document_title: Mark Sloan (Grey's Anatomy)

question_text: when does mark show up in grey anatomy

question_tokens: when does mark show up in grey anatomy

text: Mark Sloan (Grey's Anatomy)

text: Storylines[edit]

text: Mark first appears in season two, introduced as a highly respected otolaryngologist sub-specialized in plastic surgery and the childhood best friend of neurosurgeon Derek Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey). Derek explains that Mark had an affair with his wife, Addison (Kate Walsh) while they were living in New York. Mark travels to Seattle, intent on convincing Addison to return with him, but his offer is rejected and Derek declines to renew their friendship. Mark returns during season three at Addison's drunken behest, but she again rejects him once sober. Undeterred, Mark sells his successful private practice (which he previously shared with Derek) and takes over the plastics program at Seattle Grace Hospital. During Meredith's morphine rampage, Mark finds out about his nickname McSteamy which was given to him by her during his first trip to Seattle back when he attempted to get Addison back and earn Derek's friendship back. It is later revealed that Mark has at some point slept with all of Derek's sisters. Mark has a brief fling with Addison's friend, orthopedic surgeon Callie Torres (Sara Ramirez), and develops a friendship with Derek's girlfriend, intern Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo). It is revealed that after Derek left New York, Mark and Addison continued their relationship for two months, during which she conceived and aborted his child. Just weeks after moving to Seattle he quickly observes that Derek's true love was Meredith and tries to convince Addison that her marriage with Derek was over. Mark enters into a sixty-day abstinence pact with Addison, agreeing that if they can remain celibate for that time, Addison will give their relationship another chance. Addison ultimately breaks the pact by having sex with intern Alex Karev (Justin Chambers), and soon thereafter departs from Seattle to work in Los Angeles.

text: Mark supports Derek when Meredith comes close to dying after drowning, and the two are able to rekindle their friendship. It is eventually revealed that he and Derek grew up together and that he, having lost his mother as a child and emotionally neglected by his father, considered Derek's mother as his maternal figure. As he was an only child and Derek was the only son, they became close friends and he was Derek's best man at the latter's wedding to Addison. He also forms a friendship with Callie, and develops an attraction to cardiothoracic surgeon Erica Hahn (Brooke Smith). Erica does not reciprocate his feelings, and he is supportive of Callie when she and Erica have a brief relationship. When Addison shows up at Seattle Grace for a case, Mark attempts to sleep with Addison again but she refuses. The nurses later start a club against him called Nurses United Against Mark Sloan. After a string of unresolved sexual tension on his part, Mark then finds himself seduced by Lexie Grey (Chyler Leigh), despite Derek's request that he keep their relationship platonic even before their relationship had begun. They begin a sexual relationship, which Lexie halts until he is willing to publicly admit to being her partner. Mark eventually agrees and tells Derek, who attacks him. Animosity exists between them for several episodes, before they once more repair their friendship. Mark and Lexie's relationship becomes increasingly serious. He meets her father, Thatcher (Jeff Perry); and at the end of season five, asks her to move in with him. Though Lexie initially declines, he remains committed to their relationship, and she agrees early in season six.

text: Mark discovers that he has an 18-year-old daughter, Sloan Riley (Leven Rambin), who arrives seeking his support after becoming pregnant and being evicted by her mother. Mark permits her to move in with him, which angers Lexie. When Lexie makes it clear that she knew that Mark would choose his own daughter over her, she puts an end to their relationship. Sloan experiences difficulties in her pregnancy, so Mark takes her to LA to be treated. He and Addison once again sleep together, but when he comes back he tells Lexie because he doesn't want to lie to her and wants them to get back together, but when she tells him she slept with Alex it puts an end to their relationship. When Sloan decides to give her baby up for adoption, Mark and Callie offer to raise it together. Sloan declines his offer and leaves Seattle, leaving Mark distraught. He enters into a relationship with cardiothoracic surgeon Teddy Altman (Kim Raver), despite the fact she is in love with their trauma colleague, Owen Hunt (Kevin McKidd). Sloan returns unexpectedly and gives birth to a son. She reconsiders having the baby adopted, but when Mark reassures her that he will support her no matter what, gives the baby to an adoptive couple from Washington.

text: In the sixth-season finale, a gunman commits mass murder at the hospital. Mark helps Lexie save Alex, her new boyfriend. In the aftermath of the shooting, Lexie has a nervous breakdown and Mark has her committed to the psychiatric unit. Their friendship is strained, however Lexie softens towards him when she learns that he is still in love with her. As Lexie goes to talk to Mark about him still being in love with her, she sees Mark entering his apartment with Derek's sister Amelia kissing her and ultimately having sex with her. When Callie's girlfriend, pediatric surgeon Arizona Robbins (Jessica Capshaw), breaks up with her, she and Mark have a drunken one-night stand. Shortly thereafter, he reconciles with Lexie, but is delighted when Callie discovers she is pregnant with his child. Lexie, however, is dismayed by the news and leaves Mark.

text: Mark asks Dr. Jackson Avery to find out how Lexie's doing, but Jackson lies to Mark that he wasn't able to find it out, and he (Jackson) starts dating Lexie shortly after that. In the meanwhile, Callie and Mark's daughter is born. Mark later gives Jackson and Lexie his blessing, and tells Lexie he will let her go; Lexie replies that she is still in love with him, but right now she needs Jackson to be happy. After giving Jackson a hard time, Mark finally acknowledges his surgery skills and decides to teach him, although he still evidences feelings towards Lexie, while he shows his own parenting skills with Sofia. He also starts getting along better with Arizona. After a long time without dating, Mark finally embarks on a relationship with Julia. This makes Lexie jealous, which leads to her and Jackson breaking up. Lexie struggles to tell Mark how she feels but finally admits it leaving him torn between her and Julia. In the season 8 finale, Mark, Lexie, Derek, Meredith, Cristina, and Arizona are involved in an aviation accident while on the way to Boise, Idaho to perform surgery on conjoined twins, crushing Lexie under debris. After trying and failing to save her, Mark holds a dying Lexie by the hand, telling her that he has and will always love her. He and the remaining surviving crash victims are left stranded in the woods, mourning Lexie and fighting to stay alive.

text: In the ninth-season premiere, it is discovered that Mark is on life support due to the extensive injuries he sustained in the plane crash and, as determined by his will, the machines would be turned off if he showed no signs of waking within 30 days. Flashbacks of some moments in Mark's life showcased him being videotaped as he was extending his congratulations to newlyweds Callie and Arizona. At the end of the speech, he declares that Lexie was the one he wanted to grow old and dance with in their granddaughter's wedding. At 5:00 that day, with Derek and Callie keeping vigil at his bedside, the machines were turned off, and Mark Sloan died shortly thereafter. The following episode reveals that he had a surge of good health upon his return to Seattle Grace before ultimately succumbing to his injuries. His 'surge' allowed him enough energy to advise his protégé Jackson, 'when you love someone, tell them', which is believed to be a reflection on the major obstacle of his failed relationship with Lexie. During this momentary energy, Mark also took the opportunity to make a clean break with his girlfriend, Julia, stating that the situation was not fair to her as he had always loved only Lexie. Following his death, Shonda Rhimes muses regarding Mark and Lexie's relationship: '...he and Lexie get to be together in a way. Their love remains true.”[1] Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital is later renamed Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital in tribute to Lexie and Mark.

