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

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 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

Once you've read the history of personality testing, you'll see how unscientific this field actually is. And to think major corporations and even courtrooms are using these "tests" to determine life choices like career paths and child custody! Sadly, too many in our culture have bought into this lie. Even many of the initial creators of personality tests renounced their works before their own deaths! I would hope anyone who administers these tests (or takes them) would take the time to understand the origins of personality testing before buying in to all that they promise.

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 a 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 to learn that the tests were poorly designed and don't work. People who have actually read the book like it.

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 con