The Myers-Briggs Test Isn’t Measuring Personality — It’s Measuring Survival Strategies

The Myers-Briggs test isn’t telling you who you are. It’s telling you who you had to be.

Most people assume their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) reflects their natural personality. But what if that’s not true?

What if it’s actually a map of your nervous system’s survival strategy — the way your brain learned to adapt to early life conditions?

For decades, MBTI has been both celebrated and dismissed — some see it as a powerful tool for self-understanding, while others call it pseudoscience. Based on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types, it sorts people into 16 personality types using four key preferences:

  1. Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I) — Do you focus outward or inward?

  2. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N) — Do you rely on tangible facts or abstract patterns?

  3. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F) — Do you prioritize logic or emotional context?

  4. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P) — Do you prefer structure or flexibility?

Supporters of MBTI say it accurately captures how people think and interact with the world.
Critics argue it’s unscientific and too rigid to define real personality.

But what if both sides are missing the point?

What if the real reason MBTI resonates so deeply isn’t because it reveals your personality — but because it reflects how your brain has learned to survive?

Because when you break down how the cognitive functions actually work, it becomes clear:

MBTI doesn’t reveal your true self. It reveals the self you had to be.

What If MBTI Is Measuring Trauma-Adapted Cognition?

Most people assume MBTI tells them who they are.

  • “I’m an INTJ, so I’m strategic and independent.”

  • “I’m an ENFP, so I’m spontaneous and idealistic.”

  • “I’m an ISFJ, so I’m nurturing and detail-oriented.”

But what if these aren’t personality traits at all?
What if they are survival strategies — shaped by your earliest environment and reinforced by your nervous system?

Because when you break down how the cognitive functions actually work, it becomes clear:

MBTI doesn’t reveal your true self. It reveals the self you had to be.

Your Type Is a Reflection of How You Learned to Survive

1. Extraverted vs. Introverted (E vs. I) → How You Learned to Manage Energy and Safety

The first MBTI preference describes where you direct your attention and energy.

But what if it’s actually describing how you learned to regulate yourself in early life?

Extraverts (E) developed a socially attuned nervous system — one that learned safety comes from external engagement and adaptability.

  • Maybe their environment rewarded interaction, requiring them to be socially adaptive.

  • Maybe they had to scan and anticipate external threats constantly.

  • Maybe they learned early on that being seen, loud, or proactive was necessary for survival.

Introverts (I) developed a self-contained nervous system — one that learned safety comes from pulling inward and conserving energy.

  • Maybe their external world was unpredictable, chaotic, or overwhelming.

  • Maybe they felt unseen or unheard, so they built a strong internal world instead.

  • Maybe their nervous system simply learned that conserving energy = maintaining stability.

So your E/I preference? It’s not just a social preference.
It’s a reflection of how your nervous system learned to regulate itself.

2. Sensing vs. Intuition (S vs. N) → How You Learned to Process Information in Order to Survive

This function determines how you gather information and make sense of the world.

But what if it’s actually describing what kind of information your nervous system learned to prioritize for survival?

Sensors (S) rely on direct experience and facts because they learned that trusting reality keeps them safe.

  • Maybe they grew up in a structured, rules-based environment where following instructions was key to survival.

  • Maybe they experienced unpredictability, so they clung to routines and tangible details.

  • Their nervous system decided: “The only thing I can trust is what I can see, touch, and verify.”

Intuitives (N) rely on patterns and future possibilities because they learned that predicting the future keeps them safe.

  • Maybe they grew up in unstable or complex environments, where anticipating outcomes was the best way to avoid harm.

  • Maybe they learned early on that the world doesn’t always make sense at face value — so they had to rely on abstract thinking.

  • Their nervous system decided: “If I can see what’s coming next, I’ll be okay.”

But here’s the thing — everyone predicts the future to stay safe.
The difference is how they do it. Sensors (S) trust what has already happened — they rely on past experiences, concrete details, and proven cause-and-effect. Intuitives (N) scan for hidden patterns, deeper meanings, and unseen possibilities. Both are survival strategies — one prioritizes stability, the other prioritizes foresight.

So your S/N preference? It’s not just about how you think — it’s about what your nervous system trained you to notice in order to survive.

