What Role Does Personality Play in Belief/Skepticism?

Actually, there’s a thread about the Myers-Briggs test in the forum. I tested as INTJ. Most of the other people who posted over on the forum were either INTJ or INTP.

I’m probably a bit out of the ordinary here as a skeptical ENFP. But, then, I freely admit that the first time I seriously considered the possibility that God *didn’t* exist, it rocked my world. Once I got over feeling lonely (nothing like having a second Person watching your every stinkin’ move), I realized that accountability to me and only me was way better than any “woo” religion or the paranormal could offer.

My husband is an INTP, and has been skeptical since childhood — the kid the Sunday School teachers asked to not return.

Now, my father? Totally typical ESTJ complete with a love for “how it’s always been done.” I don’t think he’s even willing to question his faith, lest he realize that god isn’t there.

I have tested ISTP before, and just did again. At least I’m consistent.

It seems to me that any kind of personality inventory, with generalized categories, would not fit anyone that well on everything. Indeed, one of the posters on the fora mentions a Wikipedia article (not the end-all, be-all of sources, I know) that summarizes questions as to the authority of the Myers-Briggs test. They seem fairly convincing.

Reading those criticisms (variations in personality type depending upon time of day and number of times taken), it seems like the Myers-Briggs inventory is more of a behavior test than a personality test. It makes me wonder whether modern psychology can create an inventory based on behavioral and neurological psychology that more accurately portrays the range and detail of someone’s personality.

Edit: Oh, and I consider myself a skeptic, and I tested ENFP: Extraverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving. Though I was weak on the feeling/perceiving and especially weak on the extraverted, I was VERY strong on the intuitive aspect.

How about we start with the issue that Myers-Briggs test are garbage in the first place and prove absolutely nothing whatsoever?

The people who made the test (MBTI) had no scientific qualifications at all in psychometric testing. They also were neither psychologists nor social scientists. It’s also based on a non scientific theory by Carl Jung (personality typing) using methods that have been rejected by modern day psychology.

Many psychologist to this day do not like MBTI regardless how much it’s been tinkered with since it’s inception. I think it’s a bad idea anyway. Nothing more than another pigeonhole idea for use by employers and other institutions.

The whole idea is totally base on a false premise in the first place. There is no correlation between MBTI and skepticism or belief because the MBTI doesn’t exist in the first place! So no stress.

You could say that the MBTI is nothing more than another belief system, if it makes you happy. 🙂

This is just my two cents worth.

I’ve always come up “INFP” which is sometimes referred to as “healer” and it describes me far more than marginally well, it’s generally spot on. One or two things were different from me, but the things that were the most common among the tests that I’d taken, that were consistent, were all totally me, and I did always come up to be INFP/Healer more than anything else.

Indeed, one of the posters on the fora mentions a Wikipedia article (not the end-all, be-all of sources, I know) that summarizes questions as to the authority of the Myers-Briggs test.

The best way to approach the authority is to assume that it has absolutely none. That is, if someone is using it as a component of a hiring process, say, they’re using it wrong. And if someone is treating it like astrology, they’re probably getting results just as invalid as they would with star signs.

On the other hand, there’s something to be said for it philosophically (in my opinion), as long as you just take it as an indicator of general trends. Also beneficial is the introduction of an X to indicate a trait too weak to label well, which takes care of most of the behavior-related fluctuation. The biggest problem I’ve found is that the (E/I)STJ labels end up describing such a large percentage of the population as to make the labels meaningless.

Also of note: if you look at almost any book on cold reading, you’ll come across this in the first couple of chapters. So, the people who do that sort of thing seem to think it’s a reliable first approximation of personality type, or at least worthy of consideration.

I’m a little wary of using this kind of test to learn much about individuals. All personality correlations are statistical; they’re not reliable when applied to small sample sizes (ie oneself).

I tested INTJ, with N being the strongest. Hey, that makes me the same as you, Mike!

All this talk about personalities, and no one’s mentioned the stereotypical skeptical personality. Skeptics sort of get a raw deal in pop culture, because in a fictional setting it doesn’t really make sense to be skeptical. The stereotype is that skeptics are unemotional, close-minded, etc. (anyone want to add more?) I’m not sure where that fits in the Myers-Briggs types. Is this stereotype reflected in real life?

ai ai ai…… I think there is definitely a correlation between personality types and worldviews, but I can’t think of a worse way to look at than through Myers-Briggs glasses. It’s ok as a party game but useless as a predictor or generator of any useful knowledge.

