Why Psychologists Side-Eye the Myers-Briggs
Despite its popularity in workplaces, coaching circles, and personality quiz culture, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is often met with quiet skepticism—or outright laughter—by psychologists.
As a licensed psychologist working in high-stakes forensic settings, I’m frequently asked why tools like the MBTI aren’t used in clinical or legal evaluations. The answer is simple: because they’re not valid, reliable, or grounded in the kind of evidence-based methodology we require when people’s lives, freedoms, or well-being are on the line.
Let’s unpack why the MBTI, while marketable and appealing, doesn’t pass scientific muster.
Fails Basic Psychometric Standards
Any psychological tool worth its salt must demonstrate reliability (consistent results over time) and validity (that it actually measures what it claims to measure). The MBTI struggles on both fronts:
Poor test-retest reliability: Up to 50% of users receive a different personality type within weeks of retaking the test (Pittenger, 2005).
Questionable predictive validity: MBTI scores don’t meaningfully predict job performance, clinical outcomes, or interpersonal compatibility (Boyle, 1995).
Based on Outdated Theory
The MBTI is rooted in Carl Jung’s early typology theory, which—while historically interesting—was never empirically validated. The instrument forces people into binary categories (e.g., introvert or extrovert) when personality traits are best understood on a spectrum.
This oversimplification may be user-friendly, but it misrepresents the richness of human behavior. Psychology has long since evolved past Jung’s typology in favor of dimensional, research-driven models.
No Clinical or Forensic Utility
You won’t find the MBTI used in psychological treatment planning, risk assessments, or court-ordered forensic evaluations. It has no diagnostic relevance, no utility in legal settings, and isn’t referenced in the DSM-5-TR or any validated psychiatric framework.
In short: it’s not a tool any practicing psychologist would use in high-stakes, evidence-based contexts.
A Better Model: The Big Five
In contrast to the MBTI, the Five Factor Model (FFM)—also known as the Big Five—is a gold standard in personality research. It’s empirically validated, widely replicated across cultures, and offers a nuanced, dimensional approach to personality assessment.
The five core traits are:
Openness to Experience – creativity, intellectual curiosity
Conscientiousness – organization, reliability, discipline
Extraversion – sociability, assertiveness, energy
Agreeableness – empathy, cooperation, warmth
Neuroticism – emotional instability, anxiety, reactivity
The Big Five traits are:
Highly stable over time, with predictable developmental shifts
Correlated with real-world outcomes like job performance, relationship quality, and even physical health (Roberts et al., 2007)
Backed by robust psychometric tools, such as the NEO-PI-R, BFI-2, and IPIP
This model reflects the reality of personality as something fluid, multifaceted, and measurable—not static boxes or flattering labels.
The Appeal of MBTI: Astrology with a Lab Coat
So why does the MBTI remain so popular?
Because it’s easy. Because it’s flattering. Because it gives people neat, digestible descriptions of themselves that feel insightful—kind of like reading a well-written horoscope.
But popularity doesn’t equal scientific credibility. As many psychologists joke, the MBTI is best understood as “astrology with a lab coat.” It may be entertaining, but it’s not a serious tool for understanding personality in any meaningful way.
A Note on Psychological Literacy
The continued cultural reliance on tools like the MBTI underscores a bigger issue: the gap between psychological science and public understanding. As professionals, we have a responsibility to close that gap—by speaking out when popular concepts misrepresent our field, and by sharing what actually works.
Promoting psychological literacy means pushing back on pseudoscience, even when it’s wrapped in professional branding and used by Fortune 500 companies. Because when it comes to understanding human behavior, evidence matters.
References
Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050069508258995
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
