The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

Furthermore, your willingness to buy into the narrative (and others' willingness to also believe it) that by categorizing certain people into stereotypes and assuming that most of these people tend to excel at a particular set of tasks is most likely what limits them from excelling at tasks that lie outside of their respective sets just as much as their true predisposition to not excelling at them.

Could this be the placebo effect? I once read a comment, that all self-help methods are successful, simply because they make you self conscious. The personality test gives the impression of being a carefully developed machine that can peer into your soul. Does it need to be real, in order to be useful?

I've observed that in a group of 15 people who just got their Meyers Briggs results, several usually think it was uncannily accurate, and a few are immediately defensive because the result does not jive with their self-perception (usually because the personality type is described as similar to some unsavory characters from history). When I read articles criticizing Meyers Briggs, I always assume it was written by one of these people.

But isn't that an argumentum ad hominem? At the very least, it's a good reason why an individual's personal impression of the results is a poor source of validation. The ones who think it's accurate could be wrong too.

On the other hand, in a workplace situation, the defensive ones are simply not thinking tactically.

It's not scientific, it's totally based in reason. It's reasonable to deny global warming because winters are getting colder than ever. It's not reasonable to deny climate change because winters are getting colder than ever.

There's nothing wrong with someone drawing a conclusion from their personal experience, that's going to be full of emotion, opinion and hopefully some logic.

I get your concern, but the same folks who make hiring decisions based on Myers Briggs will tell you angels were watching over them when they narrowly avoided a car crash. Or their relative visited them a month after they passed away. it's mostly benign. When it's not benign, they're unreasonable. Only then is it possibly worth the effort to persuade them to be a bit more rational.

But, yes. I mean 'rhetorically useful' or 'a social hack'

E.g. consider someone who has previously worked in a dysfunctional corporate environment but was unable to quit that job for financial reasons. They were very well rewarded for superficial qualities like punctuality and tidyness and thus learned that it was necessary to prioritize these values.

Does that mean that this person now has a personality which prioritizes these values? What if their ``natural'' personality in another environment would have been to only emphasize utility to their company even at e.g. the cost of tidyness. What if their natural personality will quickly adapt once they are put in an environment that emphasizes these qualities?

These issues seem to be given oddly little weight by advocates of Myers-Briggs classification for the purpose of hiring decisions.

A much better analogy would be blood sugar level. For many healthy people its sorta constant-ish. The fact that its not nearly constant for a subset of people doesn't prove the test is therefore worthless. It just proves some people have untreated diabetes. The test is not worthless because it can be used in diabetes screenings, unless the point of the test was to tap people like maple syrup trees or something really weird like that.

A major problem with the test is we know people are not terribly good at self introspection, we're all above average drivers and lovers and thinkers, all of us. I am good enough at self introspection to tell I'm pretty well introverted, yet I can imagine someone not so observant or self aware or perhaps neurotic about the whole topic, getting a fairly random score. Or I'm bad enough at self introspection to not realize I'm no good at it at all, and I'm actually a closet extrovert, although I find that rather unlikely (although I would, wouldn't I, if I failed at introspection).

In that way as a secondary measurement I'd propose theoretically that the wider the variation in test results, the worse the person would score in some kind of self introspection ability test. It seems a reasonable hypothesis. You'd need correction factors to deal with people having diagnosed or undiagnosed swings in brain neurotransmitters or use of addictive substances (including sugar and caffeine). But it could be run as a study.