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

71–80 of 352 posts

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#71

Post by 0df8dkdf »

esperent wrote: post #58
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…

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

* In truth, people's personalities are malleable *

Thank you for saying that. There was an interview before Carl Jung passed away, where even he talked about how in certain situation where arch type changes. We all ought to view tests like Myer Briggs as a way to shade light on people and their ways of being.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#72

Post by nitrogen »

dehrmann wrote: post #42
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.

I seem to recall seeing an MBTI result that showed a location on a quadrant for pairs of attributes? So you could see if you were really closer to or further from the origin. That might help with the false binary impression.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#73

Post by nitrogen »

analog31 wrote: post #23
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…

Something I wonder is if people within different occupations tend to interpret the questions differently. That would explain a trend in the results, unrelated to personality.

Wouldn't the manner in which a person interprets questions be part of their personality, especially if that interpretation is consistent between e.g. high school and their time in industry (as mine was)?

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#74

Post by mrweasel »

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.

Why do you need to subject people to personality tests at all?

It uncomfortable and demeaning, not to mention that it make the business come of as lazy and unrelateable. If you need to know what type of person someone is, talk to them, take the time to learn if they’d be a good fit.

I no longer interview at companies who subject candidate to personality test. The best jobs I’ve ever worked have been where I talked directly with my future boss, often for more than an hour, no tests. The worst jobs all had quizes or personality tests.

What’s the use of a test that’s easily influence by a person mood, if you don’t take the time to understand why that person feels like that?

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#75

Post by smokey_circles »

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 believe the results are accurate _and permanent_ and so division is created where in reality there is more overlap than difference.

It's also not good to tell people "these are good" followed up by "you have none of them and never will".

By the way: This is true of a _lot_ of IQ tests too: We're still debating what IQ is, nevermind how to measure it. So we definitely shouldn't be telling people the results of their IQ tests, most of which are also not reproducible.

But the data these tests collect is useful. We just shouldn't wield such aouthority about a theory with a lot of apparent leaks we can't explain. There's a better way

Psychology is a young field. Lots of kinks to work out still

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#76

Post by visarga »

esperent wrote: post #58
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…

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

> In truth, people's personalities are malleable

That's what I observed myself - I can have different MBTI depending on situation and context. When "people change" it's mostly the context that changes, and a different personality is assumed like a role by the mind, as if the mind just wants to adapt to each situation as best possible.

Reminds me of the unlimited ability of GPT-3 to assume personalities and points of view, with the right trigger you can get it to be anyone. I'm not saying people's personalities are equally flexible but they do have a degree of context flexibility.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#77

Post by cbfrench »

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…

> 2b. The other adjustment I have made is that I consider each scale to be a measure of how much ABILITY a person has developed and PRACTICING that trait. In other words, beyond natural predisposition, each person can grow considerably in any of these traits, provided they practice and apply it regularly.

I do think, at its best, this is what MBTI aims to emphasize: each of us is capable of developing those areas where we are deficient, be it introversion/extraversion, thinking/feeling, etc. Problems only arise when people treat these factors as static binaries. I’m mostly an MBTI agnostic, but I have been surprised at how consistently I have been typed as an INTP across the various versions of the test I have taken (including the ‘official’ one). I view it as a rough indicator of where I am at a particular moment in time, and the domains I can seek to develop to become a more ‘well-rounded’ person. I agree completely with you that, understood correctly, it can be a useful model when people view it as a means of growth. Not, I guess, to get too self-helpy about it.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#78

Post by visarga »

nitrogen wrote: post #72
dehrmann wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I seem to recall seeing an MBTI result that showed a location on a quadrant for pairs of attributes? So you could see if you were really closer to or further from the origin. That might help with the false binary impression.

I thought all MBTI tests give you scores for each axis.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#79

Post by watwut »

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'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 way psychologists see it, "this is much worst then usual uncertainity for many reasons".

Also, psychology and pop psychology are two different things.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#80

Post by watwut »

visarga wrote: post #78
nitrogen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seem to recall seeing an MBTI result that showed a location on a quadrant for pairs of attributes? So you could see if you were really closer to or further from the origin. That might help with the false binary impression.

I thought all MBTI tests give you scores for each axis.

It does. And then people refer to themselves by four letter, read abour description of types by 4 letter and completely ignore the scale in it.
Post reply on HN