3. Thinking vs. Feeling (T vs. F) → How You Learned to Make Decisions Safely

This function describes how you process emotions and make decisions.

But what if it’s actually revealing how your nervous system learned to handle emotional risk?

Thinkers (T) detach from emotions because their nervous system learned that feelings were unreliable or unsafe.

  • Maybe emotions were dismissed, ignored, or punished in their upbringing.

  • Maybe they learned that logic was the only way to stay in control.

  • Maybe their nervous system decided: “If I stay rational, I won’t get hurt.”

Feelers (F) prioritize emotions because their nervous system learned that connection = survival.

  • Maybe they had to manage other people’s emotions in order to maintain peace.

  • Maybe their environment required them to be emotionally attuned to avoid conflict.

  • Their nervous system decided: “If I understand feelings, I’ll stay safe.”

So your T/F preference? It’s not just about how you process decisions — it’s about how your nervous system adapted to emotional risk.

4. Judging vs. Perceiving (J vs. P) → How You Learned to Handle Uncertainty

This function describes how you approach structure, plans, and spontaneity.

But what if it’s actually revealing how your nervous system learned to handle uncertainty?

Judgers (J) seek control because their nervous system learned that unpredictability is dangerous.

Perceivers (P) seek flexibility because their nervous system learned that adaptability is key to survival.

So your J/P preference? It’s not just about organization — it’s about how much control your nervous system believes is necessary to stay safe.

The Biggest Criticism of MBTI Is Actually Proof of This Theory

Skeptics of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) argue that:

1. People’s types change over time.

2. It doesn’t predict behavior reliably.

3. It doesn’t have a biological basis.

But if MBTI isn’t measuring personality — and instead is measuring how cognition adapts to survival —

Then these “flaws” actually confirm the theory.

  • Types change over time? Yes, because as survival demands shift, cognitive adaptations shift too.

  • It doesn’t predict behavior perfectly? Of course not — because it’s not about behavior. It’s about survival strategies, which change based on context.

  • No genetic basis? That’s because it’s not about genes — it’s about what your nervous system learned to prioritize.

MBTI was never about inborn personality traits.

It was always about how the brain builds a predictive model of the world based on survival needs.

The Only Way This Theory Could Be Wrong

For this theory to be false, one of the following things would have to be untrue:

1. Trauma wouldn’t shape cognition in predictable ways. (It does.)

2. Predictive coding wouldn’t control perception. (It does.)

3. MBTI types wouldn’t map so perfectly onto survival-based cognition patterns. (They do.)

4. Therapy wouldn’t change cognitive preferences. (It does.)

But all of these things are true.

Which means?

The Myers-Briggs test has never been measuring personality.
It has been measuring survival.

  • It doesn’t tell you who you are. It tells you who you had to be to feel safe.

  • It doesn’t predict your future. It reveals the past that shaped you.

  • It doesn’t define your identity. It exposes your nervous system’s coping strategies.

So the real question isn’t “What’s my type?”
It’s “Who would I be if I had never needed to survive?”

And that?
That is the only question that really matters.

Are FDA-Cleared Medical Devices Safe?

Disclaimer: This blog is independently written and published by me. The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in any way.

The Surprising Reality Behind “FDA Clearance”

Most people assume that if a medical device is on the market—especially something as serious as an implant or monitoring system—it must have gone through rigorous human testing and FDA scrutiny before being used on patients. But in reality, many moderate and high-risk devices receive little to no clinical testing before they are cleared for use.

In the U.S., medical-grade devices are regulated differently than consumer health tools like Fitbits or smartwatches. They fall under the purview of the FDA and must be “cleared” or “approved” before hitting the market. But these terms mean very different things—and most devices fall under the former.

FDA “Clearance” vs. “Approval”: What’s the Difference?

The two main regulatory pathways are:

  • Premarket Approval (PMA) – the gold standard. Like a new drug, a device goes through human trials and is approved based on demonstrated safety and effectiveness. Only about 2% of devices go through PMA.

  • 510(k) Clearance – the most common route. Used for 98% of devices, this pathway does not require human testing. A manufacturer only needs to show that their device is “substantially equivalent” to an existing one on the market—called a predicate.

The result? A device can be cleared without ever being tested in humans, based on the assumption that it’s similar to something already out there. In fact, some cleared devices trace back through multiple layers of predicates in a long “daisy chain”—sometimes to devices that are decades old or even recalled for safety concerns.

