Doc Review- Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests

As I mentioned in the previous post, Persona is on my mind for 3 reasons:

1) the subject matter is a topic that I've had sincere interest in for over 20 years

2) the movie had an emotional impact on me that was deeply personal

3) it is not what I would consider a good movie, or a good use of the documentary format to deliver the kind of impact that it had so much potential to have.  

I stumbled on Persona while surfing for something to watch

in my kitchen while doing the normal daily chores that center around dinner prep and cleanup.  I didn't know it existed until I saw the title on my HBO Max home screen and hit play without so much as watching a preview or reading a description.  I knew I'd be interested.  From the moment I pressed play, I knew that I'd better make sure I follow closely, as my critical itch began to flare up.

Persona starts off providing an introduction to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the most popular form of personality typing.  After a brief exploration of the more fun and innocuous ways MBTI typing is used today, we take a hard turn and connect the practice of typing to the job application process that many subjects of the film have experienced and continue to deal with.  We'll meet several people who are struggling to find employment in this environment.  We'll then go on to meet some of the people behind the curtain of this algorithmic secret sauce.  In between segments, we'll also hear the story of Merve Emre's research into the history of the key principles in the advancement of the way we study and group personality today.  She will then tell us about the nefarious conclusions that she developed about the very origins of MBTI while on this journey.  We will wrap up with some of the subjects answering a call to action and advocacy that is very much needed to prevent society from taking a dangerous detour, but we the viewer are left thinking that all of the momentum is against them, and all of us really.

I was first introduced to MBTI in college in 1994 as part of an RA team building activity.  I was astounded by the results and what they told me about myself.  I especially bought in to the description for my type preference, ENTJ which suggested I was bound to be a successful leader.  As time went on and I continued to learn more about myself in college and later career endeavors, I moved on from embracing the ENTJ profile that I had thought described me so well.  Had my personality changed?  No idea, but hey, what could a personality test really know about me?  Maybe it's just pseudo-science after all.  Several years later, a co-worker mentioned an MBTI test from her MBA class textbook and suggested we all take it and compare results for fun.  I answered the questions as honestly and sincerely as I could.  I was genuinely curious to find out whether I would get the same result I did in college or not.  I did not.  This time my answers indicated that I would be classified as an INFJ.  She had a link to a website with the descriptions for all 16 types that were lengthy and detailed.  I read the description for ENTJ and INFJ.  At that point in time, the INFJ description resonated far more than the description for an ENTJ did.  I knew myself better when I took the test this time as I was several years older.  Also, I considered the possibility that when I was in college and doing an activity with fellow RA staff members, I was probably answering the questions like the person I wanted to be at the time more than the person I actually was.  Self-discovery is a thing that is never complete, but in college it is barely started.

For the next 20 years, I've never deviated from identifying most strongly with the traits that describe an INFJ.  I have no reason to doubt that the model effectively describes how I process information and make sense of the world around me.  But the most useful thing about this tool is that it also opened my eyes about why others don't see things the way I do and more importantly, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  By knowing and learning about the other types and how they process information, I also know what people can be expected to be able to do, and what I shouldn't expect from them without handling it with care.  The value of this is immeasurable in that it helps me manage expectations, make better decisions about who to go to for help depending on what my needs are, and also be a better coach to my professional teammates and subordinates.  

I've already gone deeper into the application of MBTI than the entire 'Persona' documentary does.  'Persona' inhabits several different spaces while trying to shape how you think about personality typing.  Among them are:

• What is MBTI?
• It's a test created by Isabell Briggs-Myers and her mother Katherine Briggs who based their work on Carl Jung's principles of archetypes in personalities that exist in all societies throughout time.  
• The documentary then rhetorically asks "but is it just that, or is it something much more sinister??????!!!!!"
• My answer: No, it really is just that.  More on this later.
• Companies use "personality tests" and algorithms to screen job applicants
• It is never explicitly mentioned that the tests they will examine in the movie are most definitely NOT a traditional application of MBTI testing and nor are they being used in a way that any responsible member of the MBTI community would recommend.
• For certain people in our society, finding work is heartbreakingly difficult and many times that is due to circumstances beyond their control and/or a result of paying too high a price for indiscretions that any of us could make.

