I administered the Myers-Briggs for a number of years. I think it is very useful for certain applications, primarily improving communications. It is based on the theories and philosophies of Carl Jung. To be most helpful one must spend some time getting to an understanding of what Jung meant by (for example) "introversion verses extroversion". The definitions of these terms as used by Jung are not the "run of the mill" street definitions and to not understand that renders the results fairly missleading. As to the pseudoscience label. This gets into knowing the difference bewteen Validity and reliability. The MBTI is a highly reliable measurement tool. This does NOT mean one can "rely" on the results to make decisions. It simply means that if you give the test over and over to the same group of people you will get the same results - if you take it once and are an INFJ, it is Very likely you will be an INFJ every time you take it. So from a "scientific/research" point of view it is damn good at measuring what it measures. However, it is VALIDITY not reliability that tells you if what it measures is what you think it measures. The validity of an instrument is much more difficult to establish than the reliability. The reason for this is that while reliability can be established simply by observing that an instrument gives repeatable/consistent results, validity can only be determined through comparing the results to SOME OTHER instrument (or procedures) that proports to measure the same thing. If a paper and pencil test says it measures math skills but all the problems are "word problems" it may in fact be mesuring reading ability. If a selection instrument says it can tell who should be hired for a cooks position, it could be validated by seeing if those with high scores can in fact cook. So what does the MBTI proport to measure? In general it propors to measure personality types. More Specifically: 1) How you are energized, 2) what you pay attention to, 3) How you make decisions 4) Your adopted life style. It then groups every one on earth into 16 categories, much like horiscopes divided the world into 12ths. I say it in this "dramatic" fashion simply to illustrate that if you are trying to squeeze billions of people into 16 categories they have to be fairly general categories. There is some agreement between the MBTI and other measures of personality, but correlations are (not unexpectedly) low. And there's the rub - measuring personalities is nothing like measuring math ability or cooking ability or anything else where there is some objective standard to measure against. Personality is to math as jello is to a rock - you know when you are hit with either one, but tyring to get your hands around the projectile is very different. If the standard for "science" is the rock then yes measuring jello is pseudoscience. However, that does not say anything about the usefullness of pseudoscience. The MBTI is very useful if use correctly. I am an ISTJ psychologist

INFP/INTP, here.

I find it fascinating, but I'm aware of the criticisms. I think it might be somewhere between astrology and OCEAN.

I dig it, deeply, but I try not to put too much stock in it.

I'm an INFJ too! Took it twice...same result both times.

I took the test but forgot the result. I think I’m a FFFT!

It's a nifty tool but I've seen it used as an end all be all instead of a nifty tool..... but I can't really argue with my repeated INTJ results lol

The main risk, as I see it, other than wasted money and time and more meetings, is overcategorization of complex people. Labels based on short tests can lead to generalization and disconnection.

That said, mbti and other indicators like it do offer language for understanding how one communicates/ thrives and how that affects those around you.

I have taken it more than once and have gotten the same: INFJ. I have to say, it made me feel better.....It was validating. I don't know how scientific it is but I agree with my result.

INTJ here. The description pretty much fits my personality. I definitely identify myself as such.

I came out ENTJ-A Commander. About where I ususlly end up on a leadership matrix.

ENFJ here. I worked in rhe training and organizational cjange field most of my career and found it extremely useful.

I have taken a couple of the online tests and have been an INTJ/P in them.

This podcast does a pretty good analysis of the historical origins and scientific evidence for M-B:
[skeptoid.com]
In a nutshell, it's better than astrology, but not by much. Everytime I take it I get different results on 3 of the 4 domains.

ENTP. It's a good way to put people into generalized buckets but does not account for personality quirks of an individual. Once you get into the NT types people have their own distinctive weirdness that sets them apart from the buckets. Also people tend to vacillate between classifications and flip letters depending on mood. I can be ENTJ or INTP sometimes (I have tested as both) as I work wirth those kind of people and have many as friends. Kind of a chameleon effect when we try to fit in or relate to others. So it's a good starting point for putting yourself into context but not a hard bound indicator of personality.

It was big 20 or so years ago,
I put no thought into it at all. May as well be astrology to me.

I've taken the test 3 times in the past 3 years. The first two times I was INFP, and this last time the results were ESFP, with the E and S at barely above the I and N, and noting that I share traits with INFP.

My experience is that it is quite accurate, if you answer the questions honestly.

I'm in flux in the testing and results. They always seem acurate, I'm just a bit fluid though.

I have a blank copy of an old form. Looked at it recently.

14. Does the idea of making a list of what you should get done over a weekend
    (A) appeal to you, or
    leave you cold, or
    positivley depress you?

I think that is a trick question.

INTJ

It is totally made up and is BS.

Where do I study for that? lol

WTFE here

I have taken it a couple of times and seen others take it. Seems pretty accurate.

I like Gregoric better as a learning style indicator.

In my opinion it doesn't mean any more than any other 'personality quiz' you find on the internet. I don't even remember what my result was other than that it started with 'E'.

I think when people read a report that supposedly indicates stuff about themselves they will alter their personality to fit the report.