This question is almost as complex as the search for truth itself. Philosophers and scientists have been searching for "truth" for eons. One thing we know from our study of type is that "truth" varies according to the different perspectives of the searchers. We know from science research that perception is an active process and the frameworks that we hold are like colored lenses we look through that color our perception of events.

How then can we validate type? The question may even be referring to validating the theories of type like Jung's Typology or Myers-Briggs Types or Keirsey's Temperaments. It may mean validating an instrument used to detect type patterns. I take the term, validating type, to mean the self-validation process. In our work with type, we frequently encounter people who have selected their best fit type solely by taking an instrument like the MBTI^®. They never experienced validating their own type through a facilitated self-discovery process and, in fact, many did not know such a process existed. This isn't so bad because the MBTI^® is frequently accurate, but when it is not, it can lead to major misdirection or at the least a discounting of a powerful tool.

True Type vs. Adapted Type vs. Current Behavior
In our work with the MBTI^®, Temperament Theory, Type Dynamics and Type Development, we have found it useful to let people know we are trying to help them discover their "True Type." At the end, they will have selected a "best fit" type pattern. Many of the tools we use, such as the Active Temperament Assessment^TM and the MBTI^® will give them clues to a best-fit type description that likely reflects their "true type." Using the following graphic, we describe how you are born with certain tendencies to behave in certain ways, yet we have the capability to adapt, grow and develop. In the very beginning was our "True Self"-the self we were intended to be, the self that is in our Genes, our DNA. (Of course we can never really know what that is for sure until we have more research supporting a DNA basis!). But as we interacted with the environment, we developed an Adapted Self that may be either more or less consistent with the True Self. We also have a Contextual Self (or Selves) that represents our current behavior. It, too, might be in sync with our True Selves or it may be quite different. That depends on what the situation at the time requires.

When we use an instrument like the MBTI^®, we go to great lengths to be sure people complete it with the "at-home, shoes-off self" attitude and yet even so, their frame of reference may be an adapted self or even contextual self like the current work setting or a life crisis moment. The MBTI^® was designed to indicate an individual's type pattern, based on Jung's typology. One of the major tenets of Jung's theory is that the type pattern is innate and the tendencies are there from birth. Isabel Myers worked diligently to create items that people of each type would consistently select. Her whole item development and scoring process was based on that assumption. Yet many people use the MBTI^® to indicate where people are at a certain point in time. And they take the instrument results as the "truth."

The Self-Discovery Process^®
Introducing the whole process as self-discovery has helped us better manage the tendency of our participants to take the results of a paper-pencil instrument as the bottom line truth. MBTI^® results are introduced last in the process and as one of many data points. Participants also have input from their interactions with the four temperament patterns (Improviser, Stabilizer, Theorist, Catalyst), interaction style preferences (Directing-Informing and Initiating-Responding), functions in their attitudes (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi), preference scale definitions (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) and with each other (if in a group) and the facilitator. The use of all of these models that meet at the level of the 16 types gives participants a much better chance of hitting the target-finding their "true type." In addition, they have learned a process which increases self-awareness and ownership in defining and describing themselves that leads to more effective application of type to teams, communication and leadership. Much more is accomplished than categorization of people or of behavior, keeping more with Jung's "therapeutic" and growth intent of the typology.(See Mary McCaulley's article, Why Did C.G. Jung Create His Typology? in Bulletin Of Psychological Type 21:5, Late Summer 1998)

So What is True Type Anyway?
It is the pattern of tendencies inherent in the individual. Patterns cannot be measured, only mapped or described. An instrument cannot tell you your true type; a professional cannot tell you your true type. Only you can discover it. Instruments and professionals either help or hinder the process. Happy self-discovery!