I was recently asked to participate in an exercise that involved a personality quiz whose questions (but not the particular formatting) were identical to this one:
The description of outcomes and the paragraph on the first page don't come right out and make many clear falsifiable claims. I suspect that is intentional, but they heavily imply that:
A person's color type according to this quiz can help predict that person's behavior. ("Once you learn your color and that of your co-workers, you will have a better understanding of why they behave the way they do.")
Don Lowry was/is a notable researcher in the field of psychology ("a student of Keirsey").
The quiz and the follow up discussion struck me as essentially similar to a horoscope reading, but here it's all wrapped up in a supposedly scientific approach instead of (overt) mysticism.
Is there any legitimacy to either of the claims above?
Note: I am intentionally leaving aside the potentially too-broad question about the general validity of Isabel Briggs-Myers', Katherine Briggs', or David Keirsey's work, but I realize a valid answer to this question might involve a comparison to more famous personality tests and the validity or invalidity of those more famous tests.
Edit: To clarify, I am not asking whether this quiz (or others like it) have legitimate potential value in (say) a workplace. I am asking only about the legitimacy of the specific claims above: Has the predictive power of a person's "color type" been validated or falsified by experiment? Is Don Lowry a notable researcher in the sense that he has (1) contributed to the field of psychology through publication in journals, or even (2) studied under a notable researcher as a graduate student or even as an undergraduate, contributing to that researcher's work?
I think Nate's answer below puts the second claim to rest with the conclusion that Don Lowry's qualifications in the field of psychology are not strong enough to "give weight" to the profiling system he developed.