text: Development[edit]

text: Casting and creation[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2011)

text: Dane auditioned for the role during the casting of the pilot and ultimately received the role, which was only later introduced in the show.[3] He initially appeared as a guest-star in the episode "Yesterday" of the second season, becoming a series regular from the third season episode "Sometimes a Fantasy", first broadcast in October 2006.[4] Casting director Linda Lowy gave the insight: "You can't forget about McSteamy. We cast (Dane) for one episode, and I think the women across the nation went kind of crazy. Everyone was talking about him, so we decided to make him a regular."[5] In July 2012, TVLine announced Dane would leave the show after the first two episodes of the ninth season. Rhimes said she and Dane decided to end Mark's storyline after much discussion. She added: "It was a thing that Eric had been thinking about for a while, but it felt like the right time to him."[6][7] However, E! Online reported that Rhimes had been forced by the network to reduce the cast for budget reasons and that Dane had not asked to leave the series.[8]

text: Characterization[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2013)

text: The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) characterized Sloan as "charming", "confident", "smug", "smarmy", and "great with his hands".[9] Shonda Rhimes said of the character: "Mark, the original bad boy, is struggling with his own demons. He brings a healthy serving of mystery and potential conflict to Seattle Grace."[10] Actress Kate Walsh said: "He's the guy you shouldn't go out with but you can't help yourself."[10] Carolina Paiz, one of the writers of the series, wrote: "he can be impertinent and evil and demeaning."[11]

text: Reception[edit]

text: His role in the episode "In the Midnight Hour" from the fifth season was well received by Debbie Chang of BuddyTV who wrote, "Mark (Eric Dane) is pretty freaking awesome in this episode. He's lascivious as all heck, but he's showing some compassion." His scenes with Shepherd were described as "fun."[12] Victor Balta of Today listed their friendship in its "TV's best bromances". He called them "the most exciting couple on Grey’s," explaining "they’ve demonstrated an easy chemistry that makes for some of the great comic relief around Seattle Grace Hospital with their banter, sage wisdom on each other’s lives, and locker room-style teasing."[13] Their bromance was furthermore included in lists by About.com, BuddyTV, Cosmopolitan, Wetpaint.[14][15][16][17] However, following the announcement of Dane's upcoming departure from the show, Mark Perigard of the Boston Herald felt he and Derek "never clicked like you’d expect friends would. Any scene they had together ranged from uncomfortable to forced."[18]

text: His bromance with Jackson Avery was also well received. Janalen Samson of BuddyTV wrote: "Eric Dane has always shown a facility for sly, deft comedy and these scenes with Jesse Williams are proving to be gems. I do love a good Bromance and these two actors are bringing the love and the funny in spades.[19] Writing for TV Fanatic, Courtney Morrison commented: "Sloan has brought the GA comedy scale up a bit with his bromances and mentoring Jackson.[20] The pairing was listed in Zap2it's 25 Top Bromances of 2012.[21] Los Angeles Times TV columnist, Carina Mackenzie, described his scenes with Torres as "always perfectly sharp."[22]

text: At the 13th Screen Actors Guild Awards, Dane was part of the Grey's Anatomy cast awarded the "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series" accolade, for which they were also nominated the following year.[23][24]


document_title: Suddenly Human

question_text: who played jono on star trek next generation

root

text: Suddenly Human

text: Plot[edit]

text: The Enterprise responds to a distress call from a Talarian vessel. They rescue five teenaged members, four of whom are Talarian, and one human, Jono (Chad Allen).

tag: p

text: Jono keeps to himself, but shows strict obedience to Captain Picard, which together with some unexplained past injuries leads Doctor Crusher to suggest Jono may have been physically abused. It is determined that Jono is Jeremiah Rossa, a long-lost Federation citizen. His grandmother is a Starfleet admiral, and he was orphaned ten years ago when his parents were killed in a skirmish with the Talarians.

text: When the Captain introduces the topic of Jono's human family, Jono gets angry. After persistent effort by Picard, Jono's memories of the attack begin to return and a friendship develops between Jono and Wesley Crusher.

text: A Talarian ship arrives, and its Captain, Endar, asks for a status on his son, Jono. Ten years ago, Endar claimed Jono after Jono's parents were killed. This is part of the Talarian custom of adopting the children of slain enemies to replace their children who have died in battle. Endar explains Jono's injuries as the products of a boy trying to impress his father by participating in high-risk activities; Picard seems satisfied and observes that Endar seems to care for Jono. Picard allows Endar to see Jono, but when Jono says he wants to stay with Endar, Picard suspects the boy is afraid to say he wants to stay in the Federation. Endar insists that Jono will come back with him, even if the result is war between the Talarians and the Federation.

text: Returning to his vessel, Endar calls for reinforcements, as Picard decides to try to convince Jono to stay. After Jono receives a message from his grandmother, Picard takes the boy to play a form of racquetball, where Jono breaks down and cries. The crew believes they are making progress with the boy, but that night, Jono stabs the Captain. The dagger is deflected by Picard's sternum, and the wound is minor. The problem of where Jono should live is now compounded as Jono has committed a Federation crime.

text: When Picard learns that Jono feels he cannot betray Endar by befriending Picard, the Captain realizes he has been trying to impose his wishes on the boy. Just as Endar's patience is about to run out, Picard contacts the Talarians and lets them know he will let Jono go back. Jono bids Picard farewell with a Talarian ritual that is normally reserved for family members.

text: Future Deep Space Nine episode similarities[edit]

text: Suddenly Human, which aired in 1990, has strong similarities to the second season DS9 episode, Cardassians, which aired in 1993. In both Suddenly Human and Cardassians, a young male alien is living with a family of another species, who adopt him after the conclusion of a battle or war. In both episodes, the adopting family insists on the return of the child, while the biological family also fights for custody. Tensions rise as the question of custody is decided. In both episodes, custody is decided by the commanding officers present.

text: However, the episodes have different conclusions. In Suddenly Human, Captain Picard returns the young man Jono/Jeremiah Rossa to his adopting father because the young man is old enough to decide for himself with whom he wishes to live, and because it is the only life he has ever known. In Cardassians, Commander Benjamin Sisko removes the child from his caring Bajoran foster family when it is revealed that he was placed in foster care under false pretenses by another Cardassian.

text: Reviews[edit]

text: Jamahl Epsicokhan of TrekNation's Jammer's Reviews, pointed out that this was the third TNG episode in a row to deal with family issues. Epsicokhan called Suddenly Human the least effective of the three family-oriented episodes, stating that the plot took too long to play out, that the storyline was flat in parts, and criticized the script. The reviewer was also disappointed that the Starfleet admiral's reaction to her request for custody being disregarded by Picard was left as an unresolved plot point.[1]

text: As of March 22, 2017, Suddenly Human has an average viewer rating of 6.5 out of 10 stars, on the IMDb.[2]


document_title: List of Miss Universe runners-up and finalists

question_text: who won second place in miss universe 2017

text: Table of Miss Universe runners-up and finalists[edit]

text: The pageant has awarded a top-five finalists from 1952 to 1989 and from 2001 up to 2014, with the first, second, third and fourth runner-up being awarded. From 1990 to 1997, the number of finalists was increased to six. From 1998 to 2000 and since 2015, it was reverted to five but only up to the second runner-up was awarded (regardless if the pageant post-announces the placements of the other 2 delegates who made it to the Top 5).

text: This table shows the top-five finalists of each competition, from its inception in 1952.

text:
Edition
Miss Universe
(1st place)
1st runner-up
(2nd place)
2nd runner-up
(3rd place)
3rd runner-up
(4th place)
4th runner-up
(5th place)

1952
Armi Kuusela [1]
 Finland
Elza Kananionapua Edsman
 Hawaii
Ntaizy "Daisy" Mavraki
 Greece
Judy Dan
 Hong Kong
Renate Hoy
 Germany

1953
Christiane Martel
 France
Myrna Rae Hansen
 USA
Kinuko Ito
 Japan
Ana Bertha Lepe
 Mexico
Maxine Morgan
 Australia

1954
Miriam Stevenson
 USA
Martha Rocha
 Brazil
Virginia Lee Wai-Chun
 Hong Kong
Regina Ernst
 Germany
Ragnhild Olausson
 Sweden

1955
Hillevi Rombin
 Sweden
Maribel Arrieta Galvez
 El Salvador
Maureen Hingert
 Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
Margit Nünke
 Germany
Keiko Takahashi
 Japan

1956
Carol Morris
 USA
Marina Orschel
 Germany
Ingrid Goude
 Sweden
Kathleen Waller
 England
Rosanna Galli
 Italy

1957
Gladys Zender
 Peru
Teresinha Morango
 Brazil
Sonia Hamilton
 England
Maria Fernandez
 Cuba
Gerti Daub
 Germany

1958
Luz Marina Zuluaga
 Colombia
Adalgisa Colombo
 Brazil
Geri Hoo
 Hawaii
Eurlyne Howell
 USA
Alicja Bobrowska
 Poland

1959
Akiko Kojima
 Japan
Jorunn Kristjansen
 Norway
Terry Huntingdon
 USA
Pamela Anne Searle
 England
Vera Regina Ribeiro
 Brazil

1960
Linda Bement
 USA
Daniela Bianchi
 Italy
Elizabeth Hodacs
 Austria
Nicolette Caras
 South Africa
Teresa del Rio
 Spain