The “De Novo” Pathway

There’s also a lesser-used route for novel, low-to-moderate risk devices: the De Novo pathway. This doesn’t require predicate equivalence and allows more flexibility in marketing. However, De Novo devices often become the predicate for future 510(k) submissions, making them vulnerable to copycat devices with even less oversight.

Apple’s EKG feature on the Apple Watch, for example, was granted De Novo classification—it was novel, but still not subject to the rigorous testing required for a PMA-approved device.

Lack of Clinical Testing: A Common Reality

I’ve spoken to medical device companies who admitted their “testing” amounted to little more than a few people doing jumping jacks for a few minutes. Many startups can’t afford full-scale human trials before getting to market. And because hospitals typically won’t test devices that aren’t FDA-cleared, most companies focus first on securing 510(k) clearance—then look for opportunities to validate the device afterward.

Even PMA, the more rigorous route, typically requires only one clinical study—often with small participant numbers. In contrast, drugs require two large-scale trials. In many cases, devices reach patients with open questions about safety and performance still unanswered.

A Real-World Example: Patient Status Engine

Take the Patient Status Engine (PSE), a Class II device cleared in 2018. It monitors six vital signs in real-time and transmits the data to clinicians. Its FDA clearance was based not on new clinical evidence, but on its similarity to earlier devices. Following its predicate devices reveals a long chain—eventually leading back to products cleared with minimal or no human data.

Here’s a summary of what was found in its 510(k) filing:

  • Clinical Testing: Not required.

  • Predicate Device Used: VitalPatch (which itself was cleared based on limited internal studies).

  • Substantial Equivalence: Confirmed, despite known flaws in how predicate chains work.

This is a textbook example of how new devices can legally enter the market riding on the back of old, often untested (or under-tested) predecessors.

Reporting Device Problems: A Broken System?

You might think that adverse events would be swiftly flagged. Unfortunately, that system is also flawed.

  • Reporting is voluntary. Physicians aren’t required to report device-related complications.

  • Manufacturers are supposed to report, but have every incentive not to.

  • Only 3% of adverse events ever make it to the FDA’s database.

  • A study found that the more severe the complication, the less likely it was to be reported by manufacturers.

It often takes months—or even years—for post-market risks to surface. By then, hundreds of thousands of patients may already be affected.

What This Means for You

Medical device innovation is crucial, but the pathway to market is often less rigorous than many assume. FDA clearance is not the same as approval, and neither guarantees a device is well-tested or safe.

If you or someone you love is being offered a new medical device, here are some questions to ask:

  • Is this device FDA approved or cleared?

  • Has it been tested in humans? If so, how many?

  • What is its predicate device, and has that device ever been recalled?

  • Does your physician understand the regulatory pathway the device took?

In Summary

New medical devices can offer enormous benefits—but many reach the market without the kind of testing that consumers would expect. The 510(k) system, while efficient, is deeply reliant on legacy assumptions and honor-based compliance. As patients and caregivers, we must be informed, ask hard questions, and not equate regulatory clearance with a guarantee of safety.

How products define and influence who we are

Disclaimer: This blog is independently written and published by me. The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer’s view in any way.

Take a moment to think about how you might introduce yourself to someone new.

Would you say, “I’m a mom,” “a cyclist,” “a New Yorker,” “a minimalist,” or even “a coffee person”?

The way we construct our identity—our self-concept—is shaped not just by relationships or affiliations, but by the things we surround ourselves with. Our clothes, cars, tech, bags, mugs, even pens—they all carry meaning, and they all reflect (and sometimes shape) who we think we are.

Identity Is Fluid—And Products Help Shape It

We often believe our identities are fixed. But in reality, they’re constantly evolving. Products play an important role in that evolution. They don’t just reflect who we are; they subtly influence how we see ourselves and how others perceive us.

We choose products that carry the personality traits we want to express—whether that’s elegance, adventure, intelligence, or status. And the more closely those traits match our self-image, the more connected we feel to the product and the brand.

But here’s the catch: if the social intent behind a product choice feels too obvious, it becomes uncomfortable. That’s why someone who buys a BMW for status might say it’s about “performance” or “reliability.” As product designers and marketers, we should embrace status—but cloak it in credibility.

