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

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for Psychologists-to-be
Review: Based on the the book's title, I thought I might be irritated and upset by the contents. To my surprise, I found the book extremely well researched and well written. The author provides a human interest perspective on those who have developed personality tests; she provides insight into their motivations and aspirations. More importantly, the author gives a balanced perspective on the uses and limitations of personality tests. This book should be must reading for all current and future psychologists.

Rating:
Summary: uncritical thinking
Review: I was sorry to see, in the New York Times, Oct. 9th, another review by someone with no expertise in psychological assessment (Sally Satel) of a book (The Cult of Personality) written by someone with no expertise in psychological assessment (Annie Murphy Paul).

Satel is a psychiatrist and Murphy Paul a journalist: neither profession trains people to use, develop, or criticize psychological tests.

Satel's uncritical acceptance of Murphy Paul's hackneyed and incorrect criticisms shows how little she knows about the subject.

For instance, it would obviously be absurd for a father, she quotes, "to be separated from your family because you saw a wolf instead of a butterfly."

Diagnostic impressions do not compel legal decisions, in the first place, and diagnostic impressions are never formed on single responses to tests, in the second place, and, thirdly, there are all kinds of butterflies and wolves - a wolf tending to its cubs is different to a wolf savaging a little boy, or sitting in a tree outside one's window, and a butterfly sitting on a flower is different to a butterfly gnawing out someone's eyes.

There is of course room for the criticism of unreliable and invalid tests, and of the misuse of valid ones, but this kind of shallow, facile, science journalism gives an undeservedly bad name to the whole genre.

Rating:
Summary: I cannot recommend this book to anyone
Review: I'm dying to know what tragedy in the author's life left her with an irrational hatred for personality tests. This book is almost comical in it's bias. The entire book could be summarized as "personality tests are bad". There have been real abuses (e.g., using the MMPI for employee selection) and the book details those. But the author makes no distinctions, viewing all personality testing as equally bad and these other attacks are completely unsupported.

One aspect of the book is both entertaining and annoying. The author spends a great deal of time exploring the personal lives and histories of personality researchers. It's interesting to read how a particular test arose from someone's life events. But it gets annoying when the author goes off on tangents like details of the researcher's sex lives or their strange quirks. After a while, it's clear that you're reading as much about the author and her unreasonable hatred of personality tests than about the people ostensibly being described and it gets almost funny. In one chapter, an artistically inclined researcher will be ridiculed for being unscientific. In the next, a rigorous methodologist will be dismissed as a "dust bowl empiricist". And later someone who's balanced will be criticized for being both and for being neither!

The author might take umbrage about charges of making "completely unsupported" attacks. She has, in fact, an odd notation system which--if you take the time to flip from the text to the appendix--seemingly carefully relates facts or quotes to their sources. I admit that the author's research is seemingly well documented. However, her conclusions often simply do not follow from the facts and quotes that she has assembled. It's as if this book were written by two people, the careful researcher who got the facts and the wild-eyed fanatical anti-personality crusader who has a message to drive home regardless of the facts.

Reading this book was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. But wrecks are accidents; I feel certain that this book's bias, focus on salacious details, etc. were calculated to cause maximum controversy in a pathetic attempt to generate sales.

I cannot recommend this book to anyone. Gould's "Mis-measurement of Man" is a much better book on a similar topic.

Rating:
Summary: Solid information -- long overdue!
Review: 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.







Rating:
Summary: Everyone should read this book
Review: I'm planning to order this book by the case. It will be my Christmas gift to everyone I know. The misuse of personality testing is so pervasive, so shocking, and so damaging, that people need to know about it. I believe this book will have serious ramifications for our systems of education, employment, child custody, and criminal justice... not to mention the future of online dating!

The personality tests that are still used widely and accepted by our society become self-fulfilling prophecies, and wind up directing people's lives to fortunes or ruin. This book shows that those tests are based on shoddy science, and it is written clearly enough to be easily understood and appreciated by the non-scientist.

I believe that this book would make for excellent discussion or debate in a bookclub or college classroom.

Rating:
Summary: Sensationalism Sells Books
Review: Prior to developing my own graphic design business, I was a corporate resource who, many years ago, was presented with the Myers Briggs test as part of an HR program. I was skeptical about all assessments but as soon as I started answering the MB questions, I started to get a better understanding of my own thought process. And when I was taken through a multi-day workshop, after the assessment, to more fully understand the results and recognize how they could be applied to improve my own quality of life, I was hooked. I have been using these lessons ever since, have gone on to take further MB assessments, and have always been impressed by the results.

This book is one of those unfortunate, poorly researched, misdirected efforts to grab some limelight. And it is an indication of the lack of media objectivity that several articles, about this book, have fallen in to the same trap of poor research and complete disregard for objective evidence that contradicts a great deal of what the author claims. Just like the repeated claims of the existence of WMD in Iraq, insist long enough, and it becomes true in a person's mind.

