Absolutely not. And, unlike claimed in other answers, it's about as based on Carl Jung as me whistling out of tune would be "work based on Mozart."
The MBTI was "developed" by a "psychic medium" who read books on Jung and spoke to him twice, much to his chagrin. He later actively avoided her. Furthermore, Jung himself cautioned against using his Personality Types as anything but a foundation for research, as the book and his further writings were based on anecdotes and clinical observation, not research in the scientific sense. He, himself, called it "Eine filosofische Excursio", "a philosophical trip".
The MBTI is an overly simplified pop-sci attempt at a personality inventory. Its type descriptions are written in the form of Barnum texts, texts that most people might find applicable to them. It is assessed through self-evaluation and strongly skewed by the expectations of those who take it. This, too, makes those Barnum Texts stronger ("Do you think often?" "Yes" "You're a thinker" "Wow, you're sooo accurate in your assessment of me").
Since the test is also binary ("Do you like Apples?" doesn't lead to a conclusion about how much someone likes Bananas) and does not control for socialised or pathological answers, it is hopelessly useless.
- Saunders, F. W. Katherine and Isabel: Mother’s Light, Daughter’s Journey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991
- Stricker and Ross (1962). Also: Stricker, L. J. & J. Ross. “An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian personality Typology.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 (1964), pp. 62-71.
- Carskadon, T. G. “Clinical and Counseling Aspects of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Review.” Research in Psychological Type, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1979a), pp. 2-31.
- Sipps, G. J., R. A. Alexander, and L. Friedt. “Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1985), pp. 789-796.
- Dickson, D. H. and I. W. Kelly. “‘The Barnum Effect’ in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature.” Psychological Reports, Vol. 57, No. 2 (1985), pp. 367-382.
- Auerbach, E. “Not Your Type, But Right for the Job.” The Wall Street
Journal, January 6, 1992, editorial, p. 11.