We received this question after the publication of articles Simple SDTEST® Gives Great Possibilities and Mathematical Psychology. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) and Spiral Dynamics are two systems that categorize personality traits and motivational values, respectively. This article is dedicated to answering this question. It will show with a real example how to use the SDTEST® V.U.C.A. poll designer.
Brief Overviews of the Systems
MBTI® categorizes personality into 16 types based on preferences across four dichotomies: Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving. It has been extensively validated and applied in career development, leadership, and team-building.
Spiral Dynamics maps the evolution of motivational value systems in a spectrum of colors or levels, from basic survivalist Beige to holistic-minded Turquoise. It builds on Clare Graves' theory of levels of human existence and has been used extensively in organizational development and coaching. SDTEST® has 85353 results from 171 countries, results clustered into 7942 unique motivational patterns.
While both systems group people into "types", MBTI® reflects non-hierarchical preferences while Spiral Dynamics depicts hierarchical development.
Possible Connections Between the Systems
Some relationships could potentially be theorized between MBTI® types and Spiral levels based on apparent similarities in focus:
Intuitive types (N) may gravitate toward the holistic Yellow and Turquoise levels.
Sensing types (S) match the practical Red and Blue levels.
Thinking types (T) resonate with the objective, logical Orange level.
Feeling types (F) align with the harmonic Green level.
So Intuitive, Feeling types like INFJ could speculatively be associated with later Green and Yellow Spiral levels, while Sensing, Thinking types such as ISTJ fit earlier Blue and Orange levels.
Studying the correlation between Spiral Dynamics developmental stages and MBTI® personality types could potentially yield some useful insights, but it also has limitations:
Potential benefits:
Seeing relationships between motivational values and personality preferences - e.g., Achiever Orange correlated with Thinking preference
Understanding interactions between developmental level and type - e.g., how INFJs may express differently at different Spiral levels
Explaining tensions within types via value differences - e.g., INTJs driven by power versus achievement
Mapping types/functions to transitional stages - e.g., Intuition in late Orange, Feeling in early Green
Limitations:
Differences in goals and validation of the two systems
Individuals express both multiple values and multifaceted personalities
Correlations may reinforce stereotypes about both frameworks
Intriguing connections may emerge, directly linking MBTI® types to Spiral Dynamics levels.
The SDTEST® V.U.C.A. poll designer
The SDTEST® V.U.C.A. poll designer is as simple as Google Forms. Watch this two-minute video to get acquainted and compare. The main difference of the SDTEST® V.U.C.A. poll designer is the presence of an independent multilingual UI for changing the site language and poll form. If, for example, your primary site language is English, and you do the poll in 6 international UN languages, then you only need to use the language change window for the poll form. If you are doing this work together with colleagues whose primary language is Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, German, French, or other languages, then for their convenience, they can change the language of the site.
Create and share your Poll (MBTI®)
Now you know the functionality of the Designer, and you can create your own, for example, MBTI®.
We invite you to look “under the hood” of the poll Psychological Wellbeing (by Carol D. Ryff) we have already created. Developed by psychologist Carol D. Ryff, the 42-item Psychological Wellbeing (PWB) Scale. Source: Ryff, Carol D., Psychological Well-Being Revisited: Advances in Science and Practice, NIH Public Access, Psychother Psychosom, Vol.83, No.1, Pp.31, (2014). Watch the next two-minute video.
Now you need to share the link to your survey, and survey participants choose the language in which they are comfortable answering the questions. Watch the next one-minute video.
Below you can read an abridged version of the results of our VUCApoll “Psychological Wellbeing (by Carol D. Ryff)“. The full version of the results is available for free in the FAQ section after login or registration.
Exploring correlations between the two systems, MBTI® and Spiral Dynamics, could provide additional insights into motivational development and personality.
Some opportunities this could open up include:
Gaining a more multifaceted view of personality by seeing how motivational values at different Spiral levels interact with MBTI® preferences. For example, Thinking types may express differently at Blue conformity-focused stages versus Orange achievement-focused stages.
