In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#31

Post by baron_harkonnen » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:44 AM UTC

paulie_a wrote: post #12

I find it amazing that anyone uses it in the business world. Next up HR will be adding tarrot cards and oiji boards Then again I find it amazing that anyone uses it at all. It's complete trash

It should not be surprising at all. How many companies have you worked at where part of your performance review involves dividing and averaging ordinal numbers?

If you give someone some sort of numeric rating in N categories you cannot mathematically (trivially) average these rating to get a meaningful score.

Ordinal numbers only allow you to say A is greater than B and B is greater than C therefore A is greater than C, but it says nothing about the distance between A and B, B and C and A and C.

Yet at countless companies compensation is determined by literally nonsensical mathematical operations.

Before the pedants get me, there are ways to transform ordinal numbers to do perform more complex mathematical operations on them, but I can assure you that your HR department does not do these.

So given HR's disregard for basic principles of mathematics it should not be surprising that they find the variety of personality tests worthwhile.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#32

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:45 AM UTC

Quekid5 wrote: post #26

souprock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check the math in the article. (the correlation tables especially, both against the "Big 5" and for repeatability) If Myers-Briggs is not science, then the "Big 5" personality traits are also not science. They are tied together, each strongly predictive of the other. Results are repeatable, especially if not rounded to boolean values.

I'm going to suggest a hypothetical. Let's ignore any personality test specifics just to generalize. Ok, so I have a candidate for a position, who shows +5% to "conscientiousness". What does that mean, practically, for me as an employer? It means exactly nothing, because that trait is so vague as to be ... meaningless. (That's just the start of the problems with these tests.) Even if it M-B (or whatever) is a repeata…

For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#33

Post by Quekid5 » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #32

Quekid5 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to suggest a hypothetical. Let's ignore any personality test specifics just to generalize. Ok, so I have a candidate for a position, who shows +5% to "conscientiousness". What does that mean, practically, for me as an employer? It means exactly nothing, because that trait is so vague as to be ... meaningless. (That's just the start of the problems with these tests.) Even if it M-B (or whatever) is a repeata…

For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.

> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for

I'm sorry, what?

I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said

> It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for.

I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'science'.

EDIT: Btw, my allusion was to a comment by Stephen Fry in a debate. (Specifics are no doubt going to lead to more contention, so I'll omit them.)

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#34

Post by sokoloff » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #21

souprock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the naming is intentional. The titles have to be short and simple, and none can be shameful. If you pick a shameful-sounding title like "neurotic" in the Big 5, few people would willingly admit to it and you certainly can't politely ask about it.

I suspect that in a business setting, "introvert" is also seen as a negative. The other MTBI symbols are confusing enough that nobody is likely to remember them off hand, so they are probably neutral. I would advise against self identifying as an introvert. Also, "conscientious" and "openness" probably each have only one right answer.

In a sales setting, being an introvert is probably a negative. In programming, it’s the overwhelming default I think.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#35

Post by leblancfg » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

jplr8922 wrote: post #22

I took the MBTI in my early twenties, then forgot about it. I got into the much more scientific big-5 to understand different types of personalities, and in order to flesh out the possible ranges of behaviors in my mind. Then 10 years later I find myself going back to the MBTI. Why? Because I now understand it as a gateway to Jung ideas, which I find helpful during my current period of professional questionning. Acor…

jplr9822, I just wanted to say thanks for this great reply, and that I would thoroughly enjoy reading an expanded version of this in long form. Cheers

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#36

Post by molticrystal » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:00 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

Agree completely, everything has to start from somewhere. Often it is a false start with nothing to gain. While MBTI was a small step, at least it was a forward step to better understanding vs the example you mentioned, "horoscopes", which past the fleeting interest into astronomy is just walking off a cliff into the void.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#37

Post by ani-ani » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

I like when people bring up Myers Briggs because it allows me quickly categorize them as "people who attach importance to personality types", and thereby make sweeping generalizations about them.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#38

Post by qwerty456127 » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

Whoever knows more personality type systems please share (no matter how credible or bizarre they are, just list). I bet I have seen at least at least one original brand personality type start-up presented here on HN some years ago and another brand new one advertised on Google+ when it was a thing. I have probably stumbled upon at least 6 or more but can't remember any other than MBTI, the Socionics, and the Enneagram. I'm very interested in this subject.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#39

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

Quekid5 wrote: post #33

ncmncm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.

> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'scienc…

Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that.

Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#40

Post by rcakebread » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:06 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

I read the book "What's Your Type?: The Story of the Myers-Briggs, and How Personality Testing Took Over the World" and learned it was a bit like Scientology a few decades ago.

Very secretive, offered a free personality test to lure you into lots of paid courses. They were selling courses to an astonishing percentage of large corporations.