Some of the themes that aren't examined as thoroughly by the movie but reside between the lines indulge our very real human tendency to define our self-worth through our work.  Being intentionally excluded from the work force by an impenetrable barrier in the form of a computer algorithm has deeply ominous implications for how a large percentage of society will feel about their inherent value as a person, and the results have already been tragic for one of the subjects of the film and likely countless others.

The substance of MBTI tests are not examined at all while employment screening tests are lightly touched on, but not for what they attempt to measure or how.  The few employment screening questions that do get examined stood out to me as questions that have little to do with determining a persons four letter MBTI code.  These are questions that seem to be evaluating whether a person suffers from depression or assessing their morals.  In the MBTI community, these would not be regarded as questions assessing personality traits, but rather character traits and overall mental health.  

Even at a high level, this is a distinction of critical importance that the movie never explores at all.  Personality traits are pretty much hard coded into who we are.  They are somewhat fluid while very young, but we're born with them, they stay with us for life and there are no good or bad ones.  There are no right or wrong personality traits in the MBTI world.  Your four letter code is a combination of what are called functions.  Think of a tool box that is filled with an assortment of tools.  The functions are tools.  There is nothing good or bad about a wrench.  There is nothing good or bad about a hammer.  But a hammer doesn't make a very good wrench and a wrench doesn't make a very good hammer.  Character on the other hand is entirely up to you and the choices you make.  Character is the part of you that sees that you have a wrench and a hammer, and selects the tool and how you use it.  You can use a wrench to tighten a nut (good) or you can throw it at somebody who pisses you off (bad).  Your personality is defined by what tools are in your toolbox. It’s character, not personality that makes the decision about how to use those tools. Mental health is an altogether different issue that can affect people of all personalities and character. 

You cannot change your personality preferences.  The tools that you were born with are the ones you've spent the most time developing proficiency using.  You can learn to use all of the other tools, but you'll always be the best at using the ones you've had the most experience using, and the most challenged by the ones that you've been more recently introduced to.  You can change your character.  You can define and re-define your value system and how that influences your decisions as much as you see fit.  Mental health is not something that I'll try to address further here other than to say that tests that assess mental health have nothing to do with MBTI typing.  

Employers discussed in this movie appear to be screening applicants more on their character and mental health than on their MBTI type.  It will then dive deeply into the obvious ethical concern about what is taking place.  This is an alarming and significant revelation about a practice with potential to have very harmful effects on everyone whether they know it or not, including the people who are attempting to benefit from it.

There is no wrong personality for any company.  In fact, the only wrong way to staff a company is to have a workforce that doesn't have the best mix of types in their culture. The challenge then becomes identifying where those people fit in your organization and how best to develop them to realize their potential.  Excluding people who don't already have the characteristics of your model employees is a fools' errand.  If extended to its logical conclusion, you will have a workforce of clones that only knows how to solve a specific set of problems using a specific set of tools.  This is not a model for how to build a successful business or develop it and the people who run it to their fullest potential.  

If you could staff with a computer, somebody didn't tell the people who recruit college athletes who spend a great deal of time traveling the country to attend high school games, meet with families, and talk with their prospective athletes' coaches.  What are they doing here that can be done with a computer?  It has to do with measuring things which are intangible.  What is this kid's work ethic like?  How about their attitude?  How do they handle failure and do they learn from it?  What do they do when things get difficult?  If they could answer these character questions with a computer, they could save a lot of time and money.  Take a look at what Geno Auriemma has to say about this. 

