Takaisin Ajatusvarikolle - Back to the Thought Deposit
- Dinoglyphs - Esihistorialliset eläimet historiankirjoissa - Prehistoric Creatures Documented by the Ancient Man



MBTI - Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judgment) is an abbreviation used in the publications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to refer to one of sixteen personality types.[1] The MBTI assessment was developed from the work of prominent psychiatrist Carl G. Jung in his book Psychological Types. Jung proposed a psychological typology based on the theories of cognitive functions that he developed through his clinical observations.

From Jung's work, others developed psychological typologies. Jungian personality assessments include the MBTI assessment, developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs, and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, developed by David Keirsey. Keirsey referred to ESTJs as Supervisors, one of the four types belonging to the temperament he called the Guardian. ESTJs account for about 8–12% of the population.[2][3]


The MBTI instrument

The MBTI preferences indicate the differences in people based on the following:[4]

By using their preference in each of these areas, people develop what Jung and Myers called psychological type. This underlying personality pattern results from the dynamic interaction of their four preferences, in conjunction with environmental influences and their own individual tendencies. People are likely to develop behaviors, skills, and attitudes based on their particular type. Each personality type has its own potential strengths as well as areas that offer opportunities for growth.

The MBTI tool consists of multiple choice questions that sort respondents on the basis of the four "dichotomies" (pairs of psychological opposites). Sixteen different outcomes are possible, each identified by its own four-letter code, referred to by initial letters. (N is used for iNtuition, to differentiate it from Introversion). The MBTI is approximately 75% accurate according to its own manual.[5]

Characteristics of ESTJs

Myers-Briggs description

ESTJs are practical, realistic, and matter-of-fact, with a natural head for business or mechanics. Though they are not interested in subjects they see no use for, they can apply themselves when necessary. They like to organize and run activities. ESTJs make good administrators, especially if they remember to consider others' feelings and points of view, which they often miss.

Keirsey description

According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running society. They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to communicate their opinions and expectations to others.

Notable ESTJs

According to Keirsey, based on behavioral characteristics, notable Supervisors might include George Washington,[12] Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy),[12] and Mike Wallace.[12] For more examples, see Notable Supervisors.

Interaction Style

According to Linda V. Berens' Interaction Styles model, ESTJs fall into the "In Charge" style, being both "extraverted" (E) and "Directing" (ST). They are outgoing, yet task-oriented, which also explains the behavior described above.

Cognitive functions

Drawing upon Jungian theory, Isabel Myers proposed that for each personality type, the cognitive functions—sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling—form a hierarchy. This hierarchy represents the person's "default" pattern of behavior.

The Dominant function is the personality type's preferred role, the one they feel most comfortable with. The secondary Auxiliary function serves to support and expand on the Dominant function. If the Dominant is an information gathering function (sensing or intuition), the Auxiliary is a decision making function (thinking or feeling), and vice versa. The Tertiary function is less developed than the Dominant and Auxiliary, but it matures over time, rounding out the person's abilities. The Inferior function is the personality type's Achilles' heel. This is the function they are least comfortable with. Like the Tertiary, the Inferior function strengthens with maturity.[13]

Jung and Myers considered the attitude of the Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions to be the opposite of the Dominant. In this interpretation, if the Dominant function is extraverted, then the other three are introverted, and vice versa. However, many modern practitioners hold that the attitude of the Tertiary function is the same as the Dominant.[5] (Neither view is backed by sufficient empirical evidence to be considered scientifically valid.[14])

Using the more modern interpretation, the cognitive functions of the ESTJ are as follows:[13]

Dominant: Extraverted thinking (Te)

Te organizes and schedules ideas and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. Te seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence. [15] The dominant Te means ESTJs use logical fact-based judgments in the outer world of people and actions. This again explains their behavior and leadership qualities.

Auxiliary: Introverted sensing (Si)

Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future. [16] The auxiliary Si's connection with memory and familiarity leads ESTJs to defend the status quo and procedures.

Tertiary: Extraverted intuition (Ne)

Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using “what if” questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilities to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action.[17] Ne's use of abstract perception in the outer world gives ESTJs the ability to conceptualize. However, Ne is subservient to the inward, concrete focus of Si.

Inferior: Introverted feeling (Fi)

Fi filters information based on interpretations of worth, forming judgments according to criteria that are often intangible. Fi constantly balances an internal set of values such as harmony and authenticity. Attuned to subtle distinctions, Fi innately senses what is true and what is false in a situation.[18] With Fi in the inferior position, some ESTJs may not make full use of Fi's associations with kinship, personal connections, and congruency of values or beliefs.

Shadow functions

Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[19] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the so-called "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress. The shadow processes "operate more on the boundaries of our awareness…We usually experience these processes in a negative way, yet when we are open to them, they can be quite positive."[20] For the ESTJ these shadow functions are (in order):

See also


  1. ^ "Myers-Briggs Foundation: The 16 MBTI Types". http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp. Retrieved 2009-05-07. 

  2. ^ "Keirsey.com Portrait of the Supervisor". http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=2&c=supervisor. Retrieved 10 January 2010. 

  3. ^ "CAPT". http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-13. 

  4. ^ Myers, Isabel Briggs (1998). Introduction to Type: A Guide to Understanding your Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.. 

  5. ^ a b Myers, Isabel Briggs; Mary H. McCaulley (1985) (in English). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (2nd edition ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. pp. 52. ISBN 0-89106-027-8. 

