Myers-Briggs – a useless ponzi scheme?

Myers-Briggs is a multi-million dollar business, with over 2 million people taking the ‘test’ every year. Yet it may well be a complete waste of time, based on discarded 70 year-old theory, with no evidence that it is of any real practical use. In fact, there is evidence that it is wrong, stereotypes people and is therefore misleading, with no real predictive value.

Ponzi scheme?

No serious psychologist would use or recommend Myers Briggs but HR has a tendency to go for astrology-like fads, based on long-discarded theory, as it gives them ‘results’, some supposedly ‘real’ data to work with, despite the fact that this data is plainly unreliable. It is a form of groupthink, as with NLP, Maslow, Kirkpatrick and learning styles (Honey and Mumford VAK).

We have an explanation for the popularity of these tests – flattery. Measured through self-reporting, always a dangerous source of data, it takes advantage of the Forer Effect, where people yearn for answers to such a degree, that seem accurate, but are actually vague and general, applying to many people. Astrology, Tarot Card reading, NLP, learning styles and most other fake diagnostic tools use this effect to good effect, but it’s a trick, a con. To say it has the same gullible appeal and zero predictive power of Astrology turns out not to be just an idle quip. Case and Phillison (2004) trace the origins of the test back beyond Jung to Astrology during the Renaissance and earlier.

Another driver in HR, is the fact that HR professionals can make easy money. This is typical of schemes, such as NLP and the many 'learning styles' tests, that rely on selling the product by selling a personal franchise. In the case of Myers Briggs you pay $1700 to become a certified tester and then charge yourself out to administer the tests. Like NLP, you’re buying into the brand, a franchised Ponzi scheme. It's pyramid selling.

Discarded Jungian theory

As usual, there is long discarded theory behind the test, developed in 1940, from the work on psychological types by Carl Jung. The 16 ‘types’ used in the test are largely fictions. Jung’s ‘types’ are primitive, binary distinctions that start with a distinction he stole from Nietzsche – the 'Apollonian’ and ‘Dionysian’, redefined as ‘rational’ (split into thinking and feeling) and ‘irrational’ (split into sensation and intuition). Below this is a fundamental split into ‘introverts’ and ‘extroverts’. It’s a conceptual game that Marxists used in dialectical materialism and amateur HR therapists use when they bandy about mindfulness v mindlessness, wellness v illness, happiness v unhappiness. These binaries don’t exist in psychology, where traits are commonly exhibited along an axis, as contraries (like hot and cold related to temperature), as opposed to contradictories (true and false). This is a fundamental conceptual and logical error, ignoring a gradable spectrum for mutually exclusive opposites. Even Jung thought that these dualistic definitions were wrong but HR likes clear-cut ‘yes and no’ categories. It makes false theories seem much more convincing.

Evidence

The evidence is in no way ambiguous. There is no serious, peer-reviewed, control-study evidence that supports Myers Briggs. In fact, what evidence there is, shows the theory and test to be wrong. People who take the test repeatedly get different results (up to 50% get different results on second attempt), which destroys its validity. In a clever study by Carskadon and Cook (1982). where people were asked to compare profiles, their preferred profile and the actual MBTI test profile, only half picked the same profile. Its predictive power is also unproven, in fact misleading. Radically alternative models, such as the OCEAN model (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) have more empirical evidence to support their fit and predictive power but they are owned by no one and haven’t attracted any marketing muscle. It has The Hogan Personality Inventory and DiSC tests that use the Five Factor research.

In Pettinger’s study (1993), the test was put to the test but the lack of validation led them to conclude that,“A review of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenets of and claims about the utility of the test".

On a practical level, Kuipers et al. (2009) explored the relationship between MBTI profiles and team processes in 1,630 people, working in 156 teams, and found that MBTI profiles do not seem to predict team development very well. In a general review by the National Academy of Sciences (1991), MBTI research was scrutinized and concluded that there is "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counselling programs".

