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

131–140 of 352 posts

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#131

Post by xvector »

austincheney wrote: post #118
smokey_circles wrote: post #75

I don't know how/why people defend this test. 1. It's inaccurate. And that's not just "technically true", it's very rare that the test reproduces results. 2. Jung's theories (the ones used in the test) aren't just "controversial". They're wrong. He says it himself, in the same document they used to create the test. It is just a cash cow now. The _biggest_ problem with the test is it is harmful, not helpful. People be…

> 1. It's inaccurate. Reproducibility is most directly correlated against certain identifiers. For example no matter where or how I take a MB assessment I am always INTP. This indicates that for some persons, as associated to certain scored identifiers, this test is always reproducible. That is less a flaw in this test than the test subjects and further suggests MB becomes more valid when correlated with other tests…

Same here. I have taken the test multiple times throughout my life and I get INTP every single time. The description is completely accurate too, down to the individual nuances describing an INTP. It’s frighteningly accurate.

I wonder if less common MBTI types are more accurately defined.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#132

Post by yawaworht1978 »

There cannot be a defense. Someone else telling you what kind of personality you really are is preposterous.

It seems the next scam on the matter is "the big 5".

Nope, all these do not work or account for peoples ability to change or simply...lie.

Look at how wrong Freud was in hindsight. These tests will be regarded like Freud's cacophony in the future.

Psychology today is not an accurate science at all. Interpret these tests with plenty of salt. There is no a little bit wrong, there is no a little bit pregnant.

Source: Wife is a psychologist.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#133

Post by austincheney »

xvector wrote: post #131
austincheney wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. It's inaccurate. Reproducibility is most directly correlated against certain identifiers. For example no matter where or how I take a MB assessment I am always INTP. This indicates that for some persons, as associated to certain scored identifiers, this test is always reproducible. That is less a flaw in this test than the test subjects and further suggests MB becomes more valid when correlated with other tests…

Same here. I have taken the test multiple times throughout my life and I get INTP every single time. The description is completely accurate too, down to the individual nuances describing an INTP. It’s frighteningly accurate. I wonder if less common MBTI types are more accurately defined.

I don’t think it’s a matter of either assessment description or population percentage but rather a measure of confidence on questions where a persons may, outside of testing, otherwise defer to social reinforcement.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#134

Post by wisty »

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…

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 can always spot someone who takes MBTI seriously because they talk about introversion meaning they "lose energy by spending time with others and need to recharge by spending time alone".

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#135

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #47
rntksi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on question (1), there have been scientific researches that shows if you identify as "introvert" or "extrovert", it can be explained by your body's "efficiency" in releasing dopamine [1] [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/07/brain-chemistry-pla...

One fun intersection of this idea was my inattentive ADHD brain’s response to stimulants. I had identified as an introvert for basically my entire life until I got tested and treated. Suddenly I enjoyed going out, talking to people, and it didn’t drain me to the point of physical pain to interact with people for more than brief periods. Made me realize a lot clearer that what makes me “me” is my brain and body chemis…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#136

Post by edjrage »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #62

Summary: Myers-Briggs is a useful model, when a few adjustments are made. 1. Problems I've Discovered 1a. Myers-Briggs pigeon-holes people into one "personality type", and generalizes what they should think and do based on that. I think that's kind of silly and limiting. 1b. If you read the personality descriptions, it is favorable towards the "rare" types, describing them as brilliant geniuses, while the other types…

You should probably read Myers-Briggs' book Gifts Differing, they do say it over and over again that traits are preferences.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#137

Post by fsloth »

pseudalopex wrote: post #111
smokey_circles wrote: post #75

I don't know how/why people defend this test. 1. It's inaccurate. And that's not just "technically true", it's very rare that the test reproduces results. 2. Jung's theories (the ones used in the test) aren't just "controversial". They're wrong. He says it himself, in the same document they used to create the test. It is just a cash cow now. The _biggest_ problem with the test is it is harmful, not helpful. People be…

Getting different results is pretty common. But getting the same results isn't very rare. The article points to studies showing MBTI and Big 5 repeatability are comparable. It was inspired by Jung's theories. It doesn't rely on them. MBTI related literature stresses it measures preferences not abilities. It says no type is better than any other. And it tends to encourage developing what doesn't come naturally.

You can bin people in any number of arbitrary ways. Just the fact you can bin people does not make the binning usefull.

Meyers-Squid is equally valid as any other fiction driven binning process. Like dividing people into Hogswarts houses.

Stability alone is useless if the predictive qualities do not extend beyond the binning process. Being INTJ only predicts the next time you do the test (if the scoring is stable) you might be more likely to score INTJ again. It does not predict the tested persons’ life outcomes or performance at work, in personal OR statistical sense.

The scores don’t predict anything of value outside of the test framework. This is what it means to be useless pseudoscience. It can be a fun party game and thus be usable as a facilitation tool, but beyond that it’s useless (or harmfull if someone tries to use the scores for something like ’creating balanced teams’).

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#138

Post by erhk »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #132

There cannot be a defense. Someone else telling you what kind of personality you really are is preposterous. It seems the next scam on the matter is "the big 5". Nope, all these do not work or account for peoples ability to change or simply...lie. Look at how wrong Freud was in hindsight. These tests will be regarded like Freud's cacophony in the future. Psychology today is not an accurate science at all. Interpret t…

[dead]

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#139

Post by [deleted] »

pseudalopex wrote: post #102
roenxi wrote: post #41

The article observes that if the Myers-Briggs axis are treated as continuous then they map very closely to the Big 5 personality traits. It seems to me that observation is substantially more important than the space it is given. If M-B is basically measuring 4 of the Big 5, that really sets up a lot of the rest of the conversation. Why measure 4 of the big 5 when you can measure 5 of the 5? The complaint here seems t…

Myers Briggs tests have profiles of each type usually. Big 5 tests don't.

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#140

Post by ConnorLeet »

rcakebread wrote: post #40
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.

I’ve always been amazed by how much of the self-development & improvement industry seems to be based off of Scientology!
Post reply on HN