For years, personality assessments have offered an appealing promise: answer a series of questions, receive a profile, and gain a clearer understanding of yourself and the people around you.

The appeal is easy to understand. Personality is complicated, difficult to observe directly, and often hard to discuss without becoming vague. A structured assessment seems to provide a shared language. It can help people talk about communication, teamwork, leadership, conflict, motivation, and relationships without relying entirely on intuition.

That promise is part of what made the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, usually called the MBTI, so influential. It is also part of what made the FIRO-B—short for the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation–Behavior assessment—attractive to coaches, consultants, therapists, trainers, and organizations.

Both tools have helped many people start useful conversations. Both have generated memorable concepts. Both have been used across workplaces and professional development programs for decades.

But my confidence in both has declined substantially.

My concern is not that every result from either tool is meaningless. Nor is it that no one has ever gained insight from using them. People can benefit from many kinds of reflective exercise, especially when the exercise encourages honest discussion and careful listening.

My concern is more fundamental: these tools have not kept pace with what we now expect from psychological measurement, while their commercial presence has remained strong. The result is a troubling mismatch. The products continue to be marketed as valuable, practical, and professionally useful, but their underlying frameworks and reporting traditions often appear less responsive to current scientific standards than they should be.

In 2026, that matters.

We have better access to personality research, better statistical methods, better digital assessment practices, and a much clearer understanding of the difference between an engaging model and a scientifically strong measurement instrument. We should be able to ask more demanding questions than earlier generations could.

• Does the assessment measure stable and meaningful traits?
• Are its results reliable over time?
• Does it predict relevant behavior?
• Are its categories supported by evidence?
• Are the results being updated in response to new research?
• Is the assessment being used for reflection, or is it being treated as a precise diagnosis of identity?
• And perhaps most importantly: is the commercial presentation more confident than the evidence warrants?

When I apply those questions to Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B, I no longer feel comfortable treating either as a leading personality tool. Their ideas may still have limited educational or conversational value, but I have lost faith in them as primary instruments for understanding personality.

The attraction of personality types

Before explaining why, it is worth acknowledging why these tools became popular.

Type systems are easy to remember. A small number of categories can feel more useful than a long list of scores. People often enjoy recognizing themselves in a description and comparing their results with colleagues, friends, partners, or family members.

A type label also offers a sense of narrative. It can turn an abstract psychological result into a story:

• “I recharge alone.”
• “I prefer possibilities over details.”
• “I make decisions through logic.”
• “I like structure and closure.”
• “I need inclusion.”
• “I am cautious about interpersonal control.”
• “I prefer relationships that are emotionally close.”

Those statements can prompt self-reflection. They may help someone describe experiences they previously found difficult to express. In coaching or group training, a shared vocabulary can sometimes reduce defensiveness and encourage curiosity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using a simplified model as a discussion aid. The problem begins when the simplicity of the model is mistaken for scientific accuracy.

A useful conversation starter is not automatically a good psychological measurement instrument. A memorable label is not automatically a valid account of personality. And a commercially successful assessment is not automatically one that has been kept current.

Why I have lost faith in Myers-Briggs

The MBTI is based on preferences associated with four pairs of categories:

• Extraversion and Introversion
• Sensing and Intuition
• Thinking and Feeling
• Judging and Perceiving

These preferences are combined into sixteen four-letter types, such as INTJ, ENFP, or ISFJ.

The model’s intuitive appeal is obvious. It gives people a concise way to discuss attention, information processing, decision-making, and lifestyle preferences. Many people recognize something of themselves in their results, and the language can be engaging in workshops.

Yet the central issue is not whether the descriptions sound plausible. The issue is whether the assessment measures personality in a way that is reliable, valid, and consistent with modern psychological research.

The forced categories are a major limitation

Human characteristics are usually distributed along continua rather than divided into clean categories.

A person may be moderately sociable rather than simply extraverted or introverted. Someone may rely on concrete information in one context and abstract possibilities in another. A person can use analytical reasoning and emotional considerations when making decisions. Someone may appreciate planning while also remaining flexible when circumstances change.

The MBTI assigns people to one side or the other of each preference pair. That creates a categorical result even when a person’s underlying score may be close to the midpoint.

This matters because small changes in answers can sometimes produce a different type. A person who is near the boundary between two categories may receive a substantially different four-letter label after retaking the assessment, even though their underlying personality has not meaningfully changed.

That creates a risk of false precision. The type appears definite, but the underlying preference may be mixed, context-dependent, or only weakly expressed.