1961
Marlene Schmidt
 Germany
Rosemarie Frankland
 Wales
Adriana Gardiazabal
 Argentina
Arlette Dobson
 England
Sharon Brown
 USA

1962
Norma Nolan
 Argentina
Anna Geirsdóttir
 Iceland
Anja Aulikki Järvinen
 Finland
Helen Liu Shiu-Man
 Taiwan
Maria Olívia Rebouças
 Brazil

1963
Iêda Maria Vargas
 Brazil
Aino Korwa
 Denmark
Marlene McKeown
 Ireland
Lalaine Bennett
 Philippines
Kim Myoung-ja
 Korea

1964
Corinna Tsopei
 Greece
Brenda Blackler
 England
Ronit Renat Rechtman
 Israel
Siv Märta Åberg
 Sweden
Lana Yu Yi
 Taiwan

1965
Apasra Hongsakula
 Thailand
Virpi Liisa Miettinen
 Finland
Sue Downey
 USA
Ingrid Norman
 Sweden
Anja Schuit
 Netherlands

1966
Margareta Arvidsson
 Sweden
Satu Charlotta Östring
 Finland
Cheranand Savetanand
 Thailand
Yasmin Daji
 India
Aviva Israeli
 Israel

1967
Sylvia Hitchcock
 USA
Mariela Pérez
 Venezuela
Jennifer Lynn Lewis
 England
Ritva Lehto
 Finland
Batya Kabiri
 Israel

1968
Martha Vasconcellos
 Brazil
Anne Braafheid
 Curacao
Leena Brusin
 Finland
Peggy Kopp
 Venezuela
Dorothy Anstett
 USA

1969
Gloria Diaz
 Philippines
Harriet Eriksson
 Finland
Joanne Barret
 Australia
Chava Levy
 Israel
Kikuyo Osuka
 Japan

1970
Marisol Malaret
 Puerto Rico
Deborah Shelton
 USA
Joan Zealand
 Australia
Jun Shimada
 Japan
Beatriz Gross
 Argentina

1971
Georgina Rizk
 Lebanon
Toni Rayward
 Australia
Pirjo Laitila
 Finland
Beba Franco
 Puerto Rico
Eliane Guimaraes
 Brazil

1972
Kerry Anne Wells
 Australia
Rejane Costa
 Brazil
María Antonieta Cámpoli
 Venezuela
Ilana Goren
 Israel
Jennifer "Jenny" McAdam
 England

1973
Margarita Moran
 Philippines
Amanda Jones
 USA
Aina Walle
 Norway
Maria Madrigal
 Spain
Limor Schreibman
 Israel

1974
Amparo Muñoz
 Spain
Helen Morgan
 Wales
Ritta Johanna Raunio
 Finland
Ella Cecilia Escandon Palacios
 Colombia
Maureen Vieira
 Aruba

1975
Anne Marie Pohtamo
 Finland
Gerthie David
 Haiti
Summer Bartholomew
 USA
Catharina Sjödahl
 Sweden
Rose Marie Brosas
 Philippines

1976
Rina Messinger
 Israel
Judith Castillo
 Venezuela
Sian Adey-Jones
 Wales
Carol Grant
 Scotland
Julie Ismay
 Australia

1977
Janelle Commissiong
 Trinidad & Tobago
Eva Düringer
 Austria
Sandra Bell
 Scotland
Aura Maria Mojica Salcedo
 Colombia
Marie-Luise Gassen
 Germany

1978
Margaret Gardiner
 South Africa
Judi Andersen
 USA
Guillermina Ruiz
 Spain
Mary Shirley Saenz
 Colombia
Cecilia Catharina Rhode
 Sweden

1979
Maritza Sayalero
 Venezuela
Gina Swainson
 Bermuda
Carolyn Seaward
 England
Martha Jussara da Costa
 Brazil
Annette Marie Ekström
 Sweden

1980
Shawn Weatherly
 USA
Linda Gallagher
 Scotland
Diana Nottle
 New Zealand
Chat Silayan
 Philippines
Eva Birgitta Anderson
 Sweden

1981
Irene Sáez
 Venezuela
Dominique Dufour
 Canada
Eva Lena Lundgren
 Sweden
Adriana Oliveira
 Brazil
Dominique Eeckhoudt
 Belgium

1982
Karen Baldwin
 Canada
Patty Chong Kerkos
 Guam
Cinzia Fiordeponti
 Italy
Tina Roussou
 Greece
Terri Utley
 USA

1983
Lorraine Downes
 New Zealand
Julie Hayek
 USA
Roberta Brown
 Ireland
Lolita Morena
 Switzerland
Karen Moore
 England

1984
Yvonne Ryding
 Sweden
Leticia Snyman
 South Africa
Carmen Maria Montiel
 Venezuela
Desiree Verdadero
 Philippines
Susana Caldas Lemaitre
 Colombia

1985
Deborah Carthy-Deu
 Puerto Rico
Teresa Sánchez López
 Spain
Kayonga Mureka
 Zaire
Silvia Martínez
 Venezuela
Andrea López
 Uruguay

1986
Bárbara Palacios
 Venezuela
Christy Fichtner
 USA
María Mónica Urbina
 Colombia
Brygida Bziukiewicz
 Poland
Tuula Polvi
 Finland

1987
Cecilia Bolocco
 Chile
Roberta Capua
 Italy
Michelle Royer
 USA
Inés María Calero
 Venezuela
Laurie Tamara Simpson
 Puerto Rico

1988
Porntip Nakhirunkanok
 Thailand
Chang Yoonjung
 Korea
Amanda Olivares
 Mexico
Mizuho Sakaguchi
 Japan
Pauline Yeung
 Hong Kong

1989
Angela Visser
 Netherlands
Louise Drevenstam
 Sweden
Gretchen Polhemus
 USA
Joanna Gapińska
 Poland
Adriana Abascal
 Mexico

1990
Mona Grudt
 Norway
Carole Gist
 USA
Lizeth Mahecha
 Colombia
not awarded

1991
Lupita Jones
 Mexico
Pauline Huizinga
 Netherlands
Yulia Lemigova
 USSR

1992
Michelle McLean
 Namibia
Paola Turbay
 Colombia
Madhu Sapre
 India

1993
Dayanara Torres
 Puerto Rico
Paula Andrea Betancourt
 Colombia
Milka Chulina
 Venezuela

1994
Sushmita Sen
 India
Carolina Gomez
 Colombia
Minorka Mercado
 Venezuela

1995
Chelsi Smith
 USA
Manpreet Brar
 India
Lana Buchberger
 Canada

1996
Alicia Machado
 Venezuela
Taryn Mansell
 Aruba
Lola Odusoga
 Finland

1997
Brook Lee
 USA
Marena Bencomo
 Venezuela
Margot Bourgeois
 Trinidad & Tobago

1998
Wendy Fitzwilliam
 Trinidad & Tobago
Veruska Ramirez
 Venezuela
Joyce Giraud
 Puerto Rico

1999
Mpule Kwelagobe
 Botswana
Miriam Quiambao
 Philippines
Diana Nogueira
 Spain

2000
Lara Dutta
 India
Claudia Moreno
 Venezuela
Helen Lindes
 Spain

2001
Denise Quiñones
 Puerto Rico
Evelina Papantoniou
 Greece
Kandace Krueger
 USA
Eva Ekvall
 Venezuela
Celina Jaitley
 India

2002
Oxana Fedorova (Dethroned)
 Russia
Justine Pasek (Replaced)
 Panama
Zhuo Ling
 China
Vanessa Carreira
 South Africa
Cynthia Lander
 Venezuela

2003
Amelia Vega
 Dominican Republic
Mariángel Ruiz
 Venezuela
Cindy Nell
 South Africa
Sanja Papić
 Serbia & Montenegro
Miyako Miyazaki
 Japan

2004
Jennifer Hawkins
 Australia
Shandi Finnessey
 USA
Alba Reyes
 Puerto Rico
Yanina Gonzalez
 Paraguay
Danielle Jones
 Trinidad & Tobago

2005
Natalie Glebova
 Canada
Cynthia Olavarría
 Puerto Rico
Renata Soñé
 Dominican Republic
Laura Elizondo
 Mexico
Monica Spear
 Venezuela

2006
Zuleyka Rivera
 Puerto Rico
Kurara Chibana
 Japan
Lauriane Gilliéron
 Switzerland
Lourdes Arevalos
 Paraguay
Tara Conner
 USA