Every single time I have taken it, the results change – it flip-flops on everything but the T. Not that that result is unexpected – my response to most of the questions is almost always ‘it depends’, and since the answer has to be yes or no, which I pick is mostly about how they phrased it or how I’m feeling.

I took it twice at two different sites this evening – one said ESTJ, the other said INTP. How am I supposed to think it’s measuring anything real and doing it accurately with those results?

It was an interesting study, I just wish they had based it on something more legitimate.

From reading the comments, it sounds to me like there could eb an interesting study done on one’s response to Myers-Briggs testing given one’s results to the Myers-Briggs test!

I’m an ESTJ; I’m borderline introverted and not at all intuitive (which can sometimes get me into trouble). For the record, I’m also a theist.

This is what I got on the test you linked to:

INTJ
Introverted 67 Intuitive 62 Thinking 88 Judging 22

But I’m distrustful of these tests. To what degree do things like the Forer Effect bias the results? And can we expect people to reliably know the answer to the questions on the test? A lot of these “personality” tests seem to assume a high level of self-knowledge in people which I tend to think is not safe to assume. People will very often give the answer they think they should give rather than the one that most accurately describes themselves.

Also, the article you linked to seems to take it for granted that the correlations support the idea that personality determines belief. But why couldn’t the causation be the other way around? To what degree does belief determine personality? If authoritarianism is associated with certain personality types, should we conclude that in Nazi Germany certain personality types became ascendant, or that the inculcation of fascist ideology caused people to adopt personalities more amenable to authoritarianism? How flexible is personality?

INTP

I always find these online tests interesting. INTP is supposed to be relatively rare in the general population, yet we’re massively overrepresented in many online communities. Talk about your self-selection bias!

The one question that these studies always raise in my mind is about free will. What does it say if we are born with a personality trait that make us much less or more likely to accept religious claims, and what does it say to those who believe that our faith (or lack of faith) will affect us in the afterlife?

Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging

Same as last month.

You have to consider the fact that you will get a very bizarre sample on a blog. I’m an INTJ, like many of the respondents here. INTJ is one of the least common types, but on the internet we are much better represented.

Also, it’s tempting to use Myers-Briggs as a pigeonholing tool (even for pigeonholing yourself). It’s best to not use your type as a crutch (or as something that explains everything), but learn also to understand and think like the other types so you can relate better.

INFJ, although I have also tested INTJ. Once you learn how the test works, you can make it come out however you want though. 🙂

I don’t think this test has any “authority” per se, but it does touch a cord with many people and I think there is some validity to the outcomes matching how people perceive themselves as well as how others perceive them.

If I ever have time, I want to write about this on Skepchick. I really love the Myers-Briggs stuff and Jungian psychology and I know the skepchick readers will just have a cow complaining how my ideas are not skeptical enough. Heck, I know that. But I do love to kick up the dust.

I remember taking this test back in high school. My English teacher was obsessed with this kind of thing. I remember testing as INTJ back then.

When I took it now, I scored as an INTP. My percentages were I=100%, N=50%, T=100% and P=11%. So I may be more Perceiving now, but not strongly so.

I guess I’ve changed (matured?) some in the last decade.

I’ve been INTP for several years now. I score very strongly on the former two and very weakly on the latter two (I sometimes score INFJ depending on my mood). Almost straddling the line between NT/NF may have something to do with my being agnostic instead of atheist/theist.

That’s interesting that ECers are frequently NT/NF…

I took the test years ago and I believe I was an INFP. I don’t know how well that fits in personality-wise with being a skeptic, which I strongly identify with.

Looking over the profile of an INFP, a lot of it fits me perfectly. Except that I am not and never have been a perfectionist or control freak – quite the opposite, actually! 😉

Also, given that I (and many others here) were religious and now are not, I don’t know how much personality type could affect belief.

It’s interesting to see that no two skeptics are created equal. How can you even draw conclusions on the reliability or the validity of the instrument without taking the official test?