One specific point, in response to other feedback - do not confuse the Myers Briggs test with the Keirsey test. They are two very different things. Sure you may get a four letter result but the results and interpretations are based on two different approaches to personality and temperament.

Finally, given what has been written, an uninformed individual may think that the Myers Briggs test was written many years ago and has stayed the same ever since. This is simply not the truth. There is solid realization that all these assessments need to be kept up to date and need to conform to changes in our socio-economic environment. On-going research is carried out and the assessments are updated regularly. The original intention of the Myers was to help people, not to profit from them.

Those who go to the expense of buying this book would be better off saving their money and getting a more objective viewpoint from a psychology professional.


Rating:
Summary: Many important points, but...
Review: 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.


Rating:
Summary: Who among us wouldn't want to know who we are?
Review: We all look for signs that can tell us more about our preferences, talents, strengths, competencies, traits and even our weaknesses. In today's environment of changing technology and evolving complexity, we don't want to have to fake it. Yet, we must keep growing our abilities to grasp the success we seek.

Learning what we don't know about ourselves and others helps us to understand why we do what we do. As we become more self-aware, we can consciously choose how we wish to improve our lives. Personality and competency assessments help us to answer these important questions: Who are we? How do others see us? How do we relate to others?

Anne Murphy Paul's new book tells us that all these personality assessments serve deeply felt needs:

They subdue the blooming, buzzing hive of differences among people.

They allow predictions to be made and advice to be dispensed.

They permit swift judgments about strangers.

They authorize the assignment of individuals, ourselves included, to the comforting confines of a group.

They often justify social arrangements as they are, extending a reassuring sense of stability to some.

And, most important, they offer to explain why---why we are the way we are.

Every assessment publisher and professional should buy and read this book to gain a fresh perspective of what's important regarding self-assessment instruments and their interpretation.

Rating:
Summary: '60's Folk Satire, '70's Murder Mysteries, or What?
Review: While I agree, with most reviewers, that Paul correctly points out the real and potential misuses of personality tests, this book is either the funniest satire or tragically inaccurate book I've ever read on personality. At one point, I began thinking that this was deliberately written to be a folk music satirical song from the 60's -- or a Saturday Night Live scit. I suspect that others readers might also be irritated by the author's "Jessica Fletcher Wannabe" writing style of talking about a test without revealing the name -- expect to most readers who already know exactly what test the chapter is about so why the mysterious lead up to revealing the subject.

What is most disturbing about this book is not the valid cautions which Paul makes. It's the overwhelming illogic of much if not most of the information. I stopped making notations where the logic was impossible to follow -- because I decided it wasn't worth it to mark every other page.

While Paul cites "research says" so often with the references listed only broadly in the back of the book that it quickly becomes irritating, it's even more interesting how she judges research for her position as valid and research against her view as questionable. I suspect Paul is completely unaware of how biased many critics are -- and how the university publish or perish world has created an environment where one can and does criticize the work of others. Taking the high road, this could lead to an argument that maybe there's some accuracy in most points of view -- until we perhaps do discover the absolute truth.

Paul shows a real knack for statistical inaccuracy and misuse of information. She points out, for example, that 30% of companies use personality tests. She fails to point out the powerful, scorecard-based research, that this same usage percentage -- 30% -- represents the top 10% of performing companies on measures of turnover, sales per employee, and market valuation. Paul throws out statistical information showing either her own ignorance or her hope that readers are. She cites low validity information to dismiss a test's accuracy -- without explaining the terms and without even approaching a discussion of significance.

Perhaps most tragic is that the good information about cautions is so overwhelmed by the logical inaccuracies throughout this book. While some test zealots may believe their test is the only predictor of something, most qualified professionals never use a single measure. This leads to my confusion over the bizarre conclusion to the book, her sudden endorsement of the life story approach. For starters, the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals will always use tests, interviews, life experiences, and other information to put together the total picture. Secondly, the biases Paul suggests do not exist in the life story approach have been demonstrated -- "by research" -- to be much more inaccurate than tests. Any published test must show at least some positive correlation -- some interview research has demonstrated a negative correlation.

Another reviewer pondered about what personality test did Paul take that caused this reaction. I pondered if she ever took one.

Rating:
Summary: This is a great book. How sad that it is even controversial.
Review: Why are some people so desperate for simplification? The longest, most negative review posted for The Cult of Personality starts with an unashamed declaration that the reviewer had never even read the book. Well, I suppose if you are the kind of person who prefers capsule summaries to an intelligent, well-researched book, you may also be the kind of person who wants a magic test that will tell you who to hire or not, and you might be scared and threatened when somebody presents the argument that the tests were poorly designed, misapplied, and don't work.

People who have actually read the book, and who don't work for testing companies, love it.