  6. ^ "Changing Minds: Extraversion vs. Introversion". http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/extravert_introvert.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-10. 

  7. ^ "Changing Minds: Sensing vs. Intuiting". http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/sensing_intuiting.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-10. 

  8. ^ "Changing Minds: Thinking vs. Feeling". http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/thinking_feeling.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-10. 

  9. ^ "Changing Minds: Judging vs. Perceiving". http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/judging_perceiving.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-10. 

  10. ^ "Bush, an ESTJ". http://typelogic.com/estj.html. Retrieved 2009-06-01. 

  11. ^ "Ethical Feedback of MBTI Results". http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethical-feedback.asp. Retrieved 2009-06-02. 

  12. ^ a b c "Keirsey.com Portrait of the Supervisor". http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=2&c=supervisor. Retrieved 2010-03-07. 

  13. ^ a b Barron-Tieger, Barbara; Tieger, Paul D. (1995). Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-84522-1. 

  14. ^ "The Personality Junkie: Personality Type Theory". http://personalityjunkie.com/personality-type-theory/. Retrieved 2009-11-22. 

  15. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Extraverted thinking". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedthinking.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  16. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Introverted sensing". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/introvertedsensing.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  17. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Extraverted intuition". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedintuiting.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  18. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Introverted feeling". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/introvertedfeeling.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  19. ^ "CognitiveProcesses.com". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/index.html. Retrieved 2008-05-21. 

  20. ^ "CognitiveProcesses.com The 16 Type Patterns". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16types.html. Retrieved 2009-07-11. 

  21. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Introverted thinking". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/introvertedthinking.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  22. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Extraverted Sensing". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedsensing.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  23. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Introverted intuition". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/introvertedintuiting.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

  24. ^ "Cognitive Processes: Extraverted Feeling". http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedfeeling.html. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

External links

Supervisors are highly social and community-minded, with many rising to positions of responsibility in their school, church, industry, or civic groups. Supervisors are generous with their time and energy, and very often belong to a variety of service clubs, lodges, and associations, supporting them through steady attendance, but also taking an outspoken leadership role. Supervisors like to take charge of groups and are comfortable issuing orders. They are cooperative with their own superiors, and they would like cooperation from the people working under them. Rank, they believe, has its obligations, but it also has its privileges.

Comprising at least ten percent of the population, Supervisors enjoy and are good at making schedules, agendas, inventories, and so on, and they much prefer tried and true ways of doing things over speculation and experimentation. Supervisors keep their feet firmly on the ground and would like those under their supervision to do the same, whether employee, subordinate, spouse, or offspring. Supervisors have no problem evaluating others and tend to judge how a person is doing in terms of his or her compliance with, and respect for, schedules and procedures.

Supervisors are unbelievably hard-working. Even as children they are industrious, and they usually respect their parents as authority figures. In school Supervisors are often model students, dutifully following directions, doing all their homework, doing it thoroughly, and on time. Above all else, they wish to do what they are supposed to do, and they rarely question the teacher's assignments, method of instruction, standards, or authority. And their industry and perseverance only become more important to them as they grow into adulthood and take on the responsibilities of job and family.

Supervisors approach human relations along traditional lines. Marriage and parenthood are sacred to them, and they tend to have a large circle of friends, with many friendships faithfully maintained over the years. Social gatherings and ceremonies have great meaning for them, and they look forward to holiday parties, club dances, weddings, class reunions, awards banquets, and the like. In social situations, Supervisors are friendly and talk easily with others. Though they can seem a bit formal in their manners, Supervisors are pretty easy to get to know. At ease in polite company, they tend not to confuse people by sending double messages or putting on airs-what they seem to be, they are.

Jack Webb, Judge Judy, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, George Washington, Sandra Day O' Connor, Mike Wallace, and Vince Lombardi are examples of a Supervisor Guardians.

A full description of the Supervisor and Guardian is in People Patterns or Please Understand Me II

More About Your Guardian Supervisor Personality:

Careers:  Best Job Fit for Guardians
  Dealing With Stress at Work: Guardians Bearing Up
Relationships:  Women and Romance - Guardian Women
  Men and Romance - The Guardian Lover
  Love the One You're With - Tips for Guardians With Non-Guardian Partners
School:  Guardian Students: Maximizing Your Study Environment
  Guardians: Capitalizing on Your Intelligence Style

Receive Monthly Articles on Playing to Your Strengths as a Guardian Supervisor: The Keirsey PersonalityZone Newsletter

All Guardians (SJs) share the following core characteristics:

Guardians are the cornerstone of society, for they are the temperament given to serving and preserving our most important social institutions. Guardians have natural talent in managing goods and services--from supervision to maintenance and supply -- and they use all their skills to keep things running smoothly in their families, communities, schools, churches, hospitals, and businesses.

Guardians can have a lot of fun with their friends, but they are quite serious about their duties and responsibilities. Guardians take pride in being dependable and trustworthy; if there's a job to be done, they can be counted on to put their shoulder to the wheel. Guardians also believe in law and order, and sometimes worry that respect for authority, even a fundamental sense of right and wrong, is being lost. Perhaps this is why Guardians honor customs and traditions so strongly -- they are familiar patterns that help bring stability to our modern, fast-paced world.

