Do personality tests work? - Merve Emre

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

In 1942, a mother-daughter duo

1942 年，一對母女，

Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers

凱瑟琳庫克布里格斯 與伊莎貝爾布里格斯邁爾斯

developed a questionnaire that classified people’s personalities into 16 types.

開發問卷，將人格分成十六類，

Called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI,

稱為「邁爾斯-布里格斯性格分類法」

或 MBTI，

it would go on to become

接著成為了世界上 最廣為使用的人格測驗之一。

one of the world’s most widely-used personality tests.

Today, personality testing is a multi-billion dollar industry

現今，人格測驗是個 價值數十億美金的產業，

used by individuals, schools, and companies.

被個人、學校、公司用到。

But none of these tests, including the MBTI, the Big Five,

但這類測驗當中沒有任何一種， 不論是 MBTI、五大性格模型、

the DiSC assessment, the Process Communication Model,

DISC 評估、過程交流模型，

and the Enneagram,

及九型人格學， 都無法揭示出人格的真相。

actually reveal truths about personality.

In fact, it’s up for debate whether personality

事實上，就連人格是否是一種穩定、

is a stable, measurable feature of an individual at all.

可測量的個人特徵，都還有爭議性。

Part of the problem is the way the tests are constructed.

部分問題在於這些測驗的建構方式。

Each is based on a different set of metrics to define personality:

每種測驗都根據不同的 度量方式來定義人格：

the Myers-Briggs, for instance,

比如，邁爾斯-布里格斯性格分類法

focuses on features like introversion and extroversion

著重用內向和外向等特徵

to classify people into personality "types,"

將人分類成人格「類型」，

while the Big Five scores participants on five different traits.

而五大性格則是分別就 受測者的五種不同特性來評分。

Most are self-reported,

大部分都是自陳式，

meaning the results are based on questions participants answer about themselves.

即，測驗結果要看受測者自己 如何回答關於自己的問題。

So it’s easy to lie, but even with the best intentions,

所以，說謊並不難， 但，就算有最好的意圖，

objective self-evaluation is tricky.

客觀評估自己也不是件易事。

Take this question from the Big Five:

以五大性格模型的這個問題為例：

How would you rate the accuracy of the statement "I am always prepared"?

你認為用「我總是有所準備」

這句話來描述你，有多正確？

There’s a clear favorable answer here, which makes it difficult to be objective.

這個問題很明顯會有比較 討喜的答案，因此很難客觀。

People subconsciously aim to please:

人的潛意識就會以討好為目標：

when asked to agree or disagree, we show a bias

若被問到同意或不同意，我們會偏向

toward answering however we believe the person or institution

根據我們認為提問的人或機構

asking the question wants us to answer.

可能會希望聽到的答案來作答。

Here’s another question—

再舉一個問題——

what do you value more, justice or fairness?

你比較重視何者，正義或公平？

What about harmony or forgiveness?

那和諧或寬恕呢？

You may well value both sides of each pair,

這些問題的兩個選項， 你可能都同等重視，

but the MBTI would force you to choose one.

但 MBTI 會強迫你必須要擇一。

And while it’s tempting to assume the results of that forced choice

雖然我們會很想要假設， 被迫擇一所選出的答案

must somehow reveal a true preference, they don’t:

一定也或多或少反映出 真實的偏好，但並非如此：

When faced with the same forced choice question multiple times,

若讓同樣的人多次 面對同樣的強迫選擇題，

the same person will sometimes change their answer.

有時，他所選的答案會改變。

Given these design flaws, it’s no surprise that test results can be inconsistent.

有這些設計瑕疵，

測驗結果沒有一致性也不讓人意外。

One study found that nearly half of people who take the Myers-Briggs a second time

一項研究發現，有近半的人在做過 邁爾斯-布里格斯測驗的五週後

only five weeks after the first get assigned a different type.

再做第二次測驗， 結果被分類到不同的類型。

And other studies on the Myers-Briggs have found that people with very similar scores

其他關於邁爾斯-布里格斯測驗的 研究發現，得分很接近的人

end up being placed in different categories,

最後卻被分到不同的類別，

suggesting that the strict divisions between personality types

這表示人格類型的精確分界

don’t reflect real-life nuances.

並沒有反應出現實中的細微差別。

Complicating matters further,

更複雜的是，

the definitions of personality traits are constantly shifting.

人格特性的定義經常在改變。

The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung,

瑞士精神科醫生卡爾榮格

who popularized the terms introvert and extrovert,

讓「內向」與「外向」 這兩個詞變得很普及，

defined an introvert as someone who sticks to their principles

他把內向定義為

不論情況如何都堅守自己原則，

regardless of situation,

and an extrovert as someone who molds their self according to circumstance.

而外向則是會視情況來調整自己。

Introversion later came to mean shyness, while an extrovert was someone outgoing.

後來，內向指的是害羞，

而外向指的是開朗愛交際。

Today, an introvert is someone who finds alone time restorative,

現今，內向的人認為 獨處時間具有恢復作用，

an extrovert draws energy from social interaction,

而外向的人是從 社交互動中汲取能量，

and an ambivert falls somewhere between these two extremes.

既外向又內向的人 則是落在這兩極端之間。

The notion of an innate, unchanging personality

所有這些測驗的基礎想法，

都是認為人格是天生的，不會改變。

forms the basis of all these tests.

But research increasingly suggests that personality shifts during key periods—

但越來越多研究指出，

關鍵時期會發生人格轉變——

like our school years, or when we start working.

比如就學的時期或開始工作的時期。

Though certain features of a person’s behavior

雖然人的某些行為特徵

may remain relatively stable over time,

可能相對不太會隨時間改變，

others are malleable, moulded by our upbringing, life experiences, and age.

但其他特徵則有可塑性，會受到

養育、人生歷練，以及年齡所影響。

All of this matters more or less depending on how a personality test is used.

上述這些是否重要，就要看 人格測驗是被用在什麼地方。

Though anyone using them should take the results with a grain of salt,

雖然使用人格測驗的人 應該知道結果要打折扣，

there isn’t much harm in individual use—

個人使用不太會造成什麼傷害——

and users may even learn some new terms and concepts in the process.

在過程中，使用者可能還會 學到一些新用語和概念。

But the use of personality tests extends far beyond self discovery.

但，人格測驗的應用， 遠遠超過個人探索。

Schools use them to advise students what to study and what jobs to pursue.

學校用人格測驗 來建議學生該研讀什麼、

該追求什麼工作。

Companies use them decide who to hire and for what positions.

公司用人格測驗來決定 哪個職位要僱用哪個人。

Yet the results don’t predict how a person will perform in a specific role.

但，測驗結果並不代表受測者 在特定角色的表現會如何。

So by using personality tests this way,

如果機構是這樣使用人格測驗，

institutions can deprive people of opportunities they’d excel at,

也許會剝奪了受測者 發揮所長的機會，

or discourage them from considering certain paths.

或者勸他們不要考量某些道路。