These are things that an algorithm cannot answer and shouldn't try to.  But businesses are trying to because software developers have told them they have a product that has cracked the code.  College Football used to select which teams played in bowl games using a computer algorithm.  Nobody liked it.  In 2014, they scrapped the model and began selecting games by committee.  Now I won't argue the merits of either system, but the one thing the committee approach did do is generate a different outcome from the one the computer model predicted and the team that won did so through their own merit and effort.  That confirmed something that we all already knew.  That there is no computer that can measure what is in a person's heart.  

One of the brains behind an employment screening algorithm mixes some truth with some cheap wisdom when asked challenging questions like "what do you say about people who can't find a way to earn a living because of your product?"  He answers that "maybe that person applied for the wrong job...." and goes on to wax poetically about the beauty of the right person finding the right niche in life and maximizing their potential.  It would be interesting to know if one of his algorithms would have hired a 20 year old version of himself if such an experiment were possible.  Who hasn't had a job that they hated?  Who can also say that the only reason they hated this job could be directly tied to their attributes not being a good fit for the position?  How many times has someone recognized a problem in the work place and become a part of making the place better?  It's impossible to know the answer, but the one thing this man's thinking does guarantee is that person will likely be screened out during the application process that he created.  He also doesn’t afford anyone the opportunity to struggle in a job and grow from it, thus making them more able to be not only a viable but a strong contributor to a business in the future.

As we watch the movie, the algorithm model trends toward obsolescence.  We learn that people have learned how to outsmart the test, that new technology under development is already in use that evaluates facial features and body language while the candidate answers questions.  One creator of this technology proudly proclaims that his creation succeeds where question based testing algorithms fail.  He demonstrates two different body language reactions to answering the question "do you like your boss" with the answer "yes."  One way is clearly "good" while the other way is well.....in the eye of the beholder I guess.  But the machine will interpret it as bad.  Again, where does this take us if extended to it's logical conclusion?  It leads to a staffing our business only with people who love their previous boss and those who are very good at lying about loving their previous boss.  Who gets screened out?  People who don't like their boss.  There may be a perfectly good reason for that.  Maybe their boss has asked them to do something unethical and that's why they're looking for a new job.  In that case, I as a prospective employer would hope that this person would say "no" and that I could get an opportunity to hear more about why.  This person, just based on what I know here and nothing else may be a very good find.  This is why I say that this practice is hurtful to everyone everywhere, not just the frustrated job seeker.  

Now I've already talked about the good things that I've learned from studying MBTI.  It has played a huge part in helping me navigate through my professional and personal life.  The fact that it can be used so stupidly by vendors looking to sell an easy button that promises to make the the very difficult process of hiring good employees more manageable doesn't change the fact that when used correctly, it is still a very powerful tool for good.  Does it matter that Merve Emre discovered that Isabell Briggs-Myers wrote a novel that could be construed as racist when determining the value of the MBTI?  I don't think so.  But Emre says that Briggs-Myers second novel involves some members of a family in the American South who commit suicide when they discover that they have a small trace of African ancestry.  I've never read the novel so I have no Idea if Brigg-Myers sympathizes with this family's clearly misguided judgment about their history or if it is a plot device which serves the larger story.  Emre goes on to talk about how Briggs-Myers only used her assessment on people who had an IQ of 100 or higher and had different assessments for women than for men.  She doesn't delve into what the differences are.  There could be multiple reasons for this.  The practice was new at the time and you can justify not using a model on a population that has not been adequately studied yet.  Perhaps Briggs-Myers had motivations for doing this that were unsavory, but with the amount of information provided there is plenty to consider before drawing such a conclusion.  But without going any further, the die is cast that Isabell Briggs-Myers was a white supremacist, ableist, misogynist and therefore the MBTI is designed to enable and propagate these things throughout society.  Another subject of the documentary later states that "personality tests are by and large constructed to be ableist, to be racist, to be sexist, and to be classist."  No they aren't.  They are constructed to help people understand themselves and others.  They are tools that when used ethically, can be very helpful.  They are also tools that can be misused.  They are like the earlier mentioned wrench that can tighten a nut or crack a skull.  But the wrench in and of itself is neither smart or violent in nature.  How it is used is up to the person using it.  