Modern personality psychology generally finds it more useful to measure traits dimensionally. A dimensional score preserves information. It can show whether a person is very high, moderately high, average, moderately low, or very low on a characteristic. A binary category tends to discard that information.

The MBTI does not map neatly onto the strongest trait model

The most widely accepted broad framework in contemporary personality research is the Five-Factor Model, often called the Big Five. It describes personality through five broad dimensions:

• Openness to experience
• Conscientiousness
• Extraversion
• Agreeableness
• Neuroticism, often presented in reverse as emotional stability

The Big Five is not perfect, and it does not explain every aspect of human personality. However, it has a much stronger empirical foundation than most popular type systems.

The MBTI categories do not correspond cleanly to the Big Five dimensions. The MBTI’s Extraversion–Introversion dimension has some relationship to Big Five Extraversion. Its Sensing–Intuition dimension has some overlap with Openness. But the remaining relationships are less direct, and the four MBTI dimensions do not provide an equivalent account of personality structure.

The MBTI also does not include a broad, direct equivalent of Conscientiousness, despite the importance of reliability, organization, persistence, self-control, and goal-directed behavior in work and everyday life.

That omission is significant. If someone wants to understand likely patterns of planning, dependability, follow-through, and organization, the Big Five provides a more direct and nuanced framework.

The type labels can encourage identity foreclosure

A personality profile should help people reflect, not trap them inside a label.

In practice, however, type language can become rigid. Someone may say:

• “I cannot lead because I am an introvert.”
• “I am not organized because I am a Perceiver.”
• “I do not handle emotion well because I am a Thinker.”
• “I cannot change because this is my type.”
• “That conflict happened because our types are incompatible.”

These statements may sound harmless, but they can convert tendencies into fixed identities. Personality has both stability and flexibility. People develop skills, change habits, adapt to roles, and behave differently across contexts.

A person’s assessment result should not be used to excuse poor behavior, limit career options, or predict what someone can never become.

The MBTI’s type structure makes that misuse particularly easy because the output is compact and identity-like. Four letters can become a personal brand. Once that happens, the assessment may begin shaping behavior rather than merely describing it.

The commercial model creates a credibility problem

My concern is also about the commercial setting surrounding the MBTI.

A paid assessment and certification system can provide resources for administration, training, scoring, and interpretation. Commercial ownership does not automatically make an assessment poor. Many valuable psychological instruments are commercially produced.

However, commercial focus can create pressure to protect a recognizable product, maintain a large practitioner network, sell workshops, preserve established language, and avoid changes that might confuse customers.

That creates a difficult question: how willing is the system to revise its model when research challenges its assumptions?

A tool that is treated as a brand may have stronger incentives to preserve continuity than a research framework has to correct itself. The familiar type names, manuals, courses, and consulting products all depend on the model remaining recognizable.

This does not prove that the MBTI is invalid. It does mean that users should be cautious when a commercial assessment presents a long history and widespread use as though those features were evidence of scientific superiority.

Popularity is not validation.

Why FIRO-B no longer convinces me

The FIRO-B takes a different approach. It focuses on interpersonal needs, traditionally described in terms of:

• Inclusion
• Control
• Affection

It also distinguishes between expressed behavior and wanted behavior. In broad terms, the assessment asks about how much interpersonal behavior a person tends to initiate or display and how much they want from others.

This framework can be appealing because it addresses practical social questions. People often differ in how much contact they seek, how much influence they want, how comfortable they are with authority, and how much closeness they prefer.

The model can support conversations about teamwork and relationships. It may help a person consider questions such as:

• Do I usually initiate contact?
• How much involvement do I want from others?
• Do I seek responsibility or prefer shared decision-making?
• How much direction do I give?
• How much direction do I want?
• How much emotional closeness feels comfortable?

Those are worthwhile questions.

But the fact that the questions are worthwhile does not establish that the FIRO-B is the best way to measure them.

The framework feels historically important rather than current

The FIRO theory was developed in the mid-twentieth century, at a time when organizational psychology and interpersonal theory were working with different assumptions, terminology, and research tools.

A historical framework can remain useful. Earlier theories sometimes contain valuable insights. But older origins create a responsibility to demonstrate that the instrument has been thoroughly re-examined, updated, and tested under current standards.

That is where my confidence weakens.

The interpersonal needs emphasized by FIRO-B overlap with concepts now studied through more developed areas of personality, social psychology, attachment research, motivation science, group dynamics, leadership research, and interpersonal circumplex models.

