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

The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 352 posts

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#251

Post by brianmartinek »

novaleaf wrote: post #221
n-exploit wrote: post #24

As an individual (INFJ) thoroughly interested in Myers-Briggs, I often see this discussion brought up. As a short rebuttal, I feel as though many of those who tout Myers-Briggs as a comprehensive personality test fail to understand what the Myers-Briggs attempts to identify. While the "value-add" is more subjective, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not as useless as this article claims. While I don't think anyone (…

I am an INTP, and while a lot do consider Myers-Briggs as glorified Barnum statements, I do consider it somewhat valuable for self-introspection. The main reason I don't think Myers-Briggs can be a true-ism is that each dimension is actually a spectrum. For example I am about 60% "I" (and thus 40% "E") so the various "I" true-isms only slightly factor on my personality.

Self-introspection is also where I find the most value in M-B. It gave me perspective on my ISTJ personality preferences (preferences is the key word) that I didn't understand about myself prior to having these results.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#252

Post by patrick8 »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #141
ivan_gammel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about considering other starting points and comparing the added value of them with MBTI? How differs "So, you are INFJ, let's talk about your personality" from "So, you are Captain America/Hobbit/Sith Lord, according to this online test. Let's talk about your personality"?

I expect you get about the same utility out of any 4-dimensional, 16-choice bucketing strategy. The MBTI is mostly just useful in that it's one of the few things that actually sorts humans in a hyperdimensional way, which is really how we're best categorized. We're all slight wobbles (well, statistically speaking) around the center of a like 20-100 dimension distribution. MBTI is basically just PCA on that space in t…

The P in PCA is principal. It's a strong and dubious assumption that MBTI carries any orthogonality.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#253

Post by jessriedel »

wutf wrote: post #111
jessriedel wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, it's very frustrating that this sort of article gets written when the author does not even address the arguments on the wikipedia page! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi... That said, I don't think it's quite true that "The MBTI is approximately as valid as the Big 5". It seems to me that the Big 5 is a strict improvement on the MBTI. First, the discrete nature of the MBTI incorrectly…

They both have strengths and weaknesses. Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology. Of course, if you rotate the MBTI onto the Big 5, you see that it does in fact measure neuroticism, although not that strongly.

> Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology

You're describing salesmanship and/or popularizing techniques, not scientific validity.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#254

Post by logfromblammo »

jplahn wrote: post #27
liquidise wrote: post #19

> the most obvious flaw is that the MBTI seems to rely exclusively on binary choices….For example, in the category of extrovert v introvert, you’re either one or the other; there is no middle ground This is categorically false. Myers Briggs results are quite literally reported on a spectrum of 100 I - 0 - E 100, with your position on the spectrum shown. The 4 letter rollup is exactly that: a summary rollup of your te…

Then why do we use the summary rollup when it completely loses any of the granular insights? It makes no sense for me to say I'm an E when it was 51E, 49I. For me personally, shouldn't I instead say something like 51E64N60F65J? Likewise, the "insights" you get into your 4 letters is based on whatever the majority letter was, even when your percentages are nowhere near 100% for each.

You're rolling perilously close to the cliff that has your Geek Code signature block at the bottom.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#255

Post by grandalf »

3minus1 wrote: post #213
grandalf wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment was intended as a joke. No, I do not. Although I think I'd view MBTI less favorably if it said I had the same personality type as a variety of dictators, etc.

fair enough. my comment was definitely overly grumpy

no worries.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#256

Post by erispoe »

djsumdog wrote: post #243
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment works surprisingly well like this: As an individual (Taurus) thoroughly interested in astrology, I often see this discussion brought up. As a short rebuttal, I feel as though many of those who tout astrology as a comprehensive personality test fail to understand what astrology attempts to identify. While the "value-add" is more subjective, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not as useless as this article…

There are a lot of worthless measures we use out there. Body Mass Index (BMI) is another one. This scale was developed in the mid 1800s and you can do a simple search to find tons of criticism on it. If you're overweight/obese, you will have a high BMI, but not everyone with high BMI is overweight (especially if you're very tall or very short). Measuring Cholesterol is another one, since you can't actually change cho…

Invisibilia ran a great episode on "the personality myth"[1] and I think it shows the difference between BMI and "personality tests". BMI might be worthless but it measures something that objectively exists. Is it useful? Maybe not. Personality tests measure something that we don't even know exists, personality.

