21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're skeptical or unsure of any of these frameworks I am not unsure. I'm quite certain it's all complete and utter garbage protected with circular ex post facto justifications (and I'm surprised the author of the post is an assistant professor in a University).
Reasonable people find value in it. You might be missing out by shutting yourself off from it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "statistically reliable" mean in context of a multiple choice test of preferences and predispositions?
It means you can ask people on a questionnaire "are you open to new experiences" and then later offer them a new experience and get some papers off this incredibly shocking finding. Someday psychology might be a science but it isn't now; it just rejected its alchemical mystics like it saw the cool sciences doing, but without any paradigm to follow them.
I found them more helpful than the Big Five. But there is definitively missing "Type 0: Ape: I follow".
And I do not think that a person fits just one type. They are more, like the Big Five, traits with a spectrum.
You may like it or whatever, but don't think this is in any way objective, a trait which it has in common with practically all personality psychology.
Things like MBTI and enneagram and such are frameworks to talk about cognitive functions and all that. Holding them to the same standards as physics is a bit silly.
You may like it or whatever, but don't think this is in any way objective, a trait which it has in common with practically all personality psychology.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
Suppose I make a test and ask questions like "Do you like coffee?" and "Is your favorite color blue?". That would get a very high test-retest reliability. If I then score e.g. +coffee -blue as "intelligent", does that really mean people who like coffee but prefer orange are intelligent?
Regardless of how people feel about any of the personality frameworks and how well they describe human behavior, reasoning and makeup of the person -- it can be proven to be highly valuable in a day and age where people make judgements or seek to categorize and group people gauging how well they get along with those people. I am generally not a fan of labels, but, especially in our technology based field, as an INTP,…
> If you're skeptical or unsure of any of these frameworks I am not unsure. I'm quite certain it's all complete and utter garbage protected with circular ex post facto justifications (and I'm surprised the author of the post is an assistant professor in a University).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised to see such woo in a top comment on hacker news. The accuracy or theoretical underpinning of these 'frameworks' aren't contentious, they're non existent. There are solidly researched and evidenced personality theories developed and validated through quantitative research in academic psychology. These include the 'Big Five' trait approaches like MMPI and social learning theory. Astrology, Myers–Briggs an…
IIRC, there was some analysis done a while back that demonstrated that MBTI categories were strongly correlated to particular combinations of Big Five traits. If that is true, then MBTI piggybacks on whatever scientific validity has been established w/r/t Big Five. It should also be pointed out that heuristics developed from ground-level experience can still be useful regardless of whether they are anchored in any fo…
> The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing "psychological types" (often commonly called "personality types").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
Regardless of how people feel about any of the personality frameworks and how well they describe human behavior, reasoning and makeup of the person -- it can be proven to be highly valuable in a day and age where people make judgements or seek to categorize and group people gauging how well they get along with those people. I am generally not a fan of labels, but, especially in our technology based field, as an INTP,…
> If you're skeptical or unsure of any of these frameworks I am not unsure. I'm quite certain it's all complete and utter garbage protected with circular ex post facto justifications (and I'm surprised the author of the post is an assistant professor in a University).
My workplace recently went through the integrative9 courses and on their OWN website they claim that it's origins are steeped in mystery and accent mystical practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
Statistically reliable, in what sense? That they frequently produce the same outcome on repeated application of the test? That's not a surprise. As a wise man said: the gold standard for repeatable outcome is astrology. Suppose I make a test and ask questions like "Do you like coffee?" and "Is your favorite color blue?". That would get a very high test-retest reliability. If I then score e.g. +coffee -blue as "intell…
Let's just say that if astrology was reliable, people would follow their horoscopes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, there was some analysis done a while back that demonstrated that MBTI categories were strongly correlated to particular combinations of Big Five traits. If that is true, then MBTI piggybacks on whatever scientific validity has been established w/r/t Big Five. It should also be pointed out that heuristics developed from ground-level experience can still be useful regardless of whether they are anchored in any fo…
Then you should rely on your intuition directly instead of distrorting it through pseudoscience such as MBTI > The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing "psychological types" (often commonly called "personality types"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...