Myers and Briggs

So how did all this happen? Katherine Briggs and daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, neither of whom had any training in psychology, set out to design the test and worked with the HR manager of a local bank, Edward Hay. They took the basic Jungian distinctions, invented some new, more sellable terminology, played this 4-way splitting game and so was born, not so much a theory, as a business.

Like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, NLPs eye movements, Honey and Mumford’s four fictional learning styles, VAK learning styles or Kirkpatrick’s four Levels of evaluation, there is no evidential support, no data, no controlled studies but plenty of marketing.

Conclusion

There are dangerous consequences here. First the reputation damage for HR that seems to be forever stuck in a series of time-warp practices; second the wasted time and costs; third, the misleading recommendations, whether for recruitment, job roles, promotion, whatever. To shape people’s lives, with such a blunt instrument is to simply pigeon-hole and stereotype them into false positions or worse prop up the progress of some, arbitrarily at the expense of others. It is part of a wider therapeutic apporach to HR that allows amateurs, who give little or no thought to the validity of tools and techniques, to become 'certified' to look into the minds of others and make amateur diagnoses. The mindless behaviour here is in the unthinking process that allows so-called professionals to assume roles they are not qualified to hold. HR should be looking at its own idiosyncratic behaviour before pronouncing shoddy and unprofessional judgements on others.

Bibliography

Case P. and Phillipson G. (2004) Astrology, Alchemy and Retro-Organization Theory: An Astro-Genealogical Critique of the MBTI Organization July 2004 vol. 11 no. 4 473-495

Carskadon, TG and Cook, DD (1982). "Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type". Research in Psychological Type 5: 89–94.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types; or, The psychology of individuation. London: Paul, Trench, Trubner.

Kuipers B. S. et al. (2009) The Influence of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Profiles on Team Development Processes. Small Group Research vol. 40 no. 4 436-464

Pittenger DJ (1993) The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Winter 1993 vol. 63 no. 4 467-488

Appendix 1: Chart

Myers-Briggs (1897–1980, 1875–1968) – Jungian Ponzi scheme…

Katherine Briggs and daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, neither of whom had any training in psychology, set out to design their test and worked with the HR manager of a local bank, Edward Hay. They took the basic Jungian distinctions, invented some new, more sellable terminology, played this 4-way splitting game and so was born, not so much a theory, as a business.

Myers-Briggs is a multi-million dollar business, with millions taking the ‘test’ every year. Yet is based on discarded 70 year-old theory, with no evidence that it is of any real practical use. In fact, there is evidence that it is plainly wrong and misleading, with no real predictive value.

Discarded Jungian theory

There is a long discarded theory behind the test, developed in 1940, from the work on psychological types of Carl Jung. The 16 ‘types’ used in the test are largely fictions. Jung’s ‘types’ are primitive, binary distinctions that start with a distinction he stole from Nietzsche – the Apollonian’ and ‘Dionysian’ redefined as ‘rational’ (split into thinking & feeling) and ‘irrational’ (split into sensation & intuition). Below this is a fundamental split into ‘introverts’ and ‘extroverts’. It is a conceptual game that Marxists used in dialectical materialism and amateur HR therapists use when they bandy about mindfulness v mindlessness, wellness v illness, happiness v unhappiness. These binaries don’t exist in psychology, where traits are commonly exhibited along an axis, as contraries (like hot and cold related to temperature), as opposed to contradictories (true and false). This is a fundamental conceptual error, ignoring a gradable spectrum for mutually exclusive opposites. Even Jung thought that these dualistic definitions were wrong but HR likes clear-cut ‘yes and no’ categories. It makes false theories seem much more convincing.