Practical and down-to-earth, Guardians believe in following the rules and cooperating with others. They are not very comfortable winging it or blazing new trails; working steadily within the system is the Guardian way, for in the long run loyalty, discipline, and teamwork get the job done right. Guardians are meticulous about schedules and have a sharp eye for proper procedures. They are cautious about change, even though they know that change can be healthy for an institution. Better to go slowly, they say, and look before you leap.

Guardians make up as much as 40 to 45 percent of the population, and a good thing, because they usually end up doing all the indispensable but thankless jobs the rest of us take for granted.

Presidents George Washington, Harry S. Truman, William Howard Taft and Mother Teresa are examples of Guardians.

A full description of the Guardian is in People Patterns or Please Understand Me II

A List of Famous Guardians

Guardian Quotes

The Guardians as mates




Loikkaa: valikkoon, hakuun

Myers–Briggs-tyyppi-indikaattori (lyh. MBTI, engl. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) on psykologinen indikaattori, joka kuvaa ihmisen persoonallisuutta neljän ulottuvuuden avulla. Indikaattorin kehitti Katherine Briggs tyttärensä Isabel Myersin kanssa toisen maailmansodan jälkeen saadakseen ihmiset ymmärtämään erilaisuutta ja tulemaan paremmin toimeen keskenään.

MBTI perustuu Carl Jungin teorioihin, joskin Briggs ja Myers lisäsivät ulottuvuuden järjestelmällinen–spontaani, koska Jungin rationaalisuus-käsite oli varsin vaikeaselkoinen. Indikaattorin kysymysten perusteella selvitetään, kumpaa preferenssiä (I–E, S–N, T–F ja J–P) koehenkilö luontevammin jokaisessa neljässä ulottuvuudessa käyttää. Persoonallisuudella tarkoitetaan luonteenpiirteitä, ominaisuuksia ja suhteellisen pysyviä käyttäytymismuotoja, mutta persoonallisuuden dynamiikka otetaan huomioon. MBTI:n mukaan persoonalisuus ei siis ole "pysäytyskuva", kuten piirretesteissä.




Kirjainlyhenteet tulevat seuraavista englanninkielisistä sanoista:



Tyypit johtoasemassa

Ulottuvuuksien kuvaus

I–E-ulottuvuus kuvaa asennetta ympäristöön. S–N-ulottuvuus kuvaa tiedonhankintatottumuksia ja T–F-ulottuvuus päätöksenteon perusteita. J–P-ulottuvuus kuvaa elämäntyyliä.

Ekstravertti (E) tuntee todennäköisesti olonsa kotoisammaksi ihmisten ja asioiden kanssa ulkomaailmassa kuin ideoiden sisäisessä maailmassa, "ulospäinsuuntautunut".

Introvertti (I) tuntee todennäköisesti olonsa kotoisammaksi sisäisessä ideamaailmassa kuin ihmisten ja asioiden ulkomaailmassa, "sisäänpäinsuuntautunut".

Tosiasiallinen (S) työskentelee todennäköisesti mieluummin tunnettujen tosiasioiden parissa kuin etsii mahdollisuuksia ja keskinäisiä suhteita.

Intuitiivinen (N) etsii mieluummin mahdollisuuksia ja yhteyksiä kuin työstää tunnettuja faktoja, tulevaisuuteen suuntautunut.

Ajatteleva (T) tekee päätökset todennäköisemmin persoonattoman analyysin kuin henkilökohtaisten arvojen perusteella.

Tunteva (F) tekee päätökset todennäköisemmin henkilökohtaisten arvojen kuin persoonattoman logiikan avulla.

Järjestelmällinen (J) pitää todennäköisesti enemmän suunnitellusta, organisoidusta, selvästä ja täsmällisestä elämäntavasta kuin joustavasta ja spontaanista.

Spontaani (P) pitää todennäköisesti enemmän joustavasta ja spontaanista elämäntavasta kuin suunnitellusta ja järjestelmällisestä.

Huomattakoon, että piirretestien "ekstrovertti" kuvaa enemmänkin eräänlaista sosiaalisuutta, kun taas MBTI:n ekstravertti kuvaa suuntautumista ulkoiseen asioiden ja ihmisten maailmaan ottamatta varsinaisesti kantaa sosiaalisuuteen.[3]

Neljä ulottuvuutta ja kahdeksan preferenssiä muodostavat 16 persoonallisuustyyppiä, joihin liittyy paljon preferenssien mukaisia yhteisiä piirteitä ja käyttäytymistapoja, vaikka tyypin sisällä olevat henkilöt ovat kukin omia erilaisia yksilöitään. MBTI on ainoa dynaaminen persoonallisuusindikaattori, joka kuvaa henkilön persoonallisuuden preferenssijärjestyksen ja se mukaisen käyttäytymisen niin tiedostetussa "normaalitilassa" kuin syystä tai toisesta ajauduttaessa vähemmän tiedostettujen "varjopersoonien" tasolle.[4] MBTI:n ulottuvuuksia voidaan osittain kuvata myös "viiden suuren persoonallisuudenpiirteen" (engl. big five) ulottuvuuksilla.[5]

