The Myers-Briggs Personality test has recently become a norm amongst people for measuring their traits, especially in more professional environments. While the test does offer a full ‘analysis’ of a person, many argue that the text caters to what a person wants to be, rather than who they actually are.

This isn’t an argument unique to the test, many similar tests or analysis face the same criticism. This, of course, is with good measure, as any test that allows a person to evaluate themselves without any type of regulation is going to reflect what that person wants to be; it’ll be bias.

This can create a discrepancy when used to build groups that are supposed to easily mesh. It is realistic that a person would be the opposite of what they’re listed as. This would mean that hypothetically, a group that’s supposed to get someone who’s comfortable in a leadership position could easily get someone who’s built to follow. While that can be worked around, it holds back the team as a whole, forcing a rebuild of the chemistry.

Fade Berry, junior, has found that the test is generally accurate for them, but have stated that they know people with results that change every time they take the test. This alone implies that the test does not have a steady rate of credibility.

To combat this, many people believe that if the test is to be used for something serious or official, it should be regulated or administered by some kind of professional, thus helping remove the personal bias a person may have. It has also been suggested that the test be given multiple times, never relying on the first analysis. Some have suggested that these multiple tests are handled in different ways, one individual, and two regulated.

Regardless, the test is rising in both popularity and relevance, leaving people split in both opinion and practice.