Obviously, the reliability of the results here will be in question, given the fact that the majority did not take the recommended test. When I get my on-line account set up, I’ll let Hemant or Mike know, and maybe we can all do it again as a group. It will cost me, but I’ll see what I can afford. I’m really curious. My motto is… if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing better. Maybe we can sell our research to the MBTI people. (hehe)

FYI, I found an interesting study (Mitchell-1981) in the manual which analyzed correlations with factor scores derived from other psychological instruments (FIRO-B, SCII, EPPS, and WVI). Mitchell cautioned against generalizing, but preferences and types significantly associated with each factor were: (I’m only listing a few.)

– Happy family (harmonious interpersonal relationships with pleasant material surroundings): Highest types – ESFJ, ISFP, ISFJ & ESFP; Lowest types – ENTP. (wow…that’s me!) 🙁 (thus the caution against generalizing.)

– Variety and challenge (latitude to work creatively on intellectually stimulating problems): Highest type was ENTP; Lowest types – ISFJ & ISFP.

– Achievement within the system (orientation toward climbing the corporate ladder): Highest type – ESTJ; Lowest type – ESFP, ESTP & ENFP. (The highest six types are all Judging types; the lowest six are all Perceiving types.)

– Visible autonomy (free expression of views even when at odds with the social milieu): Highest types – ESTP, INTP & ENTP; Lowest types – ISTJ & ISFJ.

I think the last one will be of some interest to the people here. 🙂

INTP. Very I and T, a moderately N and P.

It seems INTP and INTJ are fairly popular here. We should do a poll or something just to find out.

Although I do share the concerns of an earlier poster about whether or not these categories and the test even adequately capture what we’re trying to measure in a meaningful way. I guess it’s a fun little exercise anyway.

INTJ – or, as I prefer, “Rational Mastermind”

Muahahaha!

“Skeptics also tend to have a greater internal locus of control (belief that they control the events in their lives) than those who believe in psi…. This is consistent with a stronger motivation for control by skeptics or possibly with less belief in supernatural influences.”

Stronger motivation for control? Wtf? I don’t think either skepticism or woo is about controlling others. I think it’s more likely that people tend to turn to psi stuff when they feel like their lives are out of control, as reassurance that magic will make everything all right. It’s not about being a control freak, it’s about feeling like you’re running your own life.

By the way, I’m INTP. I believed in God as a child at about the imaginary-friend level, and I thought I might have telepathic powers. But I grew out of that.

Thank you, Salient, for your comments.

When I read the portions of the article re skeptics “need for control,” and the “obvious fact that the deep hostility of some extreme skeptics indicates an irrational prejudice that needs explanation”, I had a major wtf moment.

As far as I can tell, the article appears to be little more than boosterism for fans of parapsychology.

Does anyone here know what sort of reputation the “Journal of Parapsychology” has within any legitimate academic or professional community?

I mean, the question posed regarding the role of personality or modes of interpreting and interacting with the world vis a vis tendencies toward skepticism is interesting.

But I don’t see any reason to think that the authors know wtf they are talking about.

Most of the time I test INTJ.

Yes, I teach mathematics. 🙂

MTran,

Does anyone here know what sort of reputation the “Journal of Parapsychology” has within any legitimate academic or professional community?

Yeah, it has a (well-deserved) reputation for hucksterism, bias, wishful thinking, quackery and ignorance of the scientific method. I didn’t realize that the initial posting linked to such a disreputable source.

It’s the academic equivalent of linking to an astrological horoscope or a woman’s magazine personality quiz – entertaining at best, but not educational.

Linda,

I stand by my first response – variations like this seriously undermine issues of free will as it relates to salvation. There are more obvious cases, but this is much more wide-spread.

The problem with the parapsychology work is that they mesh fantasy with reality seamlessly so they’re useless as a source. You must filter it yourself, so each article can only confirm your views which is a very bad thing in an academic journal.

I see the journal source as indicative of research quality.

As been mentioned, it’s dubious whether the MBTI actually measures something that can meaningfully be called “personality.” There are two big issues: (1) Theoretically, it’s based on introspection and anecdote, which are unreliable. (2) Empirically, it claims that people fall into 16 discreet types, but this categorization is not supported by the evidence. Mainstream psychology views personality as a series of continuous traits, not dichotomous categories (i.e., normally distributed, not bimodally).