2007
Riyo Mori
 Japan
Natália Guimarães
 Brazil
Ly Jonaitis
 Venezuela
Honey Lee
 Korea
Rachel Smith
 USA

2008
Dayana Mendoza
 Venezuela
Taliana Vargas
 Colombia
Marianne Cruz
 Dominican Republic
Vera Krasova
 Russia
Elisa Nájera
 Mexico

2009
Stefanía Fernández
 Venezuela
Ada de la Cruz
 Dominican Republic
Marigona Dragusha
 Kosovo
Rachael Finch
 Australia
Mayra Matos
 Puerto Rico

2010
Ximena Navarrete
 Mexico
Yendi Phillips
 Jamaica
Jesinta Campbell
 Australia
Anna Poslavska
 Ukraine
Venus Raj
 Philippines

2011
Leila Lopes
 Angola
Olesya Stefanko
 Ukraine
Priscila Machado
 Brazil
Shamcey Supsup
 Philippines
Luo Zilin
 China

2012
Olivia Culpo [2]
 USA
Janine Tugonon
 Philippines
Irene Esser
 Venezuela
Renae Ayris
 Australia
Gabriela Markus
 Brazil

2013
Gabriela Isler [3]
 Venezuela
Patricia Rodríguez
 Spain
Constanza Báez
 Ecuador
Ariella Arida
 Philippines
Jakelyne Oliveira
 Brazil

2014
Paulina Vega [4]
 Colombia
Nia Sanchez
 USA
Diana Harkusha
 Ukraine
Yasmin Verheijen
 Netherlands
Kaci Fennell
 Jamaica

2015
Pia Wurtzbach
 Philippines
Ariadna Gutiérrez
 Colombia
Olivia Jordan
 USA
Flora Coquerel
 France
Monika Radulovic
 Australia

2016
Iris Mittenaere [5]
 France
Raquel Pélissier
 Haiti
Andrea Tovar
 Colombia

2017
Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters
 South Africa
Laura González
 Colombia
Davina Bennett
 Jamaica

tag: table

text: Countries/Territories by number of finalists[edit]

text: 1st runner-up[edit]

text: The first runner-up of each edition of Miss Universe is the second placer behind the candidate who is crowned as Miss Universe. In some cases, she shall take over the title of Miss Universe, if:

text:
The outgoing titleholder cannot fulfill her duties. This could happen and may result to resignation, giving up the title, or dethronement
The titleholder is dethroned due to deeds that violate the organization's policies.

tag: ul

text: This has only happened in 2002.

text: There were instances that the winner is not replaced by the first runner-up, when she decides to voluntarily resign from her position, given the formal permission from the organization (1952 and 1974).

text: This table lists the number of 1st runner-up titles by country. There are some special considerations:

text:
Hawaii competed as an independent territory from 1952 to 1959, before it joined the United States, holding one 1st runner-up title on its own.
The United Kingdom (currently competing under the name of Great Britain) competed separatedly as England (from 1955 to 1962 and then again from 1964 to 1990), Scotland (from 1961 to 1986 and then again from 1988 to 1990) and Wales (from 1961 to 1990), holding a total of four 1st runner-up titles which are counted together.
As Panama took over the Miss Universe title in 2002, it is unknown if the 1st runner-up position was taken by another candidate after the succession took place.

text:
Country/Territory
Titles
Year(s)

 United States
9
1953, 1970, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1990, 2004, 2014

 Colombia
6
1992, 1993, 1994, 2008, 2015, 2017

 Venezuela
1967, 1976, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003

 Brazil
5
1954, 1957, 1958, 1972, 2007

 Great Britain
4
1961, 1964, 1974, 1980

 Finland
3
1965, 1966, 1969

 Haiti
2
1975, 2016

 Spain
1985, 2013

 Philippines
1999, 2012

 Italy
1960, 1987

 Ukraine
1
2011

 Jamaica
2010

 Dominican Republic
2009

 Japan
2006

 Puerto Rico
2005

 Greece
2001

 Aruba
1996

 India
1995

 Netherlands
1991

 Sweden
1989

 South Korea
1988

 South Africa
1984

 Guam
1982

 Canada
1981

 Bermuda
1979

 Austria
1977

 Australia
1971

 Curacao
1968

 Denmark
1963

 Iceland
1962

 Norway
1959

 Germany
1956

 El Salvador
1955

 Hawaii
1952

text: 2nd runner-up[edit]

text: The second runner-up of each edition of Miss Universe is the third placer behind the candidate who is crowned as Miss Universe and the first runner-up (second placer). Although it has never happened, the second runner-up is supposed to take over the Miss Universe title if both the original winner and the first runner-up are unable to fulfill their duties/resign their titles. For example, if a Miss Universe winner is required to give up her title and the first runner-up is unable/does not want to assume the winner's position, the title then passes to the second runner-up.

text: This table lists the number of 2nd runner-up titles by country. There are some special considerations as well:

text:
Hawaii competed as an independent territory from 1952 to 1959, before it joined the United States, holding one 2nd runner-up title on its own.
The United Kingdom (currently competing under the name of Great Britain) competed separatedly as England (from 1955 to 1962 and then again from 1964 to 1990), Scotland (from 1961 to 1986 and then again from 1988 to 1990) and Wales (from 1961 to 1990), holding a total of five 2nd runner-up titles which are counted together.
It is unknown if Zhuo Ling, Miss Universe 2002 second runner-up, took over the first runner-up position after Justine Pasek took over the winner's place, as no official statements regarding this matter were made by the organization.

text:
Country/Territory
Titles
Year(s)

 United States
7
1959, 1965, 1975, 1987, 1989, 2001, 2015

 Venezuela
6
1972, 1984, 1993, 1994, 2007, 2012

 Finland
5
1962, 1968, 1971, 1974, 1996

 Great Britain
1957, 1967, 1976, 1977, 1979

 Colombia
3
1986, 1990, 2016

 Australia
1969, 1970, 2010

 Spain
1978, 1999, 2000

 Dominican Republic
2
2005, 2008

 Puerto Rico
1998, 2004

 Ireland
1963, 1983

 Sweden
1956, 1981

 Jamaica
1
2017

 Ukraine
2014

 Ecuador
2013

 Brazil
2011

 Kosovo
2009

  Switzerland
2006

 South Africa
2003

 China
2002

 Trinidad and Tobago
1997

 Canada
1995

 India
1992

 Soviet Union[C]
1991

 Mexico
1988

 Zaire[B]
1985

 Italy
1982

 New Zealand
1980

 Norway
1973

 Thailand
1966

 Israel
1964

 Argentina
1961

 Austria
1960

 Hawaii
1958

 Ceylon[A]
1955

 Hong Kong
1954

 Japan
1953

 Greece
1952

text:
2 Notes
A Now known as  Sri Lanka
B Now known as  DR Congo
C Now known as  Russia


document_title: President of the United Nations General Assembly

question_text: who has been elected next president of united nations 2018

text: Election[edit]

text: The session of the assembly is scheduled for every year starting in September—any special, or emergency special, assemblies over the next year will be headed by the President of UNGA.

text: The presidency rotates annually between the five geographic groups: African, Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, and Western European and other States.[1]

text: Because of their powerful stature globally, some of the largest, most powerful countries have never held the presidency, such as the People's Republic of China, France, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In particular, it is customary that no permanent member of the United Nations Security Council ever serves as UNGA president.

text: The only country that had a national elected as President of UNGA twice is Argentina; all the other member states had been represented only once by their nationals holding this office. This does not include special and emergency special sessions of UNGA.

text: List of presidents[edit]

text:
Year elected

Name of President[2]

UN member state

Region

Sessions

1946

Paul-Henri Spaak

 Belgium

WES

First

1947

Oswaldo Aranha

 Brazil

LAS

First specialSecond

1948

José Arce

 Argentina

LAS

Second special

1948

Herbert Vere Evatt

 Australia

COS

Third

1949

Carlos P. Romulo

 Philippines

EAS

Fourth

1950

Nasrollah Entezam

 Iran

EAS

Fifth

1951

Luis Padilla Nervo

 Mexico

LAS

Sixth

1952

Lester B. Pearson

 Canada

COS

Seventh

1953

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit

 India

COS

Eighth, First woman president

1954

Eelco van Kleffens

 Netherlands

WES

Ninth

1955

José Maza Fernández

 Chile

LAS

Tenth

1956

Rudecindo Ortega (de)