Teoria viidestä suuresta persoonallisuuden piirteestä on McCraen & Costan käsityksen mukaan saanut persoonallisuuden tutkimuksessa enemmän tukea kuin Jungin luokitukseen perustuva teoria (mm. persoonallisuuden piirteitä pidetään jatkuvina, ei dikotomisina ominaisuuksina; mukana on myös viides neuroottisuus-ulottuvuus). MBTI:n kehittämistä[6] tuntevat voivat kuitenkin havaita MBTI:n toimivuuden ja käyttökelpoisuuden verrattuna muihin persoonallisuuden tarkastelutapoihin. Vaikka esimerkiksi ulottuuvuuksia ilmaistaan dikotomialla kuvaamaan ihmisen luontaista taipumusta "kallistua" ulottuuvuuden jommankumman ääripään suuntaan, on MBTI ainut dynaaminen malli, joka selittää ihmisen persoonallisuuden kokonaisuuden, myös ulottuvuuksien "heikomman pään" käytön. Patologiset ja piirretestit eivät ilmennä persoonallisuuden dynamiikkaa. MBTI:n erinomainen toimivuus on osoitettu runsaassa suomalaisessa tutkimuksessa.[7]

Satunnaisesti valitussa amerikkalaista väestöä kuvaavassa otoksessa tyypit jakautuivat seuraavasti (jakauma eroaa melkoisesti suomalaisesta työelämässä toimivasta väestöstä; huomautus V. Routamaa):[8]

Katso myös



  1. www.personalitypage.com/portraits

  2. Vesa Routamaa, Sotatieteiden päivät 2008, Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu

  3. Esimerkiksi Routamaa & Hautala 2009.

  4. Esimerkiksi Myers & McCalley & Quenk & Hammer 1998.

  5. McCrae & Costa, 1989.

  6. Esimerkiksi Myers & McCaulley 1990; Myers & McCalley & Quenk & Hammer 1998.

  7. Ks. esimerkiksi MBTI Finland.

  8. Statistics Based on the new Form M of the MBTI Viitattu 14. heinäkuuta 2007. (englanniksi)

Aiheesta muualla

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions.[1]:1 These preferences were extrapolated from the typological theories originated by Carl Gustav Jung, as published in his 1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923).[2] The original developers of the personality inventory were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. They began creating the indicator during World War II, believing that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and effective."[1]:xiii The initial questionnaire grew into the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which was first published in 1962. The MBTI focuses on normal populations and emphasizes the value of naturally occurring differences.[3]

The MBTI instrument is called "the best-known and most trusted personality assessment tool available today"[4] by its publisher, CPP (formerly Consulting Psychologists Press). CPP further calls the MBTI tool "the world’s most widely used personality assessment",[5] with as many as two million assessments administered annually. Some academic psychologists have criticized the MBTI instrument, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data".[6][7][8][9] Proponents of the test, however, cite reports of individual behavior[10] and have also found that the indicator meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments.[11] For most adults (75–90%), though not for children, the MBTI is reported to give the same result for 3–4 preferences when the test is administered to the same person more than once (although the period between measurements is not stated).[12] Some studies have found strong support for construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, although variation was observed.[13][14]

The definitive published source of reference for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is The Manual produced by CPP,[15] from which much of the information in this article is drawn, along with training materials from CPP and their European training partners, Oxford Psychologists Press. Also, a related model, with an original test, is published in David Keirsey's books Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II.

The registered trademark rights to the terms Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI have been assigned from the publisher of the test, CPP, Inc., to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust.[16]


As the MBTI Manual states, the MBTI "is designed to implement a theory; therefore the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI."[17]:1

Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the theory of psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung.[1]:xiii Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

Jung went on to suggest that these functions are expressed in either an introverted or extraverted form.[1]:17 From Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the MBTI is based.


The Myers-Briggs typology model regards personality type as similar to left or right handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of thinking and acting. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these types are "better" or "worse"; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of type differences.[1]:9 In the same way that writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of iNtuition, which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion).

For instance:

And so on for all 16 possible type combinations.

Four dichotomies

The four pairs of preferences or dichotomies are shown in the table to the right.

Note that the terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people who prefer judgment over perception are not necessarily more judgmental or less perceptive.

Nor does the MBTI instrument measure aptitude; it simply indicates for one preference over another.[17]:3 Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be correctly described as more extraverted: they simply have a clear preference.

Point scores on each of the dichotomies can vary considerably from person to person, even among those with the same type. However, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference (for example, very clear vs. slight).[15]

Attitudes: Extraversion (E) / Introversion (I)

The preferences for extraversion (thus spelled in Myers-Briggs jargon) and introversion are sometimes referred to as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator sorts for an overall preference for one or the other of these.

The terms extravert and introvert are used in a special sense when discussing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

Functions: Sensing (S) / iNtuition (N) and Thinking (T) / Feeling (F)

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

According to the Myers-Briggs typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere."[1]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant Function

Although people use all four cognitive functions, one function is generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior function the shadow.[1]:84

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

Lifestyle: Judgment (J) / Perception (P)

Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).

Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judgment show the world their preferred judging function (thinking or feeling). So TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical, and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers,[1]:75 judging types like to "have matters settled." Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). So SP types tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP types as abstract. According to Myers,[1]:75 perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open."

For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function. Introverts tend to show their dominant function outwardly only in matters "important to their inner worlds."[1]:13 For example:

Because ENTJ types are extraverts, the J indicates that their dominant function is their preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). ENTJ types introvert their auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

Because INTJ types are introverts, the J indicates that their auxiliary function is their preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). INTJ types introvert their dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is feeling, and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.

