"Extroverts (E-types) preferred, introverts (I-types) need not apply"—this has become an invisible barrier many job seekers encounter during recruitment in recent years. Personality tests, initially introduced from abroad, are increasingly becoming standard in domestic hiring processes. Common assessment tools include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), DISC personality test, and the Personality and Preference Inventory (PDP).

Hiring is a two-way selection process: job seekers hope to be recognized, while employers aim for the right "person-job fit." If HR departments observe that certain roles genuinely suit either extroverted or introverted individuals based on past experience, personality tests can improve screening efficiency. Some tests even include cross-checking questions to detect if candidates are masking their true traits—a key reason why such assessments are incorporated into recruitment.

However, rigidly insisting on "E-types preferred, I-types excluded" creates an unfair barrier and may cause companies to overlook talented introverts. Stereotypically, E-types excel in communication and socializing, while I-types demonstrate deep thinking and listening skills. Yet, this binary classification is overly simplistic. In reality, many seemingly outgoing people are introverts, and reserved individuals may actually be extroverts. Online discussions abound with examples: "I'm an E at work but an I in private life," or "I’m an introvert but a top sales performer for years."

This raises two critical concerns. First, the scientific validity of personality tests must be rigorously verified. Employers should avoid using unverified, oversimplified assessments to categorize candidates. Moreover, if companies openly favor extroverts, applicants may fake their responses, undermining the test’s purpose. Second, overemphasizing personality traits is reductive. Such tests should serve as references, not decisive hiring criteria.

While "E-types preferred" may be an extreme case—most firms likely use these tests as supplementary tools—the debate it sparks is worth reflection. Reducing candidates to "I" or "E" labels oversimplifies the nuanced process of talent selection. Relying on superficial categorizations may seem efficient but could backfire, increasing hiring costs when mismatches arise.

Beyond recruitment, similar labeling trends—from zodiac signs and blood types to the now-popular MBTI—perpetuate stereotypes by oversimplifying human complexity. Employers must move beyond these crude metrics and develop more scientific, refined, and practical talent evaluation systems.