 Chile

LAS

First emergency specialSecond emergency special

1956

Wan Waithayakon

 Thailand

EAS

Eleventh

1957

Leslie Munro

 New Zealand

COS

TwelfthThird emergency special

1958

Charles Malik

 Lebanon

MES

Thirteenth

1959

Víctor Andrés Belaúnde

 Peru

LAS

FourteenthFourth emergency special

1960

Frederick Boland

 Ireland

WES

FifteenthThird special

1961

Mongi Slim

 Tunisia

MES

Sixteenth

1962

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan

 Pakistan

COS

SeventeenthFourth special

1963

Carlos Sosa Rodríguez (es)

 Venezuela

LAS

Eighteenth

1964

Alex Quaison-Sackey

 Ghana

COS

Nineteenth

1965

Amintore Fanfani

 Italy

WES

Twentieth

1966

Abdul Rahman Pazhwak

 Afghanistan

Asia

Twenty-firstFifth specialFifth emergency special

1967

Corneliu Mănescu

 Romania

EEG

Twenty-second

1968

Emilio Arenales Catalán

 Guatemala

GRULAC

Twenty-third

1969

Angie Brooks

 Liberia

Africa

Twenty-fourth

1970

Edvard Hambro

 Norway

WEOG

Twenty-fifth

1971

Adam Malik

 Indonesia

Asia

Twenty-sixth

1972

Stanisław Trepczyński

 Poland

EEG

Twenty-seventh

1973

Leopoldo Benites

 Ecuador

GRULAC

Twenty-eighthSixth special

1974

Abdelaziz Bouteflika

 Algeria

Africa

Twenty-ninthSeventh special

1975

Gaston Thorn

 Luxembourg

WEOG

Thirtieth

1976

Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe

 Sri Lanka

Asia

Thirty-first

1977

Lazar Mojsov

 Yugoslavia

EEG

Thirty-secondEighth specialNinth specialTenth special

1978

Indalecio Liévano

 Colombia

GRULAC

Thirty-third

1979

Salim Ahmed Salim

 United Republic of Tanzania

Africa

Thirty-fourthSixth emergency specialSeventh emergency specialEleventh special

1980

Rüdiger von Wechmar

 Federal Republic of Germany

WEOG

Thirty-fifthEighth emergency special

1981

Ismat T. Kittani

 Iraq

Asia

Thirty-sixthSeventh emergency special—ContinuationNinth emergency specialTwelfth special

1982

Imre Hollai

 Hungary

EEG

Thirty-seventh

1983

Jorge Illueca

 Panama

GRULAC

Thirty-eighth

1984

Paul J. F. Lusaka

 Zambia

Africa

Thirty-ninth

1985

Jaime de Piniés

 Spain

WEOG

FortiethThirteenth special

1986

Humayun Rashid Choudhury

 Bangladesh

Asia

Forty-firstFourteenth special

1987

Peter Florin

 German Democratic Republic

EEG

Forty-secondFifteenth special

1988

Dante Caputo

 Argentina

GRULAC

Forty-third

1989

Joseph Nanven Garba

 Nigeria

Africa

Forty-fourthSixteenth specialSeventeenth specialEighteenth special

1990

Guido de Marco

 Malta

WEOG

Forty-fifth

1991

Samir Shihabi

 Saudi Arabia

Asia

Forty-sixth

1992

Stoyan Ganev

 Bulgaria

EEG

Forty-seventh

1993

Rudy Insanally

 Guyana

GRULAC

Forty-eighth

1994

Amara Essy

 Ivory Coast

Africa

Forty-ninth

1995

Diogo de Freitas do Amaral

 Portugal

WEOG

Fiftieth

1996

Razali Ismail

 Malaysia

Asia

Fifty-firstTenth emergency specialNineteenth special

1997

Hennadiy Udovenko

 Ukraine

EEG

Fifty-secondTenth emergency special—ContinuationTwentieth special

1998

Didier Opertti

 Uruguay

GRULAC

Fifty-thirdTenth emergency special—ContinuationTwenty-first special

1999

Theo-Ben Gurirab

 Namibia

Africa

Fifty-fourthTwenty-second specialTwenty-third specialTwenty-fourth special

2000

Harri Holkeri

 Finland

WEOG

Fifty-fifthTenth emergency special—ContinuationTwenty-fifth specialTwenty-sixth special

2001

Han Seung-soo

 South Korea

Asia

Fifty-sixthTenth emergency special—Continuation

2002

Jan Kavan

 Czech Republic

EEG

Fifty-seventhTenth emergency special—Continuation

2003

Julian Hunte

 Saint Lucia

GRULAC

Fifty-eighthTenth emergency special—Continuation

2004

Jean Ping

 Gabon

Africa

Fifty-ninth

2005

Jan Eliasson

 Sweden

WEOG

Sixtieth

2006

Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa

 Bahrain

Asia

Sixty-firstTenth emergency special—Continuation

2007

Srgjan Kerim

 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

EEG

Sixty-second

2008

Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann

 Nicaragua

GRULAC

Sixty-third

2009

Ali Treki

 Libya

Africa

Sixty-fourth

2010

Joseph Deiss

  Switzerland

WEOG

Sixty-fifth

2011

Nassir Al-Nasser[3]

 Qatar

Asia-Pacific

Sixty-sixth

2012

Vuk Jeremić

 Serbia

EEG

Sixty-seventh (election)

2013

John William Ashe

 Antigua and Barbuda

GRULAC

Sixty-eighth

2014

Sam Kutesa

 Uganda

Africa

Sixty-ninth

2015

Mogens Lykketoft

 Denmark

WEOG

Seventieth

2016

Peter Thomson

 Fiji

Asia-Pacific

Seventy-first (election)

2017

Miroslav Lajčák

 Slovakia

EEG

Seventy-secondTenth emergency special—Continuation

2018

María Fernanda Espinosa

 Ecuador

GRULAC

Seventy-third

text: Abbreviations:

text:
COS: Commonwealth Seat
EAS: Eastern European and Asian Seat
LAS: Latin American Seat
MES: Middle Eastern Seat
WES: Western European Seat

text:
Africa: African Group
Asia-Pacific: Asian Group, since 2011 the Asia-Pacific Group[4]
EEG: Eastern European Group
GRULAC: Latin American and Caribbean Group
WEOG: Western European and Others Group


document_title: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

question_text: when was the myers briggs type indicator developed

question_tokens: when was the myers briggs type indicator developed

text: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

text: History[edit]

text: Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917. Upon meeting her future son-in-law, she observed marked differences between his personality and that of other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading biographies, and subsequently developed a typology wherein she proposed four temperaments: meditative (or thoughtful), spontaneous, executive, and social.[12][13]

text: After the English translation of Jung's book Psychological Types was published in 1923 (first published in German in 1921), she recognized that Jung's theory was similar to, but went far beyond, her own.[1]:22 Briggs's four types were later identified as corresponding to the IXXXs, EXXPs, EXTJs and EXFJs.[clarification needed][12][13] Her first publications were two articles describing Jung's theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 ("Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box") and 1928 ("Up From Barbarism"). After extensively studying the work of Jung, they turned their interest in human behavior into efforts to turn the theory of psychological types to practical use.[2][12]

text: Briggs's daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, added to her mother's typological research, which she would progressively take over entirely. Myers graduated first in her class from Swarthmore College in 1919[1]:xx and wrote a mystery novel, Murder Yet to Come, in 1929 using typological ideas (which won the National Detective Murder Mystery Contest that year). However, neither Myers nor Briggs was formally educated in the discipline of psychology, and both were self-taught in the field of psychometric testing.[1]:xiii Myers therefore apprenticed herself to Edward N. Hay, who was then personnel manager for a large Philadelphia bank and who went on to start one of the first successful personnel consulting firms in the United States. From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test construction, scoring, validation, and statistical methods.[1]:xiii, xx

text: Briggs and Myers began creating the indicator during World War II[2] in the belief that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-time jobs that would be "most comfortable and effective" for them.[1]:xiii The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to "Myers–Briggs Type Indicator" in 1956.[14] Myers' work attracted the attention of Henry Chauncey, head of the Educational Testing Service. Under these auspices, the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. The MBTI received further support from Donald W. MacKinnon, head of the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley; W. Harold Grant, a professor at Michigan State University and Auburn University; and Mary H. McCaulley of the University of Florida. The publication of the MBTI was transferred to Consulting Psychologists Press in 1975, and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type was founded as a research laboratory.[1]:xxi

text: After Myers' death in May 1980, Mary McCaulley updated the MBTI Manual and the second edition was published in 1985.[15] The third edition appeared in 1998.

