Customer Reviews

The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

The author takes an interesting perspective: she tells the story of how some of the most widely used today personality tests came into being, by detailing the peculiar histories and quirks of the psychologists who devised them.
Her thesis: "these tests tell you more about the people who conceived them than about the people that are actually tested" comes alive with engaging narratives

Each chapter of the book explores the story of a different test via the dreams and work of their creators.
The psychologists the author considers are: Rorschach (chapter 2), Hathaway (MMPI, chapter 3), Murray (TAT, chapter 4), Myers (Myers - Briggs, chapter 5), Clark & others (pre-verbal tests for children, chapter 6), Cattell, Costa & McCrae ( 16PF & Big5, chapter 7). Chapter 8 is about attempts to map personality in the brain by using fMRI and other technological tools but also about how different from all this a life story, can be - and to do this the author tells the story of Dodge Morgan and his solo sail trip, with some breaks where she mentions the work of Mc Adams on the "life story approach"

It is clear from the very beginning where the author stands.
She is very critical of any attempt so far made of "boxing" the complexities of an individual in strict categories determined by some tests whose validity in most cases is very questionable.
The way she uses language and constructs sentences and chapters makes her narrative partial.
However, her passion does not detract from the soundness of her research, so, after her point of view is factored in, reading her book is a very informative and pleasurable experience.

A few notes:
- Paul tries to put the personality tests in a bad light by pointing out the weird character of their creators and / or the weird circumstances that brought the tests to life; however, that does not tell us anything about the usefulness of a test.
We know the creative process is not linear; we know many great scientists to have been weird, by today's standards (see Newton's interest in the occult, or Einstein's domestic problems, and so on); however strange and peculiar the scientist, that still does not tell us anything about the validity of its creations.
That is to be tested by the slow, imperfect, yet the best we have, scientific method.
Experiment, replication, statistical validation, and so forth...
- I will focus here on the Big5: it is the one I am more familiar with.
Many of her critiques are shared by psychologists administering it.
Many agree that the claims made by its creators are too presumptuous to date.
Many more do not share the optimistic view held by Costa & McCrae that people would not try to "fake good" in the test; in fact, the Italian version of the NEO-PI-R has a Lie Scale
I do agree about being cautious with the lexical hypothesis; this strategy might not unveil the "true" personality - for that, we need more input from neuroscience and neuropsychology (cf. the psychobiological model); however, this is a good way to "talk about" personality, condensing all the meaningful talk that we can do about character by finding out correlations and the essential traits; again, this is not the "true personality" but a way of finding economy in a description.
The same point applies to the critique voiced by McAdams about the usefulness of the model; clearly, knowing the 5 dimensions or sub-dimensions does not exhaust the description of a person, and we do need contingent information; however, the model is a start, a way to group some preliminary observations

I have more radical misgiving about Big 5 and other tests based on questionnaires.
Questionnaires are based on self-reporting, and self-reporting is not reliable - people simply do not know; cf. Wilson (2002) et al.

A way out would be to use observational grids based on the Big 5 during an assessment.
Another way out: on the market some softwares are available that use contextual information to elicit an answer and fuzzy logic to elaborate the anwers.

A few notes on the other tests discussed:
Myers Briggs
I am very critical about the "type" approach, sounds very much like astrology. However, the author has a point about the "aha" experience that comes after taking the test and recognizing / owning parts of oneself. That does not mean that the "type" is right (cf. also Rowland and "cold reading" - a vast majority of people rate as very accurate a description of their character produced after an astrology reading, even if the report is the same for everybody; the trick is to be vague enough - the barnum effect).
The author is right to say that more than a diagnostic t.ool, this, and other "types" tests are therapeutic tools rather than diagnostic ones

No comment on the projective tests.


MMPI
Despite all is misgivings, the approach taken by Hathaway is scienfic.
That should be the right approach: a "normal" population ( but it needs to be statistically validated); a "diagnosed" population (again, here diagnosed by pools of experts, referring to dsm strandards); questions but also activities that can help discriminate.

