Scan barcode
bittersweet_symphony's review against another edition
3.0
Sure, it covers some strange (and fascinating) history, but The Personality Brokers failed to deliver a worthwhile critique of the Myers-Briggs that I was hoping for.
To Emre's credit, she identifies two fatal flaws in the theory behind this popular personality test. Its creators were adamant that personality is an unchanging thing: defying the reality that personality can only be understood in cultural or social contexts, spaces that relative or relational (my commentary, not Emre's). What is considered "aggressive" in one culture, or even one social setting, might be deemed "strong" or even "tempered" in another. Not only does personality manifest differently across environments, it can also modify with time. This is a HUGE flaw in the theory. Yet, it doesn't necessarily undermine the utility of the test.
Their theory of personality undermines the MBTI because it's biggest critics—those who tend to slip toward scientism—have shown that it doesn't hold up very well to validity testing (people occasional get different results). That's only a problem if one asserts that personality is unchanging. The problem is less with the test and more with our (or Isabel and Katherine's) understanding of personality.
People have general resting places, patterns of behavior that group together a whole bunch of traits. If we can discern another person's personality type, we are far more likely to have successful interactions with one another. This is one of the major benefits of the MBTI.
Second, Isabel and Katherine operate from the theoretical notion that their test is able to well predict which type of job or role in society a person should have. This is largely why it became so ubiquitous throughout universities and across corporate America in the latter part of the past century. I understand these criticisms as well. I'm not sure the MBTI is very helpful on that front other.
What disappointed me the most with this history is that Emre doesn't explore the real benefits people find in the test (or the ways in which it is used among laypeople). As I mentioned above, it provides a fairly easy-to-understand framework for getting at a rough sketch for how other people orient in the world. It makes for a helpful heuristic in knowing how to adjust one's behavior or expectations based on another person's type. If I can discern that my friend is an extravert, and I adjust my expectations around that, I can more easily come up with social strategies for meeting their social needs while balancing my own needs as an introvert.
The MBTI is a helpful tool for better understanding oneself, others, and how to navigate the social landscape in a more fruitful way—no more, no less.
To Emre's credit, she identifies two fatal flaws in the theory behind this popular personality test. Its creators were adamant that personality is an unchanging thing: defying the reality that personality can only be understood in cultural or social contexts, spaces that relative or relational (my commentary, not Emre's). What is considered "aggressive" in one culture, or even one social setting, might be deemed "strong" or even "tempered" in another. Not only does personality manifest differently across environments, it can also modify with time. This is a HUGE flaw in the theory. Yet, it doesn't necessarily undermine the utility of the test.
Their theory of personality undermines the MBTI because it's biggest critics—those who tend to slip toward scientism—have shown that it doesn't hold up very well to validity testing (people occasional get different results). That's only a problem if one asserts that personality is unchanging. The problem is less with the test and more with our (or Isabel and Katherine's) understanding of personality.
People have general resting places, patterns of behavior that group together a whole bunch of traits. If we can discern another person's personality type, we are far more likely to have successful interactions with one another. This is one of the major benefits of the MBTI.
Second, Isabel and Katherine operate from the theoretical notion that their test is able to well predict which type of job or role in society a person should have. This is largely why it became so ubiquitous throughout universities and across corporate America in the latter part of the past century. I understand these criticisms as well. I'm not sure the MBTI is very helpful on that front other.
What disappointed me the most with this history is that Emre doesn't explore the real benefits people find in the test (or the ways in which it is used among laypeople). As I mentioned above, it provides a fairly easy-to-understand framework for getting at a rough sketch for how other people orient in the world. It makes for a helpful heuristic in knowing how to adjust one's behavior or expectations based on another person's type. If I can discern that my friend is an extravert, and I adjust my expectations around that, I can more easily come up with social strategies for meeting their social needs while balancing my own needs as an introvert.
The MBTI is a helpful tool for better understanding oneself, others, and how to navigate the social landscape in a more fruitful way—no more, no less.
adventurouspotato's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
it was not super interesting to me cause i hate biographies, but it was written in an engaging way that kept me reading
roseleaf24's review against another edition
3.0
This book covers the history of the Myers-Briggs Personality inventory. There are many fascinating nuggets here, but the book really bogged down in the middle. It's not as simple to brush off as the click bait articles about its amateur beginnings would have you believe, and I'm left feeling as I do about most personality descriptors: don't allow them to limit you, but if you feel like they describe you, find the benefit in that. I wish that the author had had a little bit more religious knowledge. Both women involved in the creation of the test were religious, but I was left confused about where there religious mind was rooted, so I didn't get the insight I feel like I should have gotten from this.