Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 352 posts

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#191

Post by valvar »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #177
bjoli wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we can say about iq tests is that they test something, and those results remain consistent through life. The results are positively correlated to many things (such as academic success. The people scoring a 9, the maximum result, on the tests used in the Swedish conscription live longer, etc...). Had it been completely pop-pseudoscience it would not be used by, say, the Swedish school system as a tool to gauge wh…

> The results are positively correlated to many things (such as academic success. They would be so correlated even if they were a bad metric. Imagine a score that multiplies academic success and the highest Tetris score obtained within 100 miles of your birthplace, then subtracts 50 points if you're a girl. That would also be positively correlated with academic success. IQ tests measure something , yes, but they're n…

IQ tests measure the g factor and also happen to be the best way to measure it. So those opposed to IQ should either come up with a better way to measure g or be open about their rejection of the existence of differences in cognitive abilities.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#192

Post by ronhav3 »

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

Considering that some HR tests still include analyzing your handwriting by 'graphologists'.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#193

Post by pseudalopex »

nicoburns wrote: post #184
Twisol wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive pow…

Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant…

I think they just meant INTJ or INTP.

The functions are part of the controversial Jungian ideas the article mentioned. Most people ignore them entirely and treat the preferences as axes.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#194

Post by Twisol »

nicoburns wrote: post #184
Twisol wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive pow…

Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant…

What 'pseudalopex mentioned -- and also note that I was responding to someboody who grouped INTJ/INTP together. I don't have much of a vested interest in MBTI; I was just trying to work from the ancestor post's foundation to think critically about what we're getting from that interpretation.

I know even less about "congnitive functions", but it definitely sounds more subtle than the axes most people interpret MBTI as. My specific criticisms don't immediately transfer.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#195

Post by Viliam1234 »

Smaug123 wrote: post #169
wisty wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two main personality tests. Big 5 is preferred by scientists. MBTI is preferred by people who are taking it to see which famous person (or fictional character) allegedly has the same personality. The problem isn't just the test, it's the whole culture around MBTI. Yes, the test measures something, but you're not just getting a test, you're also getting a bunch of information on how to interpret the test. You…

Really? I certainly don't take MBTI seriously, but I use that as a rough definition of introversion.

Here is some potential to construct a personality meta-test: If you prefer Big 5 to MBTI, you are introverted; if you prefer MBTI to Big 5, you are extraverted. If you prefer either of them to horoscope, you are... blah blah blah... if you think all tests are problematic, you are judging; and if you are afraid you would fail at all of them, you are neurotic.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#196

Post by nicoburns »

pseudalopex wrote: post #193
nicoburns wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant…

I think they just meant INTJ or INTP. The functions are part of the controversial Jungian ideas the article mentioned. Most people ignore them entirely and treat the preferences as axes.

> The functions are part of the controversial Jungian ideas the article mentioned. Most people ignore them entirely and treat the preferences as axes.

They do. And IMO this is exactly why the results never reproduce. The functions actually make sense and anecdotally seem to correspond to something in the real world (they've rarely if ever been subject to scientific testing as far as I'm aware). The preferences by themselves are just a somewhat less reproducible variant of the Big 5 as criticisms claim.

> I think they just meant INTJ or INTP.

I'm sure they did. My point being that if you look at the functions (which most anyone who takes Myers-Briggs seriously does) then INTJ and INTP aren't similar at all. So talking about them together makes little sense. Although reading up the thread, it looks like they were just suggesting that they both have subreddits. Which I guess isn't really talking about their personalities at all.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#197

Post by notahacker »

valvar wrote: post #191
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The results are positively correlated to many things (such as academic success. They would be so correlated even if they were a bad metric. Imagine a score that multiplies academic success and the highest Tetris score obtained within 100 miles of your birthplace, then subtracts 50 points if you're a girl. That would also be positively correlated with academic success. IQ tests measure something , yes, but they're n…

IQ tests measure the g factor and also happen to be the best way to measure it. So those opposed to IQ should either come up with a better way to measure g or be open about their rejection of the existence of differences in cognitive abilities.

There's a pretty obvious false dichotomy between "rejection of the existence of differences in cognitive abilities" and assumption that such differences are as shallow as a single factor called g stably related to scores on a collection of pattern recognition tests.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#198

Post by forgotmypw17 »

nicoburns wrote: post #184
Twisol wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive pow…

Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant…

Thank you for your comment. How apt it is that I found it via synchronicity of reading the /newcomments page :)

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#199

Post by pseudalopex »

Twisol wrote: post #175
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of correlations, for example INTP/INTJ subreddits on Reddit being most popular while these types generally are one of the rarest. There's tons of things you can predict with this. INTPs are often going to face similar challenges and obstacles in life, there's similar things that will help them grow as a person that would not help other types.

Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive pow…

Talking about personality models seems to appeal to INTJs and INTPs more than anyone else. Never hearing about other types probably says something about your social circles too.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#200

Post by specialist »

esperent wrote: post #58
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…

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

> The problem [is] that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable...

The one and only time I did the Myers-Briggs stuff, the speaker made it absolutely abundantly clear:

1) Traits were contextual. We're different around family, friends, coworkers, commuting into work... (Duh, right?)

2) Though people can fake traits, like an introvert acting extroverted, doing so requires more effort. So maybe ponder that your resting state traits are more likely the "real you".

2.1) The speaker used an ice berg metaphor, which stuck with me. People present an aspect of themselves in public. With effort, you can rotate your ice berg to show other aspects. Removing the effort allows the ice berg to find its resting state.

Post reply on HN