YouTube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JN6_K6ALeZI
Previous: Are Violent Video Games Bad For You?
Next: Does IQ Really Measure How Smart You Are?

Categories

Statistics

View count:254,679
Likes:10,297
Dislikes:247
Comments:990
Duration:05:56
Uploaded:2017-04-27
Last sync:2018-05-06 15:30
Like most quizzes on the internet, personality tests aren't what you would call "reliable."

Hosted by: Brit Garner
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters—we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Kevin Bealer, Mark Terrio-Cameron, KatieMarie Magnone, Patrick Merrithew, Charles Southerland, Fatima Iqbal, Benny, Kyle Anderson, Tim Curwick, Scott Satovsky Jr, Will and Sonja Marple, Philippe von Bergen, Bella Nash, Bryce Daifuku, Chris Peters, Patrick D. Ashmore, Charles George, Bader AlGhamdi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow
Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com
Instagram: http://instagram.com/thescishow
----------
Sources:
http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/manuscript/guides/Myers.htm
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED191869.pdf
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
http://annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014920639602200103
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014920639602200103
http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Forer_The%20fallacy%20of%20personal%20validation_1949.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796770900690
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2189/asqu.51.1.1
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/20447534_Reinterpreting_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator_From_the_Perspective_of_the_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality/links/00b49515b9ad847e86000000.pdf
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/11149/Trapmann_Hell_Hirn_Schuler_MA_Big_5_2007.pdf?sequence=1
http://jwalkonline.org/docs/Grad%20Classes/Fall%2007/Org%20Psy/big%205%20and%20job%20perf.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimitri_Linden/publication/222636187_The_General_Factor_of_Personality_A_meta-analysis_of_Big_Five_intercorrelations_and_a_criterion-related_validity_study/links/09e4150a29be01d96f000000.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886903004422
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://cnx.org/contents/Sr8Ev5Og@5.75:YJjSZ1SS@5/What-Is-Personality
----------
Images:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CGJung.jpg

 Introduction


(00:00) "What type of sandwich are you? Which fast food chain? What piece of furniture best represents you as a person?" These are all real quizzes on the Internet. They're fun, but most people know not to take them too seriously.

 MBTI


(00:14) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI test, is a different story. It's probably the most popular personality test on the Internet, and it claims to tell you your personality type. If anyone's ever told you that "You're such an INFJ" or whatever, that's [an example of] the MBTI.

(00:30) People tend to take the results of that test more seriously because, for a while, a lot of psychologists took it seriously too. But for decades, we've known that there are other and better ways of measure personality traits, because those four-letter personality types don't mean very much.

(00:44) Psychologists define your personality as your characteristic:


  1. Thoughts

  2. Emotional responses

  3. Behaviours


A lot of them study personality by looking at the individual traits that people have: the parts of personality that seem to be stable over time and apply in different contexts.

(01:00) Back in the 1940s, Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, who were both interested in psychology research, tried to measure personality by identifying traits like this. One trait they tested was whether people wre extroverted or introverted, which to them meant whether you were focused on the outside world or focused on yourself, respectively.

(01:18) They also asked whether people preferred to trust their senses as opposed to relying on their intuition/gut feelings, whether they approach the world by thinking (meaning logical reasoning) or by feeling (meaning that they were more subjective), and finally, whether they were judging (meaning they preferred to come to conclusions about things) or perceiving (meaning they were open to new information). 

(01:38) Myers and Briggs picked these four traits because they were inspired by well-known psychologist Carl Jung. He developed these ideas from working with patients, but didn't really test the ideas in a scientific way. Myers and Briggs wanted to create a test that applied those ideas so people can learn about different personality types and understand their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviours based on their personality type.

(01:58) The test would assign you one trait from each pair so there were 16 possible personality types you could have. These days, if you take a Myers-Briggs test online, you'll probably get a result like "Congratulations! You're an INTJ! This means that you're vision-oriented, quietly innovative, insightful, ..." and so on. It might even tell you what kind of career you're suited for, or what personality type you should look for in a life partner.

 Reliability and Validity


(02:20) But what those tests are telling you is about as scientific as what kind of sandwich you are. When psychologists measure anything, they want their measurements to be both reliable and valid. Retest reliability means if you give people the same tests over time, they'll get a similar score. There's also internal consistency reliability, which means that psychologists want to measure one thing at a time. You don't want questions about personality mixing with questions about, say, intelligence. 

(02:51) Validity means that the test should have something to do with real life. For example: if I know your test result, can I predict what you'll do? Does your type help me figure out whether you'll go to a party or stay home?

(03:02) The MBTI shows room for improvement in all of these. First, it's not especially reliable. A major study showed that after a five week gap between tests, half of the subjects got a new type on the second time. However, reliability does improve if using a numeric score instead of a category, e.g. "56% extroverted" vs "you're an extrovert". That's because most people aren't extreme extroverts or introverts; they're somewhere in the middle.

(03:27) If a test forces you into one category or the other, it's really easy for all those people in the middle to switch sides. It has some problems with internal consistency too. For example: the MBTI treats thinking and feeling as opposites. But in other tests, people are more likely to be good at both, rather than one or the other.

(03:44) When it comes to validity, the evidence is mixed. The MBTI can predict how people answer other questionnaires, but it's not very good at predicting what they'll do in real-life situations. Again, it works better if you get a numeric score instead of just a category. So that's part of the problem: there's a spectrum when it comes to personality traits.

 Big Five Personality Traits


(04:02) But a bigger issue is that most of the traits the MBTI looks at just aren't good choices. In most people, these traits tend to change in different situations. In the past few decades, researchers have developed new and better ways of looking at personality that solve some of the issues with Myers-Briggs. Instead of just relying on theory, they started from the ground up: asking people hundreds of questions and coming up with key, consistent personality traits based on those answers.

(04:27) Lots of different research teams independently landed on the same five personality traits, which are now called the Big Five:



  1. Openness to new experiences

  2. Conscientiousness

  3. Extraversion

  4. Agreeableness

  5. Neuroticism


Personality tests that measure where you fall on the spectrum of each of these traits tend to have much better reliability and validity than the MBTI. The results are consistent and much better at predicting what you'll do in a real-life situation.

(04:52) Personality researchers have been relying on the Big Five for years. If you're looking for a scientific, evidence-based personality test, that's the one to take. The Big Five won't assign you an actual personality "type" though. It just tells you about the individual aspects of your personality, which researchers use to learn how people with different levels of certain traits or combinations of traits might think, feel, and behave.

(05:15) Even the best personality tests aren't the last word on what people are like, though. There are lots of different factors that affect what goes on in our brains; researchers are always finding new connections. But one thing is for sure: your MBTI personality type doesn't actually say very much about you, no matter how popular the test is.

 Outro


(05:33) Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych, which was brought to you by our patrons on Patreon. If you wanna help support this show, just go to patreon.com/scishow. And don't forget to go to youtube.com/scishowpsych and subscribe.