The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless • Hacker News Board

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#271

Post by pmarreck » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

erispoe wrote: post #256

djsumdog wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of worthless measures we use out there. Body Mass Index (BMI) is another one. This scale was developed in the mid 1800s and you can do a simple search to find tons of criticism on it. If you're overweight/obese, you will have a high BMI, but not everyone with high BMI is overweight (especially if you're very tall or very short). Measuring Cholesterol is another one, since you can't actually change cho…

Invisibilia ran a great episode on "the personality myth"[1] and I think it shows the difference between BMI and "personality tests". BMI might be worthless but it measures something that objectively exists. Is it useful? Maybe not. Personality tests measure something that we don't even know exists, personality . The episode talks about research showing how we can understand ourselves better as sets of behavior that…

> Personality tests measure something that we don't even know exists, personality.

This sentence strikes me as odd, because subjectively, the one thing that shines through the most with people, even people I haven't seen in 20+ years, is a distinct (and possibly largely immutable) personality. In fact, a large part of why I was so shy growing up is because people's personalities were so "bright" that I felt intimidated. Not of course "bright" in a literal, measurable sense, but in an irrational qualitative sense. And therein lies the problem with trying to discuss it rationally.

To this day I perceive distinct personalities in every child and pet I encounter. Not sure if related, these exact same entities seem drawn to me for some reason. I have often heard a pet owner say "my pet has never acted this way before" around me (such as sitting in my lap when it has never done so with anyone).

I wonder if it simply reflects what I see in them. Anyway. My point is that the inability to discuss something rationally is not evidence for its nonexistence.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#272

Post by gpsx » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

I had a hard time understanding how people were comparing meyers briggs to astrology and I think the problem is that they don't know the full idea behind the meyers briggs classification. I thought I should give a brief description of what it is, or at least what I think it is.

What meyers briggs is NOT is a group of 16 types each with a description of what the person is like. This looks like astrology. This 16 groups is just a summary of what people might be like based on the test results.

Meyers briggs IS a group of four classifications. A person falls on a continuum related to each classification. For each classification there is a letter associated with each end of the spectrum. For a given classification you can label yourself as one of the two letters based on which side of the continuum you fall, though this is just a simplifying representation. The true representation is a place on the continuum between each of the two letters.

The four categories are give below, in my matchbox description:

E vs I - extroversion/introversion. An I is a person who recharges by being alone. An E recharges by being with other people. An I type person will typically be tired after spending a lot of time in a group of people and will want to spend some time by themselves. An E will be drained if they are by themselves for a while. Keep in mind, there is no such thing as a pure E or a pure I. We are all a combination of the two.

N vs S - intuitive/sensing - An N person relies on subconscious thinking, whereas a S person relies on conscious thinking, or reasoning. We can thinking much faster subconsciously but the problem with it is that it is when are brain produces a result, such as "That person doesn't like me", it is difficult to know if it is right if it is based on subconscious reasoning.

T vs F - thinking/feeling - An F is more sensitive to another's feelings where as a T is less concerned with a persons interpretation of what they say than with how true it is. A T is more the brutally honest type.

P vs J - perceiving/judging - a J is a planner and doesn't like when the plan changes. A P likes to take things as they come and doesn't like to be tied down.

I see this as a very scientific classification. Of course, what people do with the classification may be a different story, such as how it is used in the hiring process. I find it very useful in understanding how people react to situations differently than I do, and that I should not judge them negatively for this.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#273

Post by egl2016 » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

I find the MBTI incredibly useful. When I meet someone I immediately figure out what their MBTI type is. That saves me enormous amounts of time later on---I don't have to pay close attention to what they say or do. I just rely on their MBTI type. Sometimes I don't even bother listening to them or asking their opinion, which lets me use the time to think about other things, like HN. I used to use their astrological sign, but that required asking for their birthday, which was awkward, especially when I didn't get them a present.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#274

Post by nonbel » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #264

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment works surprisingly well like this: As an individual (Taurus) thoroughly interested in astrology, I often see this discussion brought up. As a short rebuttal, I feel as though many of those who tout astrology as a comprehensive personality test fail to understand what astrology attempts to identify. While the "value-add" is more subjective, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not as useless as this article…