Overall, a good book and an enjoable read.
To make the most of it, though, and to put the author's comments into perspective, a basic knowledge about the tests discussed is advisable.
Another distinction to be made:
I do agree with the author when she is strongly critical about the use that is being made of some of these tests.
I see the issue from a different perspective, though: here in Europe, or at least in Italy, such an unethical use of testing tools and test results is, at least at present, unthinkable.
So, here I am "pro-personality testing", since there is still too much psychonalytic fog here, but if I were in the US probably my position would be 100% that of Paul.

There are many good points in this book. For example, Paul rightly draws attention to the potential misuses of psychometric questionnaires, such as the use (or rather abuse) of the MBTI in recruitment. She rightly highlights the dangers of using psychometric questionnaires to limit and stereotype, and gives very good advice on questions the reader should ask prior to completing one.

But the book also contains some anomalies. Having criticized psychometric tests for lack of validity/reliability, she offers no equivalent research to support many of her claims - eg: that the life story approach she advocates is more effective, or that questionnaires lead us to miseducate, mismanage and misunderstand. And some of her statements - such as "there is no evidence that her sixteen types have any more validity than the twelve signs of the zodiac" - are contradicted by research (there have been many studies into both the MBTI and astrology from which comparisons can be drawn).

I should declare an interest, in that I am the author of a psychometric questionnaire (not mentioned in the book) that is used primarily in team building. That means I am acutely aware of how questionnaires can be misused, and Paul does a good job of drawing our attention to those potential abuses. However, when used properly, questionnaires can also be of value to both the individual and the organization, and my concern about Paul's book is that she may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Although Paul rails against psychometrics and advocates the life story approach, my view is that there are benefits and pitfalls of both. In the final chapter, Paul advocates approaching personality questionnaires with caution. That is excellent advice, but I also suggest approaching her book with some caution, so that the reader can arrive at a balanced view of psychometric questionnaires.

I'm not surprised by the hostility of some reviewers. More than any other subject, psychology encourages us to believe, "Everyone's an expert!" And anyone who dares to criticize any variation of Myers-Briggs tests will be seen as attacking motherhood and apple pie. People don't give up illusions lightly.

Among my own career change clients, I am often asked, "Do you have a test that will identify the perfect career for me?" Those who have paid -- often expensively -- for tests inevitably report disillusionment.

Paul has thoroughly researched the origins and scientific quality of several tests that are commonly used to make serious decisions about people. As she says, they're used by parole boards, HR departments, counselors and more. You can be denied custody of your children on the basis of a flawed test. In science, flawed doesn't mean "better than nothing." It means "useless."

Her criticism of the MBTI is right on. Psychometric theory incorporates two ways to evaluate tests -- reliability and validity. Reliability means you'll get consistent results each time you take the test. Yet 47% of test-takers change types when they retake the MBTI. Validity means the test measures what it's supposed to measure, yet there are no objective ways to compare the sixteen types.

And while some test-takers and reviewers claim people get great insights from their test results, Paul demolishes this response. Over fifty years ago, a psychologist gave people a test. He then put together a combination of sentences taken from horoscopes and gave each test-taker the same "results." These people rated accuracy of these "results" an average 4.2 where 5 is highest -- and several scored the accuracy as a perfect 5!

Her dissection of other tests is even scarier. Asked to describe an inkblot, a logical response would be, "It's an inkblot." Interpretation of the Rorschach is problematic. The MMPI was never intended for widespread usage and once again, there's more ideology than science.

Paul explains the attraction of tests. We want quick, easy answer. Myers-Briggs is positive -- something for everyone.
She urges us to be careful when we're asked to take tests that have consequences for our lives, and I think she's right. There's enormous risk that our test results will be misinterpreted and/or misused. That's her real message.