The appeal of the MBTI is magnified by our tendency to accept vague diagnoses as applying to ourselves (see the “Forer effect”).

The MBTI is likely measuring some sort of individual differences, but there are other, more accepted personality inventories (e.g., Costa and McCrae’s “Big Five” measures). Because the initial concept is muddy, the conclusions are unreliable.

First of all, type is different from trait. Type has to do with preference, and trait has to do with behavior. MBTI is not an instrument to diagnose anything, personality or otherwise. It is merely a self-awareness tool, and thus relies on introspection and self-validation. I don’t see that as a flaw. Who knows ourselves better than ourselves?

It also is not meant to be looked at as be-all and end-all to determining or categorizing our personalities. It is just one of many tools that are available to help us better understand ourselves and each other. I don’t see what all the negativism is about.

I thought the subject matter was worthy of discussion. *shrug*

it’s a pet peeve that much the public’s perceptions of psychology is the self-help, Dr. Phil kind of stuff that has little relation to what psychological researchers are doing

You mean, you guys can’t solve a lifetime’s worth of problems in half an hour?

Fascinating. I’m an INFP, and questioning my faith has been fairly traumatic. I was raised in an authoritarian tradition and have consistently become more and more liberal over the years, even while trying to resist it 😉

Justin, I don’t want to squelch your faith in your chosen profession, but, as a practicing ‘shrink’ I can assure you that neither Dr Phil nor experimental psychology have much relevance to the nitty gritty of human psychology. Dr Phil is essentially a showman who prostitutes psychology, and experimental psychology is limited by technical concerns and by ethics.

I suspect that those of you who have flucutated between F and T on the MBPI are either F/Ts whose most recent decision affected your responses, or Fs whose most recent decision affected your responses. Since our cognitive output is necessarily in the form of thought, people will likely overestimate the degree to which their decisions are based upon logic. It’s not that emotion is unimportant to most Ts, it’s just that logic will win out on most T decisions.

I think that what the MBPI attempts to measure is probably more relevant to questions of religiosity/atheism than are other ‘measures’ of personality. In say ‘attempts to measure’ merely because self-report can be biased.

It’s interesting that most respondents are IN__. We shouldn’t be surprised by this — who else would even visit this blog? The ES__s are probably attending parties, visiting family, shopping, in the kitchen, or in the workshop, etc.

Interestingly, and contrary to what some have suggested, the article states that a strong desire for control is actually more common among skeptics than among psi-believers.

Don’t misinterpret what the study claims. “Internal locus of control” which is characteristic of skeptics does not mean some sort of desire to control other people or events. It means that skeptics attribute the main causes of of events in their lives to themselves — they (we!) have control of (are responsible for) what happens to us. Someone with an external locus of control attributes the events of their lives to outside causation.

salient,

Oh, no need to worry about squelching my enthusiasm 🙂

Of course, experimental psychology is limited by ethical and methodological issues (e.g., you mentioned the problem of self-report). Every science has these types of limitations. Through the self-correcting process of scientific inquiry, we become better at eliminating these errors and generating real truth about how the mind works. If not the scientific method, then what’s the best way of discovering the “nitty gritty” of human psychology? How does that method separate truth from error?

Linda,

I do agree with you that MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) does not “measure” personality traits or behaviors. It is merely an instrument to sort our cognitive preferences to one side or the other. I think most people are confused as to the difference between type and trait.

Count me among the confused. Perhaps you could explain the difference between type and trait, and define “cognitive preference”? I don’t understand how they’re distinct from one another. If you did this in a previous post and I missed it, I apologise.

Linda said:

MBTI is widely used in the corporate world for organizational development and marketing. Why would companies spend so much money training their employees in the instrument if it is not proven to be somewhat reliable?

Linda, please forgive me when I say this sounds like a rather naive view of corporate decision making 😉 Have you seen the tv ads for Enzyte, the “Male Enhancement!” product? Enzyte is currently being prosecuted for fraud, yet they continue to run ads that essentially claim: “Could we make these sorts of offers if our product didn’t work?”

Yes, they can and they do.

Corporations make and use all sorts of products and services that do *not* do anything they are claimed to do. As for hiring decisions, corporations would rather find an easy work-around for effective hiring practices than take the time, money and effort to provide the sort of training the hiring supervisors need to do their jobs right. Whether the work-around is effective at its task is largely immaterial.

