Do you think of yourself as a logic person or an emotion person? Well, it’s far more comfortable being both. A series of collective mistakes have encouraged people to think of themselves as being good at thinking and bad at emotion, or vice versa. But polarized thinking is aimlessly judgmental, causing us to often miss the mark. And one of the biggest drivers of this false dichotomy is the world-famous Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
How Robust is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?
Dr. Adam Grant is the author of Give and Take and also the host of the exceptional podcast WorkLife with Adam Grant. In a Psychology Today article from 2013 Grant describes two contradictory MBTI scores that he got within a short time frame. His first test said that he was a master-scientist type, the second said he was the care-free life of the party. Luckily for us, he’s an industrial psychologist and he has words to say about this.
Grant asserts that in social science, a test must be “reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive.” And Myers-Briggs does poorly on all fronts. The test is unreliable, with three-quarters of people getting a different score when tested at different times. The validity is poor, providing very little indicator of future behaviour. The test is not comprehensive, glossing-over major predictors of behaviour such as our ability to stay calm and collected under pressure.
The criticism that most resonated with me was that Myers Briggs is not independent. The test should assess different traits separately from one another. My personal journey right now is that I have often thought I had a high-functioning logical brain, but that my grasp of emotion and social interactions could use a bit of work. I test as a “T” or thinker, which implies that I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum of those who test as an “F” or feeler.
Grant asserts that “…research shows that people with stronger thinking and reasoning skills are also better at recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions.” I can think of one example.
When to Take Women’s Opinions Seriously
When I was staff at a labour union, one time I was in a hotel room with a dozen colleagues drinking late into the night. That part was normal, almost mandatory. I was thirty, and I was talking to a serious woman who was older than me. She made a bold statement, and I started joking about whether she was serious. The joke was that of course she’s serious so me asking if she was serious was the ridiculous comment.
The woman interpreted that I was making fun of her credibility, and her voice became stern. She cautioned that she had a lot of seniority, and that I was only temporary staff, and that if I crossed her she would break me in two. It seemed like bullying, and after she went on like this for several minutes I committed not to trifle with her.
The next morning, we were all sober and showered, and I met her at the coffee station. She was sheepish and asked if she owed me an apology. I said it depends. I asked her if twenty years ago, did men using humor to keep women down? Yes, she said, that used to be very common and it still happens to this day. Then I asked, did she think that’s what I was doing? Yes, she said, that was her concern. I commented that she was a good-looking blonde woman in her forties, emphasizing that I wasn’t coming on to her. So, she would have been a very good looking blonde woman in her twenties, trying to be taken seriously, in the 1980s when all of the harassment rules were still being sorted out. Was that tough for her? Yes, she said, it was, and she was one of the ones sorting out the rules.
I clarified that I was not trying to make her less important than me and I understood why she reacted the way she did. I asserted that she had given me helpful feedback, and an apology wasn’t warranted. As for the harsh tone, we would chalk it up to the drinking. From then onward I was respectful and formal with her, and she was a little more relaxed when we talked. A few years later she was in charge of the entire office.
Logic and Emotion Are a False Dichotomy
It may seem like I was being socially-aware. However, I had read hundreds of pages of case law in graduate school about harassment in the workplace, mostly describing mishaps from prior decades. And I know from observing social criticism that jokes are troublesome between people who are sorting out who is in charge, with joking put-downs being particularly painful. In order to get along we need to perceive power imbalance, develop a sense of fair-play between unequals, and be sincere in our efforts. My mental processing was logical. Or rather, I think I was logical.
If we apply judgmental filters to everything we see, we will usually see a lot more of that one thing we’re looking for. When you’re in a crowd looking for a family member who is “wearing yellow” you see yellow garments everywhere. The same also goes for judging social interactions on a logical filter or an emotional filter. It’s not always true that we make things more human by putting more emotion into them. Our circumstances, our personal history, and our amount of spare time can have an outsized impact on how we react and interact. Filters limit our perceptions and reduce our flexibility to decide what to change.
In your adventures as a people leader, a non-judgmental mindset can open you to analytics that offer a steady stream of logical insights. But I assure you, the logic only gets you so far until you stumble onto the stories, the feelings, and the many universes of unique individuals. To get the most out of people and make them feel right about it, let them tell you their facts and feelings. But remember, you don’t need to categorize their hopes and dreams. You need to cherish the whole person who delivers their best, while they’re just being themselves.
It feels better that way. That’s what the research would say… I think.
Stuart Murray Speaks 