text: Origins of the theory[edit]

text: Jung's theory of psychological types was not based on controlled scientific studies,[16] but instead on clinical observation, introspection, and anecdote—methods regarded as inconclusive in the modern field of scientific psychology.[16]

text: Jung's typology theories postulated a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having one of two polar orientations (extraversion or introversion), giving a total of eight dominant functions. The MBTI is based on these eight hypothetical functions, although with some differences in expression from Jung's model (see Differences from Jung below). While the Jungian model offers empirical evidence for the first three dichotomies, whether the Briggs had evidence for the J-P preference is unclear.[verification needed]

text: Differences from Jung[edit]

text: Structured vs. projective personality assessment[edit]

text: The MBTI takes what is called a "structured" approach to personality assessment. The responses to items are considered "closed" and interpreted according to the theory of the test constructers in scoring. This is contrary to the "projective" approach to personality assessment advocated by psychodynamic theorists such as Carl Jung. Indeed, Jung was a proponent of the "word association" test as a measure of the unconscious dispositions influencing behavior. This approach uses "open-ended" responses that need to be interpreted in the context of the "whole" person, and not according to the preconceived theory of the test constructers. Supporters of the projective approach to personality assessment are critical of the structured approach because defense mechanisms may distort responses to the closed items on structured tests.

text: Judging vs. perception[edit]

text: The most notable addition of Myers and Briggs ideas to Jung's original thought is their concept that a given type's fourth letter (J or P) indicates a person's preferred extraverted function, which is the dominant function for extraverted types and the auxiliary function for introverted types.[1]:21–22

text: Orientation of the tertiary function[edit]

text: Jung theorized that the dominant function acts alone in its preferred world: exterior for extraverts and interior for introverts. The remaining three functions, he suggested, operate together in the opposite orientation. If the dominant cognitive function is introverted the other functions are extraverted and vice versa. The MBTI Manual summarizes references in Jung's work to the balance in psychological type as follows: "There are several references in Jung's writing to the three remaining functions having an opposite attitudinal character. For example, in writing about introverts with thinking dominant ... Jung commented that the counterbalancing functions have an extraverted character."[15] However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented in the same direction as the dominant function.[17] Using the INTP type as an example, the orientation would be as follows:

text:
Dominant introverted thinking
Auxiliary extraverted intuition
Tertiary introverted sensing
Inferior extraverted feeling

text: Concepts[edit]

text: The MBTI Manual states that the indicator "is designed to implement a theory; therefore, the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI".[18]:1 Fundamental to the MBTI is the theory of psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung.[1]:xiii Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

text:
The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling
The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensation and intuition

text: Jung believed that for every person, each of the functions is expressed primarily in either an introverted or extraverted form.[1]:17 Based on Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the MBTI is based. However, although psychologist Hans Eysenck called the MBTI a moderately successful quantification of Jung's original principles as outlined in Psychological Types,[19] he also said, "[The MBTI] creates 16 personality types which are said to be similar to Jung's theoretical concepts. I have always found difficulties with this identification, which omits one half of Jung's theory (he had 32 types, by asserting that for every conscious combination of traits there was an opposite unconscious one). Obviously, the latter half of his theory does not admit of questionnaire measurement, but to leave it out and pretend that the scales measure Jungian concepts is hardly fair to Jung."[20] In any event, both models remain hypothetical, with no controlled scientific studies supporting either Jung's original concept of type or the Myers–Briggs variation.[16]

text: Type[edit]

text: Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: people are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or "dichotomies", with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these types is "better" or "worse"; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that people innately "prefer" one overall combination of type differences.[1]:9 In the same way that writing with the left hand is difficult for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, though they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

text: The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation "N" to distinguish it from introversion). For instance:

text:
ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)

text: These abbreviations are applied to all 16 types.

text: Four dichotomies[edit]

text:
Carl Jung

Subjective
Objective

Perception
Intuition/Sensing
Introversion/Extraversion 1

Judging
Feeling/Thinking
Introversion/Extraversion 2

text:
Myers–Briggs

Subjective
Objective

Deductive
Intuition/Sensing
Introversion/Extraversion

Inductive
Feeling/Thinking
Perception/Judging

text: The four pairs of preferences or "dichotomies" are shown in the adjacent table.

text: The terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI, which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people who prefer judgment over perception are not necessarily more "judgmental" or less "perceptive", nor does the MBTI instrument measure aptitude; it simply indicates for one preference over another.[18]:3 Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be correctly described as more extraverted: they simply have a clear preference.

text: Point scores on each of the dichotomies can vary considerably from person to person, even among those with the same type. However, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference (for example, very clear vs. slight).[15] The expression of a person's psychological type is more than the sum of the four individual preferences. The preferences interact through type dynamics and type development.

text: Attitudes: extroversion/introversion[edit]

text: Myers–Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them. Extraversion means literally outward-turning and introversion, inward-turning.[21] These specific definitions differ somewhat from the popular usage of the words. Extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications.

text: The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called "attitudes". Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things ("extraverted attitude") or the internal world of ideas and reflection ("introverted attitude"). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference for one or the other.

text: People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion "expend" energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.[22]

text: An extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, whereas the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverted and introverted people include:

text:
Extraverted are action-oriented, while introverted are thought-oriented.
Extraverted seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverted seek depth of knowledge and influence.
Extraverted often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverted prefer more substantial interaction.
Extraverted recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverted recharge and get their energy from spending time alone; they consume their energy through the opposite process.[23]

text: Functions: sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling[edit]

text: Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

text:
Two perceiving functions: sensation (usually called sensing in MBTI writings) and intuition
Two judging functions: thinking and feeling

text: According to Jung's typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.

text: Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. People who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere".[1]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is less dependent upon the senses, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles which are manifested in the data.

text: Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. Thinkers usually have trouble interacting with people who are inconsistent or illogical, and tend to give very direct feedback to others. They are concerned with the truth and view it as more important.

text: As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts, in the common sense; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts. In many cases, however, people who use thinking functions as either dominant or auxiliary tend to have more underdeveloped feeling functions, and often have more trouble with regulating and making healthy and productive decisions based on their feelings.

text: Dominant function[edit]

text: According to Jung, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior function the "shadow".[1]:84

text: The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

text: Lifestyle preferences: judging/perception[edit]

text: Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).

text: Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judging show the world their preferred judging function (thinking or feeling). So, TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers,[1]:75 judging types like to "have matters settled".

text: Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). So, SP types tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP types as abstract. According to Myers,[1]:75 perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open".

text: For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function[citation needed]. Introverts tend to show their dominant function outwardly only in matters "important to their inner worlds".[1]:13 For example:

text: Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

text: Because the INTJ type is introverted, however, the J instead indicates that the auxiliary function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The INTJ type introverts the dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is feeling and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.

text: Format and administration[edit]

text: The current North American English version of the MBTI Step I includes 93 forced-choice questions (88 are in the European English version). "Forced-choice" means that a person has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. The choices are a mixture of word pairs and short statements. Choices are not literal opposites, but chosen to reflect opposite preferences on the same dichotomy. Participants may skip questions if they feel they are unable to choose.

text: Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be scored and will attempt to identify the preference, and clarity of preference, in each dichotomy. After taking the MBTI, participants are usually asked to complete a "Best Fit" exercise (see below) and then given a readout of their Reported Type, which will usually include a bar graph and number (Preference Clarity Index) to show how clear they were about each preference when they completed the questionnaire.

text: During the early development of the MBTI, thousands of items were used. Most were eventually discarded because they did not have high "midpoint discrimination", meaning the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual score away from the midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have fewer items on it, but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments with many more items with lower midpoint discrimination.

text: Additional formats[edit]

text: Isabel Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences, as well as similarities. At the time of her death, she was developing a more in-depth method of measuring how people express and experience their individual type pattern.

text: In 1987, an advanced scoring system was developed for the MBTI. From this was developed the Type Differentiation Indicator (Saunders, 1989) which is a scoring system for the longer MBTI, Form J,[24] which includes the 290 items written by Myers that had survived her previous item analyses. It yields 20 subscales (five under each of the four dichotomous preference scales), plus seven additional subscales for a new "Comfort-Discomfort" factor (which purportedly corresponds to the missing factor of neuroticism).