Understanding nuanced developmental pathways for different personalities. For instance, mapping what transitional stages INTJs may pass through as they evolve in consciousness compared to ESFPs.
Diagnosing developmental conflicts and tensions within the same MBTI® type driven by differing value systems. An ESTJ at the Red power-driven stage may experience internal tensions with one at the Orange efficiency-focused stage.
Appreciating how different MBTI® functions or skill sets come to the fore at different Spiral levels. For example, Intuition was expressed more strongly in late Orange, and Feeling came online in early Green.
Tailoring coaching and development interventions by incorporating personality and motivational level insights. An INFP may need a different approach at Blue versus Green.
However, deriving such integrative insights requires avoiding simplistic stereotyping, acknowledging limitations in current Spiral Dynamics validation, and recognizing that personality and values are multi-faceted within individuals. If these complexities are accounted for, exploring potential connections between the frameworks could yield a more textured perspective on the interplay between personality type, values, and consciousness development over the lifespan. However, this endeavor requires extensive additional research and cautious interpretation.
BPS critiques MBTI®'s dichotomous typing
Context: The BPS recognizes the MBTI® as a personality assessment tool, but it critiques its dichotomous typing—i.e., the MBTI®’s structure of categorizing people into one of 16 personality types based on four binary preferences (Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving). This critique stems from methodological and theoretical concerns.
Details:
Dichotomous Nature: The MBTI® assigns individuals to one of two poles on each of its four dimensions (e.g., E or I, S or N), resulting in 16 discrete types (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP). This binary approach contrasts with continuous trait models like the Big Five, where traits (e.g., Neuroticism, Openness) are measured on a spectrum.
BPS Critique:
Psychometric Concerns: The BPS, via its Psychological Testing Centre, notes that the dichotomous typing can oversimplify human personality, ignoring the gradations within individuals. For example, someone might score close to the midpoint between E and I but still be labeled as one or the other, potentially misrepresenting their true tendencies.
Reliability Issues: Test-retest reliability for MBTI® types can be inconsistent, with studies showing 40–50% of people receiving a different type upon retesting after weeks or months (Pittenger, 2005, Consulting Psychology Journal). This instability undermines the binary model’s stability, as the BPS highlights in its reviews.
Validity Concerns: The BPS questions whether the types capture meaningful psychological constructs, especially compared to dimensional models. Correlations with the Big Five (e.g., E/I with Extraversion, T/F with Agreeableness) exist but are imperfect, suggesting the MBTI®’s categories may not fully align with established personality science.
Practical Implications: The critique suggests the MBTI®’s dichotomous typing risks pigeonholing individuals, reducing its utility for precise assessment or counseling. For instance, a person near the E/I threshold might not fit neatly into either category, leading to misinterpretation in workplace or clinical settings.
Sources: BPS’s Psychological Testing Centre reports (available via bps.org.uk) and Pittenger’s 2005 critique (Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory) detail this, noting the MBTI®’s popularity doesn’t equate to scientific precision.
Summary: The BPS critiques MBTI®’s dichotomous typing for oversimplifying personality, risking reliability and validity issues, and limiting its scientific depth compared to continuous models. This informs its cautious endorsement, emphasizing trained use to mitigate misinterpretation.
Ongoing Debates About MBTI®'s Scientific Depth
Context: Despite BPS recognition and external validation studies since the 1940s, the MBTI® faces ongoing debates about its scientific depth—its theoretical foundation, empirical support, and practical utility in psychology. These debates persist among researchers, practitioners, and critics.
Details:
Theoretical Foundation:
Jungian Roots: MBTI® stems from Carl Jung’s Psychological Types (1921), adapted by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers. Jung’s theory isn’t empirically validated like modern personality models—it’s based on clinical observations, not large-scale data, raising questions about its scientific basis.