Whole type

The expression of a person's psychological type is more than the sum of the four individual preferences, because of the way in which the preferences interact through type dynamics and type development. Descriptions of each type can be found on the Myers & Briggs Foundation website. In-depth descriptions of each type, including statistics, can be found in the MBTI Manual.[15]

Historical development

Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917. Upon meeting her future son-in-law, she observed marked differences between his personality and that of other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading biographies, and she developed a typology based on patterns she found. She proposed four temperaments: Meditative (or Thoughtful), Spontaneous, Executive, and Social.[19][20] Then, after the English translation of Psychological Types was published in 1923 (having first been published in German in 1921), she recognized that Jung's theory was similar to, yet went far beyond, her own.[1]:22 Briggs's four types were later identified as corresponding to the Is, EPs, ETJs and EFJs.[19][20] Her first publications were two articles describing Jung's theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 (Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box) and 1928 (Up From Barbarism).

Briggs's daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, added to her mother's typological research, which she would progressively take over entirely. Myers graduated first in her class from Swarthmore College in 1919[1]:xx and wrote the prize-winning mystery novel Murder Yet to Come in 1929 using typological ideas. However, neither Myers nor Briggs were formally educated in psychology, and thus they lacked scientific credentials in the field of psychometric testing.[1]:xiii So Myers apprenticed herself to Edward N. Hay, who was then personnel manager for a large Philadelphia bank and went on to start one of the first successful personnel consulting firms in the U.S. From Hay, Myers learned test construction, scoring, validation, and statistics.[1]:xiii, xx In 1942, the "Briggs-Myers Type Indicator" was created, and the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) in 1956.[21][22]

Myers' work attracted the attention of Henry Chauncey, head of the Educational Testing Service, and under these auspices, the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. The MBTI received further support from Donald T. McKinnon, head of the Institute of Personality Research at the University of California; Harold Grant, professor at Michigan State and Auburn Universities; and Mary H. McCaulley of the University of Florida. The publication of the MBTI was transferred to Consulting Psychologists Press in 1975, and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) was founded as a research laboratory.[1]:xxi After Myers' death in May 1980, Mary McCaulley updated the MBTI Manual, and the second edition was published in 1985.[15] The third edition appeared in 1998.

Differences from Jung

Judgment vs. Perception

The most notable addition of Myers and Briggs to Jung's original thought is their concept that a given type's fourth letter (J or P) is determined by how that type interacts with the external world, rather than by the type's dominant function. The difference becomes evident when assessing the cognitive functions of introverts.[1]:21-22

To Jung, a type with dominant introverted thinking, for example, would be considered rational (judging) because the decision-making function is dominant. To Myers, however, that same type would be irrational (perceiving) because the individual uses an information-gathering function (either extraverted intuition or extraverted sensing) when interacting with the outer world.

Orientation of the tertiary function
Jung theorized that the dominant function acts alone in its preferred world: exterior for the extraverts, and interior for the introverts. The remaining three functions, he suggested, operate together in the opposite world. If the dominant cognitive function is introverted, the other functions are extraverted, and vice versa. The MBTI Manual summarizes references in Jung's work to the balance in psychological type as follows:

There are several references in Jung's writing to the three remaining functions having an opposite attitudinal character. For example, in writing about introverts with thinking dominant...Jung commented that the counterbalancing functions have an extraverted character.[15]:29

However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented in the same direction as the dominant function.[23] Using the INTP type as an example, the orientation would be as follows:

From a theoretical perspective, noted psychologist H.J. Eysenck calls the MBTI a moderately successful quantification of Jung's original principles as outlined in Psychological Types.[24] However, both models remain theory, with no controlled scientific studies supporting either Jung's original concept of type or the Myers-Briggs variation.[25]


The indicator is frequently used in the areas of pedagogy, career counseling, team building, group dynamics, professional development, marketing, leadership training, executive coaching, life coaching, personal development, marriage counseling, and workers' compensation claims.

Format and administration

The current North American English version of the MBTI Step I includes 93 forced-choice questions (there are 88 in the European English version). Forced-choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. The choices are a mixture of word pairs and short statements. Choices are not literal opposites but chosen to reflect opposite preferences on the same dichotomy. Participants may skip questions if they feel they are unable to choose.

Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be scored and will attempt to identify the preference, and clarity of preference, in each dichotomy. After taking the MBTI, participants are usually asked to complete a Best Fit exercise (see above) and then given a readout of their Reported Type, which will usually include a bar graph and number to show how clear they were about each preference when they completed the questionnaire.

During the early development of the MBTI thousands of items were used. Most were eventually discarded because they did not have high midpoint discrimination, meaning the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual score away from the midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have fewer items on it but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments with many more items with lower midpoint discrimination. The MBTI requires five points one way or another to indicate a clear preference.

Additional formats

Isabel Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences as well as similarities. At the time of her death, she was developing a more in-depth method of measuring how people express and experience their individual type pattern. This tool is called the MBTI Step II.

A Step III is also being developed in a joint project involving the following organizations: CPP, the publisher of the whole family of MBTI works; CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type), which holds all of Myers' and McCaulley's original work; and the MBTI Trust, headed by Katharine and Peter Myers. Step III will further address the use of perception and judgment by respondents.[26]

In addition, the Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI) (Saunders, 1989) is a scoring system for the longer MBTI, Form J,[27] which includes the 20 subscales above, plus a Comfort-Discomfort factor (which purportedly corresponds to the missing factor of Neuroticism). This factor includes seven additional scales to indicate a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus discomfort and anxiety: guarded-optimistic, defiant-compliant, carefree-worried, decisive-ambivalent, intrepid-inhibited, leader-follower, and proactive-distractible. Also included is a composite of these called "strain." Each of these comfort-discomfort subscales also loads onto one of the four type dimensions, for example, proactive-distractible is also a judging-perceiving subscale. There are also scales for type-scale consistency and comfort-scale consistency. Reliability of 23 of the 27 TDI subscales is greater than .50, "an acceptable result given the brevity of the subscales" (Saunders, 1989).