Evidence

The evidence is in no way ambiguous. There is no serious, peer-reviewed, control-study evidence that supports Myers Briggs. In fact, what evidence there is, shows the theory and test to be wrong. People who take the test repeatedly get different results (up to 50% get different results on second attempt), which destroys its validity. In a clever study by Carskadon & Cook (1982), where people were asked to compare profiles, their preferred profile and the actual MBTI test profile, only half picked the same profile. Its predictive power is also unproven, in fact misleading. Alternative models, such as the OCEAN model (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) have more empirical evidence to support their fit and predictive power but they are owned by no one and haven’t attracted any marketing muscle. It has The Hogan Personality Inventory and DiSC tests that use the Five Factor research.

In Pettinger’s study (1993), the test was put to the test but the lack of validation led them to conclude that, “A review of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenets of and claims about the utility of the test.”

On a practical level, Kuipers et al. (2009) explored the relationship between MBTI profiles and team processes in 1,630 people working in 156 teams, and found that MBTI profiles do not predict team development well. In a general review by the National Academy of Sciences (1991), MBTI research was scrutinized and concluded that there is "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs".

Why are these tests so popular?

There is an explanation for the popularity of these tests – flattery. Measured through self-reporting, always a dangerous source of data, it takes advantage of the Forer Effect, where people yearn for answers that seem accurate but are actually vague and general, applying to many people. Astrology, Tarot Card reading, NLP, learning styles and most other fake diagnostic tools use this effect to good effect, but it is a trick, a con. To say it has the same gullible appeal and zero predictive power of Astrology turns out not to be more than an idle quip. Case & Phillison (2004) trace the origins of the test back beyond Jung to Astrology during the Renaissance and earlier.

Another driver in HR, is the fact that HR professionals can make easy money. This is typical of schemes, such as NLP and the many 'learning styles' tests, that rely on selling the product by selling a personal franchise. In the case of Myers Briggs you pay a substantial sum to become a certified tester and then charge yourself out to administer the tests. Like NLP, you’re buying into the brand.

Influence

There are dangerous consequences here. First the reputation damage for HR that seems to be forever stuck in a series of time-warp practices; second the wasted time and costs; third, the misleading recommendations, whether for recruitment, job roles, promotion, whatever. To shape people’s lives, with such a blunt instrument is to simply pigeon-hole and stereotype them into false positions or worse prop up the progress of some, arbitrarily at the expense of others. It's part of a wider therapeutic approach to HR that allows amateurs, who give little or no thought to the validity of tools and techniques, to become 'certified' to look into the minds of others and make amateur diagnoses. The mindless behaviour here is in the unthinking process that allows so-called professionals to assume roles they are not qualified to hold. HR should be looking at its own idiosyncratic behaviour before pronouncing shoddy and unprofessional judgments on others.

Bibliography

Case P. & Phillipson G. (2004) Astrology, Alchemy and Retro-Organization Theory: An Astro-Genealogical Critique of the MBTI Organization July 2004 vol. 11 no. 4 473-495

Carskadon, TG & Cook, DD (1982). "Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type". Research in Psychological Type 5: 89–94.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types; or, The psychology of individuation. London: Paul, Trench, Trubner.

Kuipers B. S. et al. (2009) The Influence of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Profiles on Team Development Processes. Small Group Research vol. 40 no. 4 436-464

Pittenger DJ (1993) The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Winter 1993 vol. 63 no. 4 467-488

Why so few women in 2500 years of learning theory?

In presenting my talk on 2500 years of learning theory and theorists, and my series of 260 learning theorists, a question  I often get asked is 'Where are the women?’ True, they are proportionally absent. This is not because of any conscious or unconscious exclusion on my part. The answer is stunningly simple. Women from the Greeks through the Middle Ages, up to the 20^th century were largely excluded, not only from being educators but also being educated. It is a extraordinary story of exclusion.

The dominance of religion and the fact that the dominant, global, religious leaders were all men, as were their zealot educators, meant that women were largely ignored as educators and theorists on learning throughout the Middle Ages. The Reformation certainly helped with its push towards universal schooling but the exclusion of women from the very structure of educational elites across many religions, still meant institutional exclusion. We still live with an antipathy, as we know, by certain religious factions, towards the education of women.

