Presidential Candidates and the MBTI- a critique of a Slate.com article

It is that time of year again! The time of year when presidential candidates are analyzed based on their policies, beliefs, values…and their Myers-Briggs® type!

The first major article on this topic was written by Emily Yoffe on Feb 20th for Slate.com. Here is a link to the original article: http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/nav/tap3/

I want to be clear, that this blog post is purely based on my opinions and reactions to this particular article. I will not offer my own observations of the candidates or any sort of preference for a particular candidate. I want to focus on the ethical use of the MBTI® instrument and discuss the potential benefits and dangers of estimating the personality type of others.

As I read the article, I cringed more than a few times. First, the fact that Ms. Yoffe didn’t include analysis on ALL candidates who are still running for office made me question her motives. Instead, she only writes about the purported types of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Second, she says “Figuring the candidates wouldn't fill out their own questionnaires; I studied their biographies and came to my own conclusions.” Ironically, Hillary Clinton has disclosed that she previously took the MBTI® and she is an INTJ.

It is important to know that when asked, Ms. Yoffe did not answer whether or not she is qualified to administer the MBTI® assessment. This is an excerpt from the Q&A session she held in a chat room after the article was published:

La Plata, Md.: Ms. Yoffe, we're discussing your Slate piece on a separate discussion group, even as I type this, and the question has come up as to what your qualifications are for making these evaluations of these politicians against the MTBI "scale"? Earlier you pointed out that you felt this was "journalism," but you have not indicated whether or not you have any background in administering the MTBI, or even any psychological background that might influence where you place a person on the MTBI "scale." (We have a "trained MTBI administrator" participating in our group, and she has contended in the past that laymen often "misapply" personality traits on that scale.) All I can see is that you are applying what you've recently read about the MTBI. Do you have any other qualifications that might inform your judgments?
Emily Yoffe: Has your group come to different conclusions that I did about the personality types? There are 16 types, so everyone fits one of those types. I thought it was an interesting journalist project to see what made sense. Experts in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator write books and draw conclusions about famous people as to their type. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson did not take the MBTI, but he's clearly a INTP.

The Myers-Briggs® Type Indicator is a restricted tool. An individual must be qualified to use the assessment either through a background in administering assessments or through completing a training program and passing an exam offered by a Qualified Provider (to become qualified click here- http://www.cpp.com/content/qual_mbti.asp)

These qualifications are critical to the ethical use of the assessment. Due to the popularity of the assessment, CPP (the exclusive publisher of the MBTI® assessment) and the Myers-Briggs® Foundation will always have an uphill battle while protecting the ethics of the tool. There are literally hundreds of sites on the internet offering “free MBTI®-like” assessments. In addition, there are equally as many sites that incorrectly describe each of the 16 types. With the prevalence of incorrect information available to individuals, CPP, the Myers-Briggs® Foundation, and other advocates for the ethical use of the assessment must constantly battle these sources of misinformation. In my opinion, the article offered by Slate perpetuates this problem. Had Ms. Yoffe been a qualified practitioner who repeatedly mentioned that these hypotheses were based on HER OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS only, then I would have conceded that the article was interesting for the sake of discussion.

In addition, rather than stating that these hypotheses of personality type are just that- estimations, Ms. Yoffe appears to believe that she is infallible. This is her response to another question posted on a chat room:

Washington: This is a fun idea but I was disappointed to see that none of the candidates actually took the personality test. Doesn't that invalidate the entire story? Thanks.
Emily Yoffe: No! This is journalism—I know better than they do what type they are...

Yikes! For years, experts in the field of personality type have estimated the MBTI® types of celebrities or other political figures. Again, though, this is always in the interest of discussion and promoting understanding. When one “decides” that a person is a certain type- rather than keeping an open mind and constantly revising their hypothesis- they risk closing the communication loop and reducing understanding.

I believe this point is eloquently made by Gordon Lawrence in “People Types and Tiger Stripes”:
When we are trying to understand, influence, manage, or teach someone else, we often do not know the person's type. As soon as we learn type concepts, we see the value of estimating people's types so as to reach them better. Making a wild guess about someone's type is easy and fun, yet often inaccurate, and sometimes the guess seriously defeats its own purpose. If I make a wrong guess about a person's type and act as if it were a truth about the person, I may be increasing rather than closing the communication gap between us.
Accurately guessing someone's type is a skill that takes a long time to develop. Type concepts have been important in my life for over 20 years, and I am continually learning new ways to recognize characteristics of type, and correcting misconceptions I have been carrying. People who know type concepts well will tell you that the learning never ends.
When you do want to guess someone's type preferences, to improve communication between the two of you, treat your guess as a hypothesis to be checked out, then listen carefully and be ready to change your guess.

Another issue I have with the Slate.com article is Ms. Yoffe’s lack of explanation for preferences. In fact, in a search of the article, the word ”preference” was never mentioned a single time. The fact that personality type is based on preferences is a critical foundation for the MBTI® and Carl Jung’s theories. This is clearly abandoned by Ms. Yoffe. See her response to an INTJ alluding to the nature of preferences:

Arlington, Va.: You're attempting something very dangerous—you're psychoanalyzing from afar. I'm an INTJ, but I'm a powerful public speaker and a strong leader—because I have to be. If you watched me work, you never would guess I'm an INTJ. Any chance you've been fooled by the candidates?
Emily Yoffe: No, no chance whatsoever, because I'm an ENTP and I have strong intuitive powers! I agree you can't type someone based on a single encounter. But all three candidates have been in the spotlight for years—some for many years—and there is a great deal of literature about their behaviors and styles. So I feel pretty confident. I did have a big debate about whether Hillary was an introvert or extrovert. I decided on extrovert because she is not one of those people who likes to lock herself in her office for hours just to think. But she's just barely an extrovert, unlike her husband who is totally extroverted.

This INTJ prefers to draw her energy internally, but clearly operates in a role that requires extroversion. Every individual is capable of using behaviors consistent with EVERY type. We simply prefer to use one more than the other. For instance, I am right handed. I prefer to use my right hand in nearly all activities, however when necessary, I can use my left hand to do the same activities. My writing with my left hand may take longer (and look messy) but I can do it nonetheless.

Finally, I take issue with Ms. Yoffe’s assumption that because these are public figures that we have been able to observe the intricacies of their whole personality. Politics is strategic. Each step a politician takes (at least what is purposely in the public eye) is typically well-planned, purposeful, and calculated. As an example, if a politician is photographed repeatedly in philanthropic adventures, one might assume that he or she has a Feeling preference because of his/her attention and energy towards the needs of others. However, is that accurate, or does the politician want to appear that way to constituents? There are, of course, cameras planned at every event. My point is that we cannot assume that what we see in the public is a politician’s true “shoes off self.” The same goes for speeches given by a politician. Politician’s are coached constantly. They are branded very well and frequently give speeches written by great writers. So, are we hypothesizing the type of the politicians or their campaign staff? Biographies are equally tainted in my view. Few people are comfortable enough to reveal everything about their personality (especially the things that would not be viewed as positive).

The Myers-Briggs® Type Indicator is a wonderful tool for understanding others, but must be used in an ethical way to be effective. Take care to ensure that when estimating the type of others you remind yourself that the estimate is only a hypothesis. Be sure to allow your original hypothesis to be revised! Better yet, feel confident in discussing your observations with others, and encourage them to take the assessment themselves. You may find that this enriches your relationship and enables better understanding and communication.

To take the real MBTI® assessment online, go to: http://www.mbticomplete.com/ or contact a qualified practitioner for an interpretation.