Precepts and ethics

The following precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

Type not trait

The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both.

Own best judge

Individuals are considered the best judge of their own type. While the MBTI questionnaire provides a Reported Type, this is considered only an indication of their probable overall Type. A Best Fit Process is usually used to allow respondents to develop their understanding of the four dichotomies, to form their own hypothesis as to their overall Type, and to compare this against the Reported Type. In more than 20% of cases, the hypothesis and the Reported Type differ in one or more dichotomies. Using the clarity of each preference, any potential for bias in the report, and often, a comparison of two or more whole Types may then help respondents determine their own Best Fit.

No right or wrong

No preference or total type is considered "better" or "worse" than another. They are all Gifts Differing, as emphasized by the title of Isabel Briggs Myers' book on this subject.


It is considered unethical to compel anyone to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It should always be taken voluntarily.[28]


The result of the MBTI Reported and Best Fit type are confidential between the individual and administrator and, ethically, not for disclosure without permission.

Not for selection

The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any way."[28] Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain highly competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences.

Importance of proper feedback

Individuals should always be given detailed feedback from a trained administrator and an opportunity to undertake a Best Fit exercise to check against their Reported Type. This feedback can be given in person or, where this is not practical, by telephone or electronically.

Type dynamics and development

The interaction of two, three, or four preferences is known as type dynamics. Although type dynamics has garnered little or no empirical support to substantiate its viability as a scientific theory,[30] Myers and Briggs asserted that for each of the 16 four-preference types, one function is the most dominant and is likely to be evident earliest in life. A secondary or auxiliary function typically becomes more evident (differentiated) during teenage years and provides balance to the dominant. In normal development individuals tend to become more fluent with a third, tertiary function during mid life, while the fourth, inferior function remains least consciously developed. The inferior function is often considered to be more associated with the unconscious, being most evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being in the grip of the inferior function).

The sequence of differentiation of dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary functions through life is termed type development. Note that this is an idealized sequence that may be disrupted by major life events.

The dynamic sequence of functions and their attitudes can be determined in the following way:

Note that for extraverts, the dominant function is the one most evident in the external world. For introverts, however, it is the auxiliary function that is most evident externally, as their dominant function relates to the interior world.

Some examples of whole types may clarify this further. Taking the ESTJ example above:

The dynamics of the ESTJ are found in the primary combination of extraverted thinking as their dominant function and introverted sensing as their auxiliary function: the dominant tendency of ESTJs to order their environment, to set clear boundaries, to clarify roles and timetables, and to direct the activities around them is supported by their facility for using past experience in an ordered and systematic way to help organize themselves and others. For instance, ESTJs may enjoy planning trips for groups of people to achieve some goal or to perform some culturally uplifting function. Because of their ease in directing others and their facility in managing their own time, they engage all the resources at their disposal to achieve their goals. However, under prolonged stress or sudden trauma, ESTJs may overuse their extraverted thinking function and fall into the grip of their inferior function, introverted feeling. Although the ESTJ can seem insensitive to the feelings of others in their normal activities, under tremendous stress, they can suddenly express feelings of being unappreciated or wounded by insensitivity.

Looking at the diametrically opposite four-letter type, INFP:

The dynamics of the INFP rest on the fundamental correspondence of introverted feeling and extraverted intuition. The dominant tendency of the INFP is toward building a rich internal framework of values and toward championing human rights. They often devote themselves behind the scenes to causes such as civil rights or saving the environment. Since they tend to avoid the limelight, postpone decisions, and maintain a reserved posture, they are rarely found in executive-director type positions of the organizations that serve those causes. Normally, the INFP dislikes being "in charge" of things. When not under stress, the INFP radiates a pleasant and sympathetic demeanor; but under extreme stress, they can suddenly become rigid and directive, exerting their extraverted thinking erratically.

Every type—and its opposite—is the expression of these interactions, which give each type its unique, recognizable signature.

Expansion of the theory

Related instruments

Other personality type instruments based on the Myers-Briggs theory include the Golden Personality Type Profile and the Majors Personality Type Indicator.

Brain halves

Some have theorized that the cognitive functions may correlate to the Lateralization of brain function.[31] Others claim, however, that this proposed correlation has no scientific basis.[citation needed]

Correlations to other instruments

Keirsey Temperaments

David W. Keirsey mapped four 'temperaments' to the existing Myers-Briggs system groupings SP, SJ, NF and NT; this often results in confusion of the two theories. However, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter is not directly associated with the official Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.






Inspector Protector Counselor Mastermind





Crafter Composer Healer Architect





Promoter Performer Champion Inventor





Supervisor Provider Teacher Fieldmarshal

Big Five

McCrae and Costa[7] present correlations between the MBTI scales and the Big Five personality construct, which is a conglomeration of characteristics found in nearly all personality and psychological tests. The five personality characteristics are extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (or neuroticism). The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)

These data suggest that four of the MBTI scales are related to the Big Five personality traits. These correlations show that E-I and S-N are strongly related to extraversion and openness respectively, while T-F and J-P are moderately related to agreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. The emotional stability dimension of the Big Five is largely absent from the original MBTI (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed that dimension).