Today, we can ask much more precise questions about interpersonal behavior:

• Is the behavior stable across settings?
• Is it a trait, a motive, a learned strategy, or a response to a particular relationship?
• Does it change under stress?
• Is it directed toward specific people?
• Does a person want closeness but fear rejection?
• Does a person seek control because of confidence, anxiety, role expectations, or organizational culture?
• Does expressed behavior match private preference?
• What consequences follow from the behavior?

A compact three-domain framework may be useful for discussion, but it does not automatically capture this complexity.

“Needs” can be too vague

The word “need” can mean several different things.

It may refer to:

• A stable personality tendency
• A current desire
• A learned interpersonal strategy
• A fear or avoidance pattern
• A social expectation
• A motivational priority
• A behavior shaped by role or culture
• A response to past experience

Without careful distinction, a score can be interpreted too broadly.

For example, a low desire for inclusion might indicate introversion, social confidence, exhaustion, dissatisfaction with a particular group, cultural preference, fear of judgment, or simply a temporary life circumstance. A high desire for control might reflect ambition, anxiety, professional responsibility, or a reaction to an unpredictable environment.

A short assessment cannot determine which explanation is correct on its own.

This is not a criticism unique to FIRO-B. All self-report tools have limits. But a model that uses broad interpersonal need categories may invite people to treat complex motives as fixed personal attributes.

Context is especially important in interpersonal assessment

Interpersonal behavior is strongly influenced by context.

Someone may be highly participative with trusted colleagues but quiet in a politically difficult workplace. Someone may want a great deal of closeness in a romantic relationship but prefer substantial independence in friendships. Someone may take control during emergencies and avoid authority in ordinary circumstances.

A single score can blur these differences.

A person may also answer according to an idealized self-image, a professional role, or what they believe is socially acceptable. Cultural norms influence how people understand inclusion, authority, emotional expression, and personal boundaries.

When the result is presented as a stable profile, users may overlook these contextual influences.

Evidence should determine the tool’s place

The central question is not whether FIRO-B can ever produce a useful conversation. It can.

The question is whether it deserves to be treated as a leading, evidence-based personality assessment in 2026. I am not persuaded that it does.

Its long history, recognizable language, and professional use do not substitute for clear evidence that the instrument continues to offer a strong and current account of interpersonal personality. An assessment should not receive a permanent presumption of credibility simply because it has been used for a long time.

The problem of insufficient updating

The lack of visible updating is one of my strongest concerns about both tools.

Psychology has changed considerably over the past several decades. Researchers have learned more about:

• Trait stability and development
• Measurement error
• Cross-cultural assessment
• Response bias
• Statistical modeling
• Differential prediction
• Personality change
• Situational behavior
• Digital testing
• Fairness and accessibility
• The relationship between personality and important life outcomes

An assessment used today should show how it responds to that knowledge.

Updating does not merely mean changing a website, redesigning a report, or adding contemporary wording. It should involve serious review of the construct, items, norms, scoring, reliability, validity, demographic fairness, and appropriate use.

A modern assessment should make it easy for users to understand:

• Which version they are taking
• When the norms were established
• How often the norms are refreshed
• Which populations were included
• What reliability estimates are available
• What outcomes the scores predict
• What the assessment cannot determine
• Whether the tool is suitable for high-stakes decisions
• How cultural and language differences affect interpretation

When that information is difficult to locate, outdated, or presented mainly through commercial material, trust declines.

The issue is not that an assessment must change every year. Personality constructs do not become obsolete simply because a calendar changes. The issue is that a tool should demonstrate active engagement with current evidence rather than relying primarily on historical reputation.

Commercial success is not the same as scientific progress

Commercial focus deserves careful treatment.

A commercial assessment can be well designed. It can fund research, provide consistent administration, and offer professional training. The presence of a fee is not evidence against quality.

The concern arises when commercial success becomes the main source of authority.

An assessment may be widely used because:

• It is easy to teach.
• Its labels are memorable.
• Organizations recognize it.
• Consultants can build workshops around it.
• Managers enjoy discussing it.
• Participants find the feedback engaging.
• It fits existing products and training programs.
• The brand has been established for decades.

None of these points demonstrates that it measures personality better than competing tools.

There is also a risk that commercial providers emphasize positive, flattering, and broadly relatable descriptions. Participants may enjoy reports that describe them as thoughtful, strategic, loyal, creative, or people-oriented. Such descriptions can feel accurate because they are favorable and flexible.