My experience with these sorts of things is that some jurisdictions make it legally problematic to use the MBTI (and other popular tests) for hiring purposes because they can be so easily misused. The federal American With Disabilities Act also places limits on such pre-employment testing (though they can be used after an offer to hire has been made if they are not used to revoke the decision). Most of the enterprises (private sector, government, and academic) with which I have been associated have made such tests “verboten” for hiring.

This is not to say that the tests are not useful for corporate development purposes once staff have been hired. There are all sorts of “effectiveness training” programs out there. But to a great extent, supervisors and staff will often report positive results for *any* corporate motivation or training program they are exposed to, sometimes to simply “get along” with management or because “it’s better than nothing.”

Hi, MTran!

Linda, please forgive me when I say this sounds like a rather naive view of corporate decision making

I’ll think about it! 😉 Actually, you are right. I usually don’t take the word of anyone at it’s face value. If I’m intrigued by anything, I try to find out for myself if it works. That’s why I attended the workshop to find out from the horse’s (MBTI people themselves) mouth what it’s all about. Nothing is without flaws, especially in psychology, but so far, I am of the opinion that it is a very good tool to be used for self-awareness and awareness of others.

As for hiring decisions, corporations would rather find an easy work-around for effective hiring practices than take the time, money and effort to provide the sort of training the hiring supervisors need to do their jobs right.

That would be an unethical use of the instrument. Not only that, anyone who has a basic knowledge of how the test works would be able to make the results come out any way they want. If I knew that they were using it for hiring, I would know exactly how to answer the questions on the test, depending on the job description. Not a good idea on the part of the employer.

Linda: “Interesting. If I were a therapist, I definitely would lean that way more so than the Freudian concepts.”

Happily, the conceptual choices aren’t limited to Freud and Jung! Freud’s description of defence mechanisms is useful, though. Most therapists are quite eclectic, and research indicates that experience rather than school-of-thought correlates with therapeutic outcome.

Yeah, SJs are probably more legalistic — interestingly I’ve had patients who range from homemakers through artists to PhDs, but no lawyers.

Justin: “If not the scientific method, then what’s the best way of discovering the “nitty gritty” of human psychology? How does that method separate truth from error?”

I meant the nitty gritty of human psychology as manifested in ‘psychiatric’ practice. I suppose that depends on what you mean by ‘scientific method’ and ‘truth’ — I merely meant that formal experimentation is not particularly applicable, in that experimental psychology provides information about generalized specifics. (You probably know what I mean — broad points in fine detail.) I’m not saying that experimental psychology is not fascinating in its own right, I’m merely speaking of its therapeutic utility.

As to ‘truth’, the point is process and understanding of the issues affecting each individual in their turn — therapeutic success suggests that the process has worked for whatever individual. Observation of process/outcome does approximate to generation and testing of hypotheses about mechanisms. It’s a huge topic — excuse me for not condensing it better.

MTran,

Linda, could you expand on your comments about distinguishing types from traits?

I’ll try. Like I told salient, I’m not an expert by any sense of the word. That said, the term type refers to our inborn preferences in the way we prefer to use our cognitive functions. Trait refers to the behavior patterns that can be observed. You can study type by observing and analyzing behavior traits.

For instance, if a person is left-handed and prefers to use their left hand, you cannot know this before observing their behavior. If the person is skilled at also using their right hand and shows the public their right-handed skills only, then there’s no way for the observer to know their left-handed preference.

You can study traits by observing the behaviors that are caused by those traits. You can draw conclusions based on your observations.

Type requires self-reflection, self-analysis, and self-validation in conjunction with the observable behavior patterns (traits).

Traits can be measured, diagnosed, and possibly modified; but types are inborn and can only be sorted. Awareness is the main objective in studying type.

Those are just my thoughts based on what I’ve been reading and learning.

I think that Salient is on to something with his point about cognitive styles being more indicative than personality types.

I’m not sure what is meant by “style”? Salient, are cognitive styles different than cognitive preferences?

Can either of you suggest any sites for learning more about your comments on these issues?

There are many links I could post, but since I can only post one, here is one that sums up Jung’s type theory pretty well.