These findings led McCrae and Costa, the formulators of the Five Factor Theory,[32] to conclude, "correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework." However, "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions."


Origins of the theory

Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies.[25] Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.[25]

Jung's type theory introduced a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition), each having one of two orientations (extraverted or introverted), for a total of eight functions. The Myers-Briggs theory is based on these eight functions, although with some differences in expression (see Differences from Jung above). However, neither the Myers-Briggs nor the Jungian models offer any scientific, experimental proof to support the existence, the sequence, the orientation, or the manifestation of these functions.[25]


The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers-Briggs advocates).[33] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[33][34]

The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting by the person tested.[17]:52-53 Unlike some personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.[35] As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses,[36] and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale.[37] If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they should."[17]:53

With regard to factor analysis, one study of 1291 college-aged students found six different factors instead of the four used in the MBTI.[38] In other studies, researchers found that the JP and the SN scales correlate with one another.[7]


Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low. Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[9][34]

One study reports that the MBTI dichotomies exhibit good split-half reliability; however, the dichotomy scores are distributed in a bell curve, and the overall type allocations are less reliable. Also, test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when individuals are retested within nine months, and around 75% when individuals are retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type, and 36% remain the same type after more than nine months.[39] For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), these scores are higher (see MBTI Manual, p. 163, Table 8.6).

In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI, only half of people picked the same profile.[40] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.

Statistical structure

The instrument's dichotomous scoring of dimensions has also been subject to criticism. For example, some researchers expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales, but found that scores on the individual subscales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the center of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type. This fails to support the concept of type: the norm is for people to lie near the middle of the subscale.[7][8][9][34][41] Nevertheless, "the absence of bimodal score distributions does not necessarily prove that the 'type'-based approach is incorrect."[41]


The relevance of the MBTI for career planning has been questioned, with reservations about the relevance of type to job performance or satisfaction, and concerns about the potential misuse of the instrument in labeling individuals.[34][42] In her original research, Isabel Myers found that the proportion of different personality types varied by choice of career or course of study.[1]:40-51[15] However, some other researchers examining the proportions of each type within varying professions report that the proportion of MBTI types within each occupation is close to that within a random sample of the population.[34]

Also, the efficiency of MBTI in an organizational setting has been subject to scrutiny. In 1991 three scholars at the University of Western Ontario analyzed the results of 97 independent studies that evaluated the effectiveness of personality tests in predicting job success and job satisfaction ("Personnel Psychology," winter 1991). The results of the nationwide study challenged the effectiveness of the MBTI when related to individual performance and satisfaction in a corporate setting.

“The validity coefficient for personality tests in predicting job success was found to average 0.29 (on a scale of 0 to 1). The corresponding average validity for the MBTI, however, was a weak 0.12. In fact, each study that examined the MBTI found its validity to be below acceptable levels of statistical significance.”[43]

However, as noted above under Precepts and ethics, the MBTI measures preference, not ability. The use of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged in the Manual.[17]:78 It is not designed to be used for this purpose.


Skeptics criticize the terminology of the MBTI as being so "vague and general"[44] as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type. They claim that this results in the Forer effect, where individuals give a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them.[25][34] Others argue that while the MBTI type descriptions are brief, they are also distinctive and precise.[45]:14-15 Some theorists, such as David Keirsey, have expanded on the MBTI descriptions, providing even greater detail. For instance, Keirsey's descriptions of his four temperaments, which he correlated with the sixteen MBTI personality types, show how the temperaments differ in terms of language use, intellectual orientation, educational and vocational interests, social orientation, self image, personal values, social roles, and characteristic hand gestures.[45]:32-207

See also


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Myers, Isabel Briggs with Peter B. Myers (1980, 1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. ISBN 0-89106-074-X. 

  2. ^ Jung, Carl Gustav (August 1, 1971). "Psychological Types". Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-09774. 

  3. ^ Pearman, Roger R.; Sarah C. Albritton (1997). I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You (First ed.). Palo Alto, California: Davies-Black Publishing. xiii. ISBN 0891060960. 

  4. ^ "CPP MBTI Information". https://www.cpp.com/Products/mbti/mbti_info.aspx. Retrieved 2009-06-20. 

  5. ^ "CPP Products". https://www.cpp.com/products/index.aspx. Retrieved 2009-06-20. 

  6. ^ Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). "Controversial and questionable assessment techniques". Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford. ISBN 1-59385-070-0. , p. 65

  7. ^ a b c d McCrae, R R; Costa, P T (1989). "Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality". Journal of Personality 57 (1): 17–40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x. PMID 2709300. 

  8. ^ a b Stricker, L J; Ross, J (1964). "An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typology". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68: 62–71. doi:10.1037/h0043580. 

  9. ^ a b c Matthews, P (2004-05-21). "The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality". Bmj.com Rapid Responses. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7450/1244.  But see also Clack & Allen's response to Matthews.

  10. ^ Barron-Tieger, Barbara; Tieger, Paul D. (1995). Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-84522-1. 

  11. ^ Clack, Gillian; Judy Allen. "Response to Paul Matthews' criticism". http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7450/1244. Retrieved 2008-05-14. 

  12. ^ Lawrence, Gordon; Charles Martin. "CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type)". http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/reliability-validity.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-20. 