This does not mean every report is deliberately deceptive. It does mean that users should distinguish between an enjoyable narrative and a carefully validated measurement.

An assessment provider should be willing to state plainly where the evidence is strong, where it is mixed, and where the tool is intended only for development rather than selection or diagnosis.

What I still find useful in these tools

Losing faith does not require rejecting every possible use.

The MBTI may still be useful as a language exercise when participants understand that it describes preferences rather than fixed abilities, clinical conditions, or permanent limits. It can prompt discussion about communication and work style.

FIRO-B may still help some people think about participation, influence, and interpersonal closeness. It may be useful as a structured set of questions, particularly when a skilled facilitator treats the results as hypotheses rather than facts.

But that is a much narrower claim than saying these tools provide a scientifically definitive picture of personality.

The responsible approach is to:

1. Treat scores as provisional.
2. Avoid using type labels to define identity.
3. Avoid using either tool for diagnosis.
4. Avoid making high-stakes employment decisions from simplistic profiles.
5. Consider culture, language, role, and context.
6. Compare assessment results with real behavior.
7. Discuss disagreement rather than forcing the person to accept the report.
8. Use tools with stronger evidence when measurement matters.

The facilitator matters, but a skilled facilitator cannot completely solve weaknesses in the instrument itself. Good interpretation can reduce misuse, but it cannot transform a dated or limited model into a comprehensive modern science of personality.

Why the Big Five is probably the most useful option in 2026

The Big Five is not a magic answer. It does not capture every human quality, and it should not be treated as a complete theory of identity.

Still, in my view, it is probably the most useful general personality framework available in 2026.

Its main advantage is that it measures broad traits dimensionally rather than forcing people into a small number of mutually exclusive types.

A person can be:

• High in Extraversion without being socially confident in every setting.
• Moderately high in Conscientiousness while still procrastinating.
• High in Openness while preferring familiar routines at work.
• High in Agreeableness while holding firm boundaries.
• Emotionally reactive in some situations while remaining calm in others.

This language is less dramatic than a four-letter type, but it is often more accurate.

It preserves differences in degree

Dimensional measurement tells us how much of a trait is present. That is important.

Two people may both be classified as “extraverted,” but one may be slightly above average while the other is extremely high. Those differences can matter in social energy, assertiveness, stimulation seeking, and communication style.

Likewise, two people may both be described as conscientious, but one may be highly organized and routine-focused while the other is mainly persistent and achievement-oriented.

Trait scores do not remove the need for interpretation, but they preserve more information than simple categories.

It has a stronger research base

The Big Five has been examined across many studies, populations, languages, and outcomes. It has been connected to relevant areas such as job performance, academic behavior, health-related habits, relationship patterns, emotional functioning, and personality development.

The strength of the model is not that every claim associated with it is equally certain. The strength is that it is embedded in a large and continuing research tradition.

That makes it easier to evaluate, criticize, refine, and compare with other findings.

A good scientific framework should be open to revision. The Big Five has benefited from ongoing research rather than depending mainly on the continued preservation of an established commercial identity.

It is more compatible with change and context

Big Five scores describe tendencies, not destiny.

They can be interpreted alongside life stage, environment, goals, stress, culture, and relationships. A person’s traits may show relative stability while still changing over time. Behavior can also vary substantially around a trait average.

This makes the framework more suitable for responsible coaching and hypnotherapy discussions. A trait score can identify patterns without implying that a person is trapped by them.

For example, someone who scores low in Conscientiousness might explore planning strategies, environmental design, accountability, and habits. The score does not mean the person is incapable of organization.

Someone high in Neuroticism might explore emotional regulation, threat sensitivity, sleep, stress, and coping. The score does not mean the person is destined to be unhappy.

Someone low in Extraversion might prefer quieter environments without lacking social skills or leadership capacity.

This distinction between tendency and limitation is essential.

It offers more useful questions

The Big Five encourages questions such as:

• How strong is this trait?
• In which situations does it appear?
• What benefits does it provide?
• What costs can it create?
• What habits compensate for it?
• How does it interact with other traits?
• Is the person trying to change the trait or manage its effects?
• What environment supports the person’s goals?

These questions are often more practical than asking which fixed type someone belongs to.

Important limits of the Big Five

The Big Five should not be idealized.

It is descriptive rather than a complete explanation of personality. It does not by itself explain motives, values, attachment patterns, personal narratives, moral commitments, skills, mental health, or life history.