The difference is that astrology is a starting point with zero correlation with who you are, while Myers-Briggs is a starting point with positive correlation with who you are. The positive correlation can be surprisingly helpful to understand differences between people. However you don't need anything so complex for such a starting point. A classic demonstration that I saw was a large group of people who marked where…

>"astrology is a starting point with zero correlation with who you are"

I would really doubt that it is zero, the relative position of the celestial bodies correlates with season. All sorts of human activities follow a yearly cycle, including birth rates and mortality rates. I have no doubt there is some correlation between astrological sign and personality.

I would take it further and say a good principle is that "everything is correlated with everything else", it is just a matter of the strength of the relationship. I will probably get downmodded for that, because it is in direct conflict the "null hypothesis" testing paradigm that has dominated data analysis for the last half century or so.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#275

Post by pc2g4d » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

The difficulty I see with MBTI is that the categories were decided in advance, whereas they should be determined based on the data. In other words, MBTI treats human personality as a classification problem (which of these categories do you belong to?) where it should be treated as a clustering problem (which categories even exist?)

I'd love to do some data mining on a large MBTI test database. Better yet, a large database of people's responses to various personality-oriented questions, MBTI or not.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#276

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #274

btilly wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that astrology is a starting point with zero correlation with who you are, while Myers-Briggs is a starting point with positive correlation with who you are. The positive correlation can be surprisingly helpful to understand differences between people. However you don't need anything so complex for such a starting point. A classic demonstration that I saw was a large group of people who marked where…

>"astrology is a starting point with zero correlation with who you are" I would really doubt that it is zero, the relative position of the celestial bodies correlates with season. All sorts of human activities follow a yearly cycle, including birth rates and mortality rates. I have no doubt there is some correlation between astrological sign and personality. I would take it further and say a good principle is that "e…

> I have no doubt there is some correlation between astrological sign and personality.

There's no evidence of this, so you should have doubts.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#277

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #244

gnaritas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connection to your personality and your birth date. Meyers Briggs is a classification system that groups similar personalities, it does not prescribe what your personality is or should be.

> Meyers Briggs is description It's impossible to describe personalities without implying value judgments. I randomly took the first Google link found under 'Myers Briggs' and ended up here: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality 'Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight...' https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesse... 'Too Idealist…

I suggest you don't understand the distinction I'm making between descriptive and prescriptive.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#278

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:39 PM UTC

1457389 wrote: post #242

gnaritas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connection to your personality and your birth date. Meyers Briggs is a classification system that groups similar personalities, it does not prescribe what your personality is or should be.

Meyers Briggs is meant to be descriptive, but the preponderance of evidence shows that it is not, at all. In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. In my line if I see someone discuss MBTI with any level of passion or enthusiasm I have learned to distrust their evaluations of personalities and strengths/weaknesses, whether they refer to themselves or others.

> In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive.

Misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#279

Post by wutf » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #253

wutf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both have strengths and weaknesses. Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology. Of course, if you rotate the MBTI onto the Big 5, you see that it does in fact measure neuroticism, although not that strongly.

> Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology You're describing salesmanship and/or popularizing techniques, not scientific validity.

What you have to understand is that statistically the models are very similar (you can compress them both into one unified model that does what both of them do quite well). However, the ways the models are constructed makes them useful for different things. The Big 5 is primarily useful for academics, and the MBTI is primarily useful for the rest of us.

If you are a logical positivist and scientific realist you'll never be able to grok this. As a utilitarian I understand that science is the process of making something that does something you want done.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#280

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #236

gnaritas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connection to your personality and your birth date. Meyers Briggs is a classification system that groups similar personalities, it does not prescribe what your personality is or should be.

Astrology is prescriptive If you disregard the people who claim astrology is prescriptive, and pay attention to only those aspects of it that describe tendencies - all the most convincing astrology nuts I've met do this - it can be quite... warming.

Those tendencies are still linked to a birthdate which makes them prescriptive, you cannot ignore the prescriptive element of astrology without ignoring astrology entirely.