As for individuals, many stimuli can trigger insights. Some are more evocative -- or just more fun -- than others. You can use your horoscope, a hand of tarot cards, pictures from magazines, descriptions of the 16 MBTI profiles, want ads from a newspaper. What's interesting will be the way you respond to these stimuli. It won't be scientific but if you find the exercise helpful, no harm done.

Paul's message is that we're treating these tests or "assessments" as though they have scientific standing, which they do not. We're making life-changing decisions based on these tests. If you're an individual seeking help, some consultants will charge big bucks to help you analyze your test results. Many college courses -- outside the psych department, she emphasizes -- actually incorporate these tests.

Many people won't care if individuals and organizations invest resources and make decisions based on instruments that were prepared in an ad hoc fashion by untrained amateurs. Those people will be furious with anyone who questions their beliefs. But for those who do care about the basis of choice and decision making, and who value the difference between science and pseudo-science, this book more than adequately fills the bill.

This is by far the best book I've read about the weird and twisted world of personality testing. As a psychologist and an academic, I deeply appreciate Ms. Paul's extensive research as well as her ability to craft orienting generalizations from a vast research literature and then compare the literature to the feeding frenzy of the popular testing market.

What she gives us is what psychologists already know and test makers don't want us to know - that most personality tests provide as much insight as an alcoholic screeching down the highway at 100mph with the gear shift in one hand and a bottle of Maker's Mark in the other. Her assault is well-reasoned and integral in nature. She discusses how objective science has shown the majority of tests (regrettably still in use) lacking in reliability and validity. This does not stop the marketing machine of testing corporations from telling people what they want to hear. Ms. Paul's conclusion is that peoples' attachment to tests like the over-hyped Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - is really a love affair - rationality has nothing to do with it.

This hits the mark exactly. The book also informs the consumer and possibly the victim of testing what to ask, what rights to demand, and how to find out if the test is useful or simply swill. Her writing is so polished I can forgive her missing Jane Loevinger's research on ego development that would have lived up to the author's litmus test for what is valid and reliable. She also bypasses the Enneagram probably because it is so pitifully understudied it can't even claim the status of a test. Be that as it may, I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in psychology or coaching. If you read this book, the next time someone asks you what your "type" is, you'll have a very scholarly way to tell them to get lost.

I was surprised how cynically Ms. Paul approaches her subject. She's certainly a good writer, although the book's gossipy, People-magazine style may disappoint some. While she takes on a number of popular personality theories, in regard to the personality system I know well (MBTI, specifically David Keirsey's work), her treatment lacks depth and nuance, and straw men and cynicism abound.

I too loathe the MBTI test. I beg people to skip it and read the actual material itself and see if they find themselves in it and find it accurate and useful. If I devise a test that does a horrible job predicting the gender of the test-taker, or gives different results at different times, that doesn't mean that my test-taker is neither man nor woman. My measure of reality is off, not reality itself.

Many people find the personality portraits in the work of David Keirsey and others incredibly explanatory and widely useful and that explains their popularity. Keirsey's work will live or die based on how accurate and useful people find it, not whether it indicates a world different from the one Ms. Paul would like to inhabit. Our human nature is not what I'd design either starting from scratch, but it's all we've got and we must establish "what is" in order to tackle "what can be" or "what should be." Ms. Paul's unspoken formulation is: because it shouldn't be, it isn't.

Another straw man is her criticism that people are more complex than any personality theory can account for. Well, of course! I suppose the author would shun a road map in a new state because it doesn't depict every tree, mailbox and ant hill. Is the MBTI a complete picture of reality? Well, is a road map? No, but it's an extremely useful starting point to navigate an area. Unfortunately, this kind of nuance and complexity is distressingly absent from the book. (Those interested in deciding for themselves should pick up David Keirsey's "Please Understand Me II" or "Personality Type" by Lenore Thomson.)