The five broad domains also contain narrower facets. A person’s overall Extraversion score may conceal differences between sociability, assertiveness, energy, excitement seeking, and positive emotionality. Conscientiousness may include orderliness, industriousness, responsibility, and self-discipline.

Different Big Five assessments vary in quality. Some are brief and useful for general reflection. Others have weak items, poor norms, or unclear reporting. The label “Big Five” alone does not guarantee that a particular test is well constructed.

A strong assessment should still provide evidence of:

• Reliability
• Validity
• Appropriate norms
• Clear scoring
• Fairness across relevant groups
• Suitable interpretation
• Protection against overclaiming

The Big Five is also not a diagnostic instrument. It should not be used to diagnose depression, anxiety, trauma, personality disorders, or any other clinical condition.

A better standard for personality tools

In 2026, I believe personality assessments should meet a higher standard.

They should be transparent about what they measure and what they do not measure. They should report current evidence rather than relying mainly on history and reputation. They should use dimensional scores where appropriate, communicate uncertainty, and avoid language that implies permanent identity.

They should also be used for the right purpose.

A self-report personality inventory may be suitable for:

• Personal reflection
• Coaching
• Team discussion
• Research
• Developmental planning

That does not automatically make it suitable for:

• Hiring
• Promotion
• Termination
• Clinical diagnosis
• Predicting relationship success
• Judging intelligence
• Determining leadership potential

The higher the stakes, the stronger the evidence and safeguards should be.

No personality questionnaire can replace observation, conversation, work samples, clinical assessment, or informed professional judgment.

My conclusion

I have lost faith in both the Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B tools—not because they are incapable of prompting reflection, and not because everyone who uses them has been misled.

I have lost faith because their continued influence seems out of proportion to the strength, modernity, and transparency of the evidence supporting them. Their historical importance and commercial reach have helped preserve their status, but neither feature should be confused with scientific progress.

The MBTI’s categorical types can create false precision and encourage people to treat flexible tendencies as fixed identities. FIRO-B offers an appealing way to discuss interpersonal preferences, but its broad needs-based framework feels insufficiently current for the complexity of modern personality and relationship research. Both tools raise concerns about the gap between established branding and meaningful updating.

That gap matters.

People use personality assessments to make decisions about themselves, their careers, their relationships, their teams, and sometimes their mental health. They deserve tools that are honest about uncertainty, grounded in current research, and designed to preserve complexity rather than hide it behind memorable labels.

The Big Five is not flawless. It is not a complete map of human nature. It should not be used carelessly or treated as a personal verdict.

But among general personality frameworks, it is probably the most useful choice in 2026. It is dimensional, supported by a much stronger research base, better suited to degrees of difference, and more compatible with the reality that people can change while still showing recognizable patterns.

For Hypnotechs, that means the Big Five is a better starting point for informed discussion than either Myers-Briggs or FIRO-B. It gives clients and practitioners a more careful vocabulary: not “this is who you are forever,” but “this is a pattern that may appear with a certain strength, under certain conditions, with certain consequences.”

That is a more modest claim—but also a more credible and useful one.

Sources

1. National Research Council. In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999. Discussion of the MBTI’s limitations and its use in organizational settings.
2. Pittenger, D. J. “Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 2005, pp. 210–221.
3. McCrae, R. R., and P. T. Costa Jr. “Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality.” Journal of Personality, 57(1), 1989, pp. 17–40.
4. Boyle, G. J. “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, edited by Charles D. Spielberger. Elsevier, 2004.
5. Costa, P. T., and R. R. McCrae. “The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its Relevance to Personality Disorders.” Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 1992, pp. 343–359.
6. John, O. P., L. P. Naumann, and C. Soto. “Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd ed., edited by O. P. John, R. W. Robins, and L. A. Pervin. Guilford Press, 2008.
7. Soto, C. J., and O. P. John. “The Next Big Five Inventory: Making the Assessment of Big Five Personality Traits More Efficient, Comprehensive, and Evidence-Based.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 2017, pp. 117–143.
8. Roberts, B. W., K. E. Walton, and W. Viechtbauer. “Patterns of Mean-Level Change in Personality Traits Across the Life Course: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies.” Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 2006, pp. 1–25.
9. Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Rinehart, 1958.
10. Schutz, W. C. The Human Element: Productivity, Self-Esteem, and the Bottom Line. Jossey-Bass, 1994.
11. AERA, APA, and NCME. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014.
12. International Test Commission. The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests, 2nd ed., 2017. https://www.intestcom.org/page/18

Rob Perin, CCHT

Hypnotechs Hypnotherapy & Hypnosis