The episode talks about research showing how we can understand ourselves better as sets of behavior that we exhibit in different contexts, more than as having a single personality.

Put in simple words, you maybe introvert in some contexts and extrovert in others, and theses behaviors can change over time. You ARE not AN introvert, you exhibit introvert behaviors in context.

[1]: http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/482836315/the-person...

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#257

Post by michaelborromeo »

smallnamespace wrote: post #244
gnaritas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connection to your personality and your birth date. Meyers Briggs is a classification system that groups similar personalities, it does not prescribe what your personality is or should be.

> Meyers Briggs is description It's impossible to describe personalities without implying value judgments. I randomly took the first Google link found under 'Myers Briggs' and ended up here: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality 'Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight...' https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesse... 'Too Idealist…

The sites you list (and a lot of discussion on MBTI) take the judgments way too far. That's when a lot of people conclude MBTI is junk -- when they see these conclusions based on type.

MBTI is basically this: You have a set of observed traits, and from that set we can tell you other traits you likely have based on observing many others that share the same traits.

Or in other words... -Observe trait A -Observe trait B -Observe trait C -Extrapolate trait D -Extrapolate trait E

What those sites are doing is... -Observe trait A -Extrapolate traits C, M, Q, X, Z

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#258

Post by tkxxx7 »

aaimnr wrote: post #214

Personality typing is obviously incredibly shaky ground because of the huge potential for the suggestion bias, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's almost obvious that there are patterns of human behaviour that are often distinctive and repetitive across society. It's hard to identify these regularities and we should be sceptical about any blatant simplifications, but we shouldn't stop trying…

The origins of the MBTI are closely related to the Enneagram, and much of what MBTI is getting decried for is far removed from its history - Jung and Myers both laid down an incredible foundation for psychology and introspection. It's a shame MBTI has been swept up by pop culture as there is a great deal of insight to be had both in learning of the cognitive functions and Jung's works on the unconscious.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#259

Post by c3534l »

n-exploit wrote: post #24

As an individual (INFJ) thoroughly interested in Myers-Briggs, I often see this discussion brought up. As a short rebuttal, I feel as though many of those who tout Myers-Briggs as a comprehensive personality test fail to understand what the Myers-Briggs attempts to identify. While the "value-add" is more subjective, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not as useless as this article claims. While I don't think anyone (…

If you feel that way, why not just go for a scientifically-developed personality test like the Big 5? It seems to me that there's an alternative that is real, but there's an almost astrological appeal to Myers-Briggs because (not in spite of) it is opaque.

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

#260

Post by ScottBurson »

aaimnr wrote: post #214

Personality typing is obviously incredibly shaky ground because of the huge potential for the suggestion bias, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's almost obvious that there are patterns of human behaviour that are often distinctive and repetitive across society. It's hard to identify these regularities and we should be sceptical about any blatant simplifications, but we shouldn't stop trying…

I have studied the Enneagram deeply. It is a far more profound system than the MBTI, and far more useful for understanding oneself and others.

The MBTI has some correlation to the Enneagram, and it is from that correlation that it takes most or all of its validity. But the correlation is only partial. If you look in Jung's Psychological Types, you will see that he correctly characterized eight of the nine Enneagram types (which one he missed I leave as an exercise for the reader). Missing one type, he was unable to see the whole structure with its deeper properties, such as integration/distintegration, that reflect the way the types relate to one another. Nor did he pick up on how the types develop as childhood survival strategies (which is not as simple as you're suggesting).

The MBTI starts with Jung's already incomplete system and just messes it up further.

Someone will probably ask me whether the Enneagram has been objectively validated. It has not been, and can never be, because it contains an inherent element of subjectivity. The way you know your Enneagram type is not by taking tests. Tests can provide useful hints, but if all you have is a test result -- even if it's correct! -- you do not know your type. The way you know is by studying the types until one of them clicks for you, and you see yourself in a new way: then you know.

The Enneagram does talk about our dark sides, and that's important; but it isn't only about that by any means. It can also show us positive aspects of ourselves that we have not accepted, and it's very much about how to develop those aspects further.

ETA: if you would like help figuring out your type, I would be delighted to assist. My email address is in my profile.

Post reply on HN