And what about her charge that personality tests are frequently misused? Does that place them in a different category than everything else in the world? Cars, computers, ropes, rivers, time, language, sex, trust - what can't be used to hurt? Wasn't it a kiss Judas chose? I agree misuse of tests and invasions of privacy are serious and should be fought, but their misuse is separate from their merit.

For serious students of human nature, Ms. Paul's brief hop-and-skip over behavioral genetics, cognitive science and evolutionary psychology in the last chapter will be alarming red flags. How amazing that Ms. Paul's central criticism - that personality theories are flawed and misused abstractions unrelated to real people - best describes her own critique. Every day, everywhere, real flesh-and-blood people are learning and growing, some in small ways, some profoundly. Given the choice between fixating on ant hills or moving down the road, I'll take the road.

I have always, like many people in the "developed" world, believed that personal testing is a fairly accurate way to determine another person's personality. After all, I thought, the people who developed these tests *must* know what they're doing or they wouldn't be able to foist these tests on so many people. After reading this book, I know now that test makers are only able to foist these tests on *unsuspecting* people.
Murphy's book is fair and well-written. I do not understand why anyone would have a major problem with her thesis; as another reviewer wrote, it's a shame there is any backlash aimed at this book at all.

Although this is not a perfect book, I gave the book five stars because it basically accomplishes what it sets out to do: namely, it gives an intelligent lay audience the insight and facts to determine for themselves whether personality testing is viable, valid, scientific, and even necessary. One reviewer put her down because she was an editor of "Psychology Today", likening the job to being editor of "People" magazine. I think her experience at the magazine was definitely a plus because, without her editorial abilities, the average lay person would find tackling this subject to be too daunting a task--which is precisely one reason why we take these tests unwittingly. Yet, the book is chock-full of substance. Some reviewers of the book have written that she "didn't offer any alternatives" to personality testing, a point which is not valid in my opinion. The saying goes "it's easier to tear down a house than to build one." If a house is really a shack which never should have been built in the first place and which is simply standing because some companies want it to *please* keep standing (personality testing is a $400 million dollar a year business and is growing at 10% a year), does that mean that one *has* to begin building another building before tearing down the shack? Perhaps one is wise and insightful enough, like Paul, to know that a house that proposes to encapsulate human personality into easily defineable segments is, at best, ludicrous, and is a "house" that, if ever built, should be done with exceedingly great caution and humility. That said, though, she does at the end of the book suggest that the "life story" approach, as put forth by Gordon Allport and Dan McAdams is the most promising possibility for someone who is trying to understand another person's personality. There are several problems with this though: corporate America, which has fueled the bigger part of the personality test phenomenon, has no time--and probably no incentive--to really get to know someone. Just give them a personality test...This stuff has even creeped into our courts, our educational systems, our therapeutic centers and, yes, even our religions. Yes, I'm sure that there are people who make these tests who really think that they are doing it to help: that in no way changes the basic fact that human personality defies categorization. As Paul writes in the last sentence of her book "The tests are more about them than they are about us." Which brings me to one possible flaw of the book: although the book is full of the negative implications of using personality testing, she doesn't ever come right out and deeply analyze the reasons why corporations and institutions think that it is necessary, plausible and excuseable to categorize human personality for *their* sake, regardless of the needs and rights of the one being tested, not to mention the poor science behind it all. Such a subject is one *somebody* needs to write a book about. Should Paul have included a chapter or two on the subject? Probably, but even then two chapters wouldn't have done complete justice to the subject. But, yes, she should have explored more the last sentence of her book:"The tests are more about them than they are about us." If Paul had done that this book would not only be a home-run, it would have been a "grand slam." Somebody *has* to write a book deeply analyzing why human beings, especially in the form of institutions, believe that they *have* to categorize people-any takers? I know you would have a lot of people who would read such a book, myself included.