We Judge Ourselves Against Products, Too

We don’t just compare ourselves to other people—we also compare ourselves to objects.

Research has found that even the shape of a product can influence self-evaluation. For example:

  • Women who identified as curvy rated curved products more highly.

  • A short-looking coffee mug made people feel shorter and less physically attractive.

  • Using a pen with an MIT logo made students feel smarter.

  • Carrying a Victoria’s Secret bag made women feel sexier.

These aren’t just emotional blips. They influence how people behave, what they value, and even the choices they make afterward.

Why We Choose Brands That Feel Like “Us”

We’re naturally motivated to behave in ways that match our self-image. This desire for consistency is why we gravitate toward brands that feel like us—and why we avoid those that don’t.

This concept, called self-congruity, has been proven to influence:

  • Pre-purchase behavior (brand preference, willingness to buy)

  • Post-purchase behavior (satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth)

Before buying, we often picture the typical person who uses a brand or shops at a store. If that mental image aligns with how we see ourselves—or how we want to be seen—we’re far more likely to make a purchase.

Products Can Actually Change How We Feel About Ourselves

One of the most powerful (and underrated) effects of products is their ability to shift our self-perception.

As one study put it:

“When people acquire an object, not only do they gain control over it—they also surrender control to it, allowing its traits to influence how they see themselves.” – Weiss & Venkataramani, 2016

Psychologists call this self-affirmation—and it’s been shown to impact everything from test scores to how we respond to health advice. One study found that when overweight participants were given affirming messages before receiving a health warning (“Sitting too much increases disease risk”), they became more active in the following month. Affirmation made the message feel less like a threat, and more like a nudge.

When designed thoughtfully, products can affirm a user’s values, reinforce their sense of self, and motivate them toward positive change.

Products Do Jobs—Functional, Emotional, and Social

A helpful framework comes from “Jobs to Be Done” theory, which says people “hire” products to accomplish specific jobs:

  • Functional jobs – Getting a task done

  • Personal-emotional jobs – Feeling a certain way (e.g. confident, smart)

  • Social-emotional jobs – Being perceived a certain way by others

Example:

A woman might buy a car to transport her kids (functional), to feel successful (personal), and to be seen as stylish (social). All three needs are valid—and good product design should consider them all.

Design Takeaway: Affirm the Self, Signal Identity

As product leaders, designers, and marketers, we have an amazing opportunity: to build products that don’t just solve a problem—but help people feel like more fully realized versions of themselves.

So ask yourself:

  • What emotional or social “job” is my product being hired to do?

  • How does it make someone feel about who they are—or who they’re becoming?

  • Does it affirm their values and signal the traits they want to project?

Products have the power to reflect and reinforce self-concept. When we recognize this, we design not just for utility, but for identity, emotion, and transformation.

References: 

  1. Products as Self-Evaluation Standards: When Owned and Unowned Products Have Opposite Effects on Self-Judgment

  2. Liad Weiss, Gita Venkataramani Johar. J Consum Res (2016) 42 (6): 915–930. 2016. Products as Self-Evaluation Standards: When Owned and Unowned Products Have Opposite Effects on Self-Judgment. 

  3. The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention Geoffrey L. Cohen and David K. Sherman

  4. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/why-self-affirmation-works.html

  5. Multiple reference effects in service evaluations: Roles of alternative attractiveness and self-image congruity Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim∗, Kimmy Wa Chan 1, Kineta Hung 2007.

  6. Ghoshal, Product Curvature or Angularity Preferences: A Theory of Self-Concept. 2015

  7. Self-Affirmation through the Choice of Highly Aesthetic Products Author(s): Claudia Townsend and Sanjay Sood Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39, No2 (August 2012), pp. 415–428 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663775

  8. The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2016

  9. Actual and ideal self-congruity affecting consumers’ emotional and behavioral responses toward an online store Wanmo Koo a , Erin Cho, Youn-Kyung Kim c,1 2014

  10. Routledge International Handbook of Consumer Psychology 2016).

  11. http://gandrllc.com/reprints/usingselfconcepttoassessadvertisingeffectiveness.pdf

  12. Lucia Malär, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, & Bettina Nyffenegger. Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative. Importance of the Actual and the Ideal Self 2011

  13. The Sum of Small Things 

  14. Status Is a Four-Letter Word. Self Versus Other Differences and Concealment of Status-Striving. 2014

Why Listening to Customers Isn’t Enough

Disclaimer: This blog is independently written and published by me. The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer’s view in any way.