'well I could have been an actor, but I wound up here....I just have to look good I don't have to be clear.....come and whisper in my ear give us......."DIRTY LAUNDRY."  That's right Persona, consider yourself the first to be served with the Big Empty Dirty Laundry Award.  But I really loved the spooky music and unnerving art work that accompanied the "one drop" segment.    

Now look, lest anyone think I'm dismissing some legitimate concerns being raised about oppression, I'm here to say that it is very possible that Briggs-Myers is deserving of the charges leveled by this movie. I have not one frickin' clue.  I've never met her and I'm not here to defend her.  I’m also not ready to convict her without more concrete evidence than the paper thin case presented.  My point is that if you are here to make a case that anyone is racist, sexist, ableist or any other ist and that their work therefore enhances evil isms, back up your accusations with more than just speculation about the motivations behind two very narrowly examined aspects of their work.  

One last thing I want to touch on before wrapping this up.  I was truly moved to tears by two subjects of this movie.  An immense tragedy occurs that involves someone who articulates the beauty of a diverse workforce far better than I have here.  The garden metaphor that is used serves to illustrate just exactly what the business world is depriving itself of, and in some cases, the rest of the world too.  I can't emphasize this enough but you'll have to see the movie to know what I'm talking about.  The other subject involves a job seeker who is so hopeful and optimistic when he says one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time: "I have suffered many times before having this opportunity of coming to Hope (an employment assistance service depicted in the film). But when I came here, it gave me hope.  It gave me a path.  It gave me everything that I've been dreaming of when I couldn't get it anywhere else.  One day, someone will take an interest in me."  The moment when he finds a job, he is understandably jubilant, and I just broke down completely.  I honestly don't know how I could have been able to remain optimistic if I were in his shoes with a deck stacked against me like that and it is incredibly beautiful to see such an honest portrayal of his perseverance through it all.  

Persona does justice to the marginalized victims of this practice, delivers an unjust guilty verdict to the practice of personality typing and the people who created it, and does no favors to businesses who need to be warned about why their attempts to use the easy button to measure intangibles will be their undoing.  

UPDATE

I’ve since rewatched Persona and taken a much closer look at something that I failed to address adequately above. This film introduced me to a personality typing tool called Big 5. As I alluded to above, this film plays in siloed spaces, focusing heavily on the MBTI and its history, and the application of personality testing as an employee screening tool. The typing technique used in job screening tools portrayed in the movie is heavily based on Big 5 and not MBTI. This distinction is not analyzed nearly enough. I’d never heard of Big 5 before I watched the movie so I looked into it. It didn’t take long to see that this is an altogether different theory of personality that does make a qualitative assessment of the test taker. Again, MBTI does not consider your results to be good or bad, just a description of the tools that you use to process information and make decisions. Big 5 definitely picks winners and losers. In each of the categories, there are good and bad scores. They define introversion and extroversion differently. MBTI defines it as whether your most dominant function is internally or externally focused. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of MBTI. It is often misinterpreted as shy vs outgoing. Big 5 defines extroverts as personable and introverts as reclusive. MBTI introverts can easily be Big 5 extroverts or introverts depending on their place in life. Similarly, MBTI extroverts can easily be Big 5 introverts or extroverts. 

So think of MBTI as a description of your specifications as built, and Big 5 as a way to get to try to get to know you without really doing it. I’m also seeing several indicators in my early research on it that indicates that more scientific research shows that Big 5 is not a good indicator of job fitness or performance. No kidding. There is no easy button for relationships and culture,  which is the life blood of any business. That takes significant effort on the part of the employer and the employees to cultivate and maintain. Anybody selling an algorithm should be regarded as the snake oil salesman that they are. It looks like good hiring is going to require employers to score high on Big 5 conscientiousness.