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

Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#211

Post by iam-TJ »

sdoering wrote: post #191
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently in startups I’ve been a part of it’s become a bit of a fad to have a short write up called “how I work” which is basically a treatise consisting of that person telling everyone else how they interact with the world. I’ve found it refreshing, actually.

I only ever saw one of those being posted to hn quite some time ago. I must admit, that I found this specific example quite disturbing. The implied undertone was that all others should accommodate the author and change themselves to better interact with the author so that his needs were met and he could be a productive member of the work force. But what does that imply the other way around? If I were to write a play…

I think it may be you feeling overly cynical.

I was using this style of enquiry with new hires 20+ years ago as a natural step to ensure we would get the best out of them - it just seemed like an obvious thing to do.

I don't like sticking square pegs in round holes so if by understanding, and being able to accommodate, personal characteristics, we can make the person more comfortable they'll generally contribute more, faster, and better.

You hate travelling in rush-hour? fine, set your own hours to fit in with the team requirements.

E.g. for myself I'd say: "No distractions - if I'm obviously focused on something do NOT disturb me - send an email" and "I'm productive when my brain gets intensely into something - when it doesn't I don't sit around I go do something else" and "I work better in darkness or dim light, or overnight" and "Sometimes I need to do intense random brain-storming sessions to clear the crap out my head".

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#212

Post by raisin_churn »

ncmncm wrote: post #207
raisin_churn wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they undermine their own argument that it has utility: "People naturally try to sort themselves into work that they are good at, where how they think works best." So why then would an employer need to know your allegedly accurate MBTI, when your application for the job and presumably effort in developing and maintaining the necessary skills already indicates that you're applying to the work you're good at?

Who said it was a thing for employers? You only prove my point.

The linked article is about the use of Myers-Briggs in a workplace context, and the staggering lack of evidence of its efficacy for making useful predictions in that context. If Myers-Briggs is useful in your marriage, or your local PTA meetings or whatever, maybe there is evidence for its usefulness in that context, I don't know. As "a thing for employers," which is what this thread is about, there is no evidence that MBTI rises above the level of phrenology or other pseudo-scientific claptrap.

Anyways, you're just missing my point. You just don't get what my point is for. You don't understand it either.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#215

Post by nostrademons »

NalNezumi wrote: post #192

It's horrifying that some comments are seriously arguing for the benefit of Myers Briggs here. It's a cold reminder that HN is not a rational place as a lot of us like to think; there's believers here that believe in psychology equivalent of flat earth, and can read about "confirmation bias" but not see it in themselves even after clearly writing it down for us! A friendly reminder of the beating this dead horse that…

Note the correlations between MBTI types and Big Five personality dimensions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

These are not insignificant, particularly in the social sciences. 0.45 would be a large effect size in most psychology papers; 0.72 is huge.

I think a large part of whether people think MBTI is bunk or a useful tool depends on their willingness to overlook small details to get a general gist that's helpful but perhaps not totally accurate. Which is perhaps why another comment down-thread remarks that N's are much more likely to view MBTI as valid than S's (and sure enough, the indicator was developed by an INFJ and INFP, based on the ideas of an INTJ). "Personality" itself is an abstraction, and personality types are an abstraction on top of an abstraction. All generalizations are wrong, but some of them are useful.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#216

Post by smeagull »

NalNezumi wrote: post #192

It's horrifying that some comments are seriously arguing for the benefit of Myers Briggs here. It's a cold reminder that HN is not a rational place as a lot of us like to think; there's believers here that believe in psychology equivalent of flat earth, and can read about "confirmation bias" but not see it in themselves even after clearly writing it down for us! A friendly reminder of the beating this dead horse that…

There's a great amount of benefit to companies led by superstition to self-label so employees can give them a wide berth.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#217

Post by nostrademons »

biomcgary wrote: post #36

When 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…

"Interestingly, in my personal experience, I've found logicians (ISTJs in MTBI) seem to be the most resistant to quantifying aspects of personality."

There's an internal, voluntary, just-for-fun MBTI within Google that breaks down stats of the test-taking population. 75+% of takers are N's (vs. an estimated 25% in the general population). The number of INTJs (22%, vs. ~3% in the general population) itself outnumbers all S types combined.

While it's possible that Google is unrepresentative of the general population (something much more likely in 2005 than 2022, though), I think it's more likely that N's are just more drawn to completing a personality test and sharing their results with the company.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#218

Post by smeagull »

nostrademons wrote: post #215
NalNezumi wrote: post #192

It's horrifying that some comments are seriously arguing for the benefit of Myers Briggs here. It's a cold reminder that HN is not a rational place as a lot of us like to think; there's believers here that believe in psychology equivalent of flat earth, and can read about "confirmation bias" but not see it in themselves even after clearly writing it down for us! A friendly reminder of the beating this dead horse that…

Note the correlations between MBTI types and Big Five personality dimensions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi... These are not insignificant, particularly in the social sciences. 0.45 would be a large effect size in most psychology papers; 0.72 is huge. I think a large part of whether people think MBTI is bunk or a useful tool depends on their willingness to overlook small details to get…

One bit of psuedoscience correlates to another. Okay.

One test measuring extroversion only manages 0.74 correlation with another. I'm not impressed.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#219

Post by mysterydip »

Personally I found enneagram types to be much more useful in both classifying a personality and understanding how to relate to them better. When my wife and I took it, the lightbulb finally went off on why there were certain conflicts. We both approached the same situation from different perspectives and motives, and our responses made logical sense with that context.

Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types

#220

Post by laserlight »

nostrademons wrote: post #215
NalNezumi wrote: post #192

It's horrifying that some comments are seriously arguing for the benefit of Myers Briggs here. It's a cold reminder that HN is not a rational place as a lot of us like to think; there's believers here that believe in psychology equivalent of flat earth, and can read about "confirmation bias" but not see it in themselves even after clearly writing it down for us! A friendly reminder of the beating this dead horse that…

Note the correlations between MBTI types and Big Five personality dimensions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi... These are not insignificant, particularly in the social sciences. 0.45 would be a large effect size in most psychology papers; 0.72 is huge. I think a large part of whether people think MBTI is bunk or a useful tool depends on their willingness to overlook small details to get…

Does MBTI have scores for dimensions? For instance, does it report that one is 45% introvert and 55% extrovert? I've never heard of MBTI scores. To my understanding, it just reports one is more extrovert than introvert. In such a case, I don't think it would be meaningful to measure correlation to Big Five, which reports its results on a continuous scale.
Post reply on HN