the MMPI, its meeting a general need and its regular network with transportable method and backup material make the MMPI network more robust in terms of transportable artifacts and immutable mobiles and the consequent resilience of its black box. In addition to inconsistency in reviews, use and application, an MBTI user has to look outside the conventional streams of technical literature on personality for much important material . This need can limit its facility as well as increase the chances of its black box being questioned and opened.
There are also other issues here, relating to how humans are seen and valued in the MBTI context. The MBTI postulates individual differences in personality and says that this is good; it’s good to be “you” and this is what is “normal”. This is different to other, more clinical approaches to personality (e.g.Eysenck and Wilson 1975;Gellner,1985) that often come from a deficit model (i.e.you’ve got too much of this and not enough of that) that focuses on neuroses and also posits one aggregate norm for individual personality to be judged against. There are no such norms for the MBTI, because the types it indicates and postulates are not found in equal numbers, according to research undertaken. Accordingly, only suggested frequencies of occurrence of different types in the American population are available, rather than definitive percentages . For those who place a high value on norms as defined in this way therefore, the MBTI is not useful at all and its black box is once again questioned. This will continue to be the case while disparate views on personality predominate in both public and private spheres. Interestingly enough, some contemporary scientific research on the self and personality appear to be closer to Jung’s and Myers’ view on the nature of personality, notwithstanding MBTI not being specifically mentioned (Ornstein 1993; Kagan 1989) . So there are a number of reasons to open the black boxes surrounding the MBTI: Jung; the theory; the structure; the results of the MBTI. This makes the MBTI black box more of a grey box and so less liable to effective translation in actor-network terms .
Another aspect of the MBTI is that of being a psychological instrument. These artifacts have a rather chequered history in terms of human rights, particularly in the contexts of IQ, institutionalisation and educational assessment (Buchanan,1992;Gould,1992;Hanson,1993). The MBTI has been criticised on this basis even from a Jungian viewpoint (Spoto,1989) and there are many examples of its misuse against the principles espoused by Isabel Myers of the
benefit of and respect for individual differences in various settings, particularly in business, but also by psychologists . Interestingly, Isabel Myers, if alive today, would not be able to purchase the MBTI, an instrument she spent much of her life developing, as she would not be
a qualified professional to which attributes of competence in this area have become attached.
The above two statements indicate that to some extent, the MBTI network has been captured by a group of professionals, i.e psychologists, that are able to control the distribution and use of an instrument that they don’t necessarily want to use . A question must also be raised in this instance as to whether a separate MBTI network would survive or maintain its current extent in the unlikely event of the acceptance of the MBTI and its accompanying theory and structural rationale as being a part of mainstream American psychology. In the meantime, the contemporary situation is another example of actors in a network (i.e. psychologists) using ideas and methods as they see fit, and of the influence of competing and overlapping networks, inside and outside professional boundaries.
The actor network has provided an insight into scientific activity in examining the origin and development of a psychological instrument called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in particular the interacting influence of the networks of Jung, American society and American psychology, the work of Isabel Myers and the influence of her family network. The results of this examination suggest that an understanding of scientific activity in terms of an actor network, with its overlapping attempts at ordering and influencing and its situating of science as part of society is useful and realistic. Furthermore, the data gathered suggests that the conventional perception of a monolithic, objective approach to science and the scientific method, separate from considerations of history, society or culture does not provide a useful, or accurate perspective in understanding the origin and development MBTI as a psychological
instrument intended to implement C.G.Jung’s theory of psychological types.

Next

Thesis Index

Peter Geyer TYPE TRAINING AND COACHING

Peter Geyer
TYPE TRAINING AND COACHING