text: This factor's scales indicate a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus discomfort and anxiety. They also load onto one of the four type dimensions:[25] guarded-optimistic (also T/F), defiant-compliant (also T/F), carefree-worried (also T/F), decisive-ambivalent (also J/P), intrepid-inhibited (Also E/I), leader-follower (Also E/I), and proactive-distractible (also J/P)

text: Also included is a composite of these called "strain". There are also scales for type-scale consistency and comfort-scale consistency. Reliability of 23 of the 27 TDI subscales is greater than 0.50, "an acceptable result given the brevity of the subscales" (Saunders, 1989).

text: In 1989, a scoring system was developed for only the 20 subscales for the original four dichotomies. This was initially known as "Form K" or the "Expanded Analysis Report". This tool is now called the "MBTI Step II".

text: Form J or the TDI included the items (derived from Myers' and McCaulley's earlier work) necessary to score what became known as "Step III".[26] (The 1998 MBTI Manual reported that the two instruments were one and the same[27]) It was developed in a joint project involving the following organizations: CPP, the publisher of the whole family of MBTI works; CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type), which holds all of Myers' and McCaulley's original work; and the MBTI Trust, headed by Katharine and Peter Myers. Step III was advertised as addressing type development and the use of perception and judgment by respondents.[28]

text: Translations into other languages[edit]

text: The MBTI has been successfully translated and adapted into over 20 languages,[29][30] including reviews by subject-matter experts fluent in the native language, and statistical analysis to check that the questions still measure the same psychological concepts as the original US English questionnaire.[31]

text: Precepts and ethics[edit]

text: These precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the MBTI:

text: Type dynamics and development[edit]

text:
The Sixteen Types

US Population Breakdown

The table organizing the sixteen types was created by Isabel Myers (an INFP person).

ISTJ
11–14%
ISFJ
9–14%
INFJ
1–3%
INTJ
2–4%

ISTP
4–6%
ISFP
5–9%
INFP
4–5%
INTP
3–5%

ESTP
4–5%
ESFP
4–9%
ENFP
6–8%
ENTP
2–5%

ESTJ
8–12%
ESFJ
9–13%
ENFJ
2–5%
ENTJ
2–5%

Estimated percentages of the 16 types in the United States population.[33]

text: The interaction of two, three, or four preferences is known as "type dynamics". Although type dynamics has received little or no empirical support to substantiate its viability as a scientific theory,[34] Myers and Briggs asserted that for each of the 16 four-preference types, one function is the most dominant and is likely to be evident earliest in life. A secondary or auxiliary function typically becomes more evident (differentiated) during teenaged years and provides balance to the dominant. In normal development, individuals tend to become more fluent with a third, tertiary function during mid-life, while the fourth, inferior function remains least consciously developed. The inferior function is often considered to be more associated with the unconscious, being most evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being "in the grip" of the inferior function).

text: However, the use of type dynamics is disputed: in the conclusion of various studies on the subject of type dynamics, James H. Reynierse writes, "Type dynamics has persistent logical problems and is fundamentally based on a series of category mistakes; it provides, at best, a limited and incomplete account of type related phenomena"; and "type dynamics relies on anecdotal evidence, fails most efficacy tests, and does not fit the empirical facts". His studies gave the clear result that the descriptions and workings of type dynamics do not fit the real behavior of people. He suggests getting completely rid of type dynamics, because it does not help, but hinders understanding of personality. The presumed order of functions 1 to 4 did only occur in one out of 540 test results.[35]

text: The sequence of differentiation of dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary functions through life is termed type development. This is an idealized sequence that may be disrupted by major life events.

text: The dynamic sequence of functions and their attitudes can be determined in the following way:

text:
The overall lifestyle preference (J-P) determines whether the judging (T-F) or perceiving (S-N) preference is most evident in the outside world; i.e., which function has an extraverted attitude
The attitude preference (E-I) determines whether the extraverted function is dominant or auxiliary
For those with an overall preference for extraversion, the function with the extraverted attitude will be the dominant function. For example, for an ESTJ type the dominant function is the judging function, thinking, and this is experienced with an extraverted attitude. This is notated as a dominant Te. For an ESTP, the dominant function is the perceiving function, sensing, notated as a dominant Se.
The auxiliary function for extraverts is the secondary preference of the judging or perceiving functions, and it is experienced with an introverted attitude: for example, the auxiliary function for ESTJ is introverted sensing (Si) and the auxiliary for ESTP is introverted thinking (Ti).
For those with an overall preference for introversion, the function with the extraverted attitude is the auxiliary; the dominant is the other function in the main four letter preference. So the dominant function for ISTJ is introverted sensing (Si) with the auxiliary (supporting) function being extraverted thinking (Te).
The tertiary function is the opposite preference from the auxiliary. For example, if the Auxiliary is thinking then the Tertiary would be feeling. The attitude of the tertiary is the subject of some debate and therefore is not normally indicated; i.e. if the auxiliary was Te then the tertiary would be F (not Fe or Fi)
The inferior function is the opposite preference and attitude from the Dominant, so for an ESTJ with dominant Te the inferior would be Fi.

text: Note that for extraverts, the dominant function is the one most evident in the external world. For introverts, however, it is the auxiliary function that is most evident externally, as their dominant function relates to the interior world.

text: Some examples of whole types may clarify this further. Taking the ESTJ example above:

text:
Extraverted function is a judging function (T-F) because of the overall J preference
Extraverted function is dominant because of overall E preference
Dominant function is therefore extraverted thinking (Te)
Auxiliary function is the preferred perceiving function: introverted sensing (Si)
Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: intuition (N)
Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: introverted feeling (Fi)

text: The dynamics of the ESTJ are found in the primary combination of extraverted thinking as their dominant function and introverted sensing as their auxiliary function: the dominant tendency of ESTJs to order their environment, to set clear boundaries, to clarify roles and timetables, and to direct the activities around them is supported by their facility for using past experience in an ordered and systematic way to help organize themselves and others. For instance, ESTJs may enjoy planning trips for groups of people to achieve some goal or to perform some culturally uplifting function. Because of their ease in directing others and their facility in managing their own time, they engage all the resources at their disposal to achieve their goals. However, under prolonged stress or sudden trauma, ESTJs may overuse their extraverted thinking function and fall into the grip of their inferior function, introverted feeling. Although the ESTJ can seem insensitive to the feelings of others in their normal activities, under tremendous stress, they can suddenly express feelings of being unappreciated or wounded by insensitivity.

text: Looking at the diametrically opposite four-letter type, INFP:

text:
Extraverted function is a perceiving function (S-N) because of the P preference
Introverted function is dominant because of the I preference
Dominant function is therefore introverted feeling (Fi)
Auxiliary function is extraverted intuition (Ne)
Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: sensing (S)
Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: extraverted thinking (Te)

text: The dynamics of the INFP rest on the fundamental correspondence of introverted feeling and extraverted intuition. The dominant tendency of the INFP is toward building a rich internal framework of values and toward championing human rights. They often devote themselves behind the scenes to causes such as civil rights or saving the environment. Since they tend to avoid the limelight, postpone decisions, and maintain a reserved posture, they are rarely found in executive-director-type positions of the organizations that serve those causes. Normally, the INFP dislikes being "in charge" of things. When not under stress, the INFP radiates a pleasant and sympathetic demeanor, but under extreme stress, they can suddenly become rigid and directive, exerting their extraverted thinking erratically.

text: Every type, and its opposite, is the expression of these interactions, which give each type its unique, recognizable signature.

text: Cognitive learning styles[edit]

text: The test is scored by evaluating each answer in terms of what it reveals about the taker. Each question is relevant to one of the following cognitive learning styles. Each is not a polar opposite, but a gradual continuum.

text: Extraversion/Introversion[edit]

text: The extraverted types learn best by talking and interacting with others. By interacting with the physical world, extraverts can process and make sense of new information. The introverted types prefer quiet reflection and privacy. Information processing occurs for introverts as they explore ideas and concepts internally.

text: Sensing/Intuition[edit]

text: The second continuum reflects what people focus their attentions on. Sensing types enjoy a learning environment in which the material is presented in a detailed and sequential manner. Sensing types often attend to what is occurring in the present, and can move to the abstract after they have established a concrete experience. Intuitive types prefer a learning atmosphere in which an emphasis is placed on meaning and associations. Insight is valued higher than careful observation, and pattern recognition occurs naturally for intuitive types.