  13. ^ Thompson, Bruce; Gloria M. Borrello (1986). "Educational and Psychological Measurement". Construct Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. SAGE Publications. http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/745. Retrieved 2008-04-20. 

  14. ^ Capraro, Robert M.; Mary Margaret Capraro (2002). "Educational and Psychological Measurement". Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study. SAGE Publications. http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/4/590. Retrieved 2008-04-20. 

  15. ^ a b c d e f Myers, Isabel Briggs; McCaulley Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator). Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition. ISBN 0-89106-130-4. 

  16. ^ "Trademark Guidelines" (PDF). Consulting Psychologists Press. https://online.cpp-db.com/Inc/Trademark_Guidelines.pdf. Retrieved December 20, 2004. 

  17. ^ a b c d e Myers, Isabel Briggs; Mary H. McCaulley (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. ISBN 0-89106-027-8. 

  18. ^ Tieger, Paul D.; Barbara Barron-Tieger (1999). The Art of SpeedReading People. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. pp. 66. ISBN 978-0-316-84518-2. 

  19. ^ a b "CAPT: "The Story of Isabel Briggs Myers"". http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/isabel-myers.htm. Retrieved 2009-07-29. 

  20. ^ a b "The TYPE Writer: "It Happened In 1943: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Turns 60 Years Old"". https://www.cpp.com/pr/Fall03TYPEwriter.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-29. 

  21. ^ Geyer, Peter (1998) Some Significant Dates. Retrieved December 5, 2005.

  22. ^ "Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers 1885-1992". University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries, Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, Gainesville, FL.. 2003. http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/manuscript/guides/Myers.htm. Retrieved December 5, 2005. 

  23. ^ "TypeLogic". http://www.typelogic.com/fa.html. Retrieved 2008-09-14. 

  24. ^ Eysenck, H.J.. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity (1995 ed.). pp. 110. 

  25. ^ a b c d e Carroll, Robert Todd (January 9, 2004). "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-The Skeptic's Dictionary". http://skepdic.com/myersb.html. Retrieved January 8, 2004. 

  26. ^ "CAPT Step III". https://www.capt.org/research/mbti-step3.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-14. 

  27. ^ [http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf ""Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator""] (PDF). http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf. Retrieved 2008-09-14. 

  28. ^ a b "Ethics for Administering the MBTI Instrument". http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp. Retrieved 2009-02-15. 

  29. ^ "Dolphin Cove". http://www.infj.org/archive/typestats.html. Retrieved 2008-06-25. 

  30. ^ "The Personality Junkie: Personality Type Theory". http://personalityjunkie.com/personality-type-theory/. Retrieved 2009-11-22. 

  31. ^ Bentz Thomson, Lenore (October 1998). Personality Type: An Owner's Manual. Jung on the Hudson Books. Shambhala Publications, Inc.. pp. 415. ISBN 9780877739876. 

  32. ^ "University of Oregon: "Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors"". http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html#b5vffm. Retrieved 2008-08-08. 

  33. ^ a b Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004). "Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review" (PDF). Learning and Skills Research Centre. http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf. 

  34. ^ a b c d e f Pittenger, David J. (November 1993). "Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short." (PDF). Journal of Career Planning and Employment 54 (1): 48–52. http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf. 

  35. ^ Boyle, G J (1995). "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations". Australian Psychologist 30: 71–74. 

  36. ^ Furnham, A (1990). "Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes". Current Psychology 9: 46–55. doi:10.1007/BF02686767. 

  37. ^ Francis, L J; Jones, S H (2000). "The Relationship Between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Among Adult Churchgoers". Pastoral Psychology 48. 

  38. ^ Sipps, G.J., R.A. Alexander, and L. Friedt. "Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1985), pp. 789-796.

  39. ^ Harvey, R J (1996). Reliability and Validity, in MBTI Applications A.L. Hammer, Editor. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.  p. 5- 29.

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

  41. ^ a b Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001). "The Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego 2001" (PDF). http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/SIOPhandoutBess-HarveyMBTI2001.pdf. 

  42. ^ Druckman, D. and R. A. Bjork, Eds. (1992). In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-04747-1. 

  43. ^ Letters to the Editor: It's Not You, It's Your Personality. (1992, February 3). Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. PAGE A13. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 27836749).

  44. ^ "Forer effect from the Skeptic's Dictionary". http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html. 

  45. ^ a b Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. ISBN 1-885705-02-6. 

References and further reading


Official websites

Assessing type in children

Criticism of the MBTI

Type profiles

Free online Jungian typology assessments
(note that some other assessments offered on these sites may not be free)



Enneagrammi on tapa hahmottaa ihmisen tyypillistä käyttäytymistä. Se perustuu jo lapsuudessa omaksuttuihin käyttäytymismuotoihin, joiden avulla lapsi on saanut turvallisuutta ja selviytymiskokemuksia. Tätä selviytymisstrategiaa hän helposti soveltaa myös aikuisiässä. Fransiskaanipappi Richard Rohr osiutti, että jo erämaaisät tunsivat ennagrammin sen alkumodossaan (mm. Evagrios Pontoslainen 300-luvulla). Enneagrammi ennustaa siis käyttäytymistyyliä. Näitä tyylejä ajatellaan yleensä olevan yhdeksän:

1. Perfektionisti

2. Auttaja

3. Suorittaja

4. Romantikko

5. Tarkkailija

6. Kyselijä

7. Seikkailija

8. Varma

9. Sovittelija




Pelasta elämä - lahjoita verta!



Safe a Life - Donate Blood!