Renaissance

Even the Renaissance did little to improve the matter. Hypatia of Alexandria, a Neo-Platonist, is said to appear on Raphael’s School of Athens but there is an interesting backstory to her appearance. The funder, a Bishop asked, “Who is this woman in the middle?” “Hypatia, the most famous student of the School of Alexandria,” replied Raphael. “Remove her. Knowledge of her runs counter to the belief of the faithful! Otherwise, the work is acceptable,”. So he disguised her as the Pope’s nephew, Francesco Maria della Rovere I. The story, apocryphal or not, illustrates the Church’s antipathy towards women as educated intellectuals.

We had to wait until the Enlightenment to hear women’s voices. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) was certainly the most original and radical (see my views here). Her attack on Rousseau’s attitudes towards the education of women resulted in a well reasoned defence of the education of women alongside men, for the sake of their own intellectual autonomy, not as Rousseau claimed (see my views here), for the pleasure of men. However, even here, her recommendation that the poor be excluded at age nine, shows a less than generous spirit towards educational equality. Maria and her father Richard Edgeworth’s Practical Education was a deep and practical guide to education that recognised hte autonomy of the leaner but also emphasised practical education. Ada Lovelace can be added to these early thinkers having realised that computation was important.

The astounding fact is that women were almost entirely excluded from formal education, its institutions and even as teachers. This was cultural and legal with girls either excluded from the process of education or, if included, steered towards the domestic and social skills they needed as a wife and mother. The very notion of what it meant to be ‘educated’ was very much a male concern across two millennia. It was not until the 20^th century that a semblance of equality in education, opportunities in teaching and research became possible. Columbia University dod not admit women into undergraduate Degree courses until 1983!

The 20^th century saw drastic changes, politically in terms of the right of women but also in the world of learning. The post World War 1 era saw large numbers of teachers emerge after the carnage of the war. Universities, colleges and teaching were opened up to women, as were opportunities to get degrees and positions in higher education.

Maria Montessori (my views here) was one notable example of a woman who had a real, practical and long-lasting impact on schools and schooling from 1909 in her Montessori Method, which has open classrooms, a looser approach to teaching, more self-directed but still a strong emphasis on method and materials. Her methods certainly seemed to help Page and Brin of Google. Margaret Donaldson, who worked with Piaget and studied Vygotsky. Vicky Colbert was another who founded a schools movement in South America called Escuela Nueva.

We should not assume that just becuase a theorist is a woman, they are right. Katherine Briggs and daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, neither of whom had any training in psychology, set out to design their test and worked with the HR manager of a local bank, Edward Hay to take a smattering of Jung and turn it into a pyramid scheme. Rita Dunn and her husband Kenneth Dunn created a learning styles phenomenon in the 1970s. There are the psychoanalysts Anna Freud and Melanie Klein.

We had the pioneering study of racism from Mamie Clark, Elizabeth Bjork on memory, Judith Harris on personality, Carol Dweck on growth mindset,,

This struggle and the role of women in education is examined in detail by Jane Roland Martin (my view here), who saw the role of women in education as an unexamined topic. For the actual role of women in education across the ages she recommends we look not at established institutions but in more general literature and popular sources. She rightly states that the very concept of women, reflected in the academic bias in subjects, as opposed to the practical and vocational, the emphasis on schools, schooling and the ghettoisation of women into professions such as teaching and nursing. This wide set of perspectives was needed, she thought, in research into the role of women.

A heroine of mine is Jennie Lee, whose work literally created the Open University. A working class woman, daughter of a miner in Scotland, probable had more impact on Higher Education than any other person in the UK. Barbara Kellerman is a brilliant scholar on leadership.

In the psychology of learning I covered Elizabeth Bjork, Judith Harris and the fascinating group that included Gloria Gery, Victoria Marsick, Karen Watkins and Alison Rossett around informal learning and performance support. There are many others.