Another critique of the book is that I believe the title is a little overboard. Yes, I probably wouldn't have picked this book off of the bookstore shelf and browsed through it if I didn't find the title intriquing (I saw it while looking for another unrelated book), but I don't think that Paul really means to say that an actual cult is involved. At least she doesn't expressly say so. It's probably a neat little play on words her publisher suggested in order to sell books. I think the title alone is enough to make some in the personality psychology field nervous-and trigger-happy to criticize. A better and more accurate title possibly should have been one of Carl Jung's quotes which she gives at the end of one of her chapters: "Everyone is in love with his own ideas." And that, basically, is what any theory of personality is: an idea. And ideas, even great ones, are not people.

Lastly, I've read criticism about the fact that Paul may be too biographical in her book. After all, some may say, do we really need to know such personal details about the people who developed these tests? On the contrary, I believe that it is at precisely this point that Paul's expertise on the subject comes through. Through these stories we are able to see, from the belief in phrenology in the 1800s to the latest "state-of-the-art" personality test that there is a recurrent pattern to it all. It goes something like this: 1) An alleged great insight into human personality is made 2) Someone has the audacity to make a test around this "great insight" 3) It is debunked 4) There is a time of wondering "I thought that xyz theory explained human personality, but that was debunked, so who is going to *explain human personality so I can understand it?*" 5) Someone else has a "great insight" 2) A test is built around it 3) It is debunked...Well, you should know now how it goes. What amazes me is that people fail to see today that *more than likely* that even the best personality tests we think are so telling today will be debunked eventually. How many careers, families, and people will be negatively affected until the debunking comes?
Excellent book. Great job.

In this fascinating book, Annie Murphy Paul gives us a unique history of personality testing and makes a persuasive case that it's been applied far beyond its scientifically plausible uses. The desire to categorize people based on weak evidence is a strong one, and Paul's skepticism is well-placed and important.

Full disclosure: I have found the Myers-Briggs personality test very helpful in my personal and professional life, so I have been reading this book with some skepticism. I think the skepticism is justified, however, by the author's tendency to imply by guilt by association...even when the only association is proximity in the author's text.

For instance, in the space of a few pages in the chapter on Myers-Briggs, the author simply jumps from the MBTI to discredited theories of racial superiority back to the MBTI and over to discredited theories about "physical type" and back again, apparently hoping to imply that the MBTI is or ought to be similarly discredited even though it has nothing to do with race or physical type or claims related to those categories. This kind of partisan intellectual dishonesty, along with the ad hominem attacks on Myers herself which have been discussed in other reviews, does tend to put me on guard.

If you read what the author does say about the MBTI itself, on its own merits, it's hard to understand exactly what she is trying to vilify. If the worst you can say about a test is that its creator was a brilliant and hard-working eccentric who believed that "everyone had a different set of 'gifts' to contribute to the world," is the sarcasm implied by the quotes around the word gifts supposed to be the basis of your critique?

I work in testing myself and am well aware of the sometimes dangerous uses and limitations of all kinds of tests. I will read the rest of the book with interest but--based on the contrast between my own good experience with the MBTI and the author's snide and dilettantish dismissal of it--with continued skepticsm about the other tests she criticizes.

This books surely has some good bits about the history of Personality Testing and its key persons.

However, it would sell its bits better if they are backed up with examples, graph, numbers and better book formatting.

For example, chapter 2 - Rorschach's Dream - would help readers better if some pictures or examples about how some "Inkblots" are interpreted as if it tells something about the patient.

Having been a fervent supported for MBTI for a while, before coming to realize that it is putting a lot of limitations on people ("you are one type, these are your strengths and that cannot change"), I can only recommend reading this book. It gives a refreshing perspective on many personality tests, and shows how wrong assumptions made in these tests are. Especially regarding pseudo-jungian tests, the simple argument of saying that humans behave differently in different situations makes a whole lot of sense and should at least bring people to be a bit more sceptical about these tests.