I've been thinking about this lately, I've done lots of different personality tests and do not take the conclusions entirely to heart, they can provide some basis for thinking about your personality, pause for thought, sources for reflection and as a result I think they can be useful in that way to the individual employing them.
Although so can reading Shakespeare or Freud or Jung.
I wouldnt be so pleased about employers, the authorities or other agencies using personality matrices to make decisions about me. The reason being that I do think most of these are inexact sciences, the questions are often subjective or eschewed towards certain conclusions by the cultural biases involved. Also the interpretation of the results can be contestable or again pretty subjective.
For instance, lots of people have responded with disbelief to the idea that I am an ENTJ and work as a social worker, despite the fact that when you think about the public who have most contact with social services that the employment of better TJ or TJ strategies would really help that same public (its no substitute for the necessary formal support when an informal support network is non-existant or over taxed/exhausted but anyway).
I would consistently test on another personality quiz as "adventurous type" which would have sent alarm bells ringing in a future social work employer because its shadow is anti-social personality disorder, although those traits associated with adventurous type include social and environmental awareness which would be highly recommended for the same profession.
So what's your view, is this something you agree with? Does it mean that typology is just a bit of fun like magazine quizes? Is it likely to ever graduate to being an exacting science? If it did would it effect how you feel about its employ for any purpose other than self-insight or entertainment?