There's Mary Immordino-Yang, Lisa Feldman-Barrett on emotions and memory, with very different views. Judith Butler on queer theory and her arch critic Camille Paglia. Also Linda Darling-Hammond on teaching and schools.

More recently we have Jane Hart on learning tools, Ruth Clark on online learning and Daphe Koeller on MOOCs.

Online learning?

More recently, in online learning, one could also say, ‘Where are the women?’, especially on the technology side of the online learning delivery. This is to be explained by the dominance of male figures in the founding and building of large, dominant tech companies. The reasons for this are complex, even rooted in education itself, where girls are subtly discouraged from taking STEM subjects. On the non-technical, side of online learning it is very different, where both learning and online learning is much more gender balanced and there are many women experts and practitioners who are active on technology based learning.

There are few areas of human endeavour where women were so studiously excluded than in learning theory and practice. This was a process of deliberate exclusion but also because philosophical (Greeks), religious and even Enlightenment views, such as Rousseau, placed women in a secondary role. Even well into the 20^th century women had to fight for recognition and that fight is far from over.

Conclusion

I have written articles on 31 women who have played a significant role in learning theory and practice; Hypatia, Mary Wollstonecraft, Maria Edgeworth, Ada Lovelace, Maria Montessori, Margaret Donaldson, Vicky Colbert, Anna Freud, Melanie Klein, Linda Darling-Hammond, Isabel Myers, Katherine Briggs, Rita Dunn, Mamie Clark, Elizabeth Bjork, Judith Harris, Jane Roland Martin, Carol Dweck Gloria Gery, Victoria Marsick, Karen Watkins, Alison Rossett, Barbara Kellerman, Judith Butler, Camille Paglia, Mary Immordino-Yang, Lisa Feldman-Barrett, Jennie Lee and Jane Hart, Ruth Clark, Daphne Koeller.

What I have never done is claim this is an exhaustive or even representative list. I write about people I read, admire and sometimes do not admire. Many in this list remain largely unread and unknown to many. I have little time for Myer-Briggs and Feldman-Barrett's theory of emotions but it is important to include those who have been influential rather than just right. My real interest is in the nature of learning, not gender. Nevertheless, the story is definitely one of quite extreme exclusion and of interest in itself.

10 examples of how HR gets bored and turns to Ponzi schemes

HR gets bored with itself. It’s no fun doing pay and rations, with occasional lay offs and the restructure. They’re good people but they’re unloved. To keep life interesting, therefore, it’s useful to snatch whatever flying fad passes by and turn it into a Ponzi scheme. This is Charles Ponzi, the master. Take an exaggerated promise, don’t supply any evidence that your investment is in anything real, just promise that if you pass it on, you’ll get a cut. That’s precisely what much of what passes for training has been.

Ponzi 1: Leadership training

Your organisation lacks solid management skills, so you turn to a ‘leadership’ trainer or company to solve the problem. Problem is, the person leading that training has never led anything other than a workshop. What’s more the ‘Leadership’ theories are likely to have been picked up from a few airport paperbacks. You can, of course, earn top dollar, as it will have significant ‘impact’ on your organisation – impact that they never measure. Give them this sort of response…. if the impact is so significant, how do I measure it and can I pay you on results? Watch them lead a merry dance to the hills. I’m fine with solid management training. I’m not fine with the charade of leadership training. For a detailed, academic analysis see Leadership is BS by Jeffrey Pfeffer, from Stanford. It’s a Ponzi scheme based on an overpromise and the opportunity to charge more for something that used to be reasonable. (see more here)