Critique: Many psychologists argue Jung’s typology lacks a falsifiable, testable framework. The MBTI®’s translation into binary types (e.g., E/I) is seen as a stretch from Jung’s nuanced “functions” (e.g., Thinking, Feeling), lacking robust theoretical grounding (Barbuto, 1997, Psychological Reports).
Empirical Support:
Reliability: While test-retest reliability for MBTI® preferences shows
r = 0.8–0.9
over short intervals, type stability (16 combinations) drops significantly over time (e.g., 50% type change in 5 weeks, Pittenger, 1993, Journal of Career Planning). This challenges its consistency as a scientific tool.
Validity: Correlations with the Big Five (e.g., E/I with Extraversion,
r \approx 0.7
; T/F with Agreeableness,
r \approx 0.3–0.5
) exist, but they’re imperfect (McCrae & Costa, 1989, Journal of Personality). Critics argue MBTI® types don’t predict behavior or outcomes (e.g., job performance) as well as dimensional traits, questioning construct validity.
Factor Analysis: Studies (e.g., Furnham et al., 2003, European Journal of Personality) suggest MBTI® dimensions don’t always load cleanly onto distinct factors, hinting at overlap or redundancy compared to the Big Five’s clear structure.
Practical Utility vs. Science:
Popularity: MBTI®’s widespread use (e.g., in HR, counseling) doesn’t equate to scientific depth. Its appeal lies in accessibility and type descriptions, not empirical strength—critics (e.g., Pittenger, 2005) call it “pseudoscience” for overreaching its evidence.
Critique of Dichotomy: The binary typing, as noted earlier, is a major sticking point—psychologists prefer continuous measures (e.g., NEO-PI-R) for their precision, fueling debates about MBTI®’s scientific value.
Ongoing Debates:
Proponents: Supporters (e.g., CPP Inc., Journal of Psychological Type) argue MBTI®’s Jungian basis, reliability, and practical utility justify its use, citing decades of data and BPS/APA acceptance (though APA’s endorsement is limited).
Critics: Academics (e.g., Paul, 2004, Skeptical Inquirer) question its scientific depth, noting poor predictive power, lack of longitudinal evidence, and reliance on self-report without objective measures. They contrast it with evidence-based models like the Big Five, which have extensive longitudinal and cross-cultural validation.
BPS Stance: The BPS acknowledges MBTI®’s utility but warns of its limitations, requiring trained administration to mitigate risks—reflecting this ongoing tension.
Recent Developments: As of 2025, debates continue in psychology forums and journals (e.g., Personality and Individual Differences). Some defend MBTI®’s predictive validity in specific contexts (e.g., team dynamics), while others push for dimensional alternatives, questioning its depth for serious research.
Summary: The ongoing debates about MBTI®’s scientific depth center on its theoretical (Jungian) roots, inconsistent reliability/validity, and practical popularity outstripping empirical support. Critics argue it’s more heuristic than scientific, while proponents highlight its utility, creating a polarized discourse that BPS navigates cautiously.
Conclusion
In summary, while the MBTI® personality typology and Spiral Dynamics developmental spectrum offer distinct lenses, exploring their potential connections could yield additional insights. Observing how motivational values interact with personality preferences at different stages may provide a more multifaceted view of individual differences. However, directly coupling the two frameworks oversimplifies their nuances.
Each system has a different purpose and validation base. Individuals express multifaceted personalities and multi-layered values that resist rigid mapping between categories. Stereotyping risks must also be avoided. If these complexities are recognized, judiciously analyzing relationships between the two systems could contribute to a more textured understanding of personality and consciousness development. However, further research and careful interpretation are required to derive meaningful integrative insights from correlations.
An open and nuanced exploration of how motivational development interplays with personality types, without forcing definitive linkages, may offer complementary perspectives that enrich our comprehension of the psychology of individual differences. This endeavor promises intellectual rewards but requires diligence in acknowledging both frameworks' limitations and avoiding oversimplification. With care, synergies between them may help capture a fuller portrait of diversity in personality and values.