text: Thinking/Feeling[edit]

text: The third continuum reflects a person's decision preferences. Thinking types desire objective truth and logical principles and are natural at deductive reasoning. Feeling types place an emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized while they consider other people's motives.

text: Judging/Perceiving[edit]

text: The fourth continuum reflects how a person regards complexity. Judging types will thrive when information is organized and structured, and they will be motivated to complete assignments in order to gain closure. Perceiving types will flourish in a flexible learning environment in which they are stimulated by new and exciting ideas. Judging types like to be on time, while perceiving types may be late and/or procrastinate.

text: Correlations with other instruments[edit]

text: Keirsey temperaments[edit]

text: David W. Keirsey mapped four "temperaments" to the existing Myers–Briggs system groupings: SP, SJ, NF and NT; this often results in confusion of the two theories. However, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter is not directly associated with the official Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.[citation needed]

text:
ISITEJ
ISIFEJ
INIFEJ
INITEJ

Inspector
Protector
Counselor
Mastermind

ISETIP
ISEFIP
INEFIP
INETIP

Crafter
Composer
Healer
Architect

ESETIP
ESEFIP
ENEFIP
ENETIP

Promoter
Performer
Champion
Inventor

ESITEJ
ESIFEJ
ENIFEJ
ENITEJ

Supervisor
Provider
Teacher
Fieldmarshal

text: Big Five[edit]

text: McCrae and Costa based their Five Factor Model (FFM) on Goldberg's Big Five theory.[36] McCrae and Costa[37] present correlations between the MBTI scales and the currently popular Big Five personality constructs measured, for example, by the NEO-PI-R.[38] The five purported personality constructs have been labeled: extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (emotional instability), although there is not universal agreement on the Big Five theory and the related Five-Factor Model (FFM).[39][40] The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)

text:
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism

E-I
−0.74
0.03
−0.03
0.08
0.16

S-N
0.10
0.72
0.04
−0.15
−0.06

T-F
0.19
0.02
0.44
−0.15
0.06

J-P
0.15
0.30
−0.06
−0.49
0.11

The closer the number is to 1.0 or −1.0, the higher the degree of correlation.

text: These results suggest that the four MBTI scales can be incorporated within the Big Five personality trait constructs, but that the MBTI lacks a measure for emotional stability dimension of the Big Five (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed that dimension). Emotional stability (or neuroticism) is a predictor of depression and anxiety disorders. These correlations refer to the second letter shown, i.e., the table shows that I and P have negative correlations with extraversion and conscientiousness, respectively, while F and N have positive correlations with agreeableness and openness, respectively.

text: These findings led McCrae and Costa to conclude that, "correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework." However, "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions."[37]

text: Personality disorders[edit]

text: One study found personality disorders as described by the DSM overall to correlate modestly with I, N, T, and P, although the associations varied significantly by disorder. The only two disorders with significant correlations of all four MBTI dimensions were schizotypal (INTP) and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (ISTJ).[41]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism.

text: It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited and supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[42] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[42] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[9] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[9][43]

text: Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote: "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie ..."[44]

text: No evidence for dichotomies[edit]

text: As described in the § Four dichotomies section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference. Statistically, this would mean that scores on each MBTI scale would show a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus dividing people into either, e.g., an extroverted or an introverted psychological type. However, most studies have found that scores on the individual scales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither clearly introverted nor extroverted. Most personality traits do show a normal distribution of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low end, about 15% at the high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be scored, a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the line are classified as a low type and those scoring above the line are given the opposite type. Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept of type, but rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous curve.[8][37][45][46][47] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers' theory-based assumption of categorical "types" of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based research of MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to "type" advocates to cite in defense of their position."[47]

text: Validity and utility[edit]

text: The content of the MBTI scales is problematic. In 1991, a National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong validity. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs".[48] This study based its measurement of validity on "criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job performance?)."[48] There is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility, particularly of the four letter type derived from a person's responses to the MBTI items.[8]

text: Lack of objectivity[edit]

text: The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting.[18]:52–53 Unlike some personality questionnaires, such as the 16PF Questionnaire, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.[10] As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses,[49] and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates weakly with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale.[50] If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they should."[18]:53 However, the MBTI ethical guidelines state, "It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants."[32] The intent of the MBTI is to provide "a framework for understanding individual differences, and ... a dynamic model of individual development".[51]

text: Terminology[edit]

text: The terminology of the MBTI has been criticized as being very "vague and general",[52] so as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, which may result in the Forer effect, where people give a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them.[8][16] Others argue that while the MBTI type descriptions are brief, they are also distinctive and precise.[53]:14–15 Some theorists, such as David Keirsey, have expanded on the MBTI descriptions, providing even greater detail. For instance, Keirsey's descriptions of his four temperaments, which he correlated with the sixteen MBTI personality types, show how the temperaments differ in terms of language use, intellectual orientation, educational and vocational interests, social orientation, self-image, personal values, social roles, and characteristic hand gestures.[53]:32–207

text: Factor analysis[edit]

text: Researchers have reported that the JP and the SN scales correlate with one another.[37] One factor-analytic study based on (N=1291) college-aged students found six different factors instead of the four purported dimensions, thereby raising doubts as to the construct validity of the MBTI.[54]

text: Correlates[edit]

text: According to Hans Eysenck: "The main dimension in the MBTI is called E-I, or extraversion-introversion; this is mostly a sociability scale, correlating quite well with the MMPI social introversion scale (negatively) and the Eysenck Extraversion scale (positively).[55] Unfortunately, the scale also has a loading on neuroticism, which correlates with the introverted end. Thus introversion correlates roughly (i.e. averaging values for males and females) -.44 with dominance, -.24 with aggression, +.37 with abasement, +.46 with counselling readiness, -.52 with self-confidence, -.36 with personal adjustment, and -.45 with empathy. The failure of the scale to disentangle Introversion and Neuroticism (there is no scale for neurotic and other psychopathological attributes in the MBTI) is its worst feature, only equalled by the failure to use factor analysis in order to test the arrangement of items in the scale."[19]

text: Reliability[edit]

text: The test-retest reliability of the MBTI tends to be low. Large numbers of people (between 39% and 76% of respondents) obtain different type classifications when retaking the indicator after only five weeks.[8][46][56] In Fortune Magazine (May 15, 2013), an article titled "Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs Test" stated:

text:
“
The interesting – and somewhat alarming – fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test.
A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. ... The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introverted" and "extroverted" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.[57]

”

text: Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when people are retested within nine months and around 75% when retested after nine months. About 50% of people re-administered the MBTI within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% the same type after more than nine months.[58] For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher (p. 163, Table 8.6).

text: In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half of people chose the same profile.[59]

text: It has been argued that criticisms regarding the MBTI mostly come down to questions regarding the validity of its origins, not questions regarding the validity of the MBTI's usefulness.[60] Others argue that the MBTI can be a reliable measurement of personality; it just so happens that "like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are dependent on sample characteristics and testing conditions".[61]

text: Utility[edit]

text: Isabel Myers claimed that the proportion of different personality types varied by choice of career or course of study.[1]:40–51[15] However, researchers examining the proportions of each type within varying professions report that the proportion of MBTI types within each occupation is close to that within a random sample of the population.[8] Some researchers have expressed reservations about the relevance of type to job satisfaction, as well as concerns about the potential misuse of the instrument in labeling people.[8][62]

text: CPP became the exclusive publisher of the MBTI in 1975. They call it "the world's most widely used personality assessment", with as many as two million assessments administered annually.[63] CPP and other proponents state that the indicator meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments and cite reports of individual behavior.[64][46][65][excessive citations]

text: Although meta-analysis claim support for validity and reliability,[66][67] studies suggest that the MBTI "lacks convincing validity data" and that it is pseudoscience.[8][37][45][46][68][69]

text: The MBTI is not a useful predictor of job performance.[8][48][70] As noted above under Precepts and ethics, the MBTI measures preferences, not ability. The use of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged in the Manual.[18]:78 However, the MBTI continues to be popular because many people lack psychometric sophistication, it is not difficult to understand, and there are many supporting books, websites and other sources which are readily available to the general public.[71]