In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#41

Post by roenxi » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:08 AM UTC

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 to be that the names of the Big 5 should be changed to something more neutral (which is a pretty fair idea, they aren't well named).

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#42

Post by dehrmann » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

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…

My main criticism is it gives the impression the traits are bimodal when they're actually more modal, giving people the impression we're more dislike than similar.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#43

Post by dang » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #39

Quekid5 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'scienc…

Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.

Please don't cross into personal attack in HN threads. It's not what this site is for, and wrecks what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#44

Post by totemandtoken » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

I don't have an issue with Myers-Briggs or the Big 5 as ideas, or even as a first step towards a more rigorous science of human behavior. You have to start somewhere, right?

My issue is the premature adoption of it by corporations and businesses who treat it as though it is a settled science.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#45

Post by Quekid5 » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #39

Quekid5 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'scienc…

Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.

Ah, yes. Not answering any of my questions and just putting out vague platitudes.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#46

Post by dang » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

Quekid5 wrote: post #45

ncmncm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.

Ah, yes. Not answering any of my questions and just putting out vague platitudes.

Please stop.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#47

Post by Spivak » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

rntksi wrote: post #17

lcuff wrote: post #11

The scale titles are terrible. Based on Kersey's work, I think of the four scales as answers to four questions: (1) How do you get your batteries recharged: Extraverts do so by being with people, introverts by the world of ideas. (It's not about your social skills. I'm an introvert who can easily converse with strangers). (2) How do you take in the world? Details, or larger, vaguer impressions. My wife's friend walks…

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 chemistry that apparently isn’t that hard to change. Super existential crisis inducing.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#48

Post by dang » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

paulie_a wrote: post #12

I find it amazing that anyone uses it in the business world. Next up HR will be adding tarrot cards and oiji boards Then again I find it amazing that anyone uses it at all. It's complete trash

Would you please stop posting shallow dismissals and calling names in HN comments? Posts like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26289644 are not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: we've had to ask you this sort of thing a ton of times. Eventually we ban such accounts. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#49

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

It doesn't matter so much if MBTI is "real" as much as the fact that it's constantly applied in the wrong ways.

Using MBTI / big five to help narrow down the selection of a sales candidate? Okay. Choosing only sales candidates with a specific MBTI / big five? Crap.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#50

Post by ckozlowski » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

totemandtoken wrote: post #44

I don't have an issue with Myers-Briggs or the Big 5 as ideas, or even as a first step towards a more rigorous science of human behavior. You have to start somewhere, right? My issue is the premature adoption of it by corporations and businesses who treat it as though it is a settled science.

>You have to start somewhere, right?

Agreed, and I suspect from a scientific method perspective, MBTI is something that's being explored in reverse. We've got a strong feeling that these different axis exist, but haven't yet landed on a truly robust and reliable way to evaluate them. So it's a lot of fuzzy intuition about things still.

As long as these proponents explain the analog nature of the scales and the immaturity of the field as a whole, (which I know doesn't happen much), I don't see much harm in it. But I agree that outside of one's on personal insight, using it to make any sort of business decision is folly.