Myers-Briggs is one step above astrology signs IMO. Pretty much a crock of horse shit.
Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
181–190 of 251 posts
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they were using astrology? Would that be better than nothing? I think it would be worse than nothing because it demonstrates the aren't competent enough to know when they fell for a scam.
> What if they were using astrology? Then it would be guessing just the same as using no metric at all. This is only worse if the candidate is so naive as to believe they are of superior consideration than the value of a simple measure.
It wouldn't be exactly the same. The difference is lazy AND ignorant instead of just lazy.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
The types themselves are also nonsense. There's sixteen of them, and all sixteen have significant tendencies in all four axes. It seems extremely unlikely that someone would always have a tendency in every axis all the time, so the types themselves are set up wrong. They're not even acknowledging the possibility of an inconclusive result. It's also easy to see the financial incentive of removing the possibility for s…
To put it more mathematically, personality traits lie on a normal distribution. Most people are in the middle. Myers-Briggs turns traits into binary options, which does not match reality.
So you would have trouble telling whether a given person is taller or shorter than average?
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying. I do. It's true that interviews aren't always easy to maneuver, but the interview process of today reflects the manager, teammates, and workplace of tomorrow.
So, are you saying that a sucky interview process at one place today predicts the general practices of the same workplace in the future? Or all workplaces? The first case seems kinda rational if not without exceptions; the second kind of less rational. The first line about getting what I'm saying is typically used to telegraph disagreement beyond the point of consideration, which kind of weirdly raises the stakes for…
[deleted]
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
The types themselves are also nonsense. There's sixteen of them, and all sixteen have significant tendencies in all four axes. It seems extremely unlikely that someone would always have a tendency in every axis all the time, so the types themselves are set up wrong. They're not even acknowledging the possibility of an inconclusive result. It's also easy to see the financial incentive of removing the possibility for s…
To put it more mathematically, personality traits lie on a normal distribution. Most people are in the middle. Myers-Briggs turns traits into binary options, which does not match reality.
There is no proof that personality traits have any identifiable distribution, let alone normal distribution.
Heck we don’t even know what personalty is, or if it is even a useful scientific term. Evidence suggests that peoples behavior varies wildly between situations, way more then any preconceived notion of behavior dictated by personality.
If tests show a normal distribution of a personality trait, it is most likely because it has been standardized to do exactly that. Not because people’s behavioral patterns align neatly in our favorite distribution.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put it more mathematically, personality traits lie on a normal distribution. Most people are in the middle. Myers-Briggs turns traits into binary options, which does not match reality.
So you would have trouble telling whether a given person is taller or shorter than average?
A friendly reminder that height is not normally distributed either. Within a population it has a bimodal distribution.
Also a friendly reminder that a quarter standard deviations above the mean vs. the same distance below the mean is quite often a trivial difference in population statistics. And it should be nonsense (pseudoscience if you will) to make the distinction. A much more interesting statistic are the outliers. And grouping an outlier with a person who is 0.05 SD from the mean is just confusing at best.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#187When I was managing, I informally typed people during the interview process, which was very helpful in predicting both how they would interact with other team members and how they would do at particular tasks. However, I learned not to rely on self-reported personality types or tests, which are often answered aspirationally, not realistically. To me, MBTI or Big 5 (not the actual tests, but their framing of aspects o…
You might be experiencing a confirmation bias. Without a double blind study there is no proof that your valuations—let alone your conclusions—are valid.
I’m sorry to say, but your methods are flawed, as are your predictions. Your methods may only be helpful in confirming your biases, nothing more.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#188> And that’s it—there’s simply very little data on how well the Myers-Briggs (and other type-based personality tests) measures personality and even less on how it might predict job performance. I was surprised there wasn't any mention of a very interesting issue here, i.e. MBTI and other typological instruments come with user manuals, training, etc., and those materials specifically say "do not use this for hiring".…
I just come out and say it? There’s nothing wrong with knowing you are a certain type. At least it’s helpful for me to point at the ‘challenges’ section and tell people ‘I do this, please keep poking me until I give you attention’. In the same way it’s helpful to have a literal definition of how other people think, because the idea that someone might deliberately go with a suboptimal idea because they value peace is…
> here’s nothing wrong with knowing you are a certain type.
Except the Myers-Briggs types are meaningless.
> the idea that someone might deliberately go with a suboptimal idea because they value peace is absolutely foreign to me.
That seems like you're lying to yourself. Everyone goes along with tons of suboptimal ideas or has enough money and power that everyone does what they want or is insufferable and everyone avoids. You could be in the latter two categories, but that doesn't seem likely.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you would have trouble telling whether a given person is taller or shorter than average?
A friendly reminder that height is not normally distributed either. Within a population it has a bimodal distribution. Also a friendly reminder that a quarter standard deviations above the mean vs. the same distance below the mean is quite often a trivial difference in population statistics. And it should be nonsense (pseudoscience if you will) to make the distinction. A much more interesting statistic are the outlie…
Does it have a bimodal distribution because you're combining male and female normal distributions?
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#190Meyers-Briggs is absolute trash and should not be used by companies for anything. Big 5 is also almost completely worthless beyond vaguely describing a person's general tendencies.
The only system that seems to have any sort of validity and real-world use is Dr. John Beebe's Eight-Function Model.