Listening to Customers Can Be Misleading

In today’s era of user empathy, it can feel almost sacrilegious to question what customers say. But any seasoned product leader knows this truth: what people claim to want and what they truly value are often worlds apart.

While at Capital One Labs, I ran a qualitative study to explore whether customers cared about the physical design of their credit cards—the material, weight, color, or shape. The responses were nearly unanimous:

“Absolutely not.”

“Only rewards matter.”

“Design? That’s something other people care about, not me.”

The takeaway? Credit cards were purely functional. Or so I thought.

Then I came across a behavioral study showing that people frequently choose to use cards with less attractive rewards if those cards display higher social status—like a platinum card—especially in public. This opened my eyes: people may say function matters most, but behavior reveals something else entirely.

Jobs to Be Done: Functional vs. Emotional Value

As a longtime student of the Jobs to Be Done framework, I understood that products often serve both functional and emotional jobs. Functional jobs are straightforward—get me from A to B, make me dinner faster, etc. Emotional jobs are more subtle—make me feel powerful, admired, accomplished, or attractive.

A classic example: Beats by Dre. If Beats had simply asked consumers what they wanted in headphones, they’d have heard the usual suspects: “sound quality,” “noise cancellation,” “comfort.” But Beats succeeded by doing something radically different—they optimized for emotional value. They made headphones that signaled coolness, not technical superiority. And it worked—$3 billion worth.

Emotional value is hard to quantify, and harder to defend. It’s tough to go to stakeholders with a product pitch grounded in “how people want to feel,” especially when your user research says otherwise. But that’s often where the biggest, most differentiated opportunities lie.

Why What People Say Isn’t Always What They Mean

This led me to explore a deeper question: Why do people often downplay their emotional or status-driven motivations?

The answer lies in social stigma. Research shows that status striving is deeply embedded in everyday life—but most people conceal it. We’ve been culturally conditioned to view materialism as vain or insecure, especially among the affluent, and especially in today’s social media age where status is demonstrated less through luxury goods and more through curated experiences.

Credit cards are naturally tied to wealth and privilege. Using one in public is a display of purchasing power, and for some, a subtle power move. But that same context makes them a minefield of social perception. Consumers, particularly younger ones, want to show status—but not too obviously. That’s where traditional cards like the platinum or black cards fall flat—they’re too loud. Today’s consumers seek stealth wealth.

So… Should You Listen to Customers?

Yes—but not at face value. Your real insights lie in behavior, not opinion. Customers often aren’t aware of their own motivations—or are unwilling to voice them. So rather than asking, “Would you use this?” or “Do you care about design?”, ask:

  • What do they actually choose?

  • What do they show off to friends?

  • What makes them feel proud?

  • How do they want to feel about themselves?

A great example is the Chase Sapphire Reserve card. Customers rave about the “smart” travel perks and rewards—but what the card actually signals is status. The benefits become a socially acceptable narrative (“I got this for the amazing points”), while the high-end material and sleek design deliver emotional value—without the stigma of old-school luxury.

Design to Convey and Conceal Status

So how do you create products that appeal to emotional needs without making users feel uncomfortable?

Design your product to convey status subtly—while giving consumers a different, “safe” reason to justify their purchase.

BMW drivers don’t say, “I bought it to feel powerful.” They say, “It’s the engineering.” Apple users don’t talk about how the MacBook makes them feel elevated—they talk about the ecosystem or battery life. As a designer or PM, your job is to build the experience they want to feel—and then give them a socially acceptable explanation for having it.

Final Thought

Talking to customers is critical—but interpreting what they say with the right lens is where the real magic happens. It’s not deception—it’s insight. Understanding how humans operate socially, emotionally, and subconsciously will unlock product decisions that your competitors miss.

If you want to go deeper, I highly recommend:

  • Customers Included by Mark Hurst

  • The Sum of Small Things by Elizabeth Currid-Halkett

And if you’re designing a product and want to tap into its hidden emotional value? I’m always open to chat.