Ponzi 2: McMindfulness

Mindfulness is the latest Ponzi scheme to hit the streets. Madeleine Bunting, ex-Guardian journalist and adviser to Government on said fad, clearly had an irony bypass when she said “there is a lot of anxiety within the mindfulness community.” That made me giggle. “Anyone can pop up and say they’re a mindfulness teacher” she continues, “a product to be bought and sold on the free market”. Hilariously she adds, “We have a wild west at the moment.” Yip. That’s exactly what it is. It was always thus. HR will adopt any old, fraudulent cult, if it allows them to become a trainer and charge fees. (see more here)

Ponzi 3: Learning Styles – no substance all style

Most teachers and trainers believe in them, despite the fact that they don’t exist. They are complete fictions, and there’s so many learning styles theories that it’s hard to pin them down. But pin them down Professor Frank Coffield did. His advice - don’t go near them as they a) don’t exist b) stereotype and distort learning. Perfect fodder, therefore, for HR professionals who want to charge for the training and questionnaires. This particular Ponzi scheme has been around ever since Fleming pumped his idiotic VAK system into schools and Honey and Mumford into L and D. (see more here)

Ponzi 4: NLP – no longer plausible

NLP ‘practitioners’ fleece other naïve HR managers, charging for what amounts to weak hypnotherapy. Founded by Bandler, a bounder involved in drug deals and the murder of a woman, it’s an evidence-free zone of parlour tricks. NLP ‘practitioners’ – those who have paid top dollar to get initiated into the cult’s secrets – then go on to charge top dollar down the line. Classic Ponzi. (see more here)

Ponzi 5: Myers Briggs

Myers-Briggs is perhaps the weirdest example. A mother and daughter, with no formal qualifications or backgrounds in psychology, read some Jung, misinterpret the archetypes and invent a test that has no evidential validity or predictive value. Then tens of thousands of HR and recruitment pros, get some training and sell it on. That, my friends, is what we call a Ponzi scheme. (see more here)

Ponzi 6: Compliance training

Sure companies need to have courses on ethics, health and safety, data protection, equal opportunities and so on. We have to do this stuff because the law demands it, say the pros. No, the law does NOT say that you have to deliver oodles of dull compliance training that has the opposite effect on employees, dulling them to the realities of their responsibilities. The evidence shows that it doesn’t work, the trainers bemoan the fact that it’s a waste of time. Managers complain that it’s pointless and learners loathe it. The perfect Ponzi, where useless stuff is bought, delivered and has no real effect on the organisation. (see more here)

Ponzi 7: Kirkpatrick

You know something’s wrong when Mr Kirkpatrick turns out to be the son of the real Mr Kirkpatrick, who didn’t so much research his evaluation schema, as launch it accidentally. That’s because it became, not so much a theory as a business. It’s a clumsy, old fossil of a theory that’s been around for over 50 years and not only well past its sell by date but actually holding any reasonable, business-focussed evaluation back. (see more here)
Ponzi 8: Emotional intelligence
EIQ does not exist. This is a typical, take a book (daniel Goleman - wh didn;t even invent hte phrase) , turn it into a course, and forget about research fad. Emotional Intellignece has been shown to be a hollow construct that actually takes traditional personality measures and turns it into a sellable book and training courses. Here's the bad news - it's almost worthless, a real Ponzi scheme. (see more here)
Ponzi 9: Maslow's hierarchy
A complete caricature of human nature, based on no research whatever, yet a staple in 'train the trainer' courses and lazy consultancy. Human nature is a not a pretty, coloured pyramid and this old shibboleth should be abandoned forthwith. (see more here)
Ponzi 10: Values
Ask your colleagues what organisational values they remember and watch them squirm. I have values and won't have some HR person telling me what my values should be, as I may leave this organisation, then some other HR bod will shove some stupid acronym or a list of abstract nouns at me and tell me that these are my new 'values'. Complete Ponzi scheme. (see more here)

Conclusion

I understand that this post may anger some people but I’ve witnessed this selling for decades. It’s not harmless, it’s harmful. It pushes the profession into tired old ruts and the loss of respect by other